One of the question that has been raised throughout the process of review and approval of this project has been the matter of land enhancement and windfall benefits. Mr. Chairman, I was able to sit in on the committee hearings a couple of weeks ago when you heard from the Corps, and I heard the questions at that time. I would like to spend a few minutes speaking about one aspect of the land enhancement matter. In the southwestern part of the United States, the kinds of floods we have are a bit different than in some other parts of the country. We have high mountains. We have relatively sparse rainfall. The riverbeds are quite steep, and the flow rate of the rivers is fast. The natural erosion processes in those mountains yield large amounts of sediment. The amount of sediment that is yielded by this process occurs too rapidly for the small storms to carry this sediment away. The consequence is that when we do have large storms, the water flow is swift and the amount of sediment that is carried by the stream really is quite large. Sometimes in our designing for channels we will make the channel twice as large as is necessary just to carry the sedi ment. When I say sediment, I speak, of fine materials such as clay and silt, but I speak also of sand and rocks. We have some instances of boulders as big as automobiles that have been deposited in the lands below the steep mountains. Now, when the channel comes out of the mountains, the slope flattens out and the flow rate in the streams slows down. The amount of sediment that can be carried by these streams is proportional to the velocity of the flow in those channels, so it means the sediment drops out of the flowing stream. And then as the sediment deposits build up, the stream channel changes its course. If the velocity should happen to increase again after the course is changed, well, then, the stream would switch over and it would want to pick up more sediment, and then it would again either dig out its bed or erode its banks. What I am saying is not really unusual as far as rivers go, except in our part of the country this all can happen in a matter of minutes. If it is a large flood and the sediment is moving rapidly, the river can be one place or another in just a matter of minutes. That means that we have to have a special kind of flood control plan in order to solve the problem, the problem of both water and sediment. The plan consists of a channel headworks which really has to be something special because it has to assure that the water does not get around it or underneath it, and it has to be in a location where it can be assured that the flow of the channel is directed down the new facility and that the sediment will continue to flow along in the facility. These structures are often very large and quite expensive. Another part of the flood control plan is that there must be a channel which does not change its slope. It must maintain the speed of the waters throughout the channel so the sediment does not drop out, so there will not be deposits, and so there will be capacity for the stream to continue to flow through. Because of these two design requirements, it is quite difficult, usually uneconomical, to build only short reaches of channel because there must be a place to which to take the sediment and the water mixture, dispose of it, and keep the whole system under control. It is for this reason that the Corps proposal on the Newhall-Saugus is for a continuous reach of channels. Once the headworks is established, the whole system is tied together. It means it is not practical to stop the channel section at the end of the developed land and pick it up again when the next developed lands are reached. This means, of course, that the channel system flows through lands that are not developed to their highest use. In the Newhall-Saugus project, the Corps has computed and found that 35 percent of the lands that will be protected by the proposed works are capable of higher utilization-35 percent. Now, my understanding of established Federal policy is that the local agency must pay half of the cost of construction for any areas where there is a finding that land enhancement is of the windfall type. When you apply that formula to the Newhall-Saugus program, the Corps has determined that the local agency contribution should be 23.9 percent of the construction costs. Now, I do not know all of the projects that your committee has considered, but so far as I know, this high level of contribution is unprecedented. The total participation by the local sponsors for the overall project will be 39 percent of the overall cost. The local sponsors, whom I represent, are willing to accept this provision. Mr. Chairman, I therefore respectfully urge the committee to approve this project for inclusion in the current project authorization act. Thank you very much. Mr. ROBERTS. I think we will hear from our distinguished colleague, Mr. Rousselot, before we open it to questions. