Senator OVERTON. That completes the list, then? Representative ENGLE. Then there is Mr. Mellin, from the State reclamation board. Mr. MELLIN. G. F. Mellin, assistant engineer and appraiser, State reclamation board, Sacramento, Calif. Representative ENGLE. J. B. Manthey, San Joaquin County. Mr. MANTHEY. J. B. Manthey. Mr. BRUECK. Karl C. Brueck, Flood Control Association of the lower San Joaquin River and its tributaries. Senator OVERTON. Now, we are running behind in our schedule. I know you come all the way from California and do not wish to return home without making a statement, and therefore the committee is cooperating with you so far as practicable, but I hope that your statements will be brief and to the point, in order that we may take up the projects that are on our schedule today as soon as we have finished with the present projects. All right, Representative Engle. STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIR ENGLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Representative ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, my name is Clair Engle. I am the Representative in Congress from the Second District of California. The proposed Table Mountain Dam will be in my district. I have two counties affected by the dam-one above it and one below it. Shasta County, the one above it, is strongly protesting the building of the dam; Tehama County, the one below, is strongly urging the building of the dam. There are a number of counties south of Tehama County on the Sacramento River benefited by the dam, but they are for the most part in the district of Congressman Lea. I am appearing in support of the Table Mountain Dam and the other projects on the Sacramento River in my district proposed by the Army engineers. My support of the Table Mountain Dam is based upon the need for flood control on the Sacramento River and the fact that the dam will give great benefits to the lands down the river far outweighing, in my opinion, the damage done to Shasta County. The objections to the Table Mountain Dam have centered around four primary points: 1. That the building of the dam will excessively damage Shasta County. 2. That the building of the dam should be deferred until the feasibility of building tributary dams as an alternative is fully investigated. 3. That the building of the low-level dam will preempt the site for a future high-level dam in the plans of the Bureau of Reclamation. 4. That the building of the low-level dam will effectively eliminate the salmon industry. I will discuss these points briefly, in order: 1. The low-level dam will flood 18,600 acres: 10,900 acres of this is in Tehama County, which is not protesting the dam; 7,600 acres are in Shasta County; 2,200 acres of the land in Shasta County is ir rigated. The rest is dry farm or dry pasture. This does not represent a large percentage of the total area or wealth of the county and is small compared to the thousands of highly cultivated lands down the river which will receive flood protection. There will be no towns or cities flooded. The objections to the dam, however, come largely from the city of Redding and the towns of Cottonwood and Anderson, they fear the indirect economic damages. The flooding from the dam will not come within 7 miles of the city of Redding. There was no wide-spread or organized opposition to the dam among the farmers to be flooded when I was in the district this spring, although some of them told me personally they were opposed to the dam. This morning I received two telegrams from landowners to be flooded by the dam, supporting the building of the Table Mountain project, one owning 1,800 acres and the other 175 acres within the flood level of the dam; and I should like to file those with the committee. Although it is my opinion that the damage from the low-level dam is exaggerated in the minds of those protesting the building of the dam, I have urged the building of the structure which will cause the least damage to Shasta County. 2. The second point is that the building of the dam should be deferred until the feasibility of the tributary dams as an alternative is fully investigated. The Army engineers have investigated the tributary proposal and have stated that it is not economically feasible. The Bureau of Reclamation has made a preliminary investigation, and I wish at this point to file with the committee as a part of my statement a telegram sent to me by Mr. Charles E. Carey, the regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation. I wish to call particular attention to the last sentence of the telegram, which reads as follows: While our preliminary investigations indicate the possibility of the development of the tributaries as an alternate to the Table Mountain Dam, further investigations and developments of the tributaries will be dependent upon the action of Congress in connection with H. R. 4485 which is this bill and the availability of our funds for such purpose. The interest of the Bureau of Reclamation in the tributary proposal must be viewed in light of the plan which they have to build a highlevel dam at Table Mountain. In my opinion they have no bona fide intention of ever building the tributary dams but have indicated an interest in investigating them as an excuse for requesting the removal of this dam from the program of the Army engineers and thus preserving for themselves the site at Table Mountain for a dam to be built under their program. 