« PreviousContinue »
Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much, Congressman Hagen, Mr. Bottorff, and Mr. Webb for your testimony and the contribution which you have made.
It is the desire of the Chair that we recess until 2 o'clock, and we will come back for an hour to an hour and a half, not past 3:30. So whatever is done this afternoon must be accomplished within the hour and a half.
(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, a recess was taken until 2 p. m., this same day.)
Mr. ASPINALL. The Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation will be in session for the further consideration of H.R. 6035 and kindred bills.
The Chairman is in recepit of a telegram from San Jose, Calif., under date of January 15, 1958, which reads as follows: Congressman WAYNE ASPINALL,
Chairman Reclamation Subcommittee of House Interior and Insular Affairs
Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: The Water and Power Users Association of Santa Clara County supports Federal construction of the San Luis project. We are specifically in favor of H. R. 7295, the Gubser bill, because our area is very short of water, and the San Luis Reservoir would be the nearest and cheapest place to get it. We favor immediate Bureau of Reclamation construction and operation under reclamation law.
JOHN THORNE, President.
ALDEN B. CAMPEN, Secretary. Mr. UTT. Mr. Chairman? Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Utt.
Mr. Urt. The other morning when Governor Aandahl was on the stand, there was a question asked with reference to any firm commitment on the exchange of power. I understand that that letter is now before the committee. Will that be in the record following Governor Aandahl's testimony or will it be proper to ask for it to be in the record ?
Mr. ASPINALL. It is not in the committee files if you are referring to the letter that was placed on our desk this morning.
Mr. UTT. I am.
Mr. AsPINALL. I would suggest at this time you wait until Congressman Engle gets to the committee room before you make any request because there is no permission given to place that letter in the record. The letter should come from the Department of Interior and this letter was only an offer to the Department of Interior. So, if you will withhold any thought you have in mind about that until you can talk it over at least with Congressman Engle, I will appreciate it.
The Chair understands the remaining witnesses, Mr. Porter, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Butler, Mr. Levering, and Mr. Shannon, are appearing together on the same matter,
Unless there is an objection, we shall hear each one of these witnesses before we begin asking questions. We shall hear all of them and then question them en banc.
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
The first witness is Mr. Carley V. Porter, assemblyman, State of California.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, may I say that Mr. Porter has been one of the hardest workers on the California water program we have in the State. He is assemblyman from an area that adjoins mine in the south, and I think we are all very proud of him and very grateful to him for the work he has been able to do.
Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Hosmer.
STATEMENT OF CARLEY V. PORTER, ASSEMBLYMAN, CHAIRMAN,
JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY OF STATE WATER PROJECTS, CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE
Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much for those kind remarks. I will reciprocate in kind when we are back in our mutual district.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Carley V. Porter, and I am a member in the Assembly of the California State Legislature.
It is a pleasure for me to appear before your subcommittee in support of legislation providing for Federal participation with the State of California in the construction and operation of the San Luis project. It was my original purpose in coming to Washington to comment briefly on certain parts of H. R. 6035 by Congressman Sisk which we in southern California felt needed to be clarified. It is now my understanding that we have some five bills before us today, all dealing with the San Luis, and Congressman Sisk has indicated that he will accept any amendments to his bill which are acceptable to the Department of Interior.
In the several days that I have been in Washington, I have been greatly encouraged by the remarks made and the positions indicated by most of the witnesses who have come here from California. I am encouraged because of the general willingness on the part of so many people to get together and work out the details of a bill which originally caused many divergent positions. In the following remarks, therefore, concerning the Sisk bill and the other measures before your committee relating to the San Luis, I do not appear as an opponent to any one bill. I would prefer to support any of the bills which the committee might act on so that the water development of California can get underway. Because of questions directed to Senator Cobey yesterday, I would like to state at the outset that I have not been authorized by the State legislature to speak for them in this matter although I am chairman of the joint subcommittee on financial and economic policy of State water projects; neither have I been authorized by the southern California members of the legislature to reflect their attitude, although I am chairman of the Los Angeles County delegation of 31 assemblymen and our 1 State senator. I can assure the committee, however, that the remarks I have to make, in my considered opinion, will be consistent with the majority attitude of my colleagues in the assembly.
Without appearing to be presumptuous at all, I would make the following comments concerning recommendations I would like to make:
1. I would recommend that the bill approved by this committee provide for the State to construct and operate the San Luis Dam and Reservoir, as originally authorized by the State legislature as a part of the State Feather River project.
2. I would recommend that the San Luis project be built initially to a capacity of 2,100,000 acre-feet and that the cost be prorated between the Federal and State Governments.
3. Concern has been expressed as to whether certain of the San Luis bills would imply preferential water rights. I would urge that this matter be clarified to the greatest degree possible.
4. The matter of a cutoff date is, of course, a most controversial part of all the meetings I have attended here in Washington.
I would, therefore, like to see if a bill could be drawn without a cutoff date but not for purposes of strategy or for any of the other reasons I have thus far heard. I would respectfully point out to the committee that California has made tremendous strides in the last 2 years in facing up to its State water problems. We have created a new department of water resources which is headed by our most able director, Mr. Harvey O. Banks, and are proceeding with what we consider to be sound, long-range planning to conserve, develop, and distribute the waters of our State. This planning includes not only the engineering of State water projects such as are indicated in our California water plan but encompasses extensive committee work into the financing of water projects. I am confident that California, as a whole, has just started to face up to its water problem in these last 2 years and I am equally confident that the State is now ready to accept its responsibility in this matter. It is for this last reason that J. would like to see this committee approve legislation embodying the foregoing points as well as the points in the Kern County concept, which you heard explained this forenoon, to the degree that they are approved by the Department of Interior.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee today.
Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Porter.
Under our agreement, we shall now hear from Mr. William S. Peterson, representing the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
It is very good to have you before the committee again, Mr. Peterson, and we will be glad to hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. PETERSON, GENERAL MANAGER AND
CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.
Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. I am very pleased to be here. I am William S. Peterson, the general manager and chief engineer of the municipally owned Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles, Calif. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear
your committee. I am most pleased and encouraged by the statements of those that have appeared before this committee. There appears to be a willingness to solve the problem which heretofore has seemed nearly insurmountable. This favorable attitude is due to the new approach to the problem set forth in the Kern County concept. I am pleased to participate with a group of people representing a wide cross section of water interests in California who are enthusiastically supporting the principles of the Kern County concept of a partnership or joint venture between the Federal Government and the State of California in connection with the construction, operation, and dedication to purpose of
certain works to serve water to the San Luis unit service area and to California's Feather River project.
Since my arrival in this hearing this morning, I have reviewed the statement of Mr. Bottorff, and I subscribe fully to its contents and endorse it. Because I had anticipated that Mr. Bottorff would cover the material which he did, I have been able to limit my own presentation.
The principles of this concept have been approved by many water interests throughout California, including the Southern California Water Coordinating Conference in which our department of water and power is represented and actively participates. About 35 water agencies in southern California are also represented. This conference is taking an important part in attempting to bring a unanimity of opinion on important water matters throughout the State. Similarly, we participate in the statewide Feather River Project Association, which has also approved the principles of the Kern County concept.
If it would please the committee, I have available a pamphlet put out by the water coordinating conference in which the names of the members are listed. I could provide that to the committee if you so desire.
Mr. AsPINALL. It may be well to do so so we may have it in our files.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, that is included in the testimony I gave yesterday.
Mr. ASPINALL. It is?
Mr. PETERSON. The need for water development to serve the waterdeficient areas in California is urgent. The development of the Feather River project and the San Luis unit should not be delayed.
The State Feather River project is dependent on storage in the San Luis Reservoir. This reservoir is the key to the State project which will serve population and areas many times the size of the San Luis service area.
The five bills, now before your committee, embody proposals under which a partnership between the United States and the State of California for water development might be accomplished. The physical features of the arrangements by which the water is proposed to be conserved, stored, transmitted, and delivered under all the plans are not essentially different. The main differences pertain to ownership, construction, control, financing, and responsibilities for operation. It appears to the proponents of the Kern County concept that it sets up the ownerships and controls more in line with the responsibilities to be assumed by the participants in the partnership.
The service to the San Luis area is one contemplated for Federal development as part of the Central Valley project and under the concept can be operated indefinitely as a part of the Central Valley project under Federal control. The Federal Government can make the savings that come from joint participation in a dam and reservoir and a waterway to the south. On the other hand, the dam and reservoir that are such an important part of the much larger State project would be under the ownership, financing, construction, and operation of the State. Similarly, the State would provide the larger waterway to the south also designed to serve both the requirements of the Federal San Luis unit and the still greater requirements for transfer of water to the southern parts of the State.
This natural division of control of facilities becomes more evident when it is noted that under the Sisk bill, H. R. 6035, in its present form, provisions are made whereby, under contract, the State might make repayment and assume ownership and control of the Federal San Luis facilities. The Kern County concept avoids the necessity for this arrangement and keeps the ownership that is essential to the Feather River project in the hands of the State, and the ownership essential to the Federal San Luis project in the Federal Government.
In has been indicated to your committee that the water problems of California require expenditures of such magnitude that the combined efforts of State, Federal, and local interests are essential to their solution. The form of partnership contemplated under the Kern County concept affords an excellent method whereby the United States may provide for California its share of Federal assistance in water development.
I have confidence that the solution proposed during the course of this hearing will enable your committee to report favorably on a bill embodying the principles of the Kern County concept of Federal and State partnership.
Thank you for the opportunity of appearing here today.
We shall next hear the statement of Mr. Warren Butler, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Mr. HOSMER. I would like to say while Mr. Butler is coming to the stand that the organization of which he is the vice chairman is the largest taxing agency in the United States outside of the Federal Government and the States themselves. The district's aqueduct from the Colorado River is the largest domestic water supply line in the United States. Property within its boundaries has an assessed valuation of $11 billion.
The district's 75 incorporated cities and other areas in southern California cover more than 3,000 square miles with a population of more than 6,500,000
In his own right, Mr. Butler is a very able and respected newspaper editor in the southern part of California.
Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you, Mr. Hosmer.
STATEMENT OF WARREN W. BUTLER, VICE CHAIRMAN, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS, THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUHERN CALIFORNIA
Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Hosmer.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to appear here and I would like to say that we who may have some divergent views especially appreciate the willingness of the committee to appear here on Friday afternoon for an extra session.
Before reading my statement, I would like to make this comment:
My name is Warren W. Butler. I am vice chairman of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. I live at Compton, Calif., in Los Angeles County.
We have a district which is a sort of a federated district. In other words, it is made up of members. Its purpose is to provide the supple