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your giving us time today to discuss this in a little greater detail. I know on the basis of reviewing the testimony of the Corps of Engineers that many of the members of this committee had some very hard questions to ask on this project. I would like to urge your approval of this Newhall-Saugus and vicinity flood control project, because of the ramifications of not acting in other areas in Los Angeles County that we have seen from the past, by not acting when flash floods do occur, we have seen in the past the kind of damage that can happen. I would like to ask at this point unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record at this point. Mr. ROBERTS. Without objection, so ordered. [The statement referred to follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appear before you today to urge the Subcommittee to approve the Newhall, Saugus and Vicinity Flood Control Project for inclusion in the Public Works Authorization Bill for FY 1974. With the reapportioning of the 24th Congressional District in California, I inherited this very vital public works project known as the Newhall, Saugus and Vicinity project, located in Los Angeles County. The Newhall-Saugus area of the Santa Clara Valley, where storms of the 1968-69 season resulted in an estimated $13 million in damages and brought severe hardship to the residents in the area, has been the scene of especially rapid development over recent years, and will undoubtedly be even more so as the new Antelope Valley Freeway increases the accessibility to the Valley from the metropolitan area. To emphasize the urgency of this proposed project, I would like to point out that flood damages are occurring periodically in the area, and unfortunately can be expected to increase with the population and development. The 1971 population was approximately a little over 50,000, and is expected to reach approximately 230.000 by 1990. On March 31, 1972, the Rivers and Harbors Board approved a flood protection project on the Santa Clara River and tributaries. According to 1971 estimates, the cost of this project is $60 million, of which the local share is $23.5 million. The improvement involves building 281⁄2 miles of channels and levees. debris basins, recreation and beautification facilities in this northern Los Angeles community of the Santa Clara River Basin. I will not dwell on the many details of the project which were more than adequately presented to the Subcommittee by the Corps of Engineers in their testimony of May 23. However, I would like to comment on what I am told is a controversial aspect of the project, that is the benefit-cost ratio which is 1.5 to 1. The project economics on an annual basis can be broken down as follows: PROJECT ECONOMICS-INTEREST RATE OF 51⁄2 PERCENT I am aware that in questioning the Corps on their testimony of May 23, the Chairman established the point that this project cannot be economically justified without the land enhancement benefits. However, the central issue is urbanization. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission has designated the Newhall-Saugus area as one of the few areas most suitable for urban expansion, and it is particularly important to realize that this projection of population growth is not related or based on this project. But, Gentlemen, this project is essential to bring about the orderly development of the planned urbanization by making key acreage available for residential, commercial, and industrial use while still protecting existing developed areas. This project would provide protection for about 5,100 acres in the NewhallSaugus area. Of this amount, approximately 3,000 acres in the flood plain are already in use to accommodate the constantly growing population, but this acreage is inadequately protected. The remaining 1,100 acres which would be protected by the project would become developable. Estimates of the land appreciation of these 2,100 acres range from $13,500 per acre on land along the Santa Clara River, Placerita Creek, and Newhall Creek, to $25,000 per acre on land along the South Fork. Since the Corps has ascertained that certain parcels of land would appreciate almost immediately, it is requiring a cash contribution from the local sponsor toward the initial cost of construction. It is currently estimated that his contribution will be $11,280,000,and the Corps is satisfied with the local assurance of cooperation in this matter. The Corps stressed in their testimony that it is necessary to provide protection for the entire 5,100 acres "in order to make the flood protection project function for over-all effectiveness in the Newhall-Saugus area." The protection of the 2,100 acres that will be developed for urban use is necessary to prevent "flank flooding" or "back door" flooding. Since 1960, the development of the Newhall-Saugus area has been accelerated to meet the demands of the growing population spilling over from the San Fernando Valley. Installation of the project works will enable the connection of the major watercourses and tributaries into a well-coordinated system, tying together the widely dispersed area. The Environmental Protection Agency has cautioned against encouraging growth that would be in conflict with an acceptable air implementation plan. In response to this, I would like to quote from the Final Environmental Statement prepared by the Corps of this project, September 1972: o. Air Quality. The project would probably accelerate the rate of urban development to some extent. However, if a Federal flood control project were not constructed, urbanization would probably continue on the basis of piecemeal flood control measures constructed by local interests. Therefore, the proposed Federal flood control program would not be expected to significantly contribute to air pollution in the Newhall-Saugus area. Furthermore, growth as projected is consistent with the projection used in the Air Implementation Plan. Interim flood control facilities have been installed in the area, but on a piecemeal basis, in certain areas where new homes and buildings have been constructed. However, this does not eliminate the flood damage risk, because these interim facilities do not make a continuous control system. A