Page images
PDF
EPUB

the legislature appropriated approximately $1,000,000. Its cond sions are those of a large group of distinguished engineers serving in advisory capacity, as well as of the State engineer. It is the mos comprehensive and the most august report ever made on the wate resources of the State of California.

Local water supplies declared adequate: On page 160 of this re port, under the heading "The Supplementary Imported Water S ply", occurs the following statement:

F

01

[ocr errors]

It has been pointed out in chapter V that the most logical source of a supe mental water supply for the upper San Joaquin Valley is the San Jo River. The water supply considered available for an initial step for the relief of the areas of deficiency is that which can be developed from the s zation of surplus waters of that stream and those available by purchase unde F rights now devoted to inferior use on grass lands served by diversions above the mouth of the Merced River. It is proposed to acquire these waters with consideration for all existing rights that may be invaded in the process. 8 cient water could be obtained from these sources to meet the needs of the veloped areas of deficient water supply at a cost less than that from any othe source. By this plan, the importation of water from the delta of the Sa mento and San Joaquin Rivers would not be required until there was a dema for additional waters to irrigate new lands (Bulletin No. 25, p. 160).

An almost identical statement occurs on page 45 of the report. Even Mr. Edward Hyatt, State engineer, who now claims importa tion of water from the Sacramento to be necessary, cannot expla away the plain statement of fact and conclusion above quoted, r can he successfully deny that development of new lands in the S Joaquin Valley for cultivation of cotton and other products is a prmary purpose of the Central Valley project.

ind

Record of flow, San Joaquin River: Lest it be claimed that de creased stream flows since the quoted statement was made, ha necessitated a conclusion different from that stated as to the suf ciency of the waters of the San Joaquin River for the purposes cated, I refer to the record of flow of this river at the gaging stati maintained by the United States Geological Survey, Water B sources Branch, at the Friant Dam site. I submit this record for the years 1921-36, inclusive, with list of authorities, on a shee marked "Exhibit No. 1."

Mr. Hyatt's conclusion above quoted is based on the flow of the years 1921-29, inclusive, and is so stated in the report (p. 46). B a simple calculation it is shown that the average annual discharg at this point for the 7 years since 1929 has been greater than during the preceding 7 years, being 1,268,000 acre-feet as against 1,164.00 acre-feet.

Furthermore, the flow of the San Joaquin River for the period quoted, period cited by Mr. Hyatt, 1921-29, inclusive, was distinctly below normal, being 1,340,000 acre-feet as against a 20-year average of 2,510 cubic feet per second, equivalent to 1,832,000 acre-feet per annum (Water Supply Paper No. 636 D, U. S. G. S., p. 139).

There are now indications that the dry cycle through which we have been passing is at or near its end, exceptionally heavy rainfal having been experienced recently in the San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere, including the area of water deficiency herein mentioned. as is shown in letters and blue prints accompanying Exhibit No. 1. Surplus waters in San Joaquin watershed: That the waters of the San Joaquin River and watershed are not all in use, and that a surplus exists, is clearly shown in the "Report on State Water Plan."

Under the heading, "Ultimate Major Storage Units of the State Water Plan in the Great Central Valley" this report lists no less than 10 undeveloped reservoir sites, proposed for as many streams discharging into the San Joaquin Valley, including the Friant Reservoir authorized by the Seventy-fourth Congress with a combined storage capacity in the nine sites other than Friant of 3,617,000 acre-feet (Bulletin No. 25, p. 94).

It must be obvious that no such group of reservoirs would be proposed in an authoritative report for an area where all waters were in use and where no surplus exists.

Furthermore, in this report it is recorded that for the period, 1918-28, inclusive, the discharge of the San Joaquin River into San Francisco Bay averaged 998,000 acre-feet per annum (Bulletin No. 25, p. 107).

I submit upon the authority of records here quoted, that the waters of the San Joaquin River and watershed are not all in use and that importation of Sacramento River water is not required for the purposes stated.

Development of new lands real purpose of project: That the development by irrigation of extensive areas of arid lands in the San Joaquin Valley is the real and primary purpose of the Central Valley project is clearly indicated by the magnitude of the reservoir storage contemplated.

