This basin which is used as a detention reservoir, contains some valuable lands and they are no longer satisfied to remain a detention basin.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any part of the Butte Basin on the right bank of the Sacramento?

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. No.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the land on the right side?

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. This is land that was flooded in 1937.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you call it?

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. Upper Colusa Basin.

The CHAIRMAN. The waters overflowed into the Colusa Basin? Mr. ETCHEVERRY. Because of breaks in 1937. And the existing floodcontrol project, when completed, will thoroughly protect all of it. The CHAIRMAN. What is going to protect the Butte Basin?

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. That is part of the work which is included in the modifications and extensions of the authorized flood-control project. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the interim report which you have in mind? Mr. ETCHEVERRY. The interim report provides for these multipleuse reservoirs and the modifications and extensions to the existing authorized project, and we are especially concerned in that because the State reclamation board is facing trouble with these landowners.

We don't want to buy the lands or pay flowage easements for the land and have the work done afterward and benefit the same land from which we would have to purchase flowage easements.

I have indicated some data which shows the benefit of Shasta Reservoir if used for flood control as it is proposed to be used.

Shasta Reservoir, it is felt by the Bureau of Reclamation was built for irrigation, flood control, and power and the United States Army engineers have worked with the Bureau of Reclamation on a program of reclamation of Shasta Reservoir whereby by using 1,300.000 acrefeet of storage reservoir for flood control in Shasta Reservoir, you cut down the floods.

For instance, the biggest flood that we had on February 28, 1940, gave a flow of 370.000 second-feet at Chico Landing. If Shasta had been in operation in accordance with the plan which had been worked out by the United States engineers in conference with the Bureau of Reclamation, that would have been cut down to 181,000 second-feet.

It is not necessary to mention all of these, but on December 11, 1937, the flood would have had a maximum peak flow without Shasta of 340,000 second-feet, and with Shasta Reservoir it is cut to 206,000.

So, the use of Shasta Reservoir means a great benefit to the floodcontrol project.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the proper use of it.

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. Yes; and if I remember correctly, I think the river and harbor act allowed $12 000,000 for the construction of Shasta for the benefits resulting from Shasta Reservoir to flood control and navigation.

Colonel GOETHALS. That is correct.

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. And another interesting feature is that in the study of the regulation of flood flows before storage, we found when we studied the State water plan that you could operate the Shasta Reservoir for flood control to a certain extent without the operation of flood control harming the use of the reservoir for irrigation purposes or power puposes.

And I undestand from talking with the district engineer or his men that they find that even by using 1,300,000 acre-feet of storage for flood control, that would not materially affect the power or the use of the water for irrigation purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. How much power do they propose to develop out there?

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. I don't remember that.

The CHAIRMAN. You know about flood control but you don't know about power. There won't be much flood control if it costs $150,000,000 and they spent $12,000,000 for flood control and navigation.

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. They can get as much power by using it for flood control. The main reason for that is this: On our estimates in California, especially in the Sacramento Valley, when we have these big floods you can reserve 1,000,000 or 1,300,000 acre-feet for flood control in the Shasta Reservoir and you can close your gates in April. We have never had any major flood later than the middle of April. But there is still sufficient water to come in to fill the reservoir.

So now it seems to us that with the Shasta Reservoir practically completed, we ought to avail ourselves of the use of Shasta Reservoir for flood control as soon as possible.

It will not harm the other functions of Shasta Reservoir and it will do considerable good.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything we can do to promote that? Mr. ETCHEVERRY. The Army engineers report figures on using 1,000,000 acre-feet.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about legislation. We are entirely willing for you to get that authority and to operate. But practically, what can we do as a committee?

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. I have presumed that if you approve or authorized the improvement plan for the Sacramento Basin, as recommended by the Army engineers, that automatically the Shasta Reservoir

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a violent presumption unless we have some authority to dispose of it. Have you any further statement? In other words, we have had trouble where the reservoir has been constructed and operated by another agency that was intended for flood control. Unless authority is conveyed by the Executive or by Congress under the terms of the authorization for the construction of Shasta, on the Corps of Engineers, there may be some doubt

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. I think we are in the same fix there as you are in all your other multiple-use reservoirs.

The CHAIRMAN. That is why I think they should be operated by the dominant interests. If flood control is the fundamental purpose in the construction of that dam, they ought to be operated by the Corps of Engineers and power can be disposed by some other agency. Have you any other statement you desire to make?