3. This brings me to the third point, which was mentioned by Mr. Bashore in his testimony, that is, that the Bureau objects to the building of the low-level dam because it will preempt the site for a high-level dam at Table Mountain called for in their plans. Surely those protesting the low-level dam can find little comfort in this argument. They will, however, find comfort in the answer to it. That answer is that the Army engineers have stated that the site at Table Mountain will not sustain a high-level dam. Since the site will not sustain a high-level dam, the building of a low-level dam is not taking anything away from the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has shown no interest in building a low-level dam for flood control. The people in the Sacramento Valley want flood control. That is a function of the Army engineers. 4. The fourth and last point raised against the dam is that it will destroy the salmon breeding grounds which are the basis of a milliondollar industry. Some sporting organizations, and I understand the California Fish and Game Commission and the Federal Fish and Wild Life Service have questioned the possibility of saving the salmon. The Army engineers have stated that steps are being taken to handle this problem, and that it is being successfully handled at other larger dams where the same problem has existed. The director of natural resources of the State of California has said that this problem can and will be taken care of. The million-dollar fish industry apparently feel the same way because no protests have been lodged with me or before the Flood Committee of the House to date by the financial interests involved in that industry. None has appeared here to date. In closing I wish to point out that the Table Mountain Dam was under consideration before I was born. It was considered as a site for the present Shasta Dam. Since the Army engineers announced their program for the Sacramento River the matter has been fully debated before the California State Board of Reclamation, the joint committee on water problems of the California State Legislature, and the flood committee of the California State Chamber of Commerce. They have all gone on record approving the program of the Army engineers for the Sacramento Valley, including the low-level dam at. Table Mountain. The director of natural resources of the State of California has publicly supported the project. None has found in favor of the tributary proposal or even recommended that the authorization be deferred for further investigation of the tributaries. They have been equally unimpressed by the other arguments against the dam. For each and all of the foregoing reasons I respectfully urge your committee to approve without exception the proposals of the Army engineers for the Sacramento River. And I would like to file for the benefit of the committee the resolution passed by the joint committee on water problems of the California Legislature, and possibly some other resolutions, just to be filed, indicating support for this proposal. Senator OVERTON. We thank you very much, Mr. Engle, especially on your clear and concise statement, which I hope will be used as a model by others when they appear here. Representative ENGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Representative Engle withdrew from the committee table.) Senator OVERTON. Representative Johnson. Representative JOHNSON. I should like to stand over here by this map. Senator OVERTON. Yes, sir. Representative JOHNSON. I shall also be very brief. STATEMENT OF HON. J. LEROY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Representative JOHNSON. My name is Leroy Johnson. I am a Representative from California representing the third district. My home is in Stockton, Calif. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to endorse the construction of the dams Senator OVERTON. Will you excuse me? I have to go. your statement in the record. I shall read (Senator Burton assumed the chair.) Representative JOHNSON. I want to endorse the construction of the dams on the rivers that flow into the San Joaquin River: the Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Merced, and other rivers. The reason for our interest in that is the fact that the San Joaquin River flows just west of the city of Stockton. It is leveed off by a high levee on both sides, and the east levee of the San Joaquin River is really a wall that protects the city of Stockton against flooding from the San Joaquin River. Also, just below Stockton and Sacramento and the San Joaquin Rivers join and create what is known as the delta area containing almost 500,000 acres of very, very fertile soil. There have been some very disastrous floods in the rural area south of Stockton and west of Stockton by the overflow of the San Joaquin River, and the whole city slopes westward from a height of about 25 feet in the eastern part of town till the western boundary of the city touching the San Joaquin River is practically sea level. This whole area in that vicinity is walled off from the rivers by levees; and if there should be a flood in which the peak