Surplus waters provided for irrigating new lands: The proposed development at Kennett of a reservoir of great proportions is designed to impound waters to an extent far in excess of the estimated requirements of the areas in distress, the developed area of deficiency in the upper San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

This great reservoir is to yield annually of impounded waters 2,850,000 acre-feet, while the combined estimated requirements of both the delta and developed areas of the upper San Joaquin, at maximum estimate, are less than half, and in an average year are approximately one-fourth of this.

[blocks in formation]

Arid lands extensive in the San Joaquin Valley: That the vast water storage contemplated in the proposed Kennett Reservoir must be used principally to irrigate and bring into production new lands is obvious. There is no other use for it.

In the Report on State Water Plan, it is reported that there are in the San Joaquin Valley irrigable lands not now watered to the extent of 4,945,000 acres, for which the allocation of 11,612,000 acre-feet of water is proposed (Bull. No. 25, pp. 38, 39).

Pump system capacity provides for new lands: Pre the proposed San Joaquin River Pumping System conten pacity of 1,000,000 acre-feet per season; this committee :in an official communication. The maximum repures... developed area of deficiency in the upper San Joaquin Va mated in the report is 600,000 acre-feet (Bull. No. 25, p. 1From this it is evident that the San Joaquin pump s Congress is asked to authorize, will be capable of deliver. to the Mendota distributing pool in the San Joaquin Va.... acre-feet of water in excess of the estimated requremen.”

of deficiency, a quantity capable of irrigating 2000 armed% lands.

Of especial interest in this connection is the Mendota W...... pump system, proposed by the Report on State Water P.e. f. ery of Sacramento River water from the Mendota poj tas arid acres on the west side of the upper San Joaquin V. No. 25, p. 39).

Cotton culture increasing in the San Joaquin Valley: I grown in the San Joaquin Valley are many and varsi. I clude grain, dairy products, hay and livestock, as well as f-vegetables; also they include cotton.

The area devoted to cotton is increasing rapidly.

The present cotton industry had its inception in 1917 the area devoted to this crop had grown to 9,000 acres. F time on the increase has been rapid and is limited or ly by supply. The planted area reached 251,000 acres in P2, acres in 1936 (Circular No. 286, United States Department of A. culture, and California Cooperative Crop Reporting Serv tin of July 8, 1936).

Attention is called to the fact that the acreage planted to in the San Joaquin Valley has been increased by approxate 006 acres since 1929.

Attention is called also to the fact that the average p of cotton in the San Joaquin Valley is approximate, do of the United States, ranging from 393 pounds per acre 41 in 1925 to 335 pounds (maximum) in 1936, as against a vert uct in the United States ranging from 197 pounds (227 pounds (1936).

The Congress may well consider whether it '.. undertake to finance development of a great cotton pr in the face of present conditions.

In a statement mailed to Members of the Seventy-forti ( May 11, 1936, I stated that the real reason for the Ce project was the development of new langs and des larvi it. to study the set-up without coming to the con stupendous land speculation lies behind it". I now repite

statement.

Cost of $170,000.000 is only a beginning: The Certs' 1, project is an "initial" project only, so designated in the na State water plan (pp. 43-45). It is but the beging of a program proposed in this report for the complete conservat development of water resources and irrigation of lands interior valley of California. The estimated cost of w 600,000, not including the cost of electrical power, transt

distribution lines authorized in the Central Valley Project Act of the State of California (Bull. No. 25, p. 37).

Colossal project authorized by California law: This act authorizes the construction of the Central Valley project and designates the units of which it is to be composed, then proceeds to authorize the Water Project Authority which it creates to add other units at discretion. The language is as follows:

SEC. 4. Said Central Valley project is hereby authorized and shall consist of the following units: (par. 7). Such other units as may be from time to time added to the units hereinabove specifically enumerated by the authority, and authority shall be, and is hereby, empowered to add additional units consistent with and which may be constructed, maintained, and/or operated as a part of the Central Valley project.

Committal to Central Valley may be committal to whole: Preliminary work now in progress on the Central Valley project is being carried on in cooperation with the Water Project Authority of California, under a temporary contract, copy of which I shall place in the hands of this committee (appendix no. 2).

