Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Beard. Yes; that is what is called the area of deficient ner supply. It is generally referred to in that way, as the are*«! deficient water supply in the upper San Joaquin Valley. And £ me read just what this says.

It has been pointed out in chapter V that the most logical source of a.-. plemental water supply for the upper San Joaquin Valley is the San irn^z River.

Sufficient water could be obtained from these sources to meet the Ht* of the developed areas of deficient water supply at a cost less than that ha any other source.

Mr. FrrzPATRiCK. And that is on page 160, is it?
Mr. Beard. Yes; you will find that on page 160.

RECORD OF FLOW OF SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

Lest it be claimed that decreased stream flows since the quote! statement was made have necessitated a conclusion different fri that stated as to the sufficiency of the waters of the San Josqi: River for the purposes indicated, I refer to the record of flow of tti river at the gaging station maintained by the United States O logical Survey, Water Resources Branch, at the Friant Dam site.

I have the record right here. Mr. Hyatt says on page 46 of \a report he bases that statement upon the years 1921 to 1929, inclu?^ The first 2 of those years were years of large rainfall. The avers.* of the other 7 years, up to and including 1929, is less than the ar :age since those years, 1930 to 1936 inclusive. So that claim cari' be made.

Mr. O'neal. Did those figures indicate that the last 7 years hi less than normal rainfall for that area?

Mr. Beard. Yes, sir. The whole period from 1921 to 1936 incisive is a period of low rainfall and low run-off. I have the caparison right here.

Mr. O'neal. Was there more rain between 1921 and 19-29. thi is, proportionately than between 1929 and 1937?

Mr. Beard. There was more rain between 1929 and 1936, inclusia than between 1923 and 1929, inclusive. I am excluding 2 years tbt Mr. Hyatt used.

You asked about that being less than normal flow. The avert? flow for the period Mr. Hyatt takes, 1921 to 1929, inclusive, is K&;

000 acre-feet per year, as shown in this record. The 20-year recori ending, I think, in 1923, was 1,832,000 acre-feet. There "was a h^ million acre-feet larger flow during the previous 20 years, which in the neighborhood of 35 or 40 percent.

Furthermore, the drought out there seems to have been broka

1 have here a letter from the hydraulic engineer in which he says:

High water occurred in the San Joaquin Galley during both February 0 March this year, in most cases the peak of February 5 and 6 being the bi^-* and in many cases the highest on record. The old Tulare Lake tied w*r* water from the Kings and, I believe also, from the Keweah River and W River.

There was a lake in this area of deficiency for a long time. W it has been dried up for a good many years. This letter shows witr is now running into it, and they have diked up about two township which would be about 50,000 acres. They are trying to hold t* water in that.

would like to go into that, and if you have someone to appoint to nto it in detail I would like to demonstrate it to him. I know I am right, and I know that I can demonstrate it to him. r. O'neal. With reference to what?

r. Beard. The stuff that is included in this record that I have in liand. This is quoted from Water Supply Papers of the United es Geological Survey and reports the flow of the San Joaquin :r at Friant, which I will leave with you.

PRECIPITATION IN AREA

r. Fitzpatrick. What was the amount of precipitation in the last

in this particular place?

r. Beard. I couldn't tell you that. But on the other side

r. Fitzpatrick. But we are talking about the valley there that we

a hearing on yesterday, r. Beard. The upper San Joaquin Valley? r. Fitzpatrick. I am talking about the valley that he held the •ing on yesterday. Have you any idea what the precipitation there last year? r. Beard. It varies from 4 to 5 inches per year to 20 inches per

r. Fitzpatrick. What was it last year? Have you any idea as mt?

r. Beard. I have no idea. But I can get the figures for you. r. Fitzpatrick. Is the water coming closer to the surface or is it ig further down all of the time?

r. Beard. I do not have the latest record. I presume it is lows' ... r. Fitzpatrick. Don't you think that is very important?

'r. Beard. Yes; it is very important, 'r. Fitzpatrick. You say you are familiar with all this? 'r. Beard. I am familiar with my own end of it. r. Fitzpatrick. And you are opposed to it because of the competithat is going to exist between you; and that is why you are osing it?

