system and complete them, and then to take the flood question of the upper Sacramento Valley that has to be taken care of by the Table Mountain Dam and to determine if it cannot be handled in another way that will not be damaging to valuable property.

Between Shasta Dam and Table Mountain there are four major streams that run into the Sacramento River, two from the east side and two from the west side; they are not on the map there, but namely they are Clear Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Battle Creek, and Cow Creek. These streams cause considerable flood damage in my own county, and our people are anxious to have them controlled, and in so controlling them you could control a portion of the floods of the Sacramento River, and by going farther into Tehama County and doing work on Mill Creek, on Antelope Creek, Elder Creek, and Thomas Creek, you could take care of more flood water than you can handle at Table Mountain Dam site in acre-foot storage and would prevent considerable flood damage from the tributaries that now exist.

Now, therefore, we concur in the view of the Bureau of Reclamation to this extent: That action on this should be deferred and it should be eliminated from this bill until the whole problem has been coordinated and a logical solution has been reached. We do not agree with the conclusion of the Bureau of Reclamation that a dam should be built at Table Mountain ultimately, but we are willing to meet any Federal agency or any governmental agency which proposed to build a dam at Table Mountain-a high dam or a low dam either at the time that is presented, upon the facts, because we maintain that the problem can be solved in another manner and which will be satisfactory to both sides.

Senator OVERTON. What will the people living along Feather River, for instance, say when they start constructing the dam there and flood their land?

Mr. CARTER. Well, my answer is that they are going to――
Senator OVERTON. Say the same thing?

Mr. CARTER. No, sir.

Senator OVERTON. They are not?

Mr. CARTER. I talked to the assemblyman from Butte County about the Oroville Dam and Feather River.

Senator OVERTON. Is that true about the Feather River and the American River too; in fact, all

Mr. CARTER. They are on tributaries, and they inundate very little agricultural land.

Now, I ask the Representative from Sacramento County about the Folsom Dam on the Sacramento River-on the American River, on which Senator Downey appeared before this committee, and Congressman Johnson, asking that they be included in this project, because the local support there is almost unanimous in support of that dam. Now, this is the first opportunity that we have ever had to appear before any open forum to express our views in the matter. The interim report of the Rivers and Harbors Board of the Corps of Army Engineers was not filed until February 7. It was not made available to us until shortly before this bill was introduced in Congress. Senator OVERTON. Yes.

Mr. CARTER. No, hearings have never been held by the Army. No contacts have ever been made of any govermental officials or of

any of the persons who are vitally involved in the area behind the dam, until the bill was introduced in Congress. Our advice and our opinion has never been sought by the Corps of Army Engineers on this question, although, as I understand it, these plans have been in the making for many years. The people who were to be damaged most by this have been totally ignored by the engineers as far as seeking their opinion or their advice on the question was concerned. Our Congressman, Congressman Engle, was requested by us to get some information on this matter when we heard from the people in the lower valley that something was being done by the Army engiOn February 15, I think it was, or shortly before that time, he made a request to the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives, and from the secretary of that committee and a representative of the War Department. He was informed that this was purely an interim report and that no action would be taken on it at this time, and we would have a full opportunity to present our side of the case. He wired that information to us. Subsequent to that time he then wired that the matter was coming up immediately. We sent a representative to Washington to appear before the Flood Control Committee, and he was denied the opportunity to present the matter before that committee except by filing a written statement, and the bill was filed on March 14 or 15, and we had no opportunity to examine the information, we had none of the reports, and we didn't even know the extent of the damage.

The day after the bill was introduced in Congress the district engineer called on our people and asked us if we would not withdraw our objection to the low dam. In other words, he had changed from the position of being a disinterested party weighing the facts and had become an advocate. And that has been the position of the Corps of Army Engineers all through this matter. They have been advocates and not disinterested investigators.

Now, I have this to say: There is no provision in this legislation or in the plan of the Corps of Army Engineers to take care of the problem of the lands of our county which will be retired from taxation. As I say, approximately 45 percent of our county is in public ownership and is therefore not subject to taxation. And when I say public ownership, I mean that it is owned by the United States of America and therefore is not subject to taxation. And this will increase that percentage to a little more than 45 percent. In total percentage it will not be great, but in percentage of assessed valuation it will be rather high, because it is one of the most valuable sections of the county.

