Mr. RABAUT. Please explain this new start and its relationship to the Sacramento River, Chico Landing to Red Bluff project. General MACDONNELL. This is a modification of the old Sacramento River control project as was Chico Landing to Red Bluff. It is to provide about 430,000 linear feet of bank protection during a 10-year period at critical locations in the levee system. You are familiar from long association with the old project, of the size of the area involved and the number of people and the costs, so I will not go into that. Mr. RABAUT. Did we not have maintenance difficulties there years ago on the part of the State? General MACDONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I would say it has been very good. Mr. RABAUT. What do you mean very good? General MACDONNELL. There are 871 miles of the Federal project which we have turned over to the State, to do the maintaining. Those are inspected annually. Mr. RABAUT. By your people? General MACDONNELL. They are not checked by my people but every mile is inspected by two representatives of the State water resources board. Of those 871 miles, only 4 percent now are properly classified as poor whereas in 1947, 50 percent were classified poor. Mr. RABAUT. There has been an improvement? General MACDONNELL. Yes, sir, in 14 years they have done a great deal. Mr. TABER. How much of the proposed work is presently authorized? General MACDONNELL. The authorization is based on a monetary amount of $14,250,000. The Federal cost is now estimated at $14,800,000. The local cost would be about half of that. The local people contribute one-third and the Federal Government contributes twothirds on all of this bank protection work. Mr. TABER. When the existing levee system was completed, did not the local interests agree to maintain the project? General MACDONNELL. Yes, sir, they did. There is a question here of the difference between localized bank cutting caused by the vagaries of the current and extensive and continuous erosion of levees which do not have a berm. These levees to a very large extent were incorporated into the Federal project in 1917. They were built with equipment of that day naturally, which was floating clamshells with a short boom. They did not have the capability of building a berm and then a layer, so these levees are without berms and in themselves constitute the riverbank. This is the problem. You then have a matter of realinement of levees rather than a question of just making sure that what you have is properly taken care of. Mr. TABER. Why would that make it a good case for Federal contribution? General MACDONNELL. The Federal interest is to preserve the integrity of the levee system. To do that, it is necessary to correct weaknesses that are inherent in the alinement and in the type of section of the pre-1917 levees which were incorporated into the project. Primarily this would be done by setting back levees, which, as you know, is a common practice. The project would prevent during its life at least one major levee failure, which in that area is catastrophic. Mr. RABAUT. Setting them back would cost a lot more. General MACDONNELL. No, sir. They could be set back or rocked, but it would cost more normally to rock them. If it should develop that local interests want rock, they would have to pay the difference between the cost of rock and a setback levee. Mr. TABER. The odd thing about it to me is if I make a contract with somebody to do something and the thing that I claim to do has changed as far as the benefits, that does not let me out. General MACDONNELL. Certainly, we would all agree with what you said. The fact is, sir, that they have done quite well, and are still working hard on what they agreed to do, which is to maintain the levees; that is, repair damages caused by rodents, keep the growth off of them; and where they are damaged by wandering current, repair them. This is something else than correcting a weakness that is there before it will be turned over to them to maintain. In other words, the levees did not have berms and over a period of time, they cannot expect it to go on under those circumstances. They expend about $1,050,000 a year on State and local maintenance. Mr. TABER. Is anything being done so far as we are concerned on the maintenance end of the thing now? General MACDONNELL. Not so far as the Federal Government expending funds. We monitor the maintenance by the local interests. Mr. TABER. If we go ahead and do this job, will that prevent our having to contribute to maintenance in the future? General MACDONNELL. We would not contribute toward the maintenance anyway. It would prevent our having to go in before and after flood season frequently and spend Public Law 99 funds as an emergency measure. It would also reduce by about one-third the quantity of material that is now eroded from the banks and levees and deposited in our navigation streams. Mr. JENSEN. I have no question on this item. Possibly I should have directed the request that I now make to General Cassidy when he was here this morning. I note that you have funds for new