Page images
PDF
EPUB

inundation area in 1938 was approximately $3 million. Today it is approximately $16 million, or five times as great.

In 1938, we estimated the flood damages at $604,000. If we had a similar flood today, and we could assume that the same ratio would hold true, then we could expect the damage today in the same flood of about $3 million.

Now, on the basis of population in 1938, we had a loss of life of 15 people in that flood. That figure is taken from the Riverside County sheriff's office. Again if we would use the same ratio, we could expect a loss of life of 72 people in a similiar flood.

Past history has shown that we can expect a major flood about once every 10 to 12 years on this water. We feel that a flood is past due in this particular area right now.

I sincerely hope that we will be able to go ahead with this project and get it completed before we get such a flood because I, for one, do not want to be there and help count the dead that are going to be there, and I do not want to answer the questions of the many thousands of hor eless people who say “Why?" I feel that this is a very serious problem and one that warrants your most serious consideration. I sincerely trust that you will find your way clear to appropriate $200,000 for the Santa Ana River levees, and the Bautista and San Jacinta levees, to carry on advanced plans so that we can procede in the near future with the construction of this program.

SURVEY OF WHITE WATER RIVER WATERSHED

There is one other item. In 1937 Congress authorized the United States Corps of Engineers to make preliminary survey reports on the White Water River watershed. This is a river that drains in the central part of Riverside County to the desert area, and drains into the Salton Sea.

In 1939 a report was submitted to the Chief of the Corps of Engineers, and that same year he authorized the preliminary survey to be made on the White Water River. To date they have expended a total of $160,600, and the report has not yet been completed.

Furthermore, no appreciable amount of money has been spent in recent years toward the completion of this report. Riverside County people are spending a great deal of money on this flood-control project in the way of plans and economic surveys and engineering surveys, in planning future flood-control programs, and much of this time and effort that we are expending now no doubt represents a direct duplication of time and effort already having been spent by the Corps of Engineers. They estimate that only $59,600 is needed to complete the survey. So, in support of the State's request for $500,000 for preliminary survey reports, I sincerely trust, and we of Riverside County hope, that you will find your way clear to support that request so that surveys such as this may be completed and the people can realize some benefits from the equity that they now have tied up in such surveys.

Senator KNOWLAND. Thank you very much.
Mr. GRIFFITII. Mr. Chairman, I might call on Mr. Leedom.

Thank you.

THE COYOTE VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA

STATEMENT OF SAM R. LEEDOM, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD, REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. LEEDOM. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Little was unable to be here, and I understand Congressman Scudder has requested time for discussion of several projects.

I have a statement from Jim Little, chairman of the board of supervisors, regarding Coyote Dam on the Russian River.

Senator KNOWLAND. That may go into the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:)

FEBRUARY 3, 1954. From: California State Water Resources Board, representing the board of di

rectors of the Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Subject: Projects for flood control and allied purposes in the Russian River,

Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, Calif.

GENTLEMEN : A great deal of information covering the Russian River projects in Sonoma County, Calif., has already been delivered to you and in the past the Congress has seen fit to appropriate planning funds for these projects. The local interests have completed all of their research and are submitting the local tinancing requirements in the amount of approximately $5,598,000 to the people at the State primaries, June 8 this year. This is for their share of what is called the Coyote Valley project to be constructed by the Federal Government. In addition to this, Sonoma County will submit a proposition to build a distribution and treatment plant in order to deliver water to people who are in urgent need of an additional supply because of the continued depletion from wells. This will also be submitted on June 8 to the electors.

The average annual flood damage is more than $750,000, and several counties north of San Francisco Bay can be easily served with an abundant cheap water supply from the Russian River. This area produces food and fiber, as well as a considerable number of industrial products that are necessary to the welfare of the Nation. The ground-water supply is rapidly becoming depleted, and they must in the very near future develop surface storage as proposed in these projects. The Russian River projects have been authorized by all Federal anthorities concerned following exhaustive studies by the Corps of Engineers. The projects have also been authorized by action of the State agencies involved in California. They have established a local authority competent to negotiate and enter into contracts with the Federal and State authorities, as well as any other that might be involved.

