Mr. EVINS. Mr. Miller is most persuasive with this committee and if he requests further time we will have to yield to him. Mr. MILLER. I have nothing to add to what Mr. Guidotti has said. This is a bargain basement offer by Sonoma County. They have over $500,000 worth of jetty work to be done which they would forego in the place of the resurvey, which is only $25,000. Mr. LAMPSON. I would like to concur in what Mr. Guidotti and Congressman Miller have said and urge we get this resurvey money for Bodega Bay. We have great plans for Bodega Bay and I think in a year or two you will see a lot of development out there. Mr. EVINS. Thank you all, gentlemen. MONTEREY HARBOR, MORRO BAY HARBOR, MOSS LANDING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES M. TEAGUE, CALIFORNIA Mr. EVINS. We will call on our colleague, Mr. Charles Teague, of California. Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Due to the nature of my district I seem to have a lot of business with you gentlemen every year. but in consideration of all the problems you have at this time, unless you have questions to ask, I will not discuss any budgeted items. I would like to make a few comments about the Morro Bay situation in California. These comments come at a very appropriate time because it is a situation very similar, apparently, to that which exists at the Novo breakwater area. Morro Bay is the only harbor of refuge between Monterey and Santa Barbara, a stretch of very rough California coastline of about 200 miles long. Morro Bay is about in the middle between Monterey and Santa Barbara. There is a Coast Guard vessel there. This is an authorized continuing maintenance responsibility. I would like to read into the record, if I mav, a few lines of a letter from William F. Cassidy, major general, assistant chief of engineers for civil works, which was addressed to me about a month ago: Re Morro Bay. The corps has been making a model study of the Morro Bay Harbor entrance. It is presently estimated that the study will be completed in March of 1960 and that the report on the study will be approved during this coming summer. Approval of the study will enable the district to begin designing rehabilitation measures for the breakwater. In response to your request we have a capability of using $20.000 of advance engineering and design funds to complete preconstruction planning during fiscal year 1961. I might mention that in my opinion this $20.000 would have been requested by the engineers at the time the budget was submitted last fall had they known that the very severe storms which visited Califormia last winter were going to come about. The situation now is this: The harbor has deteriorated much more rapidly than had been expected. I am told by General Cassidy and others who know that if this $20.000 were made available it would move 1 year sooner in the problem of rehabilitating that harbor. That, gentlemen, is my request, that consideration be given to adding the sum of $20.000 for the purpose of the final engineering studies and model preparations at Morro Bay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EVINS. Thank you, Mr. Teague and gentlemen. CALIFORNIA FLOOD CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECTS WITNESSES TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1960. HON. HARRY R. SHEPPARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JAMES K. CARR, CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION W. H. FAIRBANK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA H. G. OSBORNE, CHIEF ENGINEER, ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT M. A. NICHOLAS, CHIEF ENGINEER, SAN BERNARDINO FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT M. E. SALSBURY, CHIEF ENGINEER, LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT JOHN W. BRYANT, CHIEF ENGINEER, RIVERSIDE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT WILLIAM M. CARAH, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION C. E. POLZIN, COUNTY OF GLENN JOHN M. LUTHER, SACRAMENTO PALMER FOSTER, COUNTY OF BUTTE RALPH A. MACDONALD, KINGS RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT W. A. ALEXANDER, COUNTY OF TULARE C. B. BULL, CITY OF STOCKTON, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN IRVING L. NEUMILLER, CITY OF STOCKTON, COUNTY OF SAN HARVEY STULL, CITY OF STOCKTON, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN EARL DAVIES, COUNTY OF TEHAMA UPPER CHINO PROJECT Mr. CANNON. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sheppard. Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I take a lot of personal pleasure in presenting to you Mr. James Carr, the chairman of the California State Water Commission, who will direct the witnesses and present them in turn. At the same time, Mr. Nicholas, the county engineer from San Bernardino County, will have some testimony to present. I shall ask the chairman's permission to insert behind his statement a resolution. Mr. CANNON. It will be inserted in the record at this point. (The resolution referred to follows:) MINUTES OF the Board oF SUPERVISORS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ACTING EX OFFICIO Board of SUPERVISORS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CON DISTRICT Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County, actin ex officio Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County Flood Control Dis held Monday, March 21, 1960. Members present: S. Wesley Break, chairman; Magda