flood-control features of the project which, under existing law, is chargeable to the Federal Government. The revised report of the Chief of Engineers places the operation and maintenance of the project on the Federal Government and provides that after completion and when use of the conservation storage is made the conservation interests be required to pay the United States for the beneficial use of the conservation capacity, either in a lump sum or annual installments. Here I would like to read into the record the last few paragraphs of the report of the Chief of Engineers. The CHAIRMAN. Is that report a supplemental report to the one transmitted to the Budget on the Kern River project? Colonel GOETHALS. It is. It brings the previous conditions stated in the earlier hearing records up to date as now reflected in the report of the Chief of Engineers. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. Colonel GOETHALS (reading): 9. The reports of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and of the district and division engineers were referred to the Federal Power Commission and to the Bureau of Reclamation for review and comments. In reply, copy herewith, the Federal Power Commission states as its conclusions that a multiple-purpose reservoir at the Isabella site is a desirable element in a plan to develop comprehensively the water resources of Kern River; that its construction should be authorized; that before actual construction is commenced further study should be made of the method of reservoir operation, the provisions for power development at the site, and the relation of the improvement to the Borel power development and to other power plants downstream; and that the authorizing legislation should contain a provision with respect to determination of, and collection of payments for, benefits to downstream power plants. 10. In commenting upon the report the Bureau of Reclamation by letter of October 4, 1940, copy herewith, advised that it believed the construction of the Isabella Reservoir as a flood-control measure to be highly desirable and stated that it was making an investigation of the irrigation requirements in the Kern River Valley. Subsequently the Bureau has submitted to the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives, a Summary Report on San Joaquin-Streams Tributary to Tulare Lake, dated August 1943, which briefly covers its investigations of Kern River. Therein, it recommends the construction of Isabella Reservoir to provide the 550,000 acre-feet of storage found advisable by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. The Bureau estimates the direct irrigation benefits and reduction in direct flood damages at $410,500 annually and $262,000 annually, respectively, and that the reservoir will enhance the value of the output of existing power plants by about $68,000 anuually. However, its report states that studies concerning the value of conserved water to irrigation and the allocation of benefits to the general public and to local interests have not been entirely completed and expresses the view that the studies of these questions should be continued by the Department of the Interior, the War Department and local interests, cooperatively, to determine fair charges for the conservation water and in order that repayment thereof may be provided for in accordance with the Reclamation Act. The Bureau advocates construction of the reservoir by the Federal Department having the major interest in it and thereafter placing the improvement in charge of the Department of the Interior for operation and maintenance, its irrigation features being related to those of the Central Valley project. 11. After due consideration I concur in the views of the Board that the Isabella Reservoir should be constructed for flood control and water conservation and that 100,000 acre-feet of the proposed storage space should be initially reserved for exclusive use for flood control until such time as experience or further studies may indicate that this space can also be used for other beneficial purposes. The estimates of benefits made by the district engineer, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and the Bureau of Reclamation all show clear economic justification for the expenditures required for the improvement. 12. The district engineer in his report and in recent supplemental studies finds that flood-control benefits are about four times the combined benefits to irrigation and power. Recent reports made by competent engineers engaged by the local interests also show that flood-control benefits greatly exceed the benefits resulting from use of the stored water. As mentioned above the Bureau of Reclamation now estimates irrigation benefits at more than flood-control benefits but states that its studies are not entirely completed. On the basis of all available information, I consider the Isabella Reservoir predominantly a flood-control project and urgently needed to meet a serious present flood hazard. Authorization at this time will permit preparation of plans for prompt construction when national conditions permit. 13. Regulation of stream flow by the reservoir would be of value to existing downstream power developments. The Federal Power Act provides that the Federal Power Commission shall fix a reasonable and equitable annual charge to be paid to the United States for such benefits. 14. In accordance with the policy indicated by existing legislation the cost of the Isabella Reservoir should be borne jointly by the United States and the water users, the United States bearing the cost for flood protection, and the water users the cost for irrigation, with proper payment for power benefits as discussed in the preceding paragraph. The exact manner of use of the storage for irrigation purposes will be influenced by future developments in the area and must take cognizance of existing and future water rights established by State law and of the desires of the local interests owning such rights. Continuing studies by the Bureau of Reclamation, this department, and the local organizations will establish the best plan of operation and appropriate cost allocations. Under these conditions it is considered appropriate that provision be made for the construction of the reservoir with Federal funds, and that after completion and when use thereof is made conservation interests be required to pay the United States for the beneficial use of the conservation capacity, either in lump sum or annual installments. 15. Construction of Isabella Reservoir by the Federal Government and maintenance of existing improvements by local interests will provide urgently needed flood control. Recent experience has demonstrated that to assure the expected flood-control benefits the reservoir should be constructed, operated and maintained under the direction of the Secretary of War and supervision of the Chief of Engineers. Authority to construct should be understood to include authority to make modifications of the plans, to construct the reservoir at Federal cost, and to make arrangements for payment by the State or other responsible agency to the United States for the conservation storage when used. Local interests including the State engineer have given their approval to the plans proposed herein. 16. I recommend construction of Isabella Reservoir on Kern River, Calif., for flood control and other purposes, generally in accordance with the plans of the district engineer and my comments herein, and with modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated first cost of $6,800,000 and $30,000 annually for maintenance and operation. E. REYBOLD, Major General, Chief of Engineers. The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that report? The CHAIRMAN. Except as to matters largely of maintenance and operation and local cooperation, the report of which you have just submitted an abstract is substantially the report heretofore submitted by the Chief of Engineers to the Director of the Budget some 3 years ago? Colonel GOETHALS. Yes, sir; except with the changes mentioned. The CHAIRMAN. In connection with the Kings River project that we have under consideration today you have already made your statement, and that report is before us. Has there been any recent correspondence between the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Interior with respect to that project? Colonel GOETHALS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you that correspondence or can you procure it for the committee? Colonel GOETHALS. It is here, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have the communications of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Interior placed in the record at this point. Colonel GOETHALS. This [exhibiting] is a letter from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of War, dated January 20, 1944, which reads as follows [reading]: MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I understand that Chairman Whittington of the House Committee on Flood Control is preparing to hold hearings on a bill to authorize the construction of the Kings River project in California by the Corps of Engineers. I know that you cannot control the actions of the congressional committee and its chairman. It will be embarrassing to both our Departments, however, if the hearings could bring about authorization for construction of the project by the Corps of Engineers, since the project is already authorized for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation under the reclamation law. You may want to review the history of this project. The War Department report was printed as House Document No. 630, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session, and the Interior Department report was printed as House Document No. 631, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session. You will find printed in this letter document a letter by the President authorizing me to submit my report. On May 29, 1940, the President sent another letter to me assigning the project to the Department of the Interior. This letter is printed in full in House Document No. 631, part 2, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session, and the body of it reads as follows: "MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have considered your letter of March 7, 1940, concerning the reports by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers on the Kings River project in California. I have had this question examined by the National Resources Planning Board. "It appears from an examination of the reports that they are in agreement. except as to questions of policy as follows: "1. Should the development of power be initiated as a part of the irrigation improvement, or should provision be made for future development under license by the Federal Power Commission? "2. Should the project be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers? "3. Should the irrigation beneficiaries repay their share of the costs in a lump sum or by 40 annual payments? "4. Should the Federal Government or local interests operate the completed project? If operated by the Federal Government, by what agency? "With respect to these matters, it seems to me that the project is dominantly an irrigation undertaking and is suited to operation and maintenance under the reclamation law. It follows, therefore, that it should be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation, and that the portion of the project cost to be charged to irrigation should be financed on the basis of the prevailing Federal policy of 40 annual payments by irrigation beneficiaries. The project should be maintained and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, but operation for flood control should be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War. "While there would be no objection to legislation specifically authorizing this project in accordance with the foregoing outline of policy, I would not expect to approve estimates of appropriation for the immediate construction of it. The present international situation requires the postponement of projects that could be undertaken in normal times. "A copy of this letter is being transmitted to the Secretary of War for his information." On several occasions since this decision was made by the President and since the project was authorized under the reclamation law, the Flood Control Committee has held hearings for the purpose of considering bills to authorize the project for construction by the War Department. I believe it would be helpful if you should call the status of this project to the attention of the Chief of Engineers in order that he might be prepared to set the committee right with regard to your Department's position with respect to it. When there is so much to be done, I can see no profit in preparing lengthy presentations to be made at hearings that serve no useful purpose. This hearing, at best, could only reopen a controversy that would be troublesome to us both and which was settled nearly 4 years ago. Sincerely yours, HAROLD L. ICKES, Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary has not been able to sign this letter on account of a physical injury. But he has read it and it has his approval. ABE FORTAS, Under Secretary of the Interior. The letter of the Secretary of War to the Secretary of the Interior, dated January 26, 1944, reads as follows [reading]: DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Reference