The Trabuco Dam, authorized but not presently under construc tion, $2,030,000. The CHAIRMAN. It is authorized but not yet under construction? Colonel GEE. That is right, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It is along the Santa Ana River? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. On a tributary of Santa Ana River. Colonel GEE. Mostly levees which have been constructed by the local interests. There have been two channel improvement projects authorized on Lytle and Cajon Creeks in the vicinity of San Bernardino and in the south part of San Bernardino. That is the present list of authorized Federal projects in the Santa Ana River Basin. The CHAIRMAN. What is the total estimated cost of the authorized projects along the Santa Ana River and its tributaries? And you may give the exact figure for the record, but give us an estimate now. Colonel GEE. $44,806,000, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And how much has been appropriated for the initiation of construction of those projects? Colonel GEE. $19,702,000, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Colonel Gee. Mr. LARCADE. Colonel Gee, I am interested in statements appearing in House Document 135 at pages 39 and 40, where I notice that the local interests have made very substantial contributions for their own protection. For instance, I find on page 39 that the principal existing waterconservation reservoirs constructed by local interests in the Santa Ana River Basin, Calif., amounted to $8,325,000, and the principal existing spreading grounds constructed by local interests, Santa Ana River Basin, Calif., amounted to $3,444,000; and the principal existing flood control improvements constructed by local interests in the Santa Ana River Basin, Calif., amounted to $5,051,000. I think this speaks well for the interests to which those people have manifested in trying to protect themselves and this fact should be given consideration by the committee. The CHAIRMAN. We have had testimony at the beginning of the hearings on that item, as the gentleman from Louisiana will remember, and I am very glad that he has called it to our attention, and you are going to give the committee the total estimated costs and expenditures made by local interests in that area? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. The cost of water-conservation and floodcontrol improvements constructed in the Santa Ana River Basin by local interests is estimated at $35,000,000. Water conservation improvements include 130 reservoirs and several spreading grounds. Flood-control improvements are principally stone and wire mesh fencing and stone walls along the banks at stream channels. The CHAIRMAN. What is the total benefits in that area? Colonel GEE. Based on 1946 cost levels, the benefits from the proposed improvements would be $931,000 annually in the Santa Ana River Basin. The CHAIRMAN. What is the principal transportation system? Colonel GEE. There are three transcontinental railroads passing through this area which serve the Los Angeles area generally: One is the Santa Fe, the other the Southern Pacific, and I believe the Union Pacific is the third. The CHAIRMAN. Then you have airfields in that area? Colonel GEE. There are a number of airfields in the area, and a very heavy development of warborne traffic and industry which is rapidly being converted to peacetime production. The CHAIRMAN. Generally what are the industries and what are the principal products? Colonel GEE. The production of cement and building materials; the manufacture of aircraft, gasoline and oil refineries, and production of steel are located within the basin. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other industrial plants which have been located in this basin? Colonel GEE. The industries are generally located in the city of San Bernardino and the city of Riverside-I cannot identify them by name. The CHAIRMAN. Are they subject to flood damage? Colonel GEE. They are subject to flood damage by some floods at the present time. This recommendation is to improve the protection of both areas against continued flood damage. Mr. LARCADE. I also find in the report that the local interests have spent very large amounts of money in protecting the airfields in that area, which is not included in the previous amount to which I called attention. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Is there any further statement, Colonel Gee, you wish to make in reference to your recommendation? Colonel GEE. That is all, sir. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Sheppard, the committee will be glad to hear you. STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY SHEPPARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I first want to express the appreciation of our people, of the State of California and twenty-first districts for the remarkable interest this committee has shown in the projects in the past, and for the wholehearted interest this committee is showing in this project, in having it authorized; we of the West would not have had the favorable economic development we have had up to the present time, without your cooperation. We have some very fine local organizations that are functioning within the jurisdiction of the area under contemplation. I am not going to take more time of the committee, because there are others here who represent the district, but I do want to take this opportunity to express the appreciation of our people for the consideration of the committee in the past and what is contemplated in the future. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in presenting to the committee Hon. John Phillips, who represents the twenty-second district; Mr. Frank Mogle, chairman, board of supervisors, San Bernardino County; Mr. William C. Slape, member, board of supervisors, Riverside County; Mr. Earl Redwine, county counsel, Riverside County; Mr. Howard Way, county engineer, San Bernardino County; Mr. Max Bookman, county engineer, Riverside County, and Mr. Lachlan Macleay, Redlands, Calif. Mr. DAVIS. We are glad to have your statement, Mr. Sheppard. Mr. SHEPPARD. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. And you may extend your remarks, if you like, in the record. Mr. SHEPPARD. Thank you. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PHILLIPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Phillips, the committee will be delighted to hear you. Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record my name is John Phillips; I represent the twenty-second congressional district of California. I am going to speak briefly. I want to supplement what Mr. Sheppard said that we appreciate the interest this committee has shown in what has become an increasingly urgent problem with us. Mr. William Slape, a member of the Board Supervisors of Riverdale, Calif., and Mr. Earl Redwine and Mr. Max Bookman, our engineer, are here to represent the area, and they will answer any specific questions which the committee may desire to ask. Now, very briefly may I impress upon the committee that there is no geographical dividing line separating Mr. Sheppard's district and mine. When we are talking about the necessity of flood control and the protection of one area there is no geographical differentiation between the districts we are talking about, because the problem of one is the problem of the other, and it has become an increasingly serious question as protective measures have been built and plans for the protection of the upper part of the basin have thrown more and more pressure on the lower part of the basin. The CHAIRMAN. Will you point out on the map the area covered by your district? Mr. PHILLIPPS. Yes; my district starts up here [indicating] north of Riverside and covers this area in general [outlining on map]. