Page images

have a prepared statement, their prepared statement may go in full into the record. Then if they would care to condense the presentation, that could be done. Everything they have in their prepared statement will go into the record in full.

Mr. GRIFFITH. I want the privilege of introducing my statement in the record.

(The statement referred to follows) :


Chairman Knowland and members of the committee, I am C. A. Griffith, of Azusa, chairman of the State Water Resources Board of California. I am also acting as spokesman for the representatives of the California Flood-Control Conference who are here today for the purpose of presenting detailed information on the various flood-control projects throughout the State.

As chairman of the State Water Resources Board, I speak officially for the Governor of California and the State as a whole in regard to flood-control matters. I know the chairman of this subcommittee is thoroughly familiar with the process by which the State Water Resources Board screens requests from local agencies for Federal flood-control appropriations before they are presented to the committees here in Washington. He is also thoroughly familiar with the many complex and diverse flood-control projects of our State. In fact, I am sure that just from memory he could probably single-handedly make a better presentation of our problems and needs than this entire delegation could.

We are particularly proud of the outstanding ability and record of accomplishments of your chairman, our senior Senator from California. In spite of the great load of duties which he carries for the Congress and the Nation as a whole, he somehow finds time to remain intimately acquainted with every detail of the problems of his own State. We, and I speak for the entire California delegation, are most grateful to him and to the members of this committee for so thoughtfully arranging this hearing today immediately following the House committee hearing in order that we might be saved the time and expense of two trips to Washington.

As I have just stated, California's flood-control problems are many and diverse. We do not come here simply seeking 1 levee, 1 flood wall, 1 flood-control dam, but a combination of all of them to fit our complex needs. California, in land area, is the second largest State in the Union. Of its 158,295 square miles, two-thirds are mountainous and foothill lands, and the other third, valley and mesa lands. Our terrain contains the greatest extremes to be found in the United States. It ranges from the Nation's highest point at the peak of Mount Whitney, 14,496 feet above sea level, to its lowest point at Badwater in Death Valley, 280 feet below sea level. We have the second longest coastline in the Nation. On the eastern seaboard it would extend from Cape Cod to Charleston, S. C. On the Gulf coast it would reach from Brownsville, Tex., on the Mexican border to Cape St. George, Fla., and in the Mississippi Basin our State would extend from Chicago to New Orleans.

Our climate ranges from subzero temperatures to the extremes of desert heat; the annual rainfall from a maximum of 134.92 inches in the north coastal area to a mean of 1.7 inches in the desert regions. Snowfall, as actually measured by the snow survey crew's on one of our State courses, has reached depths of over 300 inches with a water content of 150.7 inches.

Now it may seem strange to you that in one of the driest years for the State as a whole, we are suffering very severe and costly flood damages. I refer particularly to the situation in the south coastal basin of California. In that area a prolonged drought has made the watershed tinder dry. This watershed as you know is very precipitous. This fall and winter large portions of this watershed were burned off by raging and devastating forest fires. As a result, a few weeks later a rainstorm that would have been inconsequential in ordinary circumstances struck that burnedoff watershed and caused a most devastating food on the outskirts of the city of Los Angeles. In fact, it was so severe I understand that a special appropriation was placed in the President's budget to assist in remedying this particular situation.

However, I believe it only points up the fact that floods, with their tragic damage to property and loss of life, do not wait for congressional appropriations. The laws of nature are not made by man, but manmade works can amend them. That is why we fervently beseech this committee each year to step up the tempo of the national flood-control program.

We are in sympathy with the President's efforts to balance the budget. We are aware of the problems that confront this, and every other subcommittee of the Appropriations Committees of the Congress. We support the principle of giving aid to friendly nations throughout the world, but we can see no reason for largess to others at the expense of dealing in half measures with our own needs.

The Federal flood-control program in California has been of great assistance to us. In the Sacramento Valley, the Sacramento River project, time and again has proved its effectiveness in the control of floods. Those works constructed in southern California, particularly in Los Angeles County, have been of great benefit. Their worth is so evident we are only sorry the program is not 10 years farther advanced than it now is.

The authorized program in California is a large one, which, it is presently estimated, will cost some $773 million to complete. For this program the Congress has already appropriated about $315 million leaving approximately $458 million of authorized construction to be completed. Providing construction costs remain constant, the program could be completed with an expenditure of less than $50 million annually in the next 10 years.