Recommended for immediate construction is the first stage of an ultimate two-stage dam and reservoir in Coyote Valley near Ukiah, Mendocino County, and one-third of the channel and stabilization works. During the last session of the Congress about one-half of the planning funds were appropriated, and they are now seeking $150,000 to complete these plans. We are advised that this amount will be sufficient to place the projects in the position of being ready for construction and unless these funds are provided by the Congress, the project will be delayed for a considerable period of time.

The total project cost for the recommended immediate construction is around $16 million, and our countywide flood-control and water-conservation district is committed to advance about $5,598,000 of this in cash in order to pay for the cost of conserved water of local benefit.

The local interests have already expended more than $100,000 in planning their diversion works and distribution system. They have completed their engineering studies and have also just completed a full analysis of the economic and financing needs of the projects. This is not strictly a local project because it will serve at least three and possibly more counties that are all in a position of urgently needing an additional supply of water.

In conclusion may we recommend that the Congress appropriate $150,000 to complete the plans for the Russian River projects in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, Calif. May we also recommend the appropriation of $500,000 to begin construction of these projects on a basis that work start in the spring of 1955.

Many complete reports and briefs have been submitted previously to you and other Members of the Congress, so in order to save time may we merely make note of these because they are currently in your files for reference and to substantiate the critical situation we face and the need for quick action.

Report of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, dated September 9, 1948, as revised and approved by the division engineer, South Pacific Division, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and the Chief of Engineering (H. Dọc. 585, 81st Cong., 2d sess.).

Condensed report prepared for Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by the Whipple Engineering Co., dated May 1950.

The report on utilization of water from the proposed Russian River project prepared for the Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by the Whipple Engineering Co., dated October 1950.

Report to the Congress of the United States covering the Russian River projects in California prepared by the north coast office, California State Chamber of Commerce, dated March 23, 1951.

Additional material prepared for current presentation dated May 14, 1953.

The Russian River project-extracts from Federal, State, and district reports prepared by Paul L. Nichols, chief engineer, Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, May 1, 1953.

A copy of the Redwood Journal published in Ukiah, Mendocino County, dated March 4, 1953.

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, it interests me to note the contrasts in California from mountain peaks to Palm Springs, the home of millionaires, and to other places where we find the grapes of wrath. One stream washes everything away. The other drops and cannot carry the water and floods everybody away.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, that completes our story. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN

Senator KNOWLAND. I want to say on behalf of the committee, and I think I say it in no prejudiced sense of the word, that you have had your presentation well organized, as usual. The committee has had the information presented to it, and presented to it both in the full form and also, with the cooperation of the witnesses, in verbal presentations.

I wish that all groups that might appear before this and other subcommittees, of which I am a member, would have their presentations as well organized. I think it has been very fine.

Senator RUSSELL. I can certainly verify that. I have been a member of this committee for more than 20

years. I must say that it is easier to follow and keep up with the projects brought here from California, than it is from any other area. You can go to the record and get a more comprehensive picture of what is involved. I have had occasion to discuss with people in my own State who are interested in projects, and have insisted that they take a leaf out of your book on these matters, but up to now they have not quite been able to match your presentation to the committee.

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR HAYDEN

Senator KNOWLAND. Before recess, I would like to present to the group of California witnesses Senator Carl Hayden, who is a longtime member of this committee, and of the Senate, and, while I have mentioned it to other groups, prior to yours, there being some new witnesses here, I would like to mention that Senator Hayden served in the House of Representatives with my father, back in the 1913–15 period, and is one of the outstanding Members of the Senate of the United States, and a very valued member of this committee.

Senator HAYDEN. It is not very difficult, Mr. Chairman, to be helpful to California. My father and mother were married in the State. I went to Stanford University.

Senator ROBERTSON. Senator Hayden served on the Appropriations with my predecessor, Senator Carter Glass. Senator Glass once said that if the Constitution ever authorized Virginia to have three Senators, he wanted Hayden as the third one.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I have been here a good many years now, and we have tried our best to have our material organized, even before we come in here. We have a little caucus and run it off, and allocate time, because we are fully aware of the fact that your committees are busy and we want to give you the material in such a way that it will not take too much time.

