is to be understood as wholly tentative and any allocation agreement to be binding is subject to concurrence by the interests involved prior to construction. As yet there is not a final report presenting the findings of the War Department and the Bureau engineers. (14) How many years of records of stream flow are available on Kern River? Answer: Reliable stream-flow records on Kern River date from 1893. (15) How many of these records were utilized in the studies made by you? Answer: All of them; but with especial attention, as to irrigation, to the 20 years preceding 1937, as during this period irrigation had approached its present development, the better enabling a proper analysis as to irrigation. With respect to flood control, consideration was also given to fragmentary records and hearsay as to earlier flows. (16) What value per acre-foot of increased “in demand" water was used in calculating irrigation benefits for Buena Vista Water Storage District? If $1.83, why was the $4 used on Kings River not used? Answer: No valuation was placed on water in the interim Kern River report comparable to the value of $4 per acre-foot used in the Kings River report. (17) Was any allowance made for channel seepage below second point of measurement? Answer: Whenever appropriate, such allowances were made. The CHAIRMAN. I am inserting for the record a letter to me dated October 9, 1943, from Mr. W. R. Bailey, attorney at law, Visalia, Calif., with respect to the Kaweah-Tule River flood-control project. (The letter referred to is as follows:) Re Kaweah-Tule River flood-control project. VISALIA, CALIF., October 9, 1943. Chairman, Flood Control Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR JUDGE WHITTINGTON: The writer was present and presented testimony at the hearing held by your committee on June 9 and 10, 1943, dealing with the need for adequate flood control on Kaweah and Tule Rivers, in Tulare Lake Basin, Calif., in accordance with the reports submitted by the Corps of Engineers, United States Army. I have received and carefully considered the review and comment of the Bureau of Reclamation upon the Army engineers' reports in relation to said streams, as set forth in the summary report in reference to streams tributary to Tulare Lake, and have discussed the same with a large number of citizens in the area interested in the project. In connection with the summary report we desire to direct your attention to the following: 1. As to Kaweah River, annual flood damage amounts to $285,000, and annual benefits from the proposed project would amount to $347,000, while the annual cost would be $226,000, a ratio of approximately 1% to 1. Flood-control benefits comprise $261,000, or a little over 75 percent of the total benefits. There is no power benefit in the project. 2. As to Tule River, annual flood damage amounts to $216,500, and annual benefits from the proposed project would amount to $242,000, while the annual Flood-control benefits cost would be $159,000, a ratio of approximately 11⁄2 to 1. comprise $211,000, or a little over 87 percent of the total benefits. There is no power benefit in the project. 3. As to both rivers, except during short periods of extreme and damaging food flows, all of the waters of the two rivers have been beneficially utilized for irrigation. The total water supply available from the two rivers, when regulated by the contemplated surface storage and utilized by pump recovery from the existing underground waters stored and augmented by use of proposed sinking basins throughout the area, will substantially equal the ultimate consumptive uses and requirements of the existing service areas supplied by the two rivers. 4. There is no agricultural land within the service areas of either of such rivers that has not passed into private ownership, the areas having been settled and developed from 60 to 90 years ago, and these service areas do not contemplate nor anticipate any use by them of any water imported through the Central Valley water project, which is being constructed for the relief of areas having a deficient supply of water available for use through pumps. These deficient areas are not within the canal service areas of the two rivers, but are largely made up of areas along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains not having an adequate source of replenishment from the waters of the two rivers. The Kaweah River Delta, and the Tule River Delta service areas are, and expect to continue to be, wholly dependent upon their own resources, and wholly independent of the Central Valley project. The proposals of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, in relation to Kaweah and Tule Rivers have been carefully considered by local interests on both rivers, and local cost participation consistent with the irrigation and conservation benefit is assured. Responsible local interests are not only willing, but are anxious, to take over the operation and control of these works, as proposed in the reports of the district and division engineers of the United States Army, and would be unalterably opposed to any control or operation by any other agency, or in conjunction with the Central Valley, or any other unrelated project. The great additional flood damage occurring in the river deltas during January and March of 1943, not mentioned in the Army reports, but disclosed at the June hearings before your committee, amounted to approximately $1,000,000 on the two rivers, approximately one-half to each. Had these floods occurred 2 or 3 months later, the damages would have been several times as much. This same floodwater passed on to Tulare Lake where it contributed