starts intermingled with the older projects in the justifications. Do you have a separate listing of the new projects? General MACDONNELL. Yes, sir. We have our planning starts. Those are the Little Dell Reservoir near Salt Lake, the Los AngelesBeach Harbor west basin, the Sacramento bank protection and Walnut Creek. On the construction starts, there are 3. We do have one rehabilitation project, Morro Bay. LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS Mr. JENSEN. To what extent is there local contribution on these new flood control starts? Is that shown? General MACDONNELL. Yes, sir, individually on the sheets it is. I could summarize it. Mr. JENSEN. That will not be necessary so long as I know it is shown. You, of course, know a number of years ago this committee took the position that where a proposed project to a very great degree or to some degree at least was for local benefit, the committee would insist on substantial local contribution. Have you followed out that idea in your justification? General MACDONNELL. Yes, sir, in the case of those projects which were authorized in 1960 for example, there is required a minimum of a 20 percent non-Federal cost. ORIGIN OF NEW STARTS Mr. JENSEN. You might state briefly for the record how these new starts are originated in conjunction with the local interests. General MACDONNELL. They originate as a local conception of something that is needed following the usual process with which you are familiar, public hearings and assemblying necessary data, surveys, and so on. The firm benefit-cost ratio is established in a report and is reviewed by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. It is sent to the Congress on that basis. When it first appears before you for initial planning funds it does have a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. The estimated costs to local interest and to the Federal Government are established. Mr. JENSEN. Is this not the most starts that have ever been requested in 1 year? General MACDONNELL. On a nationwide basis, I could not say. Within my own division I would say it is not excessive. Mr. RABAUT. That was developed a little earlier. Mr. JENSEN. Has the Army Corps of Engineers approved all of these new starts? General MACDONNELL. Yes, sir. Mr. JENSEN. Are these non-Federal costs for rights-of-way, relocations, and so on? Just what do you include in non-Federal costs? General MACDONNELL. They could be that, land. easements and rights-of-ways, relocation of utilities, relocation of highway routes, royalty free stone from quarries. Where it is a cash contribution, we so state on the justification sheet. If there are local costs in addition to that, then they are usually identified on the second and third sheet. Mr. JENSEN. What would induce the local people to make as high a contribution as they have made on the Sacramento River? The local cost is $7,360,000. In all fairness, I must say that is a sizable contribution. What induced the local people to make such a large contribution? General MACDONNELL. The project document in this case is based on a cost-sharing basis so that the local interests shall pay not less than one-third. If the land easements, rights-of-ways, and other expenses do not reach one-third, then they have to make up the difference in cash. Mr. JENSEN. They do that because they feel it is of very great local benefit? General MACDONNELL. They feel as we do. If this work is not done, the levee system is jeopardized by floods of high magnitude. If that levee system ever undergoes a major failure it would be an economic calamity to the State of California from which it would take them a long time to recover. Mr. JENSEN. Do the Army Engineers insist on local contributions from other projects of a like nature? General MACDONNELL. This being a bank protection project, which encompasses levees built as far back as 1875 or 1880, progressing up to modern levees, it has a rather unique position. If we went to an unleveed stream, our policies in that case would provide for lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations of highways, et cetera to be furnished by local interests. If there were land enhancement in the authorizing act, then that would involve a cash contribution, but this project has some very unique aspects and there are many privately owned levees which are incorporated into the Federal system. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CHICO LANDING TO RED BLUFF Mr. RABAUT. Now, we take up Sacramento River, Chico Landing to Red Bluff, $42,000 to complete. Insert pages 28 and 29. (The justification follows:) SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA, CHICO LANDING TO RED BLUFF (Continuation of Planning) LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: The project comprises extension and modification of the existing Sacramento River JUSTIFICATION: BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1.3 to 1 SUMMARIZARD FINANCIAL DATA $1,930,000 46,000 $46,000 $1,976,000 Construction of the bank protection and incidental channel improvements would help to stabilize |