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. There is a third class of works provided for in the plan of improvement of the Sacramento Basin, that is, improvements on the nine minor projects, small projects. They are generally of local benefit and, while we are interested in having them, we are not as much interested as we are in having the flood-control project made safe, especially the recommendation of Butte Basin.

With the modification and extension of the flood-control project, we can obtain a fairly good degree

The CHAIRMAN. I understood your views on that.

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. And we would like Shasta put into operation for flood control and to secure the ultimate degree of security for Butte, and we favor the dam at Table Mountain and also at Stony Creek, and those were all recommended in the report of the Rivers and Harbors Committee

The CHAIRMAN. The report given us yesterday?

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. That is correct. Those are the central things I wanted to bring out.

I have just a couple of things I would like to explain.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give us the high points? The engineers are recommending the extension and would favor it. For what

reason?

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. Pretty much along the same reasons I have already explained.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought that because you have gone over the necessity for the extension.

Mr. ETCHEVERRY. The need and necesisty has been preserved by the fact that the large floods of 1937, 1940, and 1942 have shown that the capacities on which we figured the project were not adequate. The project has functioned fine as far as we have a right to expect. The plan was worked out on the basis of the floods of 1907 and 1909. Since then we have had the floods of 1937, 1940, and 1942, which were much greater, especially on the upper Sacramento.

In the other streams, the American River, Federal River, and Yuba River, the floods we have had there have not exceeded materially the floods of 1907 and 1909, but the floods of 1937, 1940, and 1942 have shown that what happened on the upper Sacramento could just as well happen on the Federal River, the American and the Yuba, and for the uleimate degree of protection that we should have, we need the full protection.

I think that is all I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had your statement. We hope you will be feeling better shortly. Take care of yourself.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I would like to ask Colonel Goethals one question, with your permission, Mr. Chairman.

We have been discussing these various streams, the Calaveras, Littlejohn, and Tuolumne groups. As I understand, the Chief's report on all these streams is available. I would like to have them all placed in the record so we might have them to review.

I think the Chief's reports on all these streams should be made a part of the record. Have you the reports on the various streams we have been discussing that have not been made a part of the record?

Colonel GOETHALS. Copies of the Chief's reports on those streams are here.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I would like at this time to ask that they be made a part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. You may make them a part of the record.
Mr. ELLIOTT. That is all the streams we have discussed.

The CHAIRMAN. Just answer the question and identify the reports. Colonel GOETHALS. They are available and will all be made a part of the record.

That is Littlejohn Creek and Calaveras River, Kaweah-Tule Rivers, and the lower San Joaquin River?

The CHAIRMAN. You may submit them when

ment.

you

revise your state

(The reports are as follows:)

WAR DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
Washington, January 14, 1944..

Subject: Littlejohn Creek and Calaveras River stream groups, California.
To: The Secretary of War.

1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report with accompanying papers and illustrations on the Littlejohn Creek and Calaveras River stream groups, California, made under authority of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, which provides for preliminary examinations and surveys of San Joaquin River from Herndon to Antioch and its main eastside tributaries and of Sacramento and San Joaquin River Valleys, Calif. Separate reports are being submitted on other sections of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Valleys.

2. The streams comprising the Littlejohn Creek and Calaveras River groups rise in the Sierra Nevada and its foothills, flow westerly across the flat lands of San Joaquin Valley, and empty into the San Joaquin River directly, or through various sloughs, in the vicinity of Stockton, Calif. The Littlejohn Creek group, drains 487 square miles, of which 184 square miles are below the base of the. foothills. It includes Lone Tree Creek to the south, Littlejohn Creek, and to the north, Duck Creek. This group is bordered on the north by the Calaveras River group which includes that river and its tributaries, and Bear Creek to its north. The latter group drains 173 square miles below the base of the foothills and 560 square miles above. The valley lands are essentially a delta area in which the streams of both groups are more or less interconnected by creeks and swales. At the edge of the foothills Calaveras River divides, the Calaveras River proper following a northerly channel and emptying into San Joaquin River near the northerly limits of Stockton. The southerly channel, known as Mormon Slough, which now carries most of the flow, originally flowed through the city of Stockton and emptied into its harbor, which is under Federal improvement as a part of the navigation project for San Joaquin River. To avoid the deposition of silt in the harbor the United States in 1910, as part of the harbor improvement, constructed a canal from Mormon Slough, 3 miles east of Stockton, northwesterly a distance of 4.6 miles to Calaveras River, diverting the slough water. The improvement includes a levee on the west bank of the canal and certain excavation and levee work in the Calaveras River below the canal. East of the canal there are natural connections by which Mormon Slough receives floodwaters from Duck Creek. Most of the flow of the several streams takes place during the period November to March, inclusive, and is due to rainfall run-off. The average annual precipitation on the valley lands is about 15 inches and 25 to 30 inches in the low mountains. Approximately one-fourth of the valley lands are under irrigation, with the balance dry farmed or in pasture. Irrigation water is largely obtained from ground sources. This has resulted in lowering the water table in recent years to such an extent that some other source of water would be necessary for any additional large-scale irrigation. Farming and related activities are the chief sources of income. The population is primarily rural and Stockton, with about 55,000 residents, is the only large city in the area.