Among the items of "work to be performed by the authority" (p. 3) is the following:

(d) Designate, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, the general location and specify the general type and capacity of the principal works of the project, and the chronological order of construction thereof.

It is submitted that any committal to the Central Valley project is likely to be a committal to the whole of the proposed program for development in the Sacramento-San Joaquin area.

Upon information and belief, I assert that no measure yet proposed to Congress looking to authorization of the Central Valley project has carried any definite limitation upon the project or upon the committal sought, or any clear definition of what the Congress was asked to authorize.

To this charge, heretofore publicly made, reply has been made that the Central Valley Project Act of California limits the development. under it to a cost of $170,000,000. It does nothing of the kind. It authorizes this amount of "revenue" bonds, but any legislature can authorize additional amounts, nor could the enacting legislature have prevented this, having no power over its successors.

"Revenue" bonds deemed inadequate security: The Central Valley Project Act of California provides for financing this project through sale of "revenue" bonds, and purports to prevent any use of the credit of the State in its behalf.

These "revenue" bonds were offered to the Federal Government as security when application for Federal acceptance and construction was made early in 1934, but did not find favor with the Federal finance organization.

This was shown in a report, or "memorandum", dated July 26, 1934, by B. W. Thoron, Assistant Finance Director, Emergency Public Works, in which after reciting that estimates of power revenues to be derived from sale of power by applicant and by Federal agencies "are widely at variance", the following statement occurs (appendix no. 3):

It does not appear that any estimate of assured revenues can be made which Would warrant the conclusion that a loan for construction of this project, payable solely from the net revenues derived, would be reasonably secured.

Nothing has been heard recently regarding these "revenue" bonds but proponents have been loud in their assurances that the Centr Valley project can repay its costs.

Final summary wrong in every detail: Such is the project th Congress is asked to authorize and to finance out of the general f of the United States Treasury, unwise, unnecessary, uneconomics. and of unknown cost.

We submit that any reasonable program for irrigation of distan areas would contemplate the prior fullest development of the wa supplies adjacent to such distant areas, the irrigation of lands adj. cent to source of supply, and the conveyance of surplus waters, should such be proven to exist, to the nearest suitable lands capa of utilizing the same, together with a system of works involving th least burden upon those who are to utilize that surplus upon land.

The Central Valley plan is exactly the reverse of this. It prope transfer of waters while undeveloped sources still exist in the area be served, while millions of irrigable acres near the source rema unwatered, together with transportation to the most remote area means of a system of works certain to impose heavy costs of open tion for all time.

Central Valley project should be rejected: We hold, and I respecfully represent, that this project as now proposed should be rejecte by this Congress, as it has been rejected by two previous Congresse the Seventy-third and the Seventy-fourth.

At the same time we very respectfully ask that provision be ma for construction of such works as are reasonably necessary to prov for present and prospective needs, separately in the two valleys, th Sacramento and the San Joaquin, as a part of the Public Work program of the Federal Government.

The action of the Seventy-fourth Congress in authorizing t Friant Reservoir project and earmarking the appropriation ma while refusing to authorize or appropriate for the Central Vall project as a whole, was the initiation of a unit plan of developme by means of which the water needs of the great interior valley California may be supplied without creating an obligation certa to become a veritable "old man of the sea" on the back of the Cogress and the Treasury of the United States.

The reasonable water needs of the Sacramento Valley, delta and bay shore areas can be provided if desired by construction of reser voir or reservoirs of less capacity than the proposed great reserv at Kennett, and at vastly less cost. Numerous prospective reserve? sites exist in the Sacramento watershed, several of which have bee fully investigated and reported on by Federal and State engineeri services. I shall be glad to supply to this committee or to the Co gress information and authorities at my command.

[ocr errors]

Those for whom I am authorized to speak are not interested concerned as to the particular reservoir site or sites that may utilized; they are concerned that a reasonable degree of economy be exercised, and that any reservoir or reservoirs built in the Sacr mento watershed be dedicated to use within the Sacramento Valley and delta areas.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »