pressure on both sides to open them or not to open them. We are delighted to have your statement, Mr. Hyatt. Is there anything else you have to present to the committee at this time?

Mr. HYATT. This controlled weir which is operated by the State is operated in accordance with a schedule set up by the Debris Commission, not a rigid schedule but within certain limits.

The CHAIRMAN. When was it set up?

Mr. HYATT. Each year.

The CHAIRMAN. When was the weir built?

Mr. HYATT. It was built along about 1920, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell me how many floods it has been used in.

Mr. HYATT. It has been used twice this year, no times last year, three times in 1938, an average of, perhaps, once a year.

The CHAIRMAN. Once a year?

Mr. HYATT. It would average that; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How far did your waters get up toward the top of the levee when you opened those gates?

Mr. HYATT. Within probably 6 feet.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the freeboard on your adopted project? Mr. HYATT. Three feet on the river levees.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not wait until it gets up there, do you? Mr. HYATT. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How far from the top do you let the waters get before you open it?

Mr. HYATT. Probably 6 feet from the top.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that rule laid down by the commission?

Mr. HYATT. No, sir. Operation is controlled by the gage at Sacramento, but we will not open the gates unles the river reaches a point of 27.5 feet, and operate the gates so that it will not get above 28.3. When it reaches 28.3 or 28.4 they are all opened.

The CHAIRMAN. How many times did you get to 28 feet 3 inches? Mr. HYATT. Twice this winter. It got up to 28.3 or 28.4 and the gates were opened and that held it.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the capacity of that diversion?
Mr. HYATT. One hundred and twenty-eight thousand feet.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have had 115,000 in there?

Mr. HYATT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have some photographs you would like to leave with the committee?

Mr. HYATT. We would be delighted to leave them with the committee if the committee would like to see them.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would like to see the photographs.

Mr. LEA. Mr. Chairman, may the engineer have the privilege of amending his statement?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LEA. Mr. Buck would like to be heard Tuesday.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear him Tuesday; you may so advise him.

Mr. LEA. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to hear you, Mr. Lea, because I know there is a real problem out there on that river.

We will adjourn until 10 o'clock Monday.

(Thereupon, at 3:55 p. m., the committee adjourned until Monday, April 8, 1940, at 10 a. m.)

WATER-FLOW RETARDATION AND SOIL-EROSION

PREVENTION

MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1940

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Will Whittington (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Under the schedule we announced and furnished to the Members of the Senate and House we were to hear this morning representatives of the Department of Agriculture and any other governmental agencies. If there are any other agencies here except those representing the Department of Agriculture we would be glad to have any suggestions they have to make this morning.

I may say for the record that the only other agency that contacted the committee was the Bureau of Reclamation in connection with the Kings River project, and the Chief of the Bureau of Reclamation was heard at the time that project was under consideration.

We have with us, representing the Department of Agriculture this morning Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Patrick, Dr. Munns, Commander Reichelderfer.

Mr. Eisenhower, you may proceed.

STATEMENTS OF M. S. EISENHOWER, COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF LAND USE COORDINATION; EDWARD N. MUNNS, DIVISION OF FOREST INFLUENCES, FOREST SERVICE; AUSTIN L. PATRICK, ASSISTANT CHIEF, SURVEYS AND PROJECT PLANS, SOIL CONSERVATION

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eisenhower, will you please state for the record what branch of the service you represent.

Mr. EISENHOWER. I am coordinator, Office of Land Use Coordination, Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to make a brief opening statement and then have witnesses who are more competent than I am to deal with the technical phases of the Department's, part in the national flood-control program.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eisenhower, if you will permit me, before you proceed with your general statement, insofar as flood control legislation is concerned, the Department of Agriculture probably came into this picture in connection with flood control legislation, for the first time, under the act of June 22, 1936.

Mr. EISENHOWER. That is correct.