to extensive and increased additional damage, amounting to many millions of dollars. The foregoing considerations lead the local sponsoring interests to urge immediate progress in the fulfillment of the proposed Kaweath-Tule River projects as outlined in the reports of the Army engineers, and their early authorization along the lines suggested, through appropriate action by Congress. Very respectfully yours, W. R BAILEY. The committee stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon at 12: 15 p. m., the committee adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 10, 1944, at 10 a. m.) FLOOD-CONTROL PLANS AND NEW PROJECTS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1944 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, KERN RIVER AND OTHER STREAMS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., Hon. Will M. Whittington (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We will hear from Congressman Rolph. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS ROLPH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Mr. ROLPH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, a representative of the public utilities commission will testify and explain the position of San Francisco in connection with this legislation later on this morning, I hope, and I have asked the chairman of that commission to address you at this time, because I have to attend a meeting of my committee at 10:30. San Francisco's interest in this matter is in connection with her municipally owned water system. Hetch-Hetchy is part of the Yosemite, the headwaters of the Tuolumne River, and the city has invested some $200,000,000 in our municipally owned water system. About $150,000,000 of it is in connection with the Hetch-Hetchy on the Tuolumne River. Mr. Turner tells me that the United States engineers are in entire accord with the position of San Francisco, and I want to say that, so far as my position is concerned, if I can be of any service to the committee or to Mr. Turner in connection with this matter, I am at your disposal. I sincerely trust that you will give Mr. Turner's application and hearing very favorable consideration. The CHAIRMAN. If you so desire, after Mr. Turner has testified, you may submit a further statement. We will be glad to have it. Mr. ROLPH. Thank you, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. Do you have any additional information that you would care to give at this time? Mr. ROLPH. As you know, I appeared before the committee on Public Lands in connection with Hetch-Hetchy on my bill to amend the act last year, and I made a very extended statement at that time in connection with the San Francisco municipally owned water system. Mr. ELLIOTT. And since that time you have not changed your position and you feel that your people have not changed? Mr. ROLPH. Not one iota; definitely. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Welch, will you give your name and congressional district for the benefit of the record? Mr. WELCH. My name is Richard J. Welch, from the Fifth Congressional District of California. I desire to have my presence noted, and I ask that I be given the privilege of filing a statement for the record, in connection with the hearings. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have you submit a further statement. Mr. ELLIOTT. I remember the statement which you made before the Public Lands Committee, of which I am a member, Mr. Welch. Your ideas are the same as you expressed at that time, are they not? Mr. WELCH. I think you are dealing with a different subject here. I think you are getting into a broader field than that which was presented at that time. Mr. ELLIOTT. More of a protective measure at this time? Mr. WELCH. Yes, as we deem it. The CHAIRMAN. Are you interested particularly in the San Francisco water project? Mr. WELCH. We of the West are interested in the conservation of water. Water is limited in many areas of the West, and it is only through careful conservation that we are able to meet the demands. The West is growing, but our water supply is not increasing in proportion to the increase in population and the development of the West. Therefore there is a necessity for greater conservation. So that, while I am primarily interested in my own section of the State of California, we of the West have an interest in common. The rainy season ends in May in central and southern California. We get no rains after that until the following fall, along in October. So it is necessary to harness the waters, to impound the water in the mountains, the snow water, as the snow melts, and to hold it in reserve and let it down for domestic and other uses as it is required, and for irrigation as well. It is a big problem. It transcends the interests of any one community, by far. I shall be glad to submit a further statement. Mr. ELLIOTT. The people of San Francisco, Mr. Welsh, have spent considerable money and have a large investment in the Hetch-Hetchy and the waters impounded there, and those waters are used by the people of San Francisco also for power? Mr. WELCH. Yes. In 1906 it was necessary to get a greater water reserve. The city was destroyed by reason of the fact that we did not have adequate fresh water. The city of San Francisco since that time has spent $140,000,000 on its water supply. Mr. ELLIOTT. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have your further statement. Mr. WELCH. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members of Congress present who desire time to make a statement with respect to the project that we have under consideration? [No response.] I will call Colonel Goethals, then. |