Finally, we very respectively request and urge that the proposed works for diversion and transportation of Sacramento River into he San Joaquin Valley be definitely and finally disapproved and liminated. We invite attention to the fact that the San Joaquin umping system and the Delta Cross Channel for supplying it, comrise the key to the project as now planned and urged, that its elimnation will mean safety from repeated and endless assaults upon Congress and the Federal Treasury, as well as safety to the people f the Sacramento Valley in possession of their natural heritage of water supply.

THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA

IST OF AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED TO APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH STATEMENT RELATIVE TO ABOVE PROJECT

Bulletin No. 25, Division of Water Resources, California State Department f Public Works, entitled: "The State Water Plan" (1930).

Bulletin No. 636-D, "Water Supply Paper" Water Resources Branch, United tates Geological Survey.

Circular No. 286, United States Department of Agriculture (Devolopment f Cotton Industry in the San Joaquin Valley).

Bulletin dated July 8, 1936, California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service Cotton Under Cultivation in California).

"Agricultural Outlook" Chart (Cotton) 1937, dated November 1937. The "Protest", page from Red Bluff News.

Referendum Measure submitted at Election December 19, 1933. (Central alley Project Act).

Statement of vote at above election (Secretary of State of California). Water Supply Paper 597-E Water Resources Branch, United States GeoOgical Survey.

Bulletin No. 6 (California series) "Irrigation Requirements of California ands."

Copy of stream flow record at Friant (San Joaquin River), 1921-36, inclu

ve.

Copy of contract between United States Bureau of Reclamation and Water Project Authority of California.

Copy of memorandum relative to financial aspect of Central Valley project, y B. W. Thoron, Assistant Finance Director, Emergency Public Works.

EXHIBIT NO. 1.-Water supply in San Joaquin River at Friant

NOTE. As recorded at gaging station of U. S. Geological Survey at Friant, and recorded in Water Supply pers, Water Resources Branch, U. S. Geological Survey, for years 1921-34; and as advised by letter by r. H. D. McGlashan, district engineer, San Francisco, Calif., for 1935-36. Compiled by W. A. Beard, ar. 20, 1937, Washington, D. C.

MEMORANDUM ON ALTERNATIVE RESERVOIR SITES IN THE SACRAMENTO WATERSEEN

Undeveloped reservoir sites in the Sacramento watershed which have bee surveyed and reported upon include the following:

The Folsom site, on the American River a few miles above the city of San mento; the Auburn and Coloma sites further upstream on the same re These three sites are reported upon in Bulletin No. 24, California Engineer. Series, under the title "A Major Development on the American River.”

The Iron Canyon site, on the main Sacramento River 4 miles abote [2] Bluff, approved by the United States Reclamation Service in 1921, and pl drawn, which were subsequently reconsidered and revised by Mr. Walker, Young, engineer, United States Bureau of Reclamation, and are covered in he report dated 1926 and published in Bulletin No. 13, California Engine Series, entitled "The Development of the Upper Sacramento River."

The Table Mountain site, on the Sacramento River 6 miles above the ICanyon site, now being studied by the United States Bureau of Reclamatis currently rumored to have been proven suitable for dam construction.

The Baird site, on Pit River, being a part of the site of the proposed Ke Reservoir project, also under study by the United States Bureau of Reclamr and currently rumored to be proven suitable for dam.

In addition to the sites listed within the Sacramento watershed is the For view site, on the Trinity River, an adjacent watershed, designed to impos waters for conveying by tunnel for delivery into the Sacramento River g point near Red Bluff.

All of these are potential power sites.

Estimates of storage capacities and costs, as given in the Report on $ Water Plan, and for Iron Canyon in the report on the development of the F Sacramento River, are as follows (Bull. 25, p. 94, and Bull. 13, pp. 141, 116

It is believed and here represented that a selection from among these s will afford opportunity for supplying the reasonable water needs and prose of the Sacramento Valley, the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta and the up! San Francisco Bay area, with resulting economies of importance.

Using for purposes of illustration the estimated costs of the Iron Ca↑ project, with which I am familiar, a saving in capital cost for this project compared to the much larger Kennett Reservoir is indicated as follows: Kennett Reservoir, cost---.

Iron Canyon Reservoir, cost (Bul. No. 13, p. 141).

