Project: WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA (Cont'd) NON-FEDERAL COSTS: Local interests are required to make a cash contribution to the United States, in the amount of 7.4 percent of the cost of construction, for land enhancement benefits provided by the project. This contribution is currently estimated at $1,630,000. Also, local interests are required to furnish all lands, easements and rights-of-way for construction; accomplish alterations and relocations and maintain the project after completion. Land costs are estimated at $3,900,000, relocations at $1,670,000 and annual maintenance, operation and replacement costs at $1,000. STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County by resolution dated 21 Jamary 1958 stated that it would furnish, or make arrangements to furnish, all the requirements of local cooperation. Formal assurances have not yet been requested. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $20,400,000 is an increase of $2,360,000 over the latest estimate ($18,020,000 - July 1957 base) submitted to Congress. The increase is due to higher price levels. General MACDONNELL. This is a levee and channel project east of San Francisco Bay. That area is a rich agricultural area and is growing very rapidly, and it is quickly turning into a residential area. It is subject to floods from Walnut Creek and other streams. This project is designed to supplement a Soil Conservation Service project, which is in the upper reaches of these small streams, and incorporates certain concrete conduit work which the city of Walnut Creek is constructing with their own funds. The lands and improvements to be protected have a value of $240 million, and 45,000 people live or work in the area. The Federal cost is estimated at $20,400,000. The non-Federal cost is $7,200,000 and the benefit to cost ratio is 1.2 to 1. GLEASON CREEK, NEV. Mr. RABAUT. Gleason Creek, $45,000 to complete. Insert pages 37 and 38. (The justification follows:) GLEASON CREEK, NEVADA (KEYSTONE RESERVOIR) (Continuation of Planning) LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: The project is located on Gleason Creek about 7 miles upstream of the town of Ely, 1/ Local interests are required to assume at least 20% of the project cost exclusive of costs for planning. estimated to be $53,000. This will necessitate a cash contribution, or a reimbursement over a fifty year period, in an amount JUSTIFICATION: considerable snowpack during the winter months. Most of the drainage area of Gleason Creek is sufficiently high in elevation to accumulate & Thus the flood potential is high. Past floods have caused widespread damage to commercial and residential property and to public utilities. Large costs also have been incurred for flood fighting work. The project would contain, without releases, all floods of record as well as all snowmelt floods that would be expected to occur more often than once in 100 years at the dam site. By accomplishing such control at the reservoir, the probability of flooding in Ely, Nevada (Population 5,000) occurring from Gleason Creek would be only about once in 100 years on the average, and the probability of flooding from the combined flows of Gleason and Murry Creeks would be reduced from once in Project: GLEASON CREEK, NEVADA KEY STONE RESERVOIR) (Cont'd) JUSTIFICATION: (Cont'd) 5 years under existing conditions to an average of about once in 40 years under project conditions. The largest flood for which damage information is available was the snowmelt flood of March 1945. On the basis prevented by the project. Average annual benefits are estimated at $34,900. of current conditions and price levels this damage would amount to about $260,000, all of which would be NON-FEDERAL COSTS: Local interests are required to assume at least 20% of the cost (except costs of planning, design, and acquisition of water rights) of the completed project, payable either as interest construction proceeds or pursuant to a contract providing for repayment with interest within 50 years. The actual cost, or fair market value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and work performed or services rendered prior to completion of construction of the project, which are furnished by a non-Federal shall be included in the share of the oost to be borne by the non-Federal interests.Local interests maintain the existing channel capacities. are specifically required to furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way for construction; accomplish alterations and construction of highway facilities and other structures and utilities and preserve and The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: Lands Relocations Total 5,000 34,000 $ 39,000 1/ 1/In addition, a cash contribution, or reimbursement, is required estimated at $53,000. The cost of preserving and maintaining channel capacities is not available. and operation costs are estimated at $5,800. Local interests are also required to maintain and operate the project after completion. Annual maintenance STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: Formal assurances have not yet been requested. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: price levels. of $20,000 from the latest estimate of $520,000 submitted to Congress. The current estimate of Federal cost, $540,000, is an increase The increase is based on higher (In making this comparison, the requirement of a cash contribution, or reimbursement, as specified in the authorization act has not been considered.) Mr. RABAUT. What assurances do you now have that local cooperation will be forthcoming on this project? General MACDONNELL. We have the original assurances given to us by the city of Ely and since the passage of the 1960 act, which increased the amount of the local participation; we have been in touch with the city council to get the assurance reworded, and with the State of Nevada also. As it stands now, they will either borrow the money from the State, which the State told them is possible, or they will have a bond issue. Mr. RABAUT. That is the plan, but do you have anything concrete on it? General MACDONNELL. We do not have the firm assurances, but we have manifestations of it, sir. Mr. RABAUT. Before construction, we will have to have it. General MACDONNELL. Yes, sir; before construction we would have to have it. Mr. TABER. Don't you have it before you get to planning? General MACDONNELL. We have to have informal assurances before we get into the planning. We have them under the original project. We are in the process of negotiating to get them amended to agree with the modification. Mr. TABER. You are not yet then at the stage where you are ready for this item. Is that right? Mr. RABAUT. I think he has done pretty well to go as far as he has gone. General MACDONNELL. We would not proceed beyond planning. We would not request construction funds without suitable assurances. Mr. TABER. Why do not these people put up more of the cost than 10 percent. General MACDONNELL. The footnote, Mr. Tabor, on Gleason Creek justification sheet states that they have to assume at least 20 percent under the 1960 act. This is going to mean a cash contribution of an additional $53,000 over and above the $39,000 shown. Mr. JENSEN. Are attorneys' fees included, General? General MACDONNELL. Not attorneys' fees as such, sir. They have to furnish lands, easements, rights-of-way, and hold and save the Government free from damages. They also have to maintain the project. Mr. JENSEN. On completion? General MACDONNELL. Yes, sir. Mr. JENSEN. Then you are sure that attorneys' fees are not made a part of the local contribution? General MACDONNELL. I know of no such case where they have been. The cost of lands and easements would include the cost of appraisers and I suppose attorneys. So in there, there might be some. Mr. JENSEN. It actually is a part of local costs. I am not questioning that. But I did want the record to show that attorneys' fees are generally considered as a part of local contributions, because actually it is non-Federal costs. They must employ attorneys to get these easements and to see that all the contracts are in proper form. It is a necessary part of the project; no question about it. |