Lawson, Richar Manley, Paul J. Young, Nancy E. Smith. Secretary: Rudolph L. Corona. On motion of Supervisor Manley, duly seconded by Supervisor Young, carried unanimously, the following resolution is adopted: Whereas the watercourses of San Sevaine, East Etiwanda, Deer and Creeks, a system of principal tributaries to the Santa Ana River, pose se flood hazards with possible loss of life and resultant damage to private public properties of the cities or communities of Fontana, Ontario, Etiws and Mira Loma, to military establishments and to major transcontinental ways, railways, communication, or other utilities; and Whereas these principal tributaries were included in the U.S. Army C of Engineers survey report on the Santa Ana River and tributaries, Califo dated 1946, but not found economically justified at that time by the Chic Engineers in his transmittal report of September 27, 1948; and Whereas subsequently the exposed area has and is undergoing unp dented development, growth, and change with resultant serious exposur ravaging floods: Now, therefore, The Board of Supervisors of the San Bernardino County Flood Control trict, on behalf of the people of the county, respectfully but urgently requ that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be authorized to review San Seva East Etiwanda, Deer and Day Creeks, together with funds necessary ther for purposes of favorable recommendation and authorization by Congress Federal flood control project of the Santa Ana River and tributaries, Califor STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of San Bernardino, ss: I, Rudolph L. Corona, Secretary of the Board of Supervisors of the Bernardino County Flood Control District, San Bernardino, Calif., hereby cer the foregoing to be a full, true, and correct copy of the action taken by district board of supervisors, by unanimous vote of the members present. the same appears in the official minutes of said board of its meeting March 21, 1960. Dated March 25, 1960. [SEAL] RUDOLPH L. CORONA, Mr. SHEPPARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES K. CARR Mr. JAMES K. CARR. Mr. Chairman and members of the comm tee, my name is James K. Carr. As chairman of the California Wa Commission I have been requested to appear before you in behalf the official water agencies of the State of California to summar the State's requests and to introduce the witnesses we have here toda There are two other members of the California Water Commissi with me today, Mr. John Bryant, of Riverside, and Mr. Ira J. “Jac Chrisman, of Visalia. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have five-page statement made part of the record-I will not read it-a then go to the tabulations and discuss the specific projects. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES K. CARR, CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICIAL WATER AGENCIES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is James K. Carr. As chairman of the California Water Commission, I have been requested to appear before you in behalf of the official water agencies of the State of California, to summarize the State's requests and to introduce the witnesses from various parts of the State. A brief word about the commission might be of assistance to you. The California Water Commission consists of nine members appointed by the Governor. Among its responsibilities are administration of State water rights applications, approval of loans and grants under the State's local assistance program for water agencies, advising the director of water resources of various matters coming within his jurisdiction, approving condemnation proceedings by the department, and others. The director of water resources, under section 12602 of the California Water Code, is authorized to represent the State before committees of Congress and executive agencies of the Federal Government. This responsibility, however, has been delegated over the years to the commission by the director, who has specifically requested that we assume such representation of the State on appropriations for California projects. The requests which the commission will shortly summarize for you, and which will be presented in more detail by the individual witnesses, were established only after a series of meetings with the California Flood Control Conference, the California Conference for Irrigation and Reclamation, and other interested individuals and agencies. This actually is a consolidation of four separate Federal programs: flood control, reclamation, the small projects loan program, and the distribution system loan program in connection with Federal reclamation projects. Attached to this statement, which will be submitted for the record, is a tabulation of the projects, the difference between the budget and our request, if any, and a brief explanation of why we believe the increase is justified. These requests have been carefully screened by the commission so that they can be presented to you in a minimum of time, and still be realistic both from the point of view of your committee and of the people of the State. This presentation also is being made on behalf of the California State Reclamation Board, an official agency of the State responsible for providing the required local participation in Federal flood control projects in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. The board, from its long experience with flood control problems, believes that the funds recommended are the