Saving in capital cost---

This is the saving in reservoir cost alone. Other savings to be achieved by elimination of San Joaquin diversion project are as follows:

$95,000

24.772

70.227

That the Iron Canyon Reservoir is economically desirable is clearly inbest in the Report on the Iron Canyon Project, California, by Mr. Walker R. Y*dated 1926, in which it is shown that at the rates for power then pres this reservoir would have paid for itself entirely out of net power reveans quote from the synopsis contained in this report as follows:

"In the report it is shown that upon the assumption that the Iron Co Reservoir, power plant, and the Mooney Island power plant (a secondary plant then contemplated) would cover a period of 5 years; that money w

ailable at 5-percent interest, compounded semiannually; that the cost of › two plants, would not exceed $26,363,810; and that the Iron Canyon Reserr would be permitted to exercise a water right for generating power prior to y up-stream reservoirs not yet constructed; and that the net revenue derived m the sale of power at 4 mills per kilowatt-hour would be applied in the reyment of construction costs; the entire indebtedness ($26,363,810) could be aid in 53 years after beginning construction" (Bull. No. 13, pp. 75-76). Under the plan of operation upon which the above estimate was predicated, er allowance to create a minimum power head, the annual yield of water uld be 757,300 acre-feet, approximately double the average annual requirent of the delta for salt-water control, 348,000 acre-feet (Bul. No. 13, p. 116; 1. No. 25, p. 80).

In case it should be considered advisable for any reason that larger water rage be provided for use in the Sacramento Valley and Sacramento-San aquin delta, such could be provided by a combination of the Iron Canyon, or her reservoir on the upper Sacramento, and one or more American River es, still at a greatly reduced cost as compared to the Kennett project. The Folsom site, recommended in the report of the National Resources Comttee, December 1936, which estimates the cost at $12,000,000 (p. 125), tother with that at Iron Canyon, would provide a combined storage of 1,476,000 re-feet at an estimated capital cost of approximately $37,000,000. This comnation would achieve a measure of regulation and improvement on the Sacmento and of control over American River floods which periodically threaten e city of Sacramento and its environs.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS,

Finance Division.

APPENDIX No. 3

emorandum to Colonel Clark:

e: Docket No. 7030, Central Valley Water Project Authority of the State of California.

The Finance Division has made a preliminary investigation of this project, own as the Central Valley project, involving the expenditure of approxiately $170,000,000 for the comprehensive development of the water resources the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, for flood control, navigation, irriition, and power purposes. This investigation was as detailed as was condered appropriate, in view of the fact that we were advised that the amount money involved would preclude any allocation of funds from appropriations irrently available, but because of the great scope of the project and the mited time it was possible to devote to it, it cannot be regarded as final or onclusive.

The preliminary conclusions reached may be summarized as follows:

1. As to flood control, aid to navigation, and salinity control in the San oaquin Delta: Based on reports of the War Department and the Bureau of eclamation, the project appears to be desirable and feasible.

2. As to irrigation: The applicant's estimates of revenue from the sale of ater for irrigation purposes have been accepted by the Engineer Examiner and y the Finance Examiner as reasonable. The financial condition of many of he irrigation districts which may be purchasers of the water is, however, unatisfactory, and the debt structure of many of them should be revised before hey can be depended on as solvent customers.

It is probably true that some percentage of the land now being irrigated, or which the present sources of supply provide insufficient water for maximum roduction, are not economically as well suited to irrigation as the moredesirable lands in such areas, and an economic study should be made to letermine whether it would not be more desirable to retire the less-productive and from irrigation and use the water which is now devoted to such land o provide supplementary supplies for the better lands, which are now suffering ecause of the attempt to make a limited water supply serve too great an rea. In other words, it appears possible that intensive, rather than extensive, rrigation in certain regions might be economically desirable, and the retirement of less suitable land through purchase might achieve economic benefits equal o those of certain portions of the present project, at a lower cost. In this onnection, the effect of greatly increasing agricultural production in the area nvolved, through increased irrigation, should be studied as to its effect on

creation of surpluses and the effect of such surpluses on the market for pro ucts grown competitively in various sections of the United States.

3. As to power developments: The estimates of power revenues by the app cant, by the Federal Power Commission, and by the engineer examiner are widely at variance. The dependable market for power does not appar to to justify the estimates of revenue of the applicant, as it appears that there must be a very large development of the market for power to absorb all of the available power which may be developed in connection with this project. the other hand, the use of water for power must be subordinated to the other requirements if the water is to be available as and when needed for the other purposes of the project. This means that there will be a large variation in the amount of water released from the Kennett Reservoir. This is true becaus the reservoir is to be near the head of the Sacramento Basin, and the water stored there will be used to equalize the flow from tributary streams entering the Sacramento River below the reservoir. Moreover, the other demands for water will at times result in drawing down the water level in the reservoir iz such a way as materially to affect the operating head. It has been estimated that the minimum production of power available for sale may fall as low a 10 percent of the maximum. Under these conditions, if the power available for sale is to have value as primary power, a very large steam power standly station will be required; otherwise the great preponderance of available power will be secondary, or dump power, and will have a very low market value No provision has been made in the estimates for such a stand-by station, and no provision has been made for electric distribution systems to facilitate the marketing of power.