Our increase in population, about which we used to boast to the Nation, now has become a juggernaut, relentlessly pursuing us in every walk of life. Imagine if you can, having to provide homes, schools, institutions, highways, and utilities for 5 million new citizens in a period of 13 years. That is what has happened to California since 1940. We have had to make room and jobs for these 5 million newcomers to our State.

In all modesty I think I can say we have done a magnificent job in coping with this problem. But we still need more of everything to meet the needs of the seemingly endless stream of people who are coming to live in California at the rate of about 7,000 per week, year in and year out. It is costly. Our annual State budget of nearly a billion and a half dollars annually is larger than that of any other State in the Union. In addition, the United States Bureau of Internal Revenue reported California individuals and enterprises contributed $5,287,729,417 in taxes to the Federal Government in the last fiscal year.

We feel we are doing our full share at the local, State, and national levels in providing funds for the solution of our many problems. On flood-control problems alone we have spent more than $205 million on just 2 of our projects--the Old Sacramento River and the Los Angeles River drainage-area projects. Within the past 2 months we have presented an estimate to our director of finance that it would cost the State alone some $65 million to meet our obligations on presently authorized Federal projects through the year 1960.

The President's budget, while disappointing in regard to those projects which are still in the planning stage and those ready for construction but on which no work has been authorized, appears to have provided sufficient funds to keep those projects under construction moving ahead. For this we are grateful.

As you know, however, the recommendations of the State water resources board are based upon the board's knowledge of the actual need for various projects and not the tempo fixed by the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress.

We are particularly concerned with the almost total elimination of planning and preliminary survey funds. We know that unless adequate funds are provided to make a thorough examination of a project, cost estimates and benefit ratios may be presented that do not draw a realistic picture for the Congress to act upon.

The program adopted by the board is divided into these categories--construction funds, planning funds, and preliminary examinations, and survey funds, as follows:

Sacramento Engineering District
Construction funds:

Cherry Valley Dam..
Folsom Dam.--
Merced Stream Group----
Sacramento River, Old Project--
Sacramento River, major and minor tribu-

San Joaquin Levees..
Success Reservoir-

18, 000, 000

320, 000
5, 000, 000

1, 868, 000


28, 188,000

Advance planning funds:

Black Butte Dam.-
New Hogan Dam.
New Melones Dam.
Terminus Reservoir..

[blocks in formation]

Total Sacramento Engineering District.-
Los Angeles Engineering District
Construction funds:

Los Angeles River drainage area.
Whittier Narrows Dam..
San Antonio Dam---
San Antonio Channel.

$23, 619, 400

8, 513, 000
3, 856, 000

500, 000

36, 488, 400

Advance planning funds:

Carbon Canyon Dam..
Bautista and San Jacinto levees.
Riverside levees.--
Warm, East Twin, Devil, and Lytle Creeks.

100, 000
100, 000
100, 000

36, 888, 400


Total Los Angeles Engineering District.. San Francisco Engineering District

Construction funds: Russian River project----

Total San Francisco Engineering District. South Pacific Division: Preliminary examinations

and surveys.




Grand total--

66, 585, 100 And now in closing I want to again express my appreciation and that of this delegation for the courteous consideration this committee has always given our California program. It is a statewide program. Since the organization of the State water resources board, we have made every effort to see that all of the projects are presented at one time so the committee is not faced with the necessity of hearing a delegation devoted exclusively to a given project one day and a few days later have to repeat the process on another project. I hope that this presentation loses none of its effectiveness because it is statewide in nature. I thank you.


Mr. GRIFFITH. Without further general comment, I would like to quickly go down the list of requests for appropriations on the various projects, and then I will introduce the individual witnesses who will go into more detail on each project.

You will find on page 7 of my statement a list of our requests. The first is Cherry Valley Dam. The Board recommended $2 million. Now there have been some savings and readjustments, so the present budget item is for $1 million. We are requesting $1,250,000 instead of our previous recommendation of $2 million now.

On Folsom Dam on the American River, our request at first was $18 million. We have learned that the Corps of Engineers have had $3 million made available for this year's construction program and for that reason the Board is recommending only $15 million.

On the Merced Stream group our request is $320,000 which will complete this project.