is made to your letter of January 20, 1944, regarding prospective hearings by the House Committee on Flood Control with respect to the proposed Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River, Calif. In your letter you state that the project is already authorized for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation under the reclamation law and you ask me to call the status of the project to the attention of the Chief of Engineers in order that he may be prepared to advise the committee relative to the position of this Department with respect to the project. As you mention in your letter the Flood Control Committee has considered the Pine Flat project in public hearings on several occasions, the most recent having been in June of 1943. The record of these hearings indicates very clearly the status of the Pine Flat project both as pertains to the War Department and the Interior Department. I have requested the Chief of Engineers to present your letter of January 20 to the Flood Control Committee if he or his representatives are called upon for further testimony on the subject of the Kings River project. Sincerely yours, HENRY L. STIMSON, Secretary of War. Mr. ELLIOTT. May I ask a question right there, Mr. Chairman? Mr. ELLIOTT. Colonel Goethals, since both those letters have been read, what is the ratio of benefits with respect to flood control, irrigation, and power on Kings River? Colonel GOETHALS. As given in House Document 630, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session, the relation of benefits shows 54 percent for flood control, 36 percent for irrigation and 10 percent for the reduction in irrigation pumping costs that would result from reservoir regulation. The CHAIRMAN. The chairman of the committee is in receipt of a letter from the President of the United States, dated February 7, 1944. In connection with your statement, Colonel Goethals, I will ask you to read the letter from the President to the chairman of the Committee on Flood Control. Colonel GOETHALS (reading): THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, February 7, 1944. Hon. WILLIAM M. WHITTINGTON, Chairman, Flood Control Committee, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. WHITTINGTON: Over 2 years ago, on May 5, 1941, I wrote to you about the Kings River project and the Kern River project in California. Your committee was then considering the authorization of both of these projects for development by the Corps of Engineers under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of War. The schedule of hearings on the Flood Control bill of 1944 indicates that proposals for authorizing these projects as undertakings of the Corps of Engineers will be considered again on February 9, 1944. I shall appreciate it if you will read this letter into the record at that time. In my letter of May 5, 1941, I said, in part: "Good administration continues to demand that projects which are dominantly for irrigation should be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, and not by the Corps of Engineers, War Department. The Kings River project is authorized for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation at this time. The proposed project on the Kern River * * is dominantly an irrigation project. * * * Neither of these projects, therefore, should be authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers. To do so would only lead to needless confusion." That letter is applicable today. These projects should be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation and that portion of their cost to be charged to irrigation should be financed on the basis of the prevailing Federal policy of 40 annual payments by irrigation beneficiaries. These projects should be maintained and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, but operation for flood control should be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War. In my letter of May 5, 1941, I suggested that a sound policy in connection with these water projects would consist of selecting the construction agency by determining the dominant interest. Projects in which navigation or flood control clearly dominate are those in which the interest of the Corps of Engineers is superior and should be so recognized. On the other hand, projects in which irrigation and related conservation dominate are those in which the interest of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior is paramount and should be so recognized. No matter which agency builds a multiple-purpose structure involving in even a minor way the interests of the other, the agency with the responsibility for that particular interest should administer it in accordance with its authorizing legislation and general policies. For example, the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior should administer, under the Reclamation laws and its general policies, those irrigation benefits and phases of projects built by the Corps of Engineers. These suggestions are, to my mind, even more pertinent today. For today we gird for peace. Confusion over jurisdiction ought not to be allowed to disrupt the great preparations now being made for post-war construction of vital public works. Sincerely yours, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT. The CHAIRMAN. The chairman will insert in the record the former letter from the President, dated May 5, 1941, which was submitted to the Committee on Flood Control and considered by the committee in the hearings then pending on the comprehensive bill that was reported and subsequently passed by the Congress and approved by the Presi dent on August 18, 1941. (The letter referred to and submitted by the chairman is as follows:) THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, May 5, 1941. Hon. WILLIAM M. WHITTINGTON, Chairman, Flood Control Committee, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. WHITTINGTON: On May 29, 1940, I wrote to the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the Kings River project in California. That letter is included in part 2, House Document No. 631, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session. Since your committee is again considering the Kings River development and also is considering a similar development on the Kern River in California, I want to call to your attention a part of that letter as follows: "It appears from an examination of the reports (by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation) that they are in agreement, except as to questions of policy as follows: "1. Should the development of power be initiated as a part of the irrigation improvement, or should provision be made for future development under license by the Federal Power Commission? |