minimum necessary to keep pace with the needs of a growing economy. In the relatively short time allotted to us, we will summarize our requests for appropriations for 21 active flood control projects and 3 reclamation projects, including the Central Valley project. We also will present the case for eight projects whose sponsors have sought loans under the Small Reclamation Projents Act, Public Law 984, 84th Congress; and three seeking distribution system loans under terms of Public Law 130, 84th Congress. Finally, we will briefly present the need for survey funds of Corps of Engineers investigations, and general investigation funds for the Bureau of Reclamation which we believe necessary for an orderly and efficient program of food control and water conservation in our State. FLOOD CONTROL CONSTRUCTION Following are the essential facts regarding the State of California's request for flood control construction funds, covering the 21 active projects. The California Water Commission respectfully requests that this committee approve funds in the amount of $49,753,000 for construction, $585,000 for advance engineering and design, $500,000 for surveys, and $500,000 for the San Francisco Bay special study. Under this program, 6 of the 21 projects can be completed in fiscal year 1961. We are asking no new construction starts this year. We believe that the need and justification for these projects have been firmly established by the authorized reports of the Corps of Engineers and previous testimony before this committee. Advance engineering and design and surveys We strongly support the budgeted figures for the following four flood control projects: Oroville Reservoir, $50,000; Sacramento River, Chico landing to Red Bluff, $50,000; Tuolumne River Reservoirs, $25,000; Bear Creek, $70,000. following amounts are supported, contingent on authorization at this sessi Congress: Mojave River Basin, $50,000; Walnut Creek Basin, $90,000; Ala Creek, $150,000; Fresno River (Hidden Reservoir), $100,000. The first t the contingent projects are included in the omnibus public works bill now ing before the Congress. The commission supports an appropriation of $500,000 for surveys for control projects in California, and urges that the 15 surveys budgeted be pu to completion at the full capability of the Corps of Engineers, and that exp tures for remaining authorized surveys up to a total of $500,000 be left t discretion of the Chief of Engineers. The commission supports the amount of $500,000 for the San Francisc special study, or an increase of $100,000 over the budgeted amount. RECLAMATION PROJECTS With two exceptions, the California Water Commission agrees with the b provisions for the Central Valley project, and both of those items are conti on the execution of repayment contracts between the local water agencie the Bureau of Reclamation. I refer to an item of $555,000 for the Cow unit of the Trinity River division, which will be explained by local witr later. The other exception is an item of $300,000 for studies, contract ne tions and project design for the authorized Tehama-Colusa Canal unit c Sacramento River division, also to be detailed later. The commission also agrees with the budget amounts for the Kla project, the Washoe project, and the budgeted amount for general investiga SMALL PROJECT AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOAN PROGRAM Believing that smaller, local projects are equally important to the o development of the State as are major conservation projects, the Calif Water Commission strongly supports the six projects budgeted under the Reclamation Projects Act. It also urges the appropriation for two projects which have been app by the Secretary of the Interior and were transmitted to Congress this They are the Virginia Ranch project of the Browns Valley Irrigation Dis $4,804,000; and the Camp Far West project of the South Sutter Water trict, $4,875,000. Three California distribution system contracts have been budgeted, unde terms of Public Law 130, including those of the Solano Irrigation Dis Saucelito Irrigation District, and Chowchilla Water District. The commi agrees with the budgeted amount in each case. Now, with your permission, I would like to introduce the witnesses various parts of California who are here to acquaint you with specific req on individual projects. I assure you they will be brief and to the point. Mr. CARR. If you will turn to page 6 of the blue-covered state we will proceed on that basis. First I would like to have Mr. William H. Fairbank, assis director of water resources, introduce a statement he has f Governor Brown. STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM H. FAIRBANK Mr. FAIRBANK. It is my pleasure to present to you a very s statement from Gov. Pat Brown, of California. With your per sion I would like to enter it in the record. This represents the v of the State of California and also those of the director of water sources, Harvey O. Banks. (The statement from Governor Brown, of California, follows:) STATEMENT OF EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORN Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, your consideration in allo time for California witnesses today, and your past actions in providing f for California flood control and reclamation projects are deeply appreciate the people of the State. These actions not only affect the economy of the S but have a vital bearing on the continuing high plane of our national econ |