On the Sacramento, the Old River project, the Executive budget has a $3 million item and our request is for $5 million, which presumably would clean up that project at that rate in 3 years.

For the Sacramento River, major and minor tributaries, the Board is recommending $1,868,000. There is no provision in the executive budget for that item.

On the San Joaquin levees, we are requesting $500,000 to start construction and the executive budget contains only $40,000 for planning.

For Success Reservoir, there is nothing in the budget, but we are asking for $500,000 to start construction on this project.

There are two items, Success and Terminus Dams that have been authorized for many years and planning funds have been spent on both of them. But on Success they are ready to spend some money on construction.


We also emphasize every year this question of advance planning funds. We are requesting for your consideration these funds. For Black Butte Dam, $100,000; New Hogan Dam, $225,000; New Melones Dam, $83,700; and Terminus Reservoir, $100,000. None of that group appears in the executive budget. For the Los Angeles County drainage area, we are requesting $23,619,000. The President's budget carries an item of $8,500,000 for this group of units, which will be explained later by Colonel Hedger.

For the Whittier Narrows Dam, our original request was $8,513,000 and the executive budget contains $5 million. Through some savings in the estimates, of the Corps of Engineers, that figure has been reduced to $31/2 million, in which we concur.

On the San Antonio Dam, the Board has recommended the $3,856,000 which would complete the dam portion of the project. The Board is also asking $500,000 to start construction of San Antonio Channel.

The additional advance planning funds we are requesting are for four more projects: In Orange County, the Carbon Canyon Dam $100,000; Bautista and San Jacinto levees, $100,000; and Riverside levees $100,000. In San Bernardino we have the Warm, East Twin, Devil, and Lytle Creek for planning moneys of $100,000.

In the San Francisco Engineering District there is one item, the Russian River. Through the information that we had earlier in the year we were informed they were to have a bond issue or an election to take care of the local participation responsibility. That election has not taken place yet, so therefore we want to change our request from $500,000 to $150,000.

SURVEY FUNDS We also think the Army engineers should have some preliminary money, survey, $500,000.

With permission, I will call on the various witnesses.

Senator KNOWLAND. Since you have been testifying, Congressman Johnson has come into the room here, and under the general courtesy between the two Houses and knowing that the Congressmen have their responsibilities and work to do in the other body, if the Congressman would care to make his statement ahead of the other witnesses, I would be glad to extend that courtesy as we do to the Congressmen of all of the states who come into the hearing room to testify, because I recognize they have their own committees to attend.

Whatever your pleasure is, Congressman, we will accommodate you.




Representative Johnson. I just want to make a few comments. My testimony is not original testimony; it is just supporting what these witnesses say. Before I go further, I want to get permission from the committee to submit a statement by Mr. Hogan, the consulting engineer who is advising some groups in our county. He could not come back here, but he is quite a well-known man out in California. He has made a great study of the flood-control problems of our particular county (San Joaquin County). I would like to have permission to put the statement of Mr. Hogan in the record.

Senator KNOWLAND. That will be granted. (The statement referred to follows:) Mr. W. B. HOGAN. I am an engineering consultant representing the following organizations in the State of California : County of San Joaquin, city of Stockton, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, flood control of the lower San Joaquin River and its tributaries.

There is submitted herewith for your consideration a brief brochure of three flood-control projects for which we are seeking Federal appropriations in order that the necessary engineering work, including the preparation of plans and specifications, may be done.

The projects and the appropriations requested are as follows: The New Hogan Dam.-

$225,000 The New Melones Dam -

83, 700 The San Joaquin River levees.-

500,000 The projects have all been approved by Congress in Public Law 534, 78th Congress, 2d session, and by the State of California for non-Federal costs, by chapter 1514 of the 1945 statutes.

A brief description of the above organizations follows:


The county of San Joaquin is a political subdivision of the State of California, lying at the foot of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains just east of the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. A large portion of the county lies in the delta of these two rivers. The county contains nearly 1 million acres of exceedingly fertile land. Population in 1950 was-

210,000 Present estimated population..

230,000 Assessed valuation -

$321, 616, 735 County seat: Stockton, population (including metropolitan area). 135, 000 Value of commercial crops, 1952_

$156, 438, 675 Ranks fourth in the State and fourth in the United States in total value of agricultural products.

« PreviousContinue »