« PreviousContinue »
gation and reclamation over a period of 40 years and more. They are the agency that is best qualified to determine whether there are irrigation or reclamation benefits to be derived from any of these structures.
Senator OVERTON. On the other hand, the Army engineers have been in charge of and in control of dams for flood control, and they are in a better position to determine how much the dam should be used for flood control.
Mr. CALLAND. That is correct.
Senator OVERTON. You just cannot have two in control. You cannot serve two masters, the Bureau of Reclamation and the War Department. You cannot serve them both.
As far as I am concerned, I am not going to vote to put the dual control of any dam, whether it be for irrigation or whether it be for flood control or for navigation, under two different masters. You have got to have one. This provision in this bill, and my amendment that we put in the river and harbor bill along similar lines, it seems to me, answer the objection that you have. Where a dam is predominantly for flood control it ought to be constructed by the Army engineers and be under their control, and then the surface storage required for irrigation and the use of the water for irrigation is under the control of the Bureau of Reclamation. On the other hand, the reclamation dams ought to be under the control of the Secretary of the Interior.
I do not see any other answer to it.
Mr. CALLAND. These multiple-purpose reservoirs of course serve both purposes.
Senator OVERTON. Certainly.
Senator OVERTON. Surely. But we are not going to let the lesser purpose control the major purpose.
Mr. CALLAND. Senator, may I refer to the tabulation?
Senator OVERTON. Suppose we get down to this. Let us hear about these dams. I want to know. Now, take the Terminus and Success Reservoirs on the Kaweah and Tule Rivers. Just answer specifically, are they predominantly flood control, so far as storage capacity is concerned, or are they predominantly irrigation ?
Mr. KERR. I think a word is necessary in explaining this predominance of flood-control space.
Senator OVERTON. Let me interrupt you. I do not want you to give me your view on the predominance, of what you consider the more important, because you are going to view it from the standpoint of the Bureau of Reclamation. Mr. KERR. I view it from both standpoints.
Senator OVERTON. On the other hand, the Army engineers will come along and view it from the standpoint of its value to flood control; but I want to know as to the conservation of water. Which is predominant in these reservoirs ?
Mr. KERR. I will tell you how that works.
Senator OVERTON. Can you answer the question asked? Which is it?
Mr. KERR. Irrigation is predominant in all of these reservoirs except one or two.
Senator OVERTON. And storage is predominantly for irrigation? Mr. KERR. Yes. Senator OVERTON. Very well. Mr. KERR. Because, in this way, it is not the space that you fill at one time, it is the space you use over a period of time. Let us take the flood season in California. You may get floods from December 1 to April 1. You hold certain space available in the reservoir to kill those floods. Then, on April 1, after that, the whole reservoir is used for irrigation the rest of the year, for the rest of the run-off season; so your flood-control function is performed maybe 2 or 3 days a year, whereas your irrigation is performed over practically all of the year, after April 1; a good deal of it previous to April 1.
Senator OVERTON. If you keep the dam stored for irrigation, would it interfere with its operation for flood control?
Mr. KERR. No; not the way we operate them. There is no danger of flood after April 1; so we use it for irrigation and let the snow water fill it, and empty it, for irrigation; so that it is empty again at the beginning of the next flood season.
Senator OVERTON. Is that statement applicable too, to the Kings River and Tulare Lake Basin?
Mr. KERR. Yes; it is applicable to the Isabella which you just mentioned, it is applicable on the Tule River at the Success site, it is applicable on the Kaweah River at the Terminus site, it is applicable on Kings River, in just the way that the Army and the Bureau have agreed to operate the reservoir at Friant.
Senator BURTON. That is why that would be a material factor in connection with the paragraph that I read, that the Secretary of the Interior could prescribe the regulations and the Army would observe them; but when you get my point, as to how high you get that dam, and whether or not it should be built in a certain way to protect the flood control, that is theory, leaving aside the factor of the experience up and down the line by which the Army engineers have become experts on building dams throughout the country, would they not control thereby the construction of the dam, and proceed to operate during a major portion of the year, as regulated here?
Mr. KERR. The Army engineers seem agreeable for us to operate Shasta Dam under regulations laid down for its operation for flood control, and the Army engineers in their reports on Kings and the Kaweah and the Tule Rivers and the Kern River propose to turn those reservoirs over to the operation of the local people under the rules laid down for flood-control operation otherwise as they were needed to be operated for irrigation.
Senator BURTON. But they want a dam of a size and type that is proper when the flood comes in, so it will take care of the people?
Mr. KERR. Yes.
Senator BURTON. And which will not need much operating of it, but just to catch the flood ?
Mr. KERR. They decide the space that shall be left open at the top to kill the floods.
Senator BURTON. While you are on the list, those on the lower end of the Littlejohn Creek and Calaveras River on which we had testimony, I think it was, day before yesterday, in which there was a great emphasis placed on the large proportion of its value for flood control and the comparatively small value for irrigation, in the ratio of 365 to 15.
Mr. KERR. The Calaveras River has an average flow through the driest period of record, a 7-year period, of 66,000 acre-feet a year. That water can be put into one of these transfer canals which I showed you on the map. It can be taken down, if it could be taken down into this lower San Joaquin Valley, which in effect it would be, through transfers, it is enough to irrigate 33,000 acres with a steady, good supply every year, because of the underground storage that is in the lower San Joaquin.
Now, that water is very valuable for irrigation. You can imagine the value of crop production on 33,000 acres.
Senator OVERTON. Is there anything in this bill that prevents such irrigation ?
Mr. KERR. No; but we want to be sure that it is built to the right size. The Army engineers do not want to build it big enough to do the storage job as well as the flood-control job. Locally they have indicated they probably will increase the size of it.
