Page images
PDF
EPUB

occurrence of such a flood today would be a catastrophe to Boulder. No doubt there would be a large loss of life, and with the present increased development within flood plain, the property damages would be very high. Sunshine Creek, a left bank tributary to Boulder Creek, joins Boulder Creek at the western edge of the city. Floods on this small tributary have caused severe damage to property in the past.

The proposed channelization and levee plan for Boulder Creek and Sunshine Creek through Boulder would eliminate the afore-mentioned damages from floods of the magnitude of the 1894 flood, and prevent loss of life. Land values would be enhanced considerably by such improvements, which would be incorporated with a park system and parkway proposed by civic leaders.

Approximately one-third of Erie, Colo., lies within the flood plain of Coal Creek and is subject to floods from that stream. Damaging floods occurred in 1876, 1891, 1921, 1935, and 1938; the largest of which was the flood of 1896. Coal Creek channel around Erie has a small capacity and is obstructed by a flume at the lower edge of town, and by a small bridge and highway grade at the upper edge of town. The existing levee protecting Erie, built in 1934, was flanked by the floods in 1935 and 1938. The damages to dwellings and the business firms in this small mining town from floods on Coal Creek have been excessive, averaging at least $5,000 annually.

For the reasons which I have given, may I strongly urge favorable action by this committee on the authorization of this South Platte flood-control project.

SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA

Mr. DAVIS. We will next take up the Santa Ynez watershed. That project concerns House Document No. 518, Survey Report on the Santa Ynez River Watershed, California, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session.

Mr. Bramblett, do you wish to make a preliminary statement and then introduce Mr. Phillips, of the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. BRAMBLETT. If it is all right with you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Phillips make his presentation. I would then like to present Mr. Kappler.

Mr. DAVIS. Very well.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE R. PHILLIPS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, the matter before the committee has to do with increased authorization on the Santa Ynez River watershed, House Document 518, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this a flood-control project at all? This is a watershed project, that is, a soil conservation project which has been included with a recommendation, is it not?

Mr. PHILLIPS. The watershed program was approved by the act of December 22, 1944, at an estimated cost at that time of $425,300.

As the Department initiated work and started plans for the beginning of that work, they found that the watershed had so seriously deteriorated from the time of the original report that to carry out. the same program it would cost $1,831,500, according to our best estimates at this time.

Accordingly language has been proposed relating to the approved, program on the watershed. That language is as follows:

That the Secretary of Agriculture, in furtherance of the authority conferred upon him by section 13 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, to prosecute works of improvement on the watershed of the Santa Ynez River, California,

is authorized to proceed forthwith to install on such watershed the program recommended under plan I of House Document Numbered 518, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session: Provided, That in installing such program the Secretary of Agriculture shall be authorized to make such modifications of the recommended structural and land use measures within minor tributary watersheds as may be found requisite to effectuate the purposes of plan I of said House document, at an estimated additional cost to the United States of $1,158,500.

Now, the proposed language, if enacted into law, would not modify the basic program as now approved, but would clarify the authority to carry out works of improvement under current conditions from two standpoints:

(1) The survey report on the Santa Ynez River watershed recommended alternate plans of watershed improvement. These alternate plans, which actually differed only in minor degree, were designated as plan 1 and plan 2, and were developed originally with the purpose that plan 1 would best serve the needs of the watershed in the event that Gibraltar Dam were enlarged and no other reservoirs built or that a dam would be built near the Cachuma site, with or without enlargement of Gibraltar Dam. On the other hand, plan 2 was recommended in the event that a dam would be built at the Santa Rosa site and Gibraltar Dam enlarged or reservoirs built at the Santa Rosa and Cachuma sites, with Gibraltar Dam unchanged. The Secretary of the Interior authorized, on March 24, 1948, in accordance with the reclamation laws, the construction of the Cachuma Reservoir which, tied in with plans for the enlargement of Gibraltar Dam, indicated the desirability of using plan 1 as recommended by the Department of Agriculture. The suggested language specifically designates plan 1 as the plan to be followed by the Department of Agriculture. (2) In the subwatersheds of the lower part of the Santa Ynez River watershed, where the Soil Conservation Service is assisting the Lompoc soil-conservation district and the land owners and operators of the area in the installation of works of improvement under the floodcontrol legislation, it has been found that the measures recommended 10 years ago when the survey was being made are not sufficient today to achieve the objectives outlined in the survey report; in other words, the sources of floodwater and sediment damage in the subwatershed areas are in much worse condition now to produce rapid run-off and severe erosion than they were when the kind and amount of measures and costs were originally estimated.

Deeply entrenched gullies dissecting the upland valleys have encroached still further in length and depth in the past 10 years. Structural controls are needed adequate to stop immediately the further advance of these gullies as well as to stabilize the highly erosible banks. The condition has been aggravated further by the construction of many miles of paved roads in the upper reaches of the watershed, greatly increasing the possibility of flash-flood run-off. The beds of the channels of the tributary gullies are so steep that stabilizing measures are essential for safe handling of run-off water. A diversion channel is required across the flood plain from the lower ends of the three tributary valleys to lead run-off from them down to the Santa Ynez River. If this is not provided, the flood plain of the mainstream will continue to suffer severe flooding and sediment damage. This is productive land in high-value crops such as vegetables, sugar beets and flower seeds. Even with the increase in the estimated cost, there will still be a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 2 to 1.

In the work that has been done thus far in getting this program under way, splendid cooperation has been provided by the local people. Arrangements are under way to assure local maintenance of the work so that, once the measures are functioning, they will continue to do so.

The Department felt that, because of the condition found on the watershed when they started making their work plans, it was going to cost much more money than had originally been estimated, due to the deteriorated conditions, and that in fairness to the condition, we should come back here and tell you before we proceeded further with installation of other measures.

