neers would have kept all Kings River water out of the Tulare Lake Basin during a cycle of wet years extending from 1936 to 1943 inclusive.

Irrigation benefits.-Several methods have been considered in the preparation of this report for determining the benefits to irrigation arising from the joint use with flood control of storage in the Pine Flat Reservoir in the amount of 422,000 acre-feet of primary capacity-the remaining 128,000 acre feet being assumed to be allocated to power uses. These methods included the considerations of the reduction in present costs for supplemental pumping as now practiced by the approximately 12,000 existing pumping plants; the value of the additional or new water supply made available by storage; the reduction in present pumping costs and evaporation losses in the Tulare Lake Basin; and the conditions in the various absorbent and nonabsorbent areas.

The different estimates made resulted in annual values to irrigation from storage obtainable from the operation of Pine Flat Reservoir varying from about $330,000 to $460,000. From these estimates it is concluded that the average annual value of the use of Pine Flat storage by irrgation is not more than $450,000 per annum.

Power development.-Power development at the Pine Flat Dam was not found to be economically feasible except in connection with power storage on the North Fork where excellent power sites exist. It is believed that a discussion of the power features is not germane to the question as to which agency shall construct the project.

Extensive water rights have been established on Kings River under State laws dating back to 1860's. In, normal and subnormal years all of the flow is now diverted and put to beneficial use by these rights. Our report finds that with storage and supplemental pumping from the underground, the Kings River water supply will be sufficient for the developed area. It also shows definitely that no water is available for the irrigation of new land.

The local people, whom I take to be the irrigationists are heartily in favor of the Army plan. Based upon extensive studies and investigations by their engineers which agree with those of the Corps of Engineers the local interests are convinced that the project is dominantly flood control. The ratio of benefits of flood control to irrigation is 2.6 to 1. During the last three years the flood damage in the Lake Basin alone is greater than the estimated cost of the Pine Flat Dam.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. HENDERSON, BAKERSFIELD, CALIF.

Mr. HENDERSON. My name is George L. Henderson, Bakersfield, Calif. I am a graduate civil engineer of the University of California in 1919. I have had 25 years experience in the practice of hydraulic and irrigation engineer. For the past 14 years I have been chief engineer of 14 of the 15 canal units, the irrigations units, of the Kern River. I have been authorized to represent the fifteenth here today at this hearing.

Senator OVERTON. Fifteen?

Mr. HENDERSON. Fifiteen units all together.

Senator OVERTON. Fifteen units all together?

Mr. HENDERSON. That is all the units on the river.

Senator OVERTON. Please state whether or not they are in favor of the provisions of this bill?

Mr. HENDERSON. These units are all heartily in favor of the provision contained in H. R. 4485 as they are.

Senator OVERTON. They are opposed to the Bureau of Reclamation taking over the Kern River?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes. These organizations irrigate approximately 300,000 acres and have developed their enterprise commencing in 1870. The system that was built up has under it lands of great fertility that produce many varities of crops. The works of irrigation above cost about $6,000,000 and have been built entirely by local in

terests. They have had no Federal or State financial help and have worked out their own problems. There has been no major litigation since 1888 when the matter of water rights was settled by an agreement that has been in force ever since and under which we operate today.

The matter of storage on the river has been studied for about 25 years and these studies culminated in a report, in 1928, that indicated that for the area having water rights on the river, 300,000 acres, a capacity of 150,000 acre-feet was the maximum storage possible for this purpose alone. The water users felt that the nominal benefits did not justify the cost and the project was abandoned. The storage of 150,000 acre-feet is only 27 percent of that proposed for flood control. The Army report proposes 550,000 acre-feet total storage and 500,000 acre-feet active storage.

The flood flows in the Kern River pass the city of Bakersfield shortly after leaving the mouth of the canyon. I will indicate that on the map, Mr. Chairman [indicating on map].

Bakersfield lies about 17 feet below the maximum flood plane of the river in the business district and has been in danger many times in the past 50 years, several times since 1937. For a period of about 21 years the river had a very low rate of flow, as the result of a great dry cycle in California. We became unconscious of the need for flood protection, but in the years since then as the result of many floods, we realize the need for additional protection. We had floods in 1937, 1938, 1941, and 1943. In 1938 we asked the Corps of Engineers to make an investigation and their report was completed in March 1940.

