OTHER PROJECTS IN SACRAMENTO SAN JOAQUIN BASIN American River, Folson Reservoir Kings River, Pine Flat Dam and Reser- Burns Dam and Reservoir Bear Dam and Reservoir Owens Dam and Reservoir Calaveras and Littlejohn Creeks: Hogan Dam and Reservoir Farmington Dam and Reservoir The CHAIRMAN. What was the amount authorized? Colonel HERB. The cost of the projects authorized in the initial stage is about $123,582,000. The CHAIRMAN. Authorized on those projects to date? Colonel HERB. Yes, sir; that is in Sacramento-San Joaquin Valleys of California. The CHAIRMAN. How much has been actually appropriated? Colonel HERB. About $5,000,000, sir, which includes the amount in the present appropriation bill as it passed the Senate. The CHAIRMAN. Now pending in Congress? Colonel HERB. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Which may be acted upon now this morning while we are here. So you have available in that part of California authorizations totalling about $123,000,000 against which about $5,000,000 has been appropriated. Colonel HERB. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What other approvals of projects are there outside of the Los Angeles area where authorizations have been made? Colonel HERB. The other large one is in the Santa Ana River Basin, which is south of the city of Los Angeles. The estimated cost of the approved projects for that basin totals about $49,000,000. The amount that has been authorized by your committee for appropriation is $35,500,000. The CHAIRMAN. How much has been appropriated? Colonel HERB. The amount that has been appropriated is $19.500,000. The CHAIRMAN. That leaves available for appropriation how much? Colonel HERB. About $16,000,000, sir. The approved comprehensive plan includes the following items: The CHAIRMAN. Any other streams in the State of California? Colonel HERB. No, sir. That is all except for a few small projects. The CHAIRMAN. The Santa Ana, does that cover the Whittier Narrows? Colonel HERB. No, sir, the Whittier Narrows Reservoir is included. in the San Gabriel River Basin. The CHAIRMAN. What is the estimated cost of that Whittier Narrows project substantially? Colonel HERB. $14,704,000, sir. The CHAIRMAN. There has been opposition to it. Mr. Voorhis, of California, desires to be heard. When it is heard, it may be that further questions will be propounded to you. Now, I ask you to insert at this place in the record the total estimated cost of the approved projects for the State of California. Colonel HERB. About $555,000,000 is the total estimated cost of the approved flood control projects in California under flood control, general. The CHAIRMAN. The total authorization heretofore made amount to what? Colonel HERB. About $295,000,000, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The total approval is about what? Colonel HERB. About $555,000,000, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The total authorization? Colonel HERB. The total authorizations amount to about $295,000,000, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And the total appropriations? Colonel HERB. About $100,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. The total amount of works completed and under way and the cost of completing those units actually started would be what? Colonel HERB. The total works completed and under way amount. to around $155,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. So you would have available an uncommitted balance of monetary authorization of about $140,000,000? Colonel HERB. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. So California, according to the figures, has a very favorable situation on all of these streams compared with the other parts of the country? Colonel HERB. Yes, sir. That is correct; however, with respect to monetary authorization, I think the Los Angeles Basin is the most critical of these three basins about which we are talking. The CHAIRMAN. The problem is greater and you have a larger population in that area than in any other similar area in the United States. Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It expanded during the war. The problems are there. I know a request that has been made to the committee for a rehearing of many of the projects. The problems involved have been studied and reported on by the Chief of Engineers, and we have also had the reports, as well as the hearings, of the Bureau of Reclamation, and there is no occasion for repetition by either you or them unless we take up the matter of Whittier Narrows. Is that a fair statement or not? Colonel HERB. That is a fair statement, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further statement, General Crawford, or Colonel Herb, that you desire to make? General CRAWFORD. No, sir; I think not. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any witness from California who desires to make any statement or submit anything with respect to any of the projects? I am inserting for the record a statement presented to me by the Honorable Gordon L. McDonough, Representative in Congress from the State of California. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN GORDON L. MCDONOUGH, OF CALIFORNIA, BEFORE THE FLOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman, I desire to urge your committee to grant full approval of the authorization for flood-control funds to carry out the comprehensive floodcontrol program in Los Angeles County. I speak from personal knowledge of the urgent need of these funds, having served as a member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Board for 11 years. I have every confidence in the Los Angeles County flood-control engineer, Harold E. Hedges. I know he would not ask for funds for any payment that was not needed to carry out the Los Angeles County comprehensive flood-control program which has had the approval of the United States Army engineers and is needed to protect life and property from serious damage. Another point of information in this connection is the fact that the population of Los Angeles County has increased tremendously during the war, which requires additional subdivisions for homes for these new people and veterans. We need these funds to protect the locations of these new homes from flood damage. We need the funds for the construction of the Whittier Narrows Dam which will remove the menace of flood damage to Long Beach and other cities in that vicinity. I know your committee will give Los Angeles County the consideration it deserves and I urge you to approve the funds requested so as to provide the flood protection we badly need. Do you gentlemen of the Bureau of Reclamation have any additional statements you would like to make? STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. WARNE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. WARNE. In the light of the hearing this morning, which has simply been a review of the existing authorizations, I have nothing to submit unless you would like a review of the past year's activities under section 1 of the Flood Control Act as it applies to these projects in California. The CHAIRMAN. I think we are rather familiar with that. Of course, we have not gone into it with the Corps of Engineers. Not having gone into it with them, I see no occasion to go into it with your Department. You understand we are to hear from all of the agencies on Thursday or Friday if they desire. Mr. WARNE. If you take it up again, may I have a notice from you with regard to it? The CHAIRMAN. Notice is given to you now that if we take it up it will be Thursday evening, after we have completed all of the other items. If we do not reach it then it will be Friday. I am inserting for the record a statement of the Los Angeles County