Senator KNOWLAND. Thank you.

We have some additional witnesses from Hartwell Dam. Congressman Paul Brown is appearing.

Senator RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, that group is presenting their case to the House committee, and I have been advised that they regret not being here to present it.

Senator KNOWLAND. Colonel Dixon, you might, while we are waiting for the other witnesses, testify on river and harbor planning.

PLANNING PROJECTS

STATEMENTS OF BRIG. GEN. C. H. CHORPENING, ASSISTANT CHIEF

OF ENGINEERS FOR CIVIL WORKS; AND LT. COL. GEORGE F. DIXON, JR., ASSISTANT CHIEF OF CIVIL WORKS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS

Colonel Dixon. Mr. Chairman, under discussion this morning are eight navigation projects. If I may, I will make a general statement, which I think will give the committee generally what we are trying to accomplish with the $415,000 which has been allocated for advance engineering and design of navigation projects.

This money will be applied to continuation of planning that was going on in fiscal year 1954, on 6 of the 8 projects before you. The additional two, Redondo Beach and Kawaihae Harbor, are new starts.

The amount requested will put all those projects except Jackson and Markland to the stage where they are ready to go to construction when Congress appropriates the necessary funds. .

JACKSON LOCK AND DAM, ALABAMA The first project listed is Jackson lock and dam in the State of Alabama, which was authorized by the 1909 River and Harbor Act to replace three locks and dams on the Tombigbee-Warrior Waterway system.

The committee has heard testimony on the Demopolis and Warrior projects.

Senator KNOWLAND. We are familiar with those projects.

Colonel Dixon. The request for Jackson is $55,000 which will allow us to continue that planning. We have had to date $33,600 advance engineering and design funds. We will not be ready to go to construction until we get an additional $55,000, after the amount before the committee is appropriated. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.52 to 1.

Senator KNOWLAND. Do you have any questions on Jackson, Senator Hayden?

Senator HAYDEN. No.

REDONDO BEACH HARBOR, CALIF. Colonel Dixon. The next project is Redondo Beach Harbor in California. It was authorized by the 1950 River and Harbor Act.

This is a new start as far as planning is concerned. The project is estimated to cost $4,368,000. Benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.79 to i. We are requesting $50,000 which would give us enough money to advance the planning sufficiently so that in the year 1956 we could go to construction if money were appropriated for that purpose. The project involves reconstruction of an existing breakwater, and construction of a new segment of breakwater to protect this harbor.

Senator HAYDEN. This is to prevent beach erosion? Colonel Dixon. Sir, it is a combination. Actually, the majority of the justification of the project which brings about the benefit-to-cost ratio is benefit to small craft by providing a harbor of refuge. There is, of course, the element of beach erosion. It is a different way of handling it because we are forming a harbor there with the existing jetties and extensions. Erosion is a very serious problem on the California coast, an area where we have some of the most severe wave action of any place in the United States.

Senator HAYDEN. That is why I asked the question.

Colonel Dixon. You perhaps have seen the picture in Life magazine of the damage done there. Local interests have a rather heavy responsibility in the project, compared to its size. We estimate that the cost to them will be $1,994,000 which involves dredging the harbor, furnishing land, building certain piers and walls, and so forth.

KAWAIHAE HARBOR, HAWAII Colonel Dixon. The next project for planning is Kawaihae Harbor on the island of Hawaii, which was authorized in 1950. The intention there is to construct a deep-draft harbor. At the present time the only deep-draft harbor on the rather large island of Hawaii is Hilo.

The cost of the Kawaihae Harbor project is $6,679,100. It has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.86 to 1. We are requesting $50,000 to initiate planning. $50,000 should put us in condition where we can go to construction when Congress sees fit to appropriate the necessary funds. It is a 35-foot harbor consisting of an entrance channel and a protected basin.

Senator HAYDEN. Is it possible for oceangoing ships now to get into this harbor at all?

« PreviousContinue »