Now, I say our problem is similar to the one that you had before you yesterday in the Vermont question, but it does not cross State lines; it is purely a matter wholly within the State of California. Now, I want to point out

Senator OVERTON. Why so much of that county under Federal ownership?

Mr. CARTER. Why so much of it?

Senator OVERTON. Why? Is it open to homestead?
Mr. CARTER. What?

Senator OVERTON. Is it open to homestead law?

Mr. CARTER. Well, a considerable portion of it is not; some of it is in national forests. We have quite a bit of timberland in that county, and much of it is owned by national forests, but a considerable portion

of it is open to entry, either mineral or homestead. But the area that has been devoted to the Shasta Dam and the area that will be devoted to Table Mountain Dam and considerable sites on the streams which have been withdrawn from entry by the Federal Power Commission are not open for entry. I think the county of Shasta, where the three rivers come together has potentially the greatest hydroelectric development in the State of California. I would say that practically 30 percent of all the hydroelectric energy that could be developed there could be developed in one county. That is an estimate on my part, but already the private utility in the field has five major hydroelectric power plants, and Shasta Dam and Keswick Dam are the major hydroelectric power developments along those rivers where they come out of the mountains into the floor of the valley. So that a considerable portion of that land is not open to entry and is therefore retired from taxation forever. And that is a very, very pressing problem to our people at this time.

Now, I have another interest in this matter. As a member of the State legislature I am interested in the orderly development of the Central Valley project. And by orderly development I mean a coordinated plan by which some agency of government will develop the water resources of the State of California for the most beneficial use to the people. And living in a county where the Bureau of Reclamation has constructed the Shasta Dam, and having a rather full knowledge of some of the developments as proposed by the State water authority and by the Bureau of Reclamation, I believe that it has an orderly and a complete plan for the development of the waters of the Sacramento watershed which will not only accomplish flood control but will also conserve the water for use. I cannot say that I agree with the Bureau of Reclamation in all of the matters which they propose, but I think that the whole general plan is an orderly plan.

Now, they propose to take care of the major tributaries of the Sacramento River first, and then they will come back to the question of the upper Sacramento Valley when and if it is necessary. Now, it stands to reason that if the lower Sacramento River were cleared from the heavy waters that come in from the Feather River and the American River the upper river problem would be to a great extent solved; at least it would be assisted materially.

So I am fearful that this move on the part of the Corps of Engineers to enter into the field of multiple-purpose reservoirs under the guise of flood control would interfere with the priority of construction of the Central Valley project as laid down by the State water authority and will prevent the proper coordination of the whole plan; and if it is not completed in accordance with that plan, the people of the State of California will ultimately suffer.

I am not an engineer, so I cannot say as to whether the Army engineers have the same ideas as the Bureau of Reclamation, but I know that their priority of construtcion is entirely different, and that it is causing a severe battle in my end of the State because the people in the upper valley and the lower valley are very much at swords' points over the problem, and those people who have been beset by floods in the lower valley are naturally very much conscious of the flood-control problem. We are also conscious of it, and we are willing to dedicate the higher lands and the smaller streams to flood-control because

Senator OVERTON. You have given us that idea.

Mr. CARTER. What?

Senator OVERTON. I say I think you have given us that idea.
Mr. CARTER. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. But we have a great many witnesses here.

Mr. CARTER. I understand.

Senator OVERTON. Your principal objection is on account of the <lamage that will be created by the inundation of lands in your county? That is the main objection?

Mr. CARTER. That is one objection; that is correct.

Senator OVERTON. Well, that is the main objection, isn't it?

Mr. CARTER. No; I haven't

Senator OVERTON. Well, what is the main objection?

Mr. CARTER. Well, that is one.

class them as all of them important.