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. PHILLIPS. I want to supplement what Colonel Gee said, that in addition to the railroads and industrial plants, which include the railroad shops, we also have the very urgent situation of the water supply of the Riverside area, because as the upper area is flooded it forces the flood waters down against the rocks of the city of Riverside. During the last war, appropriations were made for flood protection because of the fact that the railroads and the highways come through this little area in the mountains, so that this protection program has become a matter of national concern as well as of a matter of local interest. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Phillips. We have heard considerable talk in the the last few days that most of these projects are saturated with “fat” which should be fried out. Does that accusation apply or have any reference to projects we are discussing here? Mr. PHILLIPS. No; not in the least. These have been favorably considered for years by the engineers, and if there had been any excess appropriation it would have been squeezed out by your committee long before this. Mr. ANGELL. Do you agree, Mr. Phillips, with the premise that in the development of our natural resources, of a great country like ours, beth north and south, and east and west, that it is a sound legislative program to provide not only for the preservation and for the full utilization of these natural resources but also for the improvement and development of them as well? Mr. PHILLIPS. I not only agree with you, Mr. Angell, but I think it is a conservation measure to make it possible for people to build, to operate farms, to operate business and industry in areas where they may have protection from dangers of flood over which they have no control. In an area where you can see houses with holes in them caused by boulders that you could not possibly move by hand, boulders which have come down in the floods, then you can realize how spending a very modest amount of money, in comparison to the productive value of the area you are protecting, you can realize what effect it has in developing the industry of the United States. Mr. ANGELL. Is it not also true that the amount of destruction from floods is tremendously greater than the amount which the Government is spending in the area for the protection against these floods? Mr. PHILLIPS. The gentleman is correct, and from his own experience on this committee and his experience in the area from which he comes, he knows what he is talking about. Mr. ANGELL. Is it not also true-and I am asking this for the purpose of the record-that before any projects are initated they first have had the consideration of a committee of the Congress, of the House or the Senate, and before the Army engineers take any action looking toward the initiation of any project they are authorized to do so by the Congress? Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct. Mr. ANGELL. And there has to be a preliminary examination made before there is the expenditure of any money made on any project in the way of construction? Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct. Mr. ANGELL. And all preliminary reports by the Army engineers come back to this committee before any authorization for construction is made by the Congress, which is for the purpose of determining whether the project is justified before the authorization is given. After the authorization is given, is it not true that those who are sponsoring the project and the Army engineers must go before the appropriations committees and justify the expenditure, and that there another very careful examination is made by a committee of this Congress, not only in the House but on the other side before any money is actually appropriated to be expended on the project? Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes. I can speak as a member of the Appropriations Committee and can testify in support of the last statement, and I am glad the gentleman is putting it in the record, because there have been some rather loose statements made recently in the public print. Mr. ANGELL. Do you not believe that if we are to carry forward the great program that we have undertaken with respect to the rehabili tation of the world and helping other nations overseas, involving the expenditure of billions of dollars-some $30,000,000,000 since the close of the war-we must keep our country strong and develop our own natural resources if we are to carry on such work? Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes. I have felt for a long time that if we are going to try to support the rest of the world we had better make it possible for our own citizens to pay the taxes. Mr. ANGELL. And is not the project that you are supporting here this morning an ideal example of where the Federal Government is authorizing the expenditure of taxpayer's money to develop and protect the natural resources of this country, which brings back to the country manyfold the money that is expended? Mr. PHILLIPS. Which makes it possible for the taxpayers to pay taxes. Mr. ANGELL. Thank you very much. Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF LOCHLAN MACLEAY, PRESIDENT, MISSISIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION, REDLANDS, CALIF. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, as you gentlemen all know, Mr. Macleay is and has been for many years president of the Mississippi Valley Association, with headquarters at St. Louis. The Mississippi Valley Association is interested in the development of rivers and our natural resources. Mr. Macleay is one of the first men in that great work, and we are glad to have you here this morning, Mr. Macleay. Mr. MACLEAY. Mr. Chairman, for 27 years I have been working for flood control in the midcontinent area of the United States, and 9 years ago it became necessary, on account of the health condition of my wife and one of our children to move to California. And I am very deeply grateful to California because my family are in very fine condition at the present time. We have a home at Redlands. During this period of 9 years I have been coming back and forth between my work in the Mississippi Basin and I have no idea of relinquishing my interest in it. I have been in contact with these various projects and have been interested, as Judge Whittington well remembers for some time, and you will recall particularly that during the war we had hearings on another Santa Ana project to protect three of the great railroad systems, the Santa Fe, the Southern Pacific, and the Union Pacific which converge at Colton from a recurrence of such floods as happened in 1938 which completely tied them up for several weeks. I believe Colonel Gee said the damages resulting that year were estimated at $21,000,000. Colonel Gee referred to losses, as I listened to them, since 1916, which total in excess of $30,000,000 in the basin. Those were flood losses which the engineers of the Army figured on the basis of property flood damage alone, that is, for farms and buildings, highways, railroads, and so forth. There is nothing in their figures to indicate the incalculable losses to the people of this country from the losses of investment, the losses of business, which go along with these things, and the fact that these losses are total fosses; there is no salvage; there is no insurance. |