General ROBINS. We will raise that dam to the exact height that they want it.
Senator OVERTON. I have understood from the engineers that they are perfectly willing to raise it to whatever height the Bureau of Reclamation desires. Mr. KERR. Yes; but there is nothing here to show that in the bill.
Senator OVERTON. It does not specify it certainly in the bill, what the heights of the dams shall be. That is not specified in any bill.
Mr. KERR. We are at a considerable disadvantage because the bill you know does not say what the latest Army reports say. Locally they have assured me that they will probably make them larger. The other reservoirs in here, too, they may make larger. That is a thing we are studying now. If this hearing could be six months from now, we would be together on these things a great deal nearer.
Senator OVERTON. All right. Have you any further statement to make?
Mr. CALLAND. I have no further statement, Mr. Chairman.
Senator OVERTON. It is 20 minutes to 1. Have you some additional witnesses on your side?
Mr. CALLAND. No; we have not.
Senator OVERTON. The proponents of the bill will be heard this afternoon.
We will start at 2 o'clock.
Mr. CALLAND. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before your committee, and thank you for your courteous treatment. Senator OVERTON. We are very glad to have you come. (Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 2 p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION The committee reconvened at 2:15 p. m., upon the expiration of the recess.
Senator OVERTON. The committee will come to order.
Is Mr. Carter here? Mr. CARTER. Yes.
Senator OVERTON. Mr. Carter, would you step around and sit opposite the official reporter?
STATEMENT OF HON. OLIVER J. CARTER, STATE SENATOR, FIFTH
SENATORIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator OVERTON. Will you give your name and what State office you occupy, and give your residence?
Mr. CARTER. My name is Oliver J. Carter, Redding, Calif. I am State senator from the Fifth Senatorial District of California, represeting Shasta and Trinity Counties. I also represent here the city of Redding, Calif., and the County of Shasta, Calif., and the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Redding.
I am appearing here in opposition to the provisions for the Table Mountain Dam of the Sacramento portion of the flood-control bill, being in lines 9 to 25 on page 20 and lines 1 to 2 on page 21. The authorization requested by the Corps of Engineers in this portion of the bill covers more than purely the Table Mountain Dam; it covers other flood-control works in the nature of levees, channel clearing, and also in the construction of what is known as the Black Butte Dam on Stony Creek. I have or my people have no objection to those works, and our objection is only to the Table Mountain Dam feature.
Now, the people I represent are upstream owners from the dam; they are the people who will be flooded out by the operation of the dam; and, since the effect of this dam has not been explained to this committee, I think that some little background should be developed on that, and I would like to ask some of the representatives of the Corps of Enginers a few questions with respect to the height of the dam, the acreage covered, and so as to bring that out so that I can intelligently discuss our position on the matter.
Senator OVERTON. You know now what their answer is going to be, don't you?
Mr. CARTER. I know what their answer is, but I want you to know.
Senator OVERTON. Well, we shall find out. We shall put the engineers on in due course. Mr. CARTER. Yes.
Senator OVERTON. But I think it would be better procedure for you to make your statement with the information that is before you and with your knowledge of the situation, and give us the benefit of your advice and counsel.
Mr. CARTER. Well, one of the situations is that the report of the Chief of Enginers has not yet been filed on this, or at least to the best of my knowledge it has not been filed, and this project is based on an interim report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and the Chief's report is to be filed at a later date. Now, what information it contains I do not know. I assume that it is based on the same information that was in the interim report and that which is in the report of the district engineer.
This is another low-dam high-dam situation similar to that of the
Senator OVERTON. Well, now let me say this: The bill on page 20 declares that the projects to which you are referringare hereby modified substantially in accordance with the recommendation of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors dated February 7, 1944, with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers may be advisable. And are you familiar with the recommendation of the Board of Engineers?
Mr. CARTER. I am.
Mr. CARTER. But I say this has a low-dam high-dam feature. I say that understanding that the House of Representatives has limited this to a low dam as nearly as it is legislatively possible to do so.
Senator OVERTON. That is correct; yes. Mr. CARTER. But that does not withdraw the high dam completely from the picture, because the position is this: That the report of the Corps of Engineers sets this out as an initial stage of construction. Now, the proposition will develop, as was disclosed by Mr. Calland of the Bureau of Reclamation, that eventually there will be a desire to store a considerable amount of water there for irrigation purposes, with a desire to raise that dam, from one of a number of Federal agencies.
Senator OVERTON. In that connection, though, the House bill provides that the low-level dam must be built on a foundation sufficient for such a dam.
Mr. CARTER. That is right.
Senator OVERTON. And not on a foundation for the construction of a high dam. Mr. CARTER. That is a correct statement.
Senator OVERTON. Now, if they build it on a low-dam foundation, is it feasible engineeringly for them to go back and enlarge that foundation and go on up?
Mr. CARTER. Well, I am not an engineer, so I cannot answer that question except to say that I understand that it is possible to do so, but that that is something
Senator OVERTON. All right.
Mr. CARTER. And that it is a possibility in the future in this respect: you are just getting your foot in the door, and 15 or 20 years later you are going to say, “Well, now, we have destroyed the most productive agricultural land that you have there. We may as well take the rest of it for the other purposes that are intended."
Senator BURTON. Might I ask, What proviso do you recommend ?
Mr. CARTER. We recommend that an alternative be used to accomplish the same purpose; that is, an alternative of constructing dams on the tributaries that run into the Sacramento River below Shasta Dam.
Senator BURTON. That is, you are opposing the low level and the high level both, and you want
Mr. CARTER. Yes; that is correct.
Now, to give you the background: Shasta Dam, which is the major unit of the Central Valley project, has been constructed by the Bureau