« PreviousContinue »
(5) E. J. Carpenter, A. E. Kocher, and F. 0. Youngs (1924); Soil Survey of the King City Area. This is a resurvey of the area from Soledad to King City and new survey from King City to Wunpost.
(6) E. J. Carpenter and Stanley W. Crosby (1925); Soil Survey of the Salinas Area. This is a resurvey of the area from Soledad to Monterey Bay.
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAYS
The State division of highways reports that major State highways run along the course of the Salinas River and cross it at a number of points. This State division has been assured by the district engineer that arrangements will be made for inspection by its representatives of the detailed plans during their preparation. The division of highways expects to be notified and to cooperate as soon as details of the proposed works become available.
The State department of natural resources recommends that, if the proposed interim report is adopted by Congress and appropriation made therefor, construction be so conducted that fisheries resources may not be injuriously affected by the interruption of the surface flow in the Salinas River.
CONCLUSIONS The State division of water resources has conducted a hydrologic investigation of water problems in the Salinas Basin, involving water conservation, concurrently with the survey by the district engineer for flood control and related matters. The hydrologic investigation has revealed need for water conservation in the basin in addition to necessity for solution of the general flood-control problem. The proposed interim report covers a plan of initial improvement, which would be an integral part of any comprehensive basin plan for flood control and water conservation. Formulation of plans for a comprehensive multipurpose project are pending approval of the initial improvement set forth in the interim report under review,
The review and study of the proposed interim report included consideration of the following matters:
1. Necessity for the proposed works. 2. Effect of proposed improvements on an ultimate comprehensive hasin plan. 3. Effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed works. 4. Economic justification of the proposed project.
Based upon the review and study of the proposed interim report, and the reports of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, division engineer and district engineer, and an analysis of pertinent reports, data and information in the files of the State Division of Water Resources, and an examination of trial installations of proposed type of works in the affected area, is concluded as follows:
1. The necessity for the proposed channel training and bank protection works is of an urgent nature. Local interest therein is unquestioned.
2. The proposed plan of improvement consisting of correction and stabilization of the lower 93 miles of the Salinas River and the lower 1 mile of its tributary Arroyo Seco will not entail any alterations to bridges or other existing facilities.
3. Substantially the entire economy in the Salinas Basin is based on an adequate supply of ground water. An area of 125,300 acres was irrigated from ground water in the basin in 1944 between Monterey Bay and river mile 93. All water requirements in the basin for domestic, municipal and industrial purposes are supplied from ground water. The principal source of replenishment of the ground water is percolation from stream flow in the channels of the Salinas River and the Arroyo Seco. An analysis of the proposed work in relation to contribution to ground water indicates that consummation of the plan of improvement would induce a more favorable rate of river percolation between river miles 46 and 93, and the remainder of the area probably would not be affected.
4. Results of recent investigation by the State Division of Water Resources of problems in the Salinas Basin relating to conservation indicate present combined demand for water on 50,000 acres in the pressure area between Monterey Bay and river mile 34 exceeds the rate of safe yield of the principal aquifer that supplies about 95 percent of the draft. This has resulted in marine intrusion in the waterbearing formation near the bay shore. The proposed plan of improvement would probably result in a deepening of the channel of the Salinas River about 2 feet in the vicinity of river mile 34, which will tend to cause a corresponding drop in elevation of the water table at the fountain head of the pressure area. This may decrease the rate of safe yield of the principal aquifer in the pressure area, on which an overdraft presently exists, between 142 and 2 percent. This slight disadvantage will have no material effect on the solution of the existing water conservation problem, and will largely be offset by anticipated additional percolation benefits between river miles 46 and 93 as above set forth.
5. Structural features and effectiveness of design of the type of channel training works proposed are not clearly beyond the experimental stage. While estimated performance cannot be guaranteed, the favorable ratio found of annual benefits to carrying charges, and beneficial results of trial installations justify expenditure of public funds for the channel improvements as proposed to perfect this type of works by elimination of defects, if any, revealed in a complete and full demonstration. The benefits of perfecting this type of channel improvements would be available for other areas throughout the country where similar works are required.
6. The local interests should not be required to assume, after the period of construction, more than ordinary maintenance charges in the order of the annual amount estimated as $16,200 in the proposed interim report, until such time as the works are perfected and the adequacy thereof is completely and fully demonstrated. Any unusual costs for maintenance after the 5-year period of construction that may be chargeable to experimental work, which would result in benefits to other areas, should be borne by the Federal Government until such time as the designs are declared by the Secretary of War to be perfected.