very real hazard continues to exist, in that a breakout of flood flows can occur, resulting in a severe disruption of major transportation and communication facilities supplying the Los Angeles area, during major storms. The Boards of Supervisors of Los Angeles County and of the Los Angeles Flood Control District have pledged support of the project and have indicated a willingness to make the local contribution to the extent required. Both agencies have the legal and financial ability to meet the specified local requirements, and I strongly urge your Subcommittee to approve authorization of this project for the coming fiscal year. As you know, the Interim Report on Newhall, Saugus, and Vicinity, which partially responds to a resolution adopted June 18, 1963, by the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate, has not yet been approved by the Secretary of the Army. However, I am optimistic that the report will be approved and forwarded to OMB for the President's approval in the near future. If this long process is not completed by the time the bill is ready to be reported out, I strongly urge that the authorization for this project be included on a conditional basis in order that the project can proceed upon the President's approval. Mention was made in the Corps' testimony of canvasses of local property owners that were made concerning citizen support for this project. I recently had a door-to-door survey conducted by volunteers and members of my district office staff which might be helpful to the Subcommittee, and it is included in the record at this point, attached as Appendix A. The major comment expressed by those interviewed was that adequate flood protection was needed in the three canyon area, together with the preservation of the rural atmosphere, and the natural flora and fauna. It is my considered opinion that the proposals of the Corps satisfactorily meet these requirements. I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for granting me the time to appear before you today on behalf of this very vital flood control project in Los Angeles County. APPENDIX A CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 1973. DEAR CONSTITUENT: Each time a significant rainfall occurs in Newhall, Saugus and vicinity the need for flood control is apparent. Knowing there is vigorous discussion in your community concerning the importance of developing a flood control plan that will not upset the natural beauty of the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, and desiring to give resident homeowners an opportunity to express their opinions to me, I had three members of my staff conduct in-depth interviews last month. A summary of results is enclosed. The summary has been brought to the attention of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. As the agencies charged with responsibility for formulating a flood control plan, they will benefit from this opinion input. It was not possible to contact all affected resident homeowners. If you were not interviewed, I would appreciate hearing from you concerning views you wish to share with me. Kind regards, JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, M.C. TABULATION-FLOOD CONTROL SURVEY, JANUARY 15-27, 1973, NEWHALL-SAUGUS, CALIF. 1. Do you believe a flood control project is needed as a protection against major flooding of A. Your individual canyon? Yes, 66 percent; No, 29 percent. Not as proposed, 5 percent. No opinion, 1.5 percent. B. Newhall, Saugus vicinity? Yes, 62 percent; No, 23 percent. Undecided, 2 percent. No opinion, 13 percent. If answer is "yes," what kind of channeling do you favor? 1. Revetted stone sides/earthbottom, 22 percent. 2. Concrete sides/earthbottom, 17 percent. 3. Concrete sides/concrete bottom, 19 percent. 4. Covered (underground), 10 percent. 5. Other (comments: wire fencing; "clean" wash), 7 percent. 6. No opinion, 25 percent. If answer is "no," do you object to: 1. The concept of a flood control project? Yes, 17 percent; No, 19 percent. 2. A particular type of channeling? Yes, 37 percent; No, 4 percent. 3. Other (comments: not needed; no major project; changes scenery won't help; costs too much), 23 percent. 2. Would you object to a covered (underground) channel? Yes, 43 percent; No, 53 percent. No opinion, 4 percent. 3. Have you attended any public hearings relative to proposed flood control in the area? Yes, 22 percent; No, 78 percent. 4. Are you familiar with the flood control recommendations contained in the various detailed reports of the Army Corps of Engineers? Yes, 41 percent; No, 59 percent. 5. Do you own property in the area? Yes, 77 percent; No, 23 percent. If so, is the property in an identified flood danger area? Yes, 70 percent; No, 30 percent. 6. Do you own property that was damaged by the flooding which occurred in 1969? Yes, 33 percent; No, 67 percent. If so, how extensive was the damage? Major, 40 percent; minor, 60 percent. 7. If answer to Question 1, A or B, is “yes,” by what means should a flood control project be financed? A. County only, 12 percent. B. County/Federal, 59 percent. C. Other (comments: county/State/Federal; county/State; State/Federal; State only; Federal only; bond issue), 14 percent. D. No opinion, 15 percent. 8. How long have you been a resident of the area? Less than 1 year, 4 percent. 1 to 5 years, 21 percent. 5 to 10 years, 30 percent. 10 years and over, 45 percent. 9. Further comments or suggestions: Major comment expressed by those interviewed-adequate flood protection needed in the three canyon areas together with the preservation of the rural atmosphere and of the natural flora and fauna. |