This, as Mr. Elliott explained, has been held up ever since then, until this spring, by the Bureau of the Budget. I don't need to go into details on that. However, the conclusions of the Army's report show that the cost would be $6,800,000 and that the average annual benefits would be as follows: Flood control, $732,700, irrigation, $153,000; and benefits to existing power plants, $32,000. There are no possibilities on the stream below for any additional power units. The ratio of the flood benefit to irrigation on that basis is 4.8 tol, and the flood benefits amount to over twice the average annual cost.

On the other hand the Bureau in their analysis which was filed with the House Committee in August 1943, showed flood control benefit of $262,000 as compared to $732,700 by the Army and irrigation benefit $410,000 as against $153,000 by the Army. Power benefit of $68,000 is twice that shown by the Army report. In this particular case the ratio of irrigation benefit to flood control is 1% to 1. In other words, it is just the reverse of the Army report. For nearly a year following our receipt of their report we had many conferences with Bureau engineers during which we pointed out to them many discrepancies in the available data, practically all of which was given them by us from our very complete files extending over a period of 50 years. The Chief Engineer of the Bureau finally wrote us on August 25, 1942, and on November 25, 1942, these letters being a part of the record before the House Flood Control Committee in part II, H. R. 4485, pages 757 and 758. In the first letter he states that new principles would be followed in determining flood benefits, the result of which would be to increase this feature. In his letter of November 25 he outlines the principles to be followed. Notwith

standing this correspondence the report finally submitted August 17, 1943, by the Bureau to the House committee was identical in every particular with the preliminary draft. If the proper principles of calculation proposed in their letters had been used the flood benefit would have been so materially increased that it would have assumed definite dominance.

In that particular, Mr. Chairman, we filed with the Flood Control Committee of the House a memorandum of which I would like to leave a copy with you. It is in the record and outlines the methods. of analysis and our many differences in that respect. Failure to use these methods in the first place tended to reduce the flood benefit from $732,700, as shown in the Army report, to $262,000.

In the case of irrigation benefit in calculating the value of an increase in useful water brought about by regulation, the only method of any merit, which is the one used by ourselves and the Army, multiplies the increase of useful water by certain dollar values per acrefoot, which are predicated upon reasonably established practices. This was not done by the Bureau, who, on the other hand, used methods based upon radically unsound assumptions.

In addition, the Bureau credited $209,000 as an irrigation benefit for the prevention of further flooding in the Buena Vista Lake area instead of crediting this to flood prevention. It can be said that this area is used in times of high floods as a reservoir to absorb excess flows which would otherwise cause great damage to farming lands lying to the north and ultimately also in Tulare Lake. Two small portions are also used at other times for regulation of normal flow. But except for flood years, this area of 25,000 acres produces crops of great value which are destroyed or prevented in order that floods do not damage other lands and their crops.

This Buena Vista Lake area has no water right, yet the Bureau calls the protection from floods an irrigation benefit, but finally in the allocation of the costs to the various irrigation interests, makes no charge to Buena Vista Lake lands for its protection.

The result of all this was to raise the irrigation benefit to $410,500, as compared to $153,000 which was estimated by the district and division engineers of the Army, and which closely approaches our own calculations.

Senator BURTON. You have got that really as flood benefit and not as irrigation?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes.

Senator BURTON. Because it happens to be irrigated land?

Mr. HENDERSON. It is irrigated land that is flooded.

Senator BURTON. And not charged in, to recompense the Government?

Mr. HENDERSON. It is irrigated land that is flooded, in order that other land may be protected from floodings.

The findings of both of these Federal agencies are presumed to be based upon studies made up of the same data, virtually all of which was furnished by us. These widely differing results are quite incomprehensible and are the reason for our own independent studies, which have verified the Army's conclusions.

After the Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Reclamation had written, as he did, finally agreeing to the following of sound principles of analysis of the flood damages, we were astounded to find that the

report they filed with the House committee was identical with the report they had agreed in writing would be revised.

The 1937-38 damages from Kern River were in excess of $3,000,000. Historically, these as well as earlier floods are well established in the report of the Army. Since the completion of this report, however, there have been two additional heavy flood years, 1941 and 1943. In the Tulare Lake Basin, into which flow the floodwaters of the Kern, Tule, Kaweah, and Kings Rivers, it is estimated that an additional loss of $19,000,000 has been experienced. In 1943 $10,000,000 of this loss occurred, for which the Kern River furnished 40 percent of the floodwater. Our city of Bakersfield has been endangered several times in the past 3 years, and our farming lands, oil fields, railroads, highways, and public utilities have been damaged or threatened. A great deal of this loss could have been prevented if the proposed program could have been carried out when first presented.