The CHAIRMAN. This case presents a most unusual situation. This watershed project, on the recommendation of the Department of Agriculture, was adopted in this language:

It is hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture at an estimated cost of $434,000.

Now, in that report there were two plans recommended, were there not?

Mr. PHILLIPS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. One of them was at an estimated cost of $434,000 and the other one was an estimated cost of $425,300.

Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We adopted your recommendation, and we approved the estimated cost which was the higher of the two submitted. Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Subsequently, the very capable Representative from that district, Mr. Bramblett, asked for a review of that adopted project, with a view of undertaking to secure information that would result in a modification of it. Is that true?

Mr. PHILLIPS. No.

My understanding is that because of the information we developed as we started installation of measures, it was found that the cost would be greater.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, now. Do I not understand correctly that we have adopted the project. We have your report here. In that report, one plan is stated as costing $425,300 and the other is stated as costing $434,000.

Now, before this committee, under the law, and under the rules that have obtained, can change a project, it is necessary that there be a review resolution of the Corps of Engineers, which we have never had with respect to a revision of these watershed projects.

There is pending before the Committee on Flood Control a review resolution that has been introduced by the Representative from that district, and you, for the Department of Agriculture, have submitted a report on it.

You have done the right thing to report to us that the project as already adopted will not do the work required of it. Ordinarily, it would be necessary for us to have a report through channels to be published as a document, when that resolution has been considered by the committee. This, then, is a rather unusual case, and I do not know how we are going to handle these watershed projects unless it is done by a review resolution. I do not know how we are going to adopt a

92329-49- -59

new project or an additional project which will cost substantially two or three times the amount we had expected it would cost until we have had a review formally adopted.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I would like to make it clear, that the project itself has not changed and still has the same objectives. The only difference is that, due to the deterioration, the deepening of the gullies, the lengthening of the gullies, larger structures will be required than would have been necessary 10 years ago for the same purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand that. You have done very well to tell us that.

In other words, it is not just a question of increasing the cost of a project that has been favorably reported and favorably considered, nor is it a question of increasing the cost of the alternate plan which was embraced in this document. Instead you come before us now and want to change the plan and put in a deeper project because neither of these two plans will do the job.

Mr. PHILLIPS. We are just saying that the original plan will cost

more money now.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the original plan that was adopted will cost now $1,500,000, the estimated cost of which was originally $434,000? Mr. PHILLIPS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. If the plan is the same and if there is no change except the increase in cost, you do not have to have an additional authorization.

Mr. PILLIPS. That is all that is involved.

The CHAIRMAN. If I understand correctly, the originally estimated cost of plan No. 1 was $425,300?

Mr. PHILLIPS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. That plan would now cost $1,500,000?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes, without any change whatsoever.

The CHAIRMAN. There would be no change in the structure of that plan?

Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct, sir. It would have the same objectives.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about the objectives; I am talking about the works. Will you have to increase the size of the project? Mr. PHILLIPS. Some of the actual structures will be larger than they would have been before, because the gullies are deeper and wider. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean that you must dig the gullies deeper and wider?

Mr. PHILLIPS. It will take more material to put dams across them. The CHAIRMAN. If you have to enlarge the project, then we have not merely an increased cost for the same type of work.

Mr. PHILLIPS. We think that from a watershed standpoint, it is the same job exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, but you have enlargements which will require further works; is that right?

Mr. PHILLIPS. No.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I think Mr. Phillips is attempting to say that the erosion of the land requires the projects to be enlarged. The erosion has increased the necessity and has made it necessary to build larger structures to hold back more water than was originally planned.

Plan No. 1, which had an originally estimated cost of $425,300 will cost now $1,831,500.

If this project

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that thoroughly. which we originally authorized at an estimated cost of $434,000 was merely a matter of increasing the cost of the same structure and did not involve a change in the structure itself, you would have a perfect right to go ahead.

However, you cannot change the project unless a different project is adopted.

Now, I do not know what the committee is going to do.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the policy of the committee is in a matter of this kind.

The CHAIRMAN. We have never had a similar matter before us.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. The object is to conserve the same soil within the area indicated on the map now before us. Is that not the point? Mr. PHILLIPS. Exactly, sir.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. The original plan of conserving the soil called for an expenditure of $425,300. Now they find that they cannot conserve the soil of that area without an expenditure of $1,831,500, because in the interim, erosion has made it necessary to build larger structures than were first planned.

Mr. PHILLIPS. The same plans are involved from the standpoint of erosion, from the standpoint of hazard from flooding, and from the standpoint of sedimentation.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Now, are there any new projects, any new channels, to be built, or any new dams to be built, projects that were originally not planned?

Mr. PHILLIPS. No.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Then I should say that the committee ought to recognize the fact that erosion has caused the increase in cost and that the request has been timely brought to our attention.

We want to go ahead.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me. We understand that. Let there be no misunderstanding. We authorized this project at a cost of $425,300. Now, will the work on that project be materially increased, or is it a question of the increased cost of the work planned?

Mr. PHILLIPS. What is involved is the increased cost to get to the same objective.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you please answer my question? .Of course, you are protecting the same land in the same watershed.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. But you have got to do more work now to do that, do you not?

Mr. PHILLIPS. It is more expensive work; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you just describe the difference between the two works?

Mr. PHILLIPS. In the first place, to control the run-off from the higher areas to the lower reaches, we must stabilize the gullies so that their bottoms do not cut deeper and undercut and widen the side. They must be stabilized structures. We must now build structures to do the same thing they would have done 10 years ago.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I think another thing the committee ought to understand is that this land is subject to erosion more rapidly than some other sections of the country. They have a heavy rainfall which washes down on what is a sandy loam. Is that not the case?

« PreviousContinue »