3. Floods on these streams are caused by heavy rainfall in the foothills and mountains during winter months. They are flashy and of relatively small volume of run-off. At least 16 damaging floods have occurred in the 42-year period from 1899 to 1940, inclusive. The flood of 1911 was the most severe since 1862. It is estimated that a flood of that magnitude would inundate about 58,000 acres in the Littlejohn Creek area, 46,000 acres along Calaveras River, and 20,500 acres on Bear Creek. Stockton and the rural towns of French Camp, Farmington, and Linden are subject to inundation by such a flood. The principal damages from less severe floods would be crop losses. The Stockton Flying School of the United States Army Air Corps, located south of Stockton along North Littlejohn Creek, is subject to inundation. This area has been afforded partial protection by local works, but due to flooding of roads access to it is subject to interruption an average of about once in 5 years. Major floods would also inundate roads which provide access to the Echelon Motor Repair Base of the United States Army Quartermaster Corps west of Stockton. The floodwaters of Lone Tree Creek do not cause appreciable damage. Nowhere in the area do floods constitute an important hazard to human life. Improvement of the streams for flood control has not been authorized by Congress except that the diverting canal and its related works have afforded considerable protection to 97311-44-vol. 2-24

Stockton. Local interests have afforded minor protection to various areas by uncoordinated levee construction. In 1930 the city of Stockton constructed Hogan Reservoir on Calaveras River in the foothill region. It has a capacity of 76,000 acre-feet to spillway crest, an upstream drainage area of 363 square miles, and is operated solely to regulate flood flows. Local interests have also done some channel work in Mormon Slough above the diverting canal and built some levees in this area. The district engineer estimates that without further protection from floods the average annual direct and indirect flood damages in the Littlejohn Creek area will be about $130,000; along Bear Creek, $51,000; to rural areas in the Calaveras Basin, $56,000; and at Stockton, $128,000; a total of $365,000.

4. Local interests desire the prevention of flood damages by such means as may be appropriate and indicate that they will cooperate to some degree in the improvements. At a public hearing conducted by the district engineer testimony was presented that the city of Stockton is extremely desirous of having Hogan Dam raised so as to provide 163,000 acre-feet of storage for flood regulation. Lessening of flood damages along Littlejohn Creek, Bear Creek, and other connecting creeks and canals in the area by channel improvements and the construction of levees is also suggested by local interests. The Linden irrigation district has indicated by resolution that it desires to have a minimum of 15,000 acre-feet of storage in Hogan Reservoir reserved for the storage of water to be released during the irrigation season.

5. The district engineer, after investigating various possible measures for securing relief from floods, proposes construction of Farmington Reservoir with capac ity of 55,000 acre-feet on Littlejohn Creek in the foothill section to control the floodwater run-off from 210 square miles; a diversion channel from Duck Creek to Littlejohn Creek below the reservoir so as to limit Duck Creek flows below Farmington to 500 cubic feet per second; two dikes across downstream channels leading from Duck Creek to Mormon Slough so that the waters of Duck Creek cannot enter the slough; enlargement of Hogan Reservoir to provide a floodwater storage capacity of 162,000 acre-feet and 15,000 acre-feet of capacity for the storage of irrigation water; and enlarging 14.4 miles of existing channel in Bear Creek, excavating 1.3 miles of new channel, and constructing 30.1 miles of levee. The works are designed to afford complete protection from floodwaters originating in the area during such a flood as that of 1911. In addition to preventing all the flood damages, the district engineer believes that the Hogan Reservoir improvement would have an annual value for irrigation of $15 000 and the Bear Creek works an annual value of $3 500 for making it practicable to put lands along that stream to a more profitable type of use. He finds that the development of water power at the reservoirs wou'd not be feasible. The costs and benefits as estimated by the district engineer are as follows: