Senator BURTON. Am I correct in understanding that each of the Members of the House of Representatives from this valley and both of the Senators are in favor of that same position?

Representative JOHNSON. Every single one of them, I believe. Every one of them is heartily in favor of all the projects. I want to thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to appear. Senator BURTON (presiding). Mr. Johnson, thank you. Next is Mr. Lea.

(Representative Johnson withdrew from the committee table.)

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE F. LEA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Representative LEA. Mr. Chairman, I desire to cooperate in saving the time of the committee.

The statement just made by Congressman Engle is an able and accurate summary of the practical situation with which you are confronted in reference to the Table Mountain Dam.

My district is very vitally affected by this proposal. This Table Mountain Dam serves as part of the general plan for the protection of the lands of the Sacramento Valley. There are a million and more acres in the flood area that is now menaced by floods of the Sacramento Valley. About 250,000 people reside in that area. It is primarily a problem of flood control. There can be no conservation of the areas affected until the land is given protection and conserved against flood.

It is estimated in the last 42 years there has been a damage in this Sacramento area of $34,000,000, making almost a million a year. On account of the greater development of the valley and several floods that have occurred, the damage is estimated at $3,000,000 a year beginning with 1937 to the present time.

Now, Table Mountain is a very valuable asset to the protection of the Sacramento Valley. It is located about 75 miles above the Feather River. That area extending down from the north rim of the flood area to Feather River now suffers most severely of any section of the Sacramento Valley. Table Mountain, the engineers estimate, will provide a storage of 400,000 acre-feet of floodwater. That dam, if constructed will afford protection, it is estimated, to more than a hundred thousand acres in the Butte Basin and Colusa section. The Butte Basin is on the east side of the river, and the Colusa section is in the lower part of that area above the Feather junction on the west side of the valley.

I think an examination of the testimony of the engineers, will convince you that there is no economic substitute for the Table Mountain Dam. In any scheme of flood protection for the Sacramento River which is anything like comprehensive, the Table Mountain Dam must be regarded as a basic improvement. It is true that we might seek a substitute by going into the narrow mountain canyons above Table Mountain, but if we did it would require the acquisition of private lands and their removal from the tax rolls the same as it requires for the Table Mountain Dam and under far less satisfactory conditions.

Table Mountain is lower on the stream and has a greater control of the watershed above than those dams in the mountains can possibly have. Besides that the engineers estimate that the cost of that substitute method of using those small numerous dams in the mountains would probably be five or six times what Table Mountain would cost, without the effective control and value that Table Mountain would give. It should not be forgotten that what is proposed as to a low dam for Table Mountain does not preclude any useful disposal of that water for any other purpose that may be hereafter suggested. In other words, there is no need of delay. Ever since I have been in Congress, for over 25 years, the question of flooding the lower part of the Redding Valley has been a consideration, and there is nothing really new in it. It has been a matter of investigation and report by the Bureau of Reclamation, by the Army engineers and State engineers during that whole period.

Today, we have a representative of the State board of reclamation here to support the Table Mountain proposal. That board has long functioned in California and is thoroughly familiar with our water problems and flood-control conditions, and it heartily recognizes the necessity of Table Mountain in any comprehensive flood-control plan for the valley, and the representative of the board is here to speak for the State, as no other organization in California can speak. The Board of Reclamation attempts to provide an orderly development looking toward the best possible conservation of the water resources of California, and it does represent, as nearly as anybody can represent, the State of California's position in favor of this bill and of the dam at Table Mountain.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator OVERTON. Thank you, Mr. Lea.

Senator DOWNEY. Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Lea is here I want to say, it seems to me I presented an amendment to this committee to provide for the investigation or preliminary survey of Corte Madera Creek, Marin County, and you wrote the letter that the request made by the amendment would be acceptable to the committee [indicating]. Senator OVERTON. Yes, sir.

Senator DOWNEY. It is satisfactory to the Army.

Senator OVERTON. That is for preliminary examination survey?
Senator DowNEY. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. Yes; there will be no difficulty on that.
Now, Mr. Mellin.

STATEMENT OF G. F. MELLIN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER AND APPRAISER, STATE RECLAMATION BOARD, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Mr. MELLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be allowed to appear before your committee which has been so long suffering from this work. I desire to present a written statement, and I regret that I have no copy.

Senator OVERTON. Thank you, Mr. Mellin. Will you give your

name?

Mr. MELLIN. My name is G. F. Mellin, assistant engineer and appraiser for the reclamation board of the State of California.

Senator OVERTON. You represent the reclamation board of the State of California?

Mr. MELLIN. I do. I regret that no other party could be here at this hearing.

The State reclamation board is the State agency that approves all of the flood-control work in the great Central Valley. The reclamation board consists of seven members distributed through the valley area, appointed at the pleasure of the Governor. Its work is entirely flood control, although it approves all works of irrigation which affect any of the flood-control works in the valley.

It appears to me that Mr. Kerr of the Bureau of Reclamation gave a very good definition of the Central Valley but overlooked one very important item. In the Central Valley there are 2,000,000 acres which are below the flood height of the adjoining streams as they flow through the valley. All of these floods head toward the delta region. In the delta region 480,000 acres lying from 6 feet below sea level to high tide level have been reclaimed against the sea. There are thousands of miles of levees through the valley area. It appears to me that flood control must first be had to protect these 2,000,000 acres of the most fertile land before there is any necessity for irrigation or conservation for power development. If these lands are in their natural state and are allowed to flood, there will be no users of irrigation water in that

area.

Another thing that appears to me should be brought out at this hearing is that all of the projects of the Army engineers act as a unit. All of the floodwaters find their eventual escape to the sea through the delta area and then through the Golden Gate. All of the floodcontrol projects listed in this bill are necessary to give a unified plan to the protection of the valley from flood. These works likewise must be operated in a unified manner in order to accomplish that protection.

Relative to Table Mountain Dam, that dam I believe has been before Congress, or one in that immediate vicinity, on many occasions. There was as long back as I can remember an Iron Canyon Association. They desired to build a dam immediately above Red Bluff, and went out of existence only when Shasta Dam was built. On the low Table Mountain Dam there has been long investigation. The Bureau of Reclamation investigated it themselves in 1914. And relative to performance of this work by the Army engineers, the Army engineers have been in the Central Valley since the formation of the California Debris Commission in 1893. It is true their work was then limited to channel improvement, but it was early in their study that they found out that channel improvement was impossible without flood control. The men who have presented these projects that are in H. R. 4485 have complete knowledge of the flood situation in the streams, and many of them have spent tseir entire lives in working with the problems of the stretms of the Central Valley in regard to flood.

Senator OVERTON. Have you concluded your statement, Mr. Mellin? Mr. MELLIN. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. We thank you very much for your appearance.

Senator BURTON. I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mellin, speaking on behalf of the California Reclamation Board do I understand, then, that you testify that the projects that are recommended by the Army engineers are necessary for flood control in the valley and do not interfere with irrigation development in the valley?

Mr. MELLIN. That is correct. I might state further that these projects have all been presented to the reclamation board by the Army engineers and have been studied jointly with the Army engineers, and that the reclamation board has held hearings which were advertised and which hearings were held even before the appearances before the House committee on this matter.

Senator BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Mellin.

(The statement by Mr. Mellin is as follows:)

The California State Reclamation Board is the State agency responsible for flood control in the great Central Valley. As such agency, with appropriate legislative action, it guarantees necessary local interest participation and will assume the obligations recommended in these reports to be cared for by the State and local interests. The approval of these reports is found in resolutions of the reclamation board printed on pages 774 and 1173 of volume 2 of the Flood Control Committee hearings on H. R. 4485.