Ir. Beard. I cannot give you the exact figures of that underground er.

[r. O'neal. Do I understand that your point is that San Joaquin er has adequate water in it to do the job of the San Joaquin ley?

[r. Beard. No; not for the San Joaquin Valley, but for that area listress.

[r. O'neal. That part which is now occupied and is now being 1 for farming; is tnat correct? [r. Beard. I don't believe I understand you. tr. O'neal. I mean the part of it that is now improved? [r. Beard. Yes, sir. Furthermore, gentlemen, if it were not in San Joaquin River, there are other rivers there. Ir. Leavt. Assuming they extended the land that is irrigated or is ject to irrigation, how would that be detrimental to your people . the landowners and farmers in the Sacramento Valley?

Mr. Beard. It would be more competition, of course. That is i the main sense of the objection. Our objection is that they are gas to take away our water.

Mr. Leavy. You have had plenty of water all of the time in L< Sacramento Valley?

Mr. Beard. We are not using all of it.

Mr. Leavy. Have you other lands that are subject to irrigate there?

Mr. Beard. There are around 4,000,000 acres in the SacramK. Valley.

Mr. Leavy. Is it your position that they will be taking some *r-that you would use for those 4.000,000 acres of new land that y;; might want to develop ultimately?

Mr. Beard. Yes; that is it.

Mr. O'neal. Have you any other further points, Mr. Beard!

Mr. Beard. Yes; I have a lot of them.

ULTIMATE MAJOR STORAGE UNITS OF THE STATE WATER PLAN IX TH3 GREAT CENTRAL VALLEY

Under the heading, "Ultimate major storage units of the Stfi water plan in the great central valley", this report lists no lesstiH 10 undeveloped reservoir sites, proposed for as many streams &• charging into the San Joaquin Valley, including the Friant Best' voir authorized by the Seventy-fourth Congress, with a combiiw storage capacity in the nine sites other than Friant of 3,617.000 affifeet.

We hold that they should develop their own water before cmis to the Sacramento Valley. Another thing we hold is that tii scheme of pumping it into the San Joaquin Valley and lifting it 1' feet is not economical; that it is a crime against the people to P the water 180 feet. And that will cost money. The land imniKately adjacent to the source of supply can be supplied by the gn^l system.

We claim this is not for the relief of this area, which can be -q plied from local sources, but it is for the purpose of getting Its" down into the San Joaquin Valley and irrigating great area; land which is of small value as it stands. This is to get the wair down there to irrigate it.

ABANDONMENT OF LAND

Mr. Fitzpatrick. They claim there are thousands and tliousari of acres that went back into the desert for lack of water \ Is tk< true?

Mr. Beard. I think Mr. Page reported last year that 20.000 »fl* up to that time had been definitely abandoned. But that will» taken care of by the Friant Dam. The Friant Dam in the & Joaquin River was authorized last year. It was my very hap?; privilege to point out to Mr. Buchanan and others with vhoo I was able to get into touch that the Friant Dam was the thR to build. And it is now being done. Congress has authorized l • Friant Dam project in the San Joaquin River for that very F2* pose.

NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT

Now, as to this new land business. It has been repeated widely at the purpose of this is not the development of new land. And ok at the water they are providing. The combined average relirements of the area, up there, according to this report, and the lta, amount to 771,000 acre-feet per year, and the maximum is less an a million and a half. And a reservoir is being built at Kennett produce annually 2.850,000 acre-feet of water. What are they ing to do with it? They are going to irrigate new land.

SALT WATER BACKING INTO DELTA LANDS

Mr. Leavy. Is it a fact that salt water is backing up into those

lta lands and is destroying them?

Mr. Beard. In a course of time it will injure them.

They cannot pump salt water for irrigation. In some places it

■ps under the land.

Mr. Leavy. Will the regulated flow of waters in the Sacramento

ver tend to minimize that?

Mr. Beard. Yes, sir. At that, the regulated waters will not keep

t the salt water. I do not have the authority here, but I can

d authority for that statement.