We have several oil fields which are exposed to danger of flooding. These fields are highly productive and have been referred to in some detail in the House hearings.

In one field alone the operators and owners have spent $500,000 for a protective, system. This is the Coles Levee Field. In the Paloma Field, oil of a gravity of 50 to 55 degrees is found. A reserve of 85,400,000 barrels of oil has been estimated and a reserve of 581,000,000,000 cubic feet of wet gas. It is possible, when properly handled, to recover 75 percent of the oil and 95 percent of the gas for the war program. These fields must be protected.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I was wondering if Mr. Harris could be permitted to make his statement now as he has to get away.

Mr. HENDERSON. That will be satisfactory to me. I can finish this up, I will go over it and submit it to the committee.

Senator OVERTON. All right. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF RONALD B. HARRIS, REPRESENTING IRRIGATION DISTRICT ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO, CALIF.

Mr. HARRIS. My name is Ronald B. Harris. I am here representing the Irrigation District Association of California. This Irrigation District Association has been in existence for more than 25 years and represents irrigation districts from the Mexican border to the northern limits of California. It is not a paper organization. It is one of the functions of this association to follow legislation and we are here now for the first time for our first appearance at any time here in Washington except for Mr. Althouse's appearance before this committee on the rivers and harbors bill.

Senator OVERTON. What is the membership composed of, local districts?

Mr. HARRIS. I have a statement here, it does not quite contain all the irrigation districts. It includes reclamation districts and water storage districts.

Senator OVERTON. How many districts are there that are members? Mr. HARRIS. About ninety-odd. Here is a statement of what it consists of.

Senator OVERTON. How many irrigation districts are there in Central Valley?

Mr. HARRIS. I don't know exactly.

Senator OVERTON. Does anybody know how many irrigation districts there are?

Mr. HARRIS. Here is a map showing in detail the irrigation districts, reclamation districts, public utility districts, water districts, and so forth. We do not represent the public utility district. Senator OVERTON. Are there 50 districts in that?

Mr. HARRIS. Oh, yes; there are more than that.

Senator OVERTON. I want to know approximately how many there are in the Central Valley.

Mr. HARRIS. I cannot give you that exactly.

Senator OVERTON. No; not exactly, but approximately?

Mr. HARRIS. Well, I would say 50 or more. What I am speaking for is this flood-control program of the Army which takes in the whole State. I am speaking for San Diego and Los Angeles, and all the other projects, and this association in support of the Army program for flood control in the State of California. The irrigation districts in the State of California in the Ceneral Valley are opposed to any further encroachment into the State of California by the Reclamation Bureau. The Bureau came in with the original authorization which was presented to the President by the Secretary which was mentioned here this morning, in connection with this project of $170,000,000 for the Shasta project, the Contra Costa canal and the other units pertaining to that in the State. Since then they have expanded their dream and their program to take in all the streams of the State, take all the water of the State, take all the power of the State. One man responsible to the President of the United States will then own all the power and water of the State of California and will be dominated and controlled by that one man.

Senator OVERTON. Are there any districts in the State that are in favor of that?

Mr. HARRIS. No. We are starting now initiating a program for the purpose of recapturing for the State of California those properties that the Bureau has seen fit to take away from us. It was in 1937 or 1938 that Congress turned the revenues from power development over to the Treasury of the United States forever. When we asked the Reclamation Bureau to come in on that construction that law didn't exist. So what we want to do is this, what our aim will be through our legislature, through our water authority of the State is to properly negotiate a contract between the Bureau and the water authority of the State of California wherein we will repay the loan of the money that has been advanced for the construction of the Central Valley project and as we pay the loan we will own it ourselves. The credit of the State will be behind it. We did not intend ever to sell our properties for a loan, but that is what it amounts to. Now then, the heart of this great dream of theirs of socialization and communism is what they call the Great Central Valley project. We want to have something to say about that. Therefore our only idea is to get it back within the control of our State, water authority, so that we may say what is to be done with the water and the power and with the high civilization which they describe as existing there.

Senator ÖVERTON. The Association of Irrigation Districts of California which you represent is bitterly opposed to the Bureau of Reclamation being placed in charge?