which could have been largely saved. These crop losses have been reflected in the reduced assessed valuation of the land on the county assessor's book.

The assessor of Kings County-the county in which Tulare Lake Basin is located-stated that in the Tulare Lake Basin area, only, the assessed valuation before the floods of 1937 and 1938 was $2,148,385. The reduced assessed value in 1939 due to these floods was $1,483,385, a reduction in assessed valuation of $700,755.

The assessor estimates possible increase in assessed value if the flood control work on the Kings, Kern, Kaweah, and Tule Rivers are completed as $656,500 above the 1936 assessed valuation or a total of $1,357,255 above the present assessment.

The Tulare Lake Basin water storage district respectfully urges that Congress retain these projects in the flood-control bill, H. R. 4485, and its passage this session.

Senator OVERTON. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS T. ROBINSON, PRESIDENT, TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, CORCORAN, CALIF.

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, I will cut my statement very short in keeping with your request. I am instructed by the farmers and board of directors of this district to inform you as follows

Senator OVERTON. Which district?

Mr. ROBINSON. The Tulare Lake Basin water storage district, comprising 200,000 acres in the Tulare Lake area.

First, we believe the merits of the project warrant the construction of it by a Government agency at the earliest date possible, with due consideration to the war emergency. Second, the plan proposed by the Army engineers is fully acceptable. Third, the plan proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation is not acceptable. We will oppose any Government agency that attempts to construct this project or any other project on the Kings River if the plan proposed limits the use of water or limits the ownership of land in the district.

If such a position on our part brings a decision on the part of the Government agencies or the Congress not to build the dam promptly, we request that the land needed for the construction of the project be made available to the owners of the land and water in the Kings River service area. We will then be in a position to build the project through our own efforts and secure the flood protection and other benefits we are entitled to receive from the Federal Government. Under no circumstances or conditions will we trade our rights to own property for this project or any other project.

Your committee has possibly been led to believe that you are called on to determine whether the Army engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation is the proper Federal agency to construct this project. Actually, however, you are not called on to make a choice as between the two agencies. The owners of the land and water will not accept the Bureau's plan. The real determination is whether you shall authorize the project of the Army engineers or return it to the farmers. Senator OVERTON. Thank you very much. Who is next going to be heard?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. KAUPKE, ENGINEER AND WATERMASTER, KINGS RIVER WATER ASSOCIATION, FRESNO, CALIF.

Mr. KAUPKE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Charles L. Kaupke. I am a graduate civil engineer of the University of Oklahoma. I am the engineer and watermaster for the Kings River Water Association, consisting of 8 irrigation districts with a combined area of 657,000 acres, and 9 mutual water companies with an area of 243,000 acres. For more than 25 years I have devoted all my time to the measurements of canals and rivers and the distribution of the water of Kings River and the preparation of engineering reports.

I have here, M. Chairman, a report entitled "Report on Kings River Project" which was prepared by four engineers, including myself, which I wish to leave with the committee. We prepared also a complete synopsis of that report which I think gives the contents. I have sufficient number of copies of that for all members of the committee. I also have a prepared statement which I shall not read, but which I would like to include in the record. If that is satisfactory, I shall confine myself merely to conclusions.

Senator OVERTON. Thank you. That will be satisfactory. Mr. KAUPKE. It won't take me but just a few moments. In the testimony that was given here this morning the statement was made that the Kings River project is an integral part of the Central Valley project. In answer to that I wish to direct your attention to appendix B, page 124 of the report which I just handed you. This appendix is a letter from the Secretary of the Interior dated September 16, 1941, transmitting a memorandum to the Secretary dated July 31, 1941, prepared by John C. Page, Commissioner of Reclamation. Under item 2, the first sentence reads

it is not contemplated by the Bureau that any surplus water remains above the needs of the Kings River area with proper operation of the reservoir. We are heartily in accord with that statement. We feel we have appropriated and made a complete use of all the normal and subnormal river flow. In direct answer to the statement that Kings River is an integral part of the Central Valley project I wish to read from page 126, item 4, of this same report, this statement:

The Kings River project and the Central Valley project are separate entities and are apart in all their phases except as it may become desirable by agreement to arrange for coordinated operation after the construction of the Pine Flat Reservoir.