flood of the Sacramento River and the peak flood of the San Joaquin River met in that delta area, we could have a very disastrous flood in Stockton. Probably over half the city would be under water all the way from 15 to several feet. My residence is a place where, if the levees broke in the San Joaquin River or any of the streams going into it, in the vicinity of Stockton, we would have probably water up in our second story. And the agricultural lands would like the same protection as the city of Stockton wants; and, as I say, they have had some very serious floods in the last few years. I just want to mention here about the Calaveras and Littlejohn Creeks. This is a small project that was testified to the other day; in fact, it is so small that on this map (pointing) it doesn't even show those streams. These streams are between the Stanislaus and the Mokelumne Rivers. And to show you how fantastic, in my opinion, the program of the Reclamation Bureau is, these projects have since 1862 been considered to be flood-control projects; and, as I pointed out the other day, we have invested $2,000,000 in flood protection from one of the rivers and want flood protection from both of them; and if we have to wait for those which are purely flood control until the complete development of this interior empire, it would probably be a half of a century or more. Now, this project and I think the projects along these rivers for flood control are demanded by the people out there; the House committee wants them; our Senators, Senator Johnson and Senator Downey want them; and we cannot see any reason for taking the Calaveras project out of the bill or for taking the flood-control features of these other projects and the rivers going into the San Joaquin, for taking them out. Senator BURTON. Do you take the position, Mr. Johnson, that the flood-control needs of the Central Valley require the enactment of the law as provided in this bill? Representative JOHNSON. I think they do, absolutely. Senator BURTON. And that to take those out, whether it be for irrigation or other purposes, would delay the necessary flood-control group? Representative JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I say so unequivocally. I want to point this out to you also, sir: That there is no reason why we cannot take this step by step and get the flood-control benefits while we are gradually through evolutionary processes developing into the ultimate water development of the Central Valley. As some of these men pointed out who have testified and referred to these irrigation problem, California has been developing water problems for the fast 80 years. It started way back before 1870 and has gradually been developing in area. There are millions of acres and millions and millions of dollars worth of water rights tied up in this interior water system; and I do not anticipate that, no matter what happens, there is going to be the ultimate development of that valley just overnight. In the meantime, by all means we should have these preliminary, you might say, steps for flood control which are only a stepping stone to the ultimate conservation of every drop of water in that whole area; and I want to urge emphatically that you allow these projects to stay in and not take out any of them. Senator BURTON. Well, you take the position not only that it will be necessary for flood control but that it will not interfere with the proper development of the valley for irrigation purposes? Representative JOHNSON. Not the slightest. Every engineer in California-I went through a lawsuit at one time in which I examined some of the most prominent engineers, including Arthur P. Davis, for instance, who was at one time head of the Reclamation Service, and a Mr. O'Shaughnessy and Mr. J. B. Lippincott who was employer of one of these gentlemen from the Reclamation Board who testified here; and every one of them made this point that development of water resources is a slow, tedious, tireless, and costly process; and in the stepping up into those various stages the first thing is to safeguard our land against flood waters; and that is only, as I say to you, a preliminary step in the ultimate development of the val ley, and I do not see one single suggestion in the Army engineers' reports that is inharmonious with that ultimate development, and I want to urge you most emphatically to put through the bill that they have offered to us. We are not coming here begging. Our people have spent fabulous sums in conserving the water of the rivers and streams of the central empire of California. In my congressional district alone on the San Joaquin River private interests have expended 22 millions in levee construction, to protect the adjacent lands against floods; along the Sacramento the State has spent 24 millions and local interest (reclamation districts and private interests) have spent in excess of 50 millions. These expenditures have not been made all at once but over a long period of time. They have been supplemented by vast Federal expenditures and they have been for flood control. The low lands along the lower reaches of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers need flood control and the control of the tributaries of these two big rivers will bring that flood control. |