flood-control district: STATEMENT BY H. E. HEDGER, CHIEF ENGINEER, OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TO THE COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 15, 1946 In August 1941 Congress approved a general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the basins of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and their tributaries and Ballona Creek in Los Angeles County, Calif., at an estimated cost to the Federal Government of 1632 million dollars, as recommended by the Chief of Engineers (H. Doc. No. 838, 76th Cong., 3d sess.), and at that time authorized 25 million dollars to be appropriated for partial accomplishment of this program. In December 1944 Congress authorized to be appropriated an additional sum of 25 million dollars for further prosecution of the comprehensive plan. Authorization is still lacking for the appropriation of approximately 1132 million dollars by the Federal Government, or over twothirds of the approved program. The flood hazard to life and property which exists along the streams in these basis has been described by the Chief of Engineers in House Document No. 838 and fully justifies the earliest possible completion of all of the items in the program. During and since the war, expansion of industrial, commercial, and residential development has occurred at an unprecedented rate. Adequate protection against the devastating floods which periodically recur in this area is a fundamental requisite for the security of development which has already taken place and which may be expected in the immediate future. The need to complete these proposed improvements is even more urgent at this time than in 1941 when the recommendation was made by the Chief of Engineers and this district is anxious to see that all legislative steps essential to its consummation are completed without delay. It is essential that expansion and development of the county be coordinated with definite plans for flood-control work, therefore authorization for additional appropriations is necessary to permit an orderly development of plans and construction by the United States Engineer Office and the financing and acquisition of the necessary rights-of-way by local interests. It is urged that the committee include in its recommendations for a new floodcontrol bill a new authorization of at least $50,000.000 for further prosecution of the general plan for flood control on the Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, and Ballona Creek Basins, which will be in addition to the $50,000,000 authorized in 1941 and in 1944. The attention of the committee is also invited to the fact that the project for the control of floods on San Antonio Creek and Chino Creek in the Santa Ana River Basin estimated to cost $14,400,000 (H. Doc. No. 688, 75th Cong., 3d sess.) has a current authorization of but $6,500,000, as provided in the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938. The San Antonio Wash traverses a typical outwash cone formation and flows in an ill-defined channel in or adjacent to Los Angeles County for a distance of 8 miles. Situated on this cone in the direct path of overflow waters are the cities of Pomona and Claremont and surrounding highly developed agricultural areas containing a population of 24,000 persons. This project is greatly needed and should be constructed as a unit at the earliest possible time. Authorization for the appropriation of funds for the balance of the project in the amount of $7,900,000 is urged. A third flood-control project in Los Angeles County for which additional authorization is needed is the program of development proposed by the Department of Agriculture for the Los Angeles River watershed (H. Doc. No. 426, 77th Cong., 1st sess.) at an estimated cost to the Federal Government of $8,380,000. This project was approved by act of Congress in December 1944 (Public Law 534) but the authorization granted, according to our interpretation, was less than $2,000,000. The Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service are currently engaged in preparation of plans for extensive development in order that construction can be started at an early date and arrangements have been made for the furnishing of the necessary funds by local interests. Additional authorization for this program is urged. The importance of early and orderly development of adequate flood-control plans has been recognized by the State of California. In July 1945 the State passed legislation whereby approval was given to Federal flood-control projects in California and the local cooperation required was guaranteed by the State when needed. Furthermore, a procedure was set up for studying and giving consideration to State assistance on flood-control projects not of Nation-wide concern. In March 1946 a State appropriation of $10,000,000 was made available, this amount being approximately one-third of the total local contribution required for all Federal flood-control projects within California that have been approved by Congress. This district again pledges its wholehearted support of these flood-control programs and stands ready to give its cooperation as required to the extent of its ability. Mr. Voorhis is present. Mr. Voorhis desires to submit a statement on the Whittier Narrows project, and with his statement the hearings for the morning will be concluded. Before you came in, Mr. Voorhis, we had the complete picture with respect to the authorizations in the State of California. Before you make your statement I suggest both to you and to the Chief of Engineers, if in view of the opposition that has been made to the construction of this project, resulting in the Committee on Appropriations not making any appropriations, Mr. Voorhis feels and the Corps of Engineers agree that there should be a review of this project, then, the matter may be handled in that way. Mr. Voorhis is a former member of this committee. He was always most industrious and diligent. Mr. Voorhis, we will be glad to have your statement. WHITTIER NARROWS DAM STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY VOORHIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, this is an item for Whittier Narrows Dam in Los Angeles County. The community that I am concerned about here is a community of some 40,000 or 50,000 people. It has been the most rapidly growing area over a period of the last 50 years in population in the whole of southern California. It is a community of comparatively modest people, many of whom have constructed their small homes. They have small farms. A lot of them are working people, and they feel, and I agree with them, that their community is going to be ruined if Whittier Narrows Dam is built. I think it incontrovertible that the basin, which will undoubtedly accumulate a considerable amount of debris and other things that will be washed down there, will be an unsightly proposition, and also incontrovertible that since there is already a serious problem of underground drainage in the area, which has affected the city of El Monte very seriously, caused water to back up in the basements of its buildings, to build a dam right there that will further retard the flow of that underground, which would aggravate that situation most seriously. It is my contention that the dam is unnecessary. The Santa Fe Dam, for which I worked very hard as a Member of Congress, and still do, is only about 6 or 8 miles upstream from this area. It is a huge retarding basin not yet quite completed. We do not know yet what the practical aspects of the operation of the Santa Fe Dam will be. The Morris Dam also has been thrown in as a flood-control dam in the last year or so, with the storage of 16,000 acre-feet. |