It appears elemental that floods must be first controlled before irrigation or power conservation is at all necessary. At least 2,000,000 acres of the floor of the great Central Valley of California lie below the flood levels of the streams on the valley floor. A flood is a disaster locally more complete than war devastation. Flood waters are classed as a common enemy. It is natural that the War Department should protect us against this enemy. In urgency of accomplishment flood control must be first. The drowned land, industry, or owner require no irrigation and no power development.

Flood protection by individuals began before California became a State. The report of Captain Ringold in 1845 indicates local levee construction along the Sacramento River. To my knowledge the War department entered the flood control problem of California in 1893 through the creation of the California Debris Commission by Congress. Since that date their studies have been carried on in cooperation with local interests. In 1911 the reclamation board was created as the State agency to carry on this cooperation with the Army. The authority of this board embraces the great Central Valley.

Floods originate in the upper drainage areas of the streams and converge on the outlet of those streams through the Golden Gate into the Pacific Ocean, Flood control is not a matter which can be set aside as a problem of any local stream in this area. Several so-called separate projects are set forth in H. R. 4485. These are in fact one complete plan involving Kern, Tule, Kaweah, Kings River Reservoirs, Fresno stream group (already authorized on Dry Creek area), Friant Reservoir, Merced stream group, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus River Reservoirs, Littlejohn and Calaveras project, American, Yuba, and Feather River Reservoirs, low Table Mountain Dam, Shasta Dam and reservoirs on Stony, Cache, and Putah Creeks, 18 reservoirs, together

60479-44-22

with channel improvement, levee work, and provision for bypass channels. All of these work as a unit to prevent convergence of floods on the 480,000 acres in the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. In so doing they prevent floods in their local areas.

It was stated in this hearing that the levees in the valley, particularly in the delta were constructed so that the lands could be irrigated. These levees were constructed to reclaim these lands from the sea. Lands in the delta are as much as 6 feet below low tide and range from that to high tide level. Their reclamation from the sea compares with the Zudier Zee work in Holland except that publicity has been lacking. This is the type of reclamation implied in the name given the board which I represent. Many early reports refer to the great Central Valley as an inland sea. The major floods have in our time reproduced this condition. No irrigation or power use in the area can be had when these lands are part of this inland sea. I have seen the hull of a steamer that was caught on the ridge between Tulare Lake and the San Joaquin River when flood waters receded. This steamer was headed for Tulare Lake to care for transportation on that lake, having come from the San Francisco Bay region.

To insure complete unified flood control, it is believed that all of these flood control features should be operated by the Army engineers or under schedules set up by the Secretary of War and made a part of the law governing each structure where flood control is involved. The reclamation board is fearful of any other method of procedure. Flood control is not the good bedfellow with water conservation for irrigation and power that has been frequently indicated at this hearing. Flood control is a loss item on the ledger. Unless flood control operation is made mandatory, conservation will, by human nature, steal that storage space to create a credit balance and eventually the flood control feature of the reservoir will be forgotten. Such utilization of flood control space in a reservoir may rest entirely with the judgment of one man charged with operation of a particular reservoir. His judgment may be wrong. Flood damage has occurred when such judgment has been erroneous in operation of flood control works.

It has been stated that 40 reservoirs are contemplated as a part of the Central Valley project. The flood control reservoirs submitted in the reports of the Army engineers designate 18 particular reservoirs in which flood control is a necessary function for protection of the Central Valley. Increase in number of reservoirs does not mean increased flood control. There are at present nearly 200 reservoirs constructed on the watersheds tributary to the great Central Valley for power and irrigation development by private capital. This conservation has not produced flood control, nor will 40 more if operated for conservation of water in developing irrigation and power.

The Army engineers have had a continued experience of 50 years in dealing with the streams of the valley. Their policies have remained steadfast during that time even though State policies have often varied with different administrations. The people of the valley have faith in the work of these men, many of whom have spent their lives with the problems of the valley. The Army engineers know the flood problems of the valley and the period of investigation, coordination, and planning is ended as far as the projects in H. R. 4485,