I don't class them as "main.” I

Now, there is one other problem that I must mention, and it has not been brought out here. The area between Shasta Dam and the proposed Table Mountain Dam on the Sacramento River is now the principal spawning bed for the salmon of the Sacramento River. This constitutes both a commercial and a sporting business. I am informed that the commercial income from salmon at the present time aproximates a million dollars annually; that the construction of Table Mountain Dam will effectually destroy that industry. I have asked the Corps of Engineers how they propose to handle the problem, ånd they say they are studying it. My consultation with the fish experts is that there is no answer to it; you will destroy the fishing rights.

Now, on top of the commercial interest our community in the past 5 years at least has enjoyed great recreational benefits from the sporting fishing for salmon, and the upper Sacramento River has been during salmon-fishing season one of the finest recreation spots in California. I have seen that recreational industry grow from small beginnings to where it represented a sizable income to our community. Now, the Corps of Engineers does not take that into consideration in figuring the cost-to-benefit ratio at all.

I do not know whether you understand it, but the salmon run up the rivers to spawn and then the fry come down to the ocean and grow in the ocean for 4 years, and they have a 5-year cycle and return and spawn again.

Senator OVERTON. I have heard something along that line.

Mr. CARTER. And they are one of the finest fish that the good Lord ever put in the streams, both for fishing and eating.

Senator OVERTON. Or in cans.

All right.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CARTER. Now, in making that statement I represent the Northern California Sportsmen's Association, an organization of approximately 600 members, and the Fish and Game Commission of the State of California has gone on record by a motion opposing the construction of any dam in the Sacramento River which will interfere with or destroy the salmon run.

Now, at one time during a stage of the these proceedings after the bill had been introduced into Congress the Corps of Engineers suggested that a dam might be constructed which would have permanent openings in it, for flood control only, and that it would not be as harmful to the salmon run. Since that time I have discussed the

matter with the district engineer, and he has withdrawn from that position, as I understand it, that the dam will not be for flood control only, that it will have other conservation features.

Now, I would like to know from the Corps of Engineers what portion of the waters behind that dam are dedicated to other conservation features, namely irrigation and hydroelectric power. I know how much is dedicated to flood control, or I have heard that it was 400,000 acre-feet. Now, how much is dedicated to the production of hydroelectric energy?

Senator OVERTON. Well, we are going to put the engineers on and go through all that.

Mr. CARTER. Well, I would like to have that point developed, because we take this position: While we cannot agree that a low dam for flood control only will not be damaging to us, that if it were developed for flood control only it would be less damaging, although in our opinion it will be very disastrous to us and it will eventually mean the ruination of our community, but the initial impact will be much less if it were operated for flood control only than for other conservation features.

As I understand, they will have to have a hundred thousand acrefeet-I have heard this, and it is pure hearsay with me, but I understand that they will require an approximate head of a hundred thousand acre-feet. For the development of hydroelectric energy they have to have about a 100-foot drop, and the waters will be regulated on Shasta Dam; but they have to have that much in the dam all the time or in the reservoir all the time in order to get the head to develop the hydroelectric energy.

Now, the people in the upper Sacramento Valley are interested, by their own testimony before the State reclamation board, only in flood control. They have specifically disclaimed any interest in that water for irrigation or for the development of hydroelectric energy. Now, that is not true, however, of the picture of the State as a whole, because the people down in the lower valley-that is, in the San Joaquin Valley-are very much interested in the water problem, and there is a disagreement on that, but the people who are being flooded are interested in flood control only, and they are not demanding irrigation features or hydroelectric development, and we take the position that it will be damaging to us in all events but that they should take into consideration the fact that the least damage possible should be done.

Senator OVERTON. All right, Mr. Carter; I think we understand. Senator BURTON. Just one question: What is your suggestion about the salmon? How would you take care of them?

Mr. CARTER. Well, there is only one way to take care of them, and that is to develop a tributary system in place of Table Mountain, and that will increase the salmon-spawning beds. And I should point out to you in that respect that the United States Government has already spent approximately two and a half million dollars in the salvage of the salmon as the result of the building of Shasta Dam. They have built a million two hundred thousand dollar hatchery at Coleman on Battle Creek and have built traps in Keswick Dam and supplied the necessary equipment. All of that expenditure will be rendered useless by the building of Table Mountain Dam, and that money has been spent within the last 2 years.