The Bureau of Reclamation has no interest in such irrigation uses as will be made; it neither owns nor controls any water of the stream, nor does the Federal Government own any lands in the service area in which in the exercise of its proper functions the Bureau of Reclamation could claim any interest. Since the waters of these streams are wholly in private ownership and the lands served have long since been highly developed by their private owners whose organizations have administered the river flows for 50 years or more with outstanding success, there is no need whatever for any Federal protective custody or control by the Bureau of Reclamation. I would say, Mr. Chairman, we have settled our water rights. We have set up an organization for distributing these waters in accordance with agreed schedules

60479-44- --20

that I believe are second to none in the United States. We have our own association, we have a radio station which transmits these river reports automatically to all of our water users. We supplement that by using local broadcasting stations giving them daily, and in the case of floods, hourly information on the status of that stream. On the 45 canals that divert water from Kings River for a distance of 90 miles, every headgate is equipped with a telephone and the gate tender in dispatching water to these canals knows daily just what is taking place. We think we have a better organization and can show a higher degree of control in the Kings River Basin than in any project ever constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

The only controls which will be exercised by means of the reservoir will be one of regulation of damaging floods, which by law is a function of the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers has an interest in the first-mentioned control, but the Bureau of Reclamation has no interest in either.

The Bureau of Reclamation was organized for the development of publicly owned land. The laws governing its activities and the administrative rules, as well as the training of its personnel, are all unsuited to the control of private water rights or highly developed privately owned land.

I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that we are desperately in need of flood control, but if we have to turn our water rights and the control of our headgates over to the Bureau of Reclamation, we think that is too high a price to pay and that rather than lose control we will try to get along without a federally constructed project.

Senator OVERTON. Are all the irrigation districts that are affected by the reservoirs in the House bill opposed to the Bureau of Reclamation taking charge?

Mr. KAUPKE. They are, Mr. Chairman. In my statement you will see that I have appeared at all the flood-control hearings since 1940in 1940, 1941, 1942, and 1943-and I have a resolution here

Senator OVERTON. Well, do you know of any irrigation district affected by any one of these reservoirs contained in the House bill that is against the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers and is in favor of the Bureau of Reclamation?

Mr. KAUPKE. I do not.

Senator OVERTON. As far as you know, there are none?

Mr. KAUPKE. There are none.

Senator OVERTON. Can you say definitely that they are all opposed? Mr. KAUPKE. Yes; they are, definitely.

Senator OVERTON. All right.

Senator BURTON. May I ask one question? You have referred to this proposed section on pages 3 and 4 of the bill that state that under certain circumstances when the Secretary of War determines that a dam or a reservoir project can be consistently used for reclamation of arid lands, it shall then be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe regulations and so on.

Mr. KAUPKE. Yes.

Senator BURTON. Are you in favor of that program?

Mr. KAUPKE. My position is that that will not affect us because we have no arid lands. Our irrigation systems are complete. We have spent over $60,000,000 on irrigation structures, canals, and dams, and

this project when built will give us an increase in useful water of 6 to 10 percent of the present supply and we do not feel we have any surplus of exportable water. Consequently that section should not apply

to us.

Senator BURTON. But you would have no objection to it as a matter of principle?

Mr. KAUPKE. No. I am appearing here to state that we are asking for the passage of this bill as regards Kings River in its present form. We are asking for no change whatever.

Senator OVERTON. All right. Thank you very much. (Further statement by Mr. Chas. L. Kaupke:)

If it is permissible I wish to include my testimony before the Flood Control Committee of the House by reference. I had the privilege of testifying in 1940, which is included in the hearings on H. R. 9640 (76th Cong., 3d sess.) on pages. 546 to 562; in 1941 on H. R. 4911 (77th Cong., 1st sess.) which is recorded on pages 176 to 182 and 186 to 187; and in 1943 on H. R. 4485 (78th Cong., 1st sess.) on pages 315 to 321 of volume 1; and again in 1944 on H. R. 4485 (78th Cong., 2d sess.) on pages 737 to 746 of volume 2.

I am authorized and directed to appear before this committee to testify in support of the inclusion and retention of the Kings River project in H. R. 4485 and the approval of the bill in its present form.

To Whom It May Concern:

The bearer, Charles L. Kaupke, as engineer and water master of the Kings River Water Association, is hereby authorized to represent Kings River Water Association in connection with hearings before the Commerce Committee of the United States Senate, relative to the flood-control bill, and in connection with any and all matters relating to Kings River, Calif., and the proposed Pine Flat project on said river.

Very truly yours,

JOHN B. BENEDICT,

Vice Chairman, Board of Directors, Kings River Water Association. Briefly the Kings River drains about 1,740 square miles on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Central California. The watershed extends to the crest of the mountains and reaches an altitude of more than 13,000 feet. All the tributaries unite to form a single stream which enters the San Joaquin Valley at an elevation of 500 feet near the town of Piedra, 26 miles easterly from the city of Fresno. The area irrigated by Kings River, commonly known as the Kings River service area, is a flat alluvial cone approximately equal in extent to the watershed.