7. There are water-conservation problems in the Salinas Basin, in addition to the general flood control problem, that require early solution in order to maintain the present economy of the area. Approval of the proposed channel improvement plan appears to be prerequisite to the formulation of plans for a comprehensive multipurpose project for the basin.
RECOMMENDATION In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the project as set forth be approved and be authorized by Congress for immediate construction and at the appropriate time that full consideration be given the matter of classification of costs for maintenance incurred after the 5-year period of construction, properly chargeable to experimental work, as a Federal obligation.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee stands adjourned.
FLOOD CONTROL BILL OF 1946
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 1946
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN The committee met at 9:30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Will M. Whittington (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We have under consideration today the lower Mississippi River Basin, including the Red River, and including additional authorization for the approved comprehensive plan for the White and Arkansas River Basin, which includes Red River below Denison Dam, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana—construction of levees and six additional flood-control reservoirs; Bayou Pierre-local protection in the vicinity of Shreveport, La.; La Fourche Bayou, La.- local protection along La Fourche Bayou; Pontchartrain Lake, La.;- local protection for Jefferson Parish, North Canadian River, Okla., local protection for Oklahoma City; Mississippi River, west Tennessee tributaries—local protection by diversion and levee construction; Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon, Arkansas and Louisiana-local protection along those streams in Arkansas; and Big Sunflower, Little Sunflower, Hushpuckena, and Quiver Rivers and their tributaries, and on Hull Brake—Mill Creek Canal, Bogue Phalia, Ditchlow Bayou, Deer Creek, Steele Bayou, Mississippi-local headwater protection.
We have had with us heretofore, and have now, the Chief of Engineers and the Assistant Chief of Engineers. Members will keep in mind that the Mississippi River Commission was in charge of the primary river and harbor improvements along the Mississippi River until 1928, when the Commission was placed under the supervision of the Chief of Engineers. Improvements for flood control primarily were related to navigation but in 1917 were authorized independently of navigation and were retained in the Mississippi River Commission.
We have with us this morning the President of the Commission, Maj. Gen. R. W. Crawford, the district engineer at Vicksburg, Lt. Col. · R. W. Sauer, and the chief engineer of the Mississippi River Commission, Mr. Charles Senour.
We are delighted to have with us the senior member of the Mississippi River Commission, Col. Ernest Graves. General Crawford, will you give your full name for the reporter? STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. R. W. CRAWFORD, PRESIDENT,
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION
General CRAWFORD. I am Maj. Gen. R. W. Crawford.
The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been President of the Commission? General CRAWFORD. Since January 1, 1946.
The CHAIRMAN. Prior to the assumption of the presidency of the Commission, what were your assignments, giving us the date of your graduation from the Academy and the work you did following your leaving the Academy?
General CRAWFORD. I graduated in 1914 and was assigned to duty at the Washington Barracks, at that time at Washington, D. C., with the school and with the battalion stationed here. When the war broke out I went with the First Division.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the First World War?
I served during the war with the engineers in the First Division and with the Thirtieth Engineers of the Chemical Warfare Service.
On termination of that war I came back to duty in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and served in the Construction Division, and later as assistant to district engineer in New York, and district engineers at Duluth, Hawaii, New Orleans, and Washington, D. C., for a total of 15 years, and then came back to duty with the Office of the Chief of Engineers.
Before this war broke out I was with the General Staff and worked in the War Plans Division. Shortly after the war broke out I joined the armed forces, and in January of 1942 I went to Egypt to relive the general who was the commanding general of the Services of Supply in the Middle East. When the war moved out from that area, I went to London and joined a preliminary staff of the Supreme Allied Command and stayed with the Supreme Headquarters of General Eisenhower until the end of the war, in charge of what we call G-4, which is administration, supply, and transportation.
The CHAIRMAN. In addition to being the president of the Mississippi River Commission, you are the division engineer? General CRAWFORD. For the lower Mississippi Valley.
The CHAIRMAN. As division engineer, how many district engineers are under your supervision?
General CRAWFORD. I have three district engineers under my supervision, one at Memphis, one at Vicksburg, and one at New Orleans.
The CHAIRMAN. The Commission of which you are the president is charged with the prosecution of the project for flood control in the lower Mississippi Valley? General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Generally, these different streams, both from the east and west and north, all converge upon the lower Mississippi. That includes the principal eastern tributary, the Ohio, and its tributaries, in turn, such as the Tennessee, the Cumberland, and other lesser streams, and on the west it includes the Missouri River, and then as we come south, the White River and the Arkansas River, and then the Red. These streams drain about 41 percent of the United States from the vicinity of Yellowstown Lake on the west to the slopes of the Appa