229579-40-51

793

The CHAIRMAN. And under section 2 of the act, following the declaration of policy in section 1, it was stipulated that Federal investigations and improvements of rivers and other waterways for flood control and allied purposes should be under the jurisdiction of and be prosecuted by the War Department under the direction of the Secretary of War and supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and Federal investigations of watersheds and measures for run-off and waterflow retardation and soil erosion prevention on watersheds should be under the jurisdiction and prosecuted by the Department of Agriculture under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, except as otherwise provided by Congress; and that in their reports upon examinations and surveys, the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Agriculture shall be guided as to flood-control measures by the principles set forth in section 1 in the determination of Federal interests involved, provided that the foregoing grants of Authority shall not interfere with investigations and river improvements incident to reclamation projects that may now be in progress or may be hereafter undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior pursuant to any general or specific authorization of law. And, in section 9 of the act of June 22, 1936, there was authorized to be appropriated for investigation and surveys the sum of $10,000,000 to be expended in equal amounts for the Departments of War and Agriculture.

Mr. EISENHOWER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And in the act of 1938, leaving out the act of 1937 which had authorized a continuance of investigations and surveys of both the Department of War and the Department of Agriculture, additional authority was conferred upon the Department of Agriculture in section 7 of the act of 1938, and section 7 provides that in order to effectuate the policy declared in section 1 and 2 of the act of June 2, 1936, and to correlate the program for the improvement of rivers and other waterways by the War Department with the program for the improvement of watersheds for the Department of Agriculture, works of improvement for the measures of run-off and water flow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on the watersheds of waterways, under which there was authorized to be appropriated for prosecuting that work, $10,000,000 to be expended at the rate of $2,000,000 per annum during the 5-year period ending June 30, 1944. Now under that authorization I will ask you to make a statement of what has been done, the amount appropriated, and what you have been doing to accomplish the program.

Mr. EISENHOWER. The first appropriation for preliminary examinations became available on July 1, 1937. This initial fund of $500,000 was used exclusively for preliminary examinations, not for detailed surveys.

The next appropriation of $3,000.000 became available for expenditure on about the 1st of September 1938. The following year an additional $3,000,000 was appropriated, making a total of $6,500,000 to date. Of this, $5,500,000 will have been spent by June 30 of this year. The other million dollars will be carried over into the next fiscal year for the completion of surveys which are now under way.

The appropriations bill now before Congress contains an item of $2,000,000, which, if passed, will have made available a total of $8,500,000 for the preliminary examinations and detailed surveys carried on by the Department.

Now, as to preliminary examinations: The work got under way shortly after the 1st of July 1937 and to date we have completed 101 such preliminary examinations and will have completed 138 by June 30.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to pass around for the use of the committee a map showing location of the watersheds for which preliminary examinations have been completed or are under way.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you tell us how this map indicates that, for the benefit of the record?

Mr. EISENHOWER. The hatched, colored areas show the watersheds for which preliminary examinations are completed. The colored areas without hatching are those now under way.

The CHAIRMAN. By that you mean what?

Mr. EISENHOWER. The hatching superimposed on the colored areas indicates the watersheds for which preliminary examinations have been completed.

The CHAIRMAN. Just what is covered, what sections of the country have you investigated, and in what section are investigations now being made, on what watersheds?

Mr. EISENHOWER. The following preliminary examinations, by sections of the country, are either completed or under way:

In the North Atlantic, 8.

South Atlantic, 6.

The Great Lakes, 2.

The Ohio Valley, 9.

The Upper Mississippi Valley, 16.

Lower Mississippi Valley, 4.

Gulf of Mexico, 11.

Missouri River Valley, 23.
Southwest, 17.

North Pacific, 14.

South Pacific, 38.

The map indicates these areas so the committee can identify any particular watershed.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Munns and Dr. Patrick, who will follow me, are in position to answer any questions about the findings of our investigations. I merely want to say in general what the present situation is.

Now, with further regard to preliminary examinations: They are made, first, to determine the relative priority of needs, and in order to establish priorities for detailed surveys.

Second, the preliminary examinations disclose the portions of the watersheds where the land-use situation is such that it appears likely a land-use program would be advantageous in the interest of flood control.

Third, the preliminary examinations show those portions of the watersheds where we think it would not be advisable to undertake a water-shed program in the interest of flood control.

Of the 101 preliminary examinations so far completed, 16 show that no detailed surveys would be justified for two or three reasons: First flood damages may not be important; second, the Army engineers' program may meet all the needs; and, third, the flood problem may be caused by tidal waves or similar phenomena that could not be controlled by a land-use program.