From Piedra, the river flows in a southwesterly direction to points 3 or 4 miles south of the town of Riverdale, where it divides into several channels. These channels reunite to form two channels, one Fresno Slough flowing northwesterly about 3 miles and entering the San Joaquin River near Mendota, and the other, the South Fork, entering the Tulare Lake Basin about 20 miles to the south. Floodwater reaching the points of division divide about equally between Fresno Slough and the South Fork. You will note that Kings River is unique in that it has two outlets, one into the San Joaquin and thence to the Pacific Ocean and the other into the Tulare Lake Basin.

Levees have been constructed on both sides of all Kings River channels downstream from Kingsburg to the San Joaquin River and to the Tulare Lake Basin. Extension levee systems have been built within the lake basin to confine the floodwaters within definite areas. These levees were constructed over a period of several years and received their first real tests in the flood years of 1937 and 1938. They were found to be vulnerable to excessive floods and were breached in many places.

Floods on Kings River are of two types-winter floods and summer floods. Winter floods are caused by heavy rains, which may extend up to an elevation of 9,000 feet. Above 9,000 feet winter precipitation is always in the form of snow. Summer precipitation is limited to occasional thunderstorms and is not a factor in flood control. The highest river stages result from a combination of warm rain on a recent snowfall. These floods are unpredictable, spectacular, and destructive but of short duration and comparatively small water content.

Spring and summer floods are the result of melting snows in the high mountains and constitute the principal flood menace. The river begins to rise with the advent of warm weather about the 1st of April, reaches its peak between the middle of June and the 1st of July and then rapidly recedes. About 80 percent of the annual discharge occurs in the 4-month period, April to July, inclusive. Flooding begins in the Centerville Bottoms area when the flow exceeds 13,000 cubic feet per second and in the territory below Kingsburg when the flow reaches 15,000 cubic feet per second.

The flood damage occurs chiefly in the territory along the river channels below Kingsburg and in the Tulare Lake Basin. Records show that serious floods occur when the annual run-off exceeds 2,000,000 acre-feet. Inundations and flood damage are roughly proportionate to the run-off in excess of that amount.

The Kings River service area embraces about 1,100,000 acres, of which 850,000 are under irrgation, and there are about 200,000 inhabitants. There are about 35,000 individual water users.

The levee systems which I mentioned cost about $2,500,000. The irrigation canal systems-canals, headgates, and weirs are complete and cost about $60,000,000.

The gravity water supply is supplemented by 12,000 pumping plants, costing upward of $18,000,000.

All these works have been built by private financing. There are no Bureau of Reclamation projects in the Kings River area and no federally owned lands. Agricultural production averages about $80,000,000 per annum.

Two Federal agencies: the Corps of Engineers, United States Army and the Bureau of Reclamation have made investigations of the Kings River project. The investigations resulted in reports published concurrently in February 1940 as House Documents 630 and 631, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session. two agencies agreed on findings that the project was feasible and recommended the construction of storage at Pine Flat with a capacity of 1,000,000 acre-feet. Differences in cost estimates were reconciled and fixed at $19,500,000.

The

The construction of the Kings River project was authorized by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with section 9 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 on February 10, 1940. This was done without our knowledge and our consent.

The Kings River Water Association has formally declined to participate with the Bureau of Reclamation under the terms and conditions of its report as authorized by the Secretary of the Interior.

The reports of the two agencies, although reconciled as to reservoir capacity and estimated cost were not in agreement on several important features. Among these are (1) Reservoir operation, (2) water rights, (3) allocation of costs, (4) form of organization and participation of individual units, (5) excess land holdings.

Subsequently by letter dated September 16, 1941, the Secretary of the Interior suggested that the issues might be clarified by further studies in conformity with a memorandum prepared by the Commissioner of Reclamation and approved by the Secretary bearing date of July 31, 1941. The memorandum explained the position of the Bureau with respect to five of the features as to which there was disagreement and offered the assistance of its engineering and legal staffs in further studies with the hope of reaching fair and equitable understandings.

The Secrtary's suggestion was approved by the Kings River Pine Flat Association on October 4, 1941, and an engineering board of four members was appointed for the association. While the Bureau assisted, the Engineering Board alone is responsible for the report itself including the conclusions reached. File copy of report and synopsis with the committee.

We believe that this report sets up a multiple-purpose project which is feasible for flood control, irrigaton, and power development.

Flood control.-In the report of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army (H. Doc. 630, 76th Cong.), the annual flood-control benefits are found to be $1,185,000. This finding was accepted by the Bureau of Reclamation in its report (H. Doc. 631). The investigations of flood conditions made by the Corps of Engineers were thorough and complete and the conclusions as to costs and benefits were likewise accepted for use in this report without further investigations. Recent studies show that the works proposed by the Corps of Engi