4. As to the plan of financing: It does not appear that any estimate assured revenues can be made which would warrant the conclusion that a lo for the construction of this project, payable solely from the net revenues de rived therefrom, would be reasonably secured. The project, if economical sound and carried to completion, would be of far-reaching benefit to the whole State of California, and more particularly to the counties which will receive its benefits, as well as to the particular lands directly affected. It therefore seems entirely reasonable to suggest that the cost of the project and the re sponsibility for financing it should be apportioned in some way commensurate with the benefits. It has already been recommended by the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army that the Federal Government make a contributie: of $12,000,000 toward the construction of the Kennett Dam as representing the direct benefits to navigation and flood control. The State of California should likewise pledge its credit through the issuance of a substantial amount of general obligation bonds, and the various counties benefited by the project. either individually or through the creation of a taxing authority including them, should constribute their credit in like manner. Finally, a conservative estimate of reasonably assured revenues could be used as a basis for issuing limited amount of revenue bonds to finance the balance of the cost. In such a financial set-up, provision should, of course, be made so that surplus revenues would be used equitably to reduce the tax burden necessary to support the general obligation bonds.

You understand, of course, that the above conclusions are the result of preliminary studies, and that the Finance Division feels that further economic studies should be made, and the financial set-up radically revised before any final recommendation can be made on this project.

B. W. THORON, Assistant Finance Director.

JULY 26, 1934.

APPENDIX No. 2

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION.

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA

COOPERATIVE CONTRACT FOR COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATIONS, NEGOTIATION OF CON TRACTS AND ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES

1. This contract, made this 25th day of March, 1936, pursuant to (a) the act of Congress approved June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, all of which acts are commonly known and referred

to as the reclamation law, and (b) the act of Congress approved April 8, 1935 (Public Res, No. 11, 74th Cong.), designated the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, between the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the United States, acting for this purpose by the contracting officer executing this contract, and Water Project Authority of the State of California, a body politic and corporate created in and by an act of the Legislature of the State of California, approved August 5, 1933 (Stats. 1933, Ch. 1042), designated the Central Valley Project Act of 1933, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, hereinafter referred to as the Authority:

Witnesseth:

EXPLANATORY RECITALS

2. Whereas the sum of $15,000,000 has been allotted to the Bureau of Recla mation out of funds made available by the aforesaid Emergency Relief Ap propriation Act of 1935 for the purpose of constructing certain irrigation and reclamation works known as and designated the Central Valley project, California (O. P. 5-24), and the United States, acting by and through the Bureau of Reclamation, is now actively engaged in the prosecution of necessary field investigations preliminary to the design of such irrigation and reclamation works and the preparation of detail plans and specifications for the construction thereof; and

3. Whereas the Department of Public Works of the State of California has over a period of approximately 15 years conducted extensive preliminary investigations, has compiled valuable data, and has formulated a general plan and has prepared designs for the construction of the aforesaid irrigation and reclamation works, and has assembled a large amount of data in connection therewith; and

4. Whereas the department of public works has further initiated and conducted various studies, negotiations, and activities necessary for effectuating said Central Valley project, and has made substantial progress in connection therewith; and

5. Whereas said data, studies, negotiations, and activities are incomplete in many details, but if completed would eliminate duplication of work by the Bureau of Reclamation, would result in the saving of large sums of moneys, and would very materially expedite the time when actual construction of said project could be commenced and the carrying out of work thereon, and it is the desire of the United States that the Authority, through the department of public works, complete such of the preliminary investigations, studies, negotiations, and activities as will result in economies to the United States and the expedition of actual construction work; and

6. Whereas the Authority, acting as aforesaid, is desirous of cooperating with the United States to the end that construction of said Central Valley project may be commenced and carried to completion at the earliest practicable date; and

7. Whereas this contract is entered into in contemplation that a further contract will be entered into between the parties hereto providing, among other matters, for the operation and maintenance by the Authority of the project or units thereof, for payment by the Authority to the United States for expenditures incurred in connection with the project, and the securing by the Authority of contracts for the disposal of facilities to be made available by the project: 8. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows, to wit:

COOPERATION

9. In order for the accomplishment of the early construction and operation of the project in the most expeditious and economical manner, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Water Project Authority shall cooperate fully each with the other in attaining such end.

WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

10. The Bureau of Reclamation shall:

(a) Commence immediate construction of the said Central Valley project and continue such construction as funds may be available for such purpose;

(b) prepare all designs, detail plans, and specifications for all project works; (e) make the necessary surveys of rights-of-way and lands to be acquired;