Page images
PDF
EPUB

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Dam and the area that will be devoted to Table Mountain Dam and considerable sites on the streams which have been withdrawn from entry by the Federal Power Commission are not open for entry.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

class on, therhit out

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. I don't class them as “main." I
class them as all of them important.

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 (onstitutes 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 cver put in the streams, both for fishing and eating.

Senator OVERTON. Or in cans. [Laughter.] All right. 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.

Senator OVERTON. Do you know anything about the use of ladders? Mr. CARTER. I am quite familiar with them. We have that problem all the time in the development of dams, and it is not satisfactory in this case.

Senator OVERTON. Why not?
Mr. CARTER. The dam is too high.

Senator OVERTON. It would be interesting to me if you would describe the ladders and the use of them to get the salmon upstream.

Mr. CARTER. The ladders in our country, and there aren't very many of them because we have our—oh, they have several kinds. On the smaller dams they are just merely stages of construction where the water is falling down, and they do not have them over the higher dams. They are just over the dams on lower elevations so that the salmon can bypass the dam by going up this ladder, and the waters always keep in the fish. There is a small fish ladder in the Anderson and Cottonwood diversion dam right at Redding. That is just a diversion dam, and it is only about 10 or 15 feet high, but it has a ladder on the right side or on the north side of the river which has about 6 stages of elevation, and you can see those big salmon jumping from one elevation to another. As a matter of fact, sometimes they can jump the dam completely. I have seen big salmon which were cut off from the upper river jump clear over a 15-foot dam.

Senator BURTON. The ladder is more like a ramp than a ladder, isn't it?

Mr. CARTER. Well, except that it has definite-
Senator BURTON. Steps in it?

Mr. CARTER. Steps in it. It is not a continual flow of water, and they go from one pool to another. That is the purpose.

Now, I understand that in Bonneville and other places they have elevators and all that sort of thing, and that is out of my scope; it is a little too big a venture. But I am informed that if you could get the salmon over Table Mountain Dam, which is possible although very expensive, you never would get the fry back because the change in pressure when you released them would destroy them; and that the possibility of a success of the salvage program for Table Mountain Dam, without the spawning beds that are covered by the lake behind Table Mountain Dam, is very questionable (No. 1); and it will be much more expensive than the salvage program that was established under the supervision of the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Shasta Dam.

Now, we don't even know whether that salvage program is going to work, because the 4- or the 5-year cycle has not passed, but we have every hope that it will. And the salmon industry in California is a growing industry and very important both from the sporting and commercial point of view; and, as I say, while the Army says, “We will try to devise some program," they have none devised, and I am informed they cannot satisfactorily supply the necessary program, whereas they could get the flood control by going onto the tributaries and handling the problem in that manner.

I think that covers in sum and substance what I have to say. I would be glad to answer any questions.

Senator OVERTON. I think you have covered them very well, Mr. Carter, and we thank you very much, Senator.

Mr. CARTER. Thank you for the courtesy.
Senator OVERTON. You are welcome.
(Mr. Carter withdrew from the committee table.)
Senator OVERTON. Now, Congressman Elliott.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALFRED J. ELLIOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE TENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator OVERTON. You had better give your name, Congressman.

Representative ELLIOTT. Congressman Elliott, Tenth District, California.

Senator OVERTON. I wish you would mention, before we start, just what features of the bill you want to discuss.

Representative ELLIOTT. I am going to discuss just for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, Table Mountain, and then I will devote the rest of my statements to Kings, Kern, Tule, and Kaweah, covering those four dam sites in that area.

Senator OVERTON. All right.
Representative ELLIOTT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Mr.-
Senator OVERTON. Are they all in your district ?

Representative ELLIOTT. Those three dams are in my district, and the flood damages in connection with the Kings River Pine Flat Dam are all in my district although the dam construction will be over the line of my district.

Before I proceed on those streams I would like for the benefit of Mr. Carter-I mean Mr. Carr who just testified here. Mr. CARTER. No; it is Carter. Representative ELLIOTT. Carter? Is it Carr?

I am a member of the Flood Control Committee of the House, and this Table Mountain Dam site came before the committee. Now, the gentleman made the statement that they were not permitteed to testify or make a statement regarding the Table Mountain Dam site. This is the amendment provision on page 20 in the bill, and I read: :

That this modification of the project shall not be construed to authorize the construction of a high dam at the Table Mountain site but shall authorize only the low-level project to approximately the elevation of 400 feet above mean sea level, said low-level dam to be built on a foundation sufficient for such dam and not on a foundation for future construction of a higher dam.

I want to bring that to the attention of the committee, as a member of the committee, and to defend the rights of our full committee. The hearings opened on the 1st day of February and closed on the 23d. Notices were sent out, appearing in many of the papers in the State of California, as to hearings on flood-control projects in all California.

And to correct the gentleman, on the hearings, flood-control hearings, plans, and projects on page 11033 you will find a statement in the record of Francis Carr in opposition to this.

Senator OVERTON. Is that Mr. Carter?

Representative ELLIOTT. The gentleman is in error when he said no one had an opportunity.

Senator OVERTON. He said he was permitted to file a statement.

« PreviousContinue »