Mr. Leavy. But the fact is that when the Sacramento River flow

low the salt water makes itself felt more?

Mr. Beard. Yes; that is right.

Mr. Leavy. Aid when it is high the fresh water drives out the

t water?

Mr. Beard. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. Leavy. And a regulated flow would tend to fix that?

Mr. Beard. Ultimately the dam to which we referred and on

rich $100,000 was spent is to be built there. There are unirrigated

the San Joaquin Valley, according to this report, 4,945,000 acres

irrigable land.

PUMP SYSTEM CAPACITY PROVIDES FOR NEW LANDS

This plan for pumping which you have here proposes to pump the San Joaquin River a million acre-feet per year. You will d it in the statement that you have that it is to have a capacity a million acre-feet per year and deliver that much water at mdota Pool, in the San Joaquin Valley, for distribution. If only ),000 acre-feet is needed for the area of deficiency, that leaves ).000 acre-feet. What is to be done with that? There is a plan the State water plan of diverting from Mendota Pool water for ! irrigation of 785,000 acres of land on the westerly slope of the i) Joaquin Valley.

\h: Leavy. Who owns that 785.000 acres of hind? Mr. Beard. It is all privately owned. Ur. Leavy. Then, it is not Government land, is it? Hr. Beard. No, sir; none of it is Government land. \.nd there is another thing I want to tell you about. This central ley project is a part only of a very much greater undertaking, is is a part of the State-wide plan for the Sacramento-San lquin area which contemplates an outlay of $683,000,000.

139751—37—pt. 2 14

Mr. Fitzpathick. Isn't that a part of that report of the Stia engineer also?

Mr. Beard. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. Fitzpatrick. And that was a report made by Mr. Hyatt!

Mr. Beard. Yes, sir; a report made by Mr. Hyatt.

Mr. Fitzpatrick. The same gentleman's statement you read a pan graph or two from a little while ago?

Mr. Beard. Yes, sir; that is right.

Mr. Fitzpatrick. So he did also recommend this, did he not!

Mr. Beard. He recommended it. Not only that, he campaign; on it.

Mr. Leavy. Does Mr. Hyatt recommend it in the report from irhkr you quoted? Does he recommend the Central Valley project?

Mr. Beard. Yes, sir; but it is not called the Central Valley projw

Mr. Fitzpatrick. But it is in the same report?

Mr. Beard. I will show you where it is [exhibiting]. You rl find that is the Central Valley project.

Mr. Leavy. Engineer Hyatt's position today is consistent with t views that he entertained when he made that report? Is that c' rect?

Mr. Beard. I do not understand so. I understand he represr.. this water must go to the San Joaquin. But here he says it doei • have to go to the San Joaquin to relieve that area.

Mr. Leavy. The question that Mr. Fitzpatrick asked a little irhifc' ago was: Mr. Beard: Did not the engineer's plan contemplate ti entire picture of development?

Mr. Beard. Yes, sir. It is in the plan. We are opposing the pit

Mr. Fitzpatrick. You are opposing the whole thing?

Mr. Beard. Yes, sir; we are.

Mr. Fitzpatrick. And you picked out that part of the plan whid might prove your case?

Mr. Beard. Let me make this statement: They built their c» upon the claim that water from the Sacramento River is necessary' the salvation of that area. You will find it in your official stater.*" from the Department of the Interior that it must be had. And M: Hyatt here says that it must not.

Population or Sacramento Valley Region

Mr. Leavy. What is the estimated population now of the Sacnmento Valley region?

Mr. Beard. I could not say as to that offhand.

Mr. Leavy. How does it compare with the estimated populate of the San Joaquin Valley?

Mr. Beard. They have three times as much irrigated land a? r' have. Therefore, the population must be much greater.

Mr. Leavy. The San Joaquin Valley must be much greater?

Mr. Beard. If you put in the city of Sacramento I am not sun but I presume it is. It has twice the area and more than twice tb irrigated area.

Cotton Culture

I want to tell you what this is for. That is a cotton country do" there. During the years 1929 to 1936 the area devoted to cotton c

« PreviousContinue »