« PreviousContinue »
dam problem, ameers haveestioned the
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 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. I shall read your statement in the record.
(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 last 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 Je 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 valley, 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 lever 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.
Senator BURTON. Am I correct in understanding that each of the Members of the House of Representatives from this valley and both of the Senators are in favor of that same position?
Representative JOHNSON. Every single one of them, I believe. Every one of them is heartily in favor of all the projects. I want to thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to appear.
Senator BURTON (presiding). Mr. Johnson, thank you. Next is Mr. Lea.
(Representative Johnson withdrew from the committee table.)
one the prolto appeatest is
STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE F. LEA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Representative LEA. Mr. Chairman, I desire to cooperate in saving the time of the committee.
The statement just made by Congressman Engle is an able and accurate summary of the practical situation with which you are confronted in reference to the Table Mountain Dam.
My district is very vitally affected by this proposal. This Table Mountain Dam serves as part of the general plan for the protection of the lands of the Sacramento Valley. There are a million and more acres in the flood area that is now menaced by floods of the Sacramento Valley. About 250,000 people reside in that area. It is primarily a problem of flood control. There can be no conservation of the areas affected until the land is given protection and conserved against flood.
It is estimated in the last 42 years there has been a damage in this Sacramento area of $34,000,000, making almost a million a year. On account of the greater development of the valley and several floods that have occurred, the damage is estimated at $3,000,000 a year beginning with 1937 to the present time.
Now, Table Mountain is a very valuable asset to the protection of the Sacramento Valley. It is located about 75 miles above the Feather River. That area extending down from the north rim of the flood area to Feather River now suffers most severely of any section of the Sacramento Valley. Table Mountain, the engineers estimate, will provide a storage of 400,000 acre-feet of floodwater. That dam, if constructed will afford protection, it is estimated, to more than a hundred thousand acres in the Butte Basin and Colusa section. The Butte Basin is on the east side of the river, and the Colusa section is in the lower part of that area above the Feather junction on the west side of the valley.
I think an examination of the testimony of the engineers, will convince you that there is no economic substitute for the Table Mountain Dam. In any scheme of flood protection for the Sacramento River which is anything like comprehensive, the Table Mountain Dam must be regarded as a basic improvement. It is true that we might seek a substitute by going into the narrow mountain canyons above Table Mountain, but if we did it would require the acquisition of private lands and their removal from the tax rolls the same as it requires for the Table Mountain Dam and under far less satisfactory conditions.
iam. Imanything basic
be substitute hug lif we did from the
Table Mountain is lower on the stream and has a greater control of the watershed above than those dams in the mountains can possibly have. Besides that the engineers estimate that the cost of that substitute method of using those small numerous dams in the mountains would probably be five or six times what Table Mountain would cost, without the effective control and value that Table Mountain would give.
It should not be forgotten that what is proposed as to a low dam for Table Mountain does not preclude any useful disposal of that water for any other purpose that may be hereafter suggested. In other words, there is no need of delay. Ever since I have been in Congress, for over 25 years, the question of flooding the lower part of the Redding Valley has been a consideration, and there is nothing really new in it. It has been a matter of investigation and report by the Bureau of Reclamation, by the Army engineers and State engineers during that whole period. · Today, we have a representative of the State board of reclamation here to support the Table Mountain proposal. That board has long functioned in California and is thoroughly familiar with our water problems and flood-control conditions, and it heartily recognizes the necessity of Table Mountain in any comprehensive flood-control plan for the valley, and the representative of the board is here to speak for the State, as no other organization in California can speak. The Board of Reclamation attempts to provide an orderly development looking toward the best possible conservation of the water resources of California, and it does represent, as nearly as anybody can represent, the State of California's position in favor of this bill and of the dam at Table Mountain.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator OVERTON. Thank you, Mr. Lea. · Senator DOWNEY. Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Lea is here I want to say, it seems to me I presented an amendment to this committee to provide for the investigation or preliminary survey of Corte Madera Creek, Marin County, and you wrote the letter that the request made by the amendment would be acceptable to the committee (indicating].
Senator OVERTON. Yes, sir.
Now, Mr. Mellin.
PRAISER, STATE RECLAMATION BOARD, SACRAMENTO, CALIF. Mr. MELLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be allowed to appear before your committee which has been so long suffering from this work. I desire to present a written statement, and I regret that I have no copy.
Senator OVERTON. Thank you, Mr. Mellin. Will you give your name?
Mr. MELLIN. My name is G. F. Mellin, assistant engineer and appraiser for the reclamation board of the State of California.