Mr. CARAH. The State water commission is on record in support of the budgeted item of $154,000 on this project which consists of channel improvement works in eastern California.

PRIORITY ORDER OF CALIFORNIA SURVEYS

Mr. CARR. You will recall I said we will take this up in terms of the budgeted flood-control projects, the statewide survey, the unbudgeted, that is projects where we are asking more than the budget, and then the advance engineering and design.

We come now to the second part of this flood-control group, the statewide surveys.

We have had considerable discussion with the representatives of various agencies and in the commission on the survey problem in California.

We felt that the budgeted amount of $293,600 falls considerably below what has been allocated for some years. We think it will not provide the surveys that are necessary throughout the State.

We have some projects coming up, a half dozen that will be completed next year, and we have some critical problems.

We would like to step up the survey program, to be prepared now for some of these future projects.

Mr. CANNON. That is in excess of the budget estimate?

Mr. CARR. Yes.

We had a budgeted item of $293,600. We called together our various agencies and, as you would know, we ended up with requests which would go up to the Corps' capabilities. We added those up and they were well over $1 million, so we had a little argument among ourselves and we have cut this down to a total

Mr. CANNON. How did you estimate those amounts?

Mr. CARR. We took the capabilities which we could obtain from the Corps of Engineers for surveys that are now authorized.

Mr. CANNON. These estimates were supplied by the Corps of Engineers at your request?

Mr. CARR. Yes. We got figures from them on what the capabilities were for certain projects that were being requested by various agencies.

We felt that this group was too large and we have now, as late as today, reached agreement among ourselves on the priority of some of these studies. We have a list I would like to make part of the record for your review which has a total of $490,000 for surveys as against the budget figure of $293,600 with the names of the projects. Mr. CANNON. $293,600 in budget estimates?

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. You want about double the amount?

Mr. CARR. Not quite double. It would be $600,000 if it were doubled and we are asking for $490,000.

I would like to make this part of the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

Mr. CARR. Total capability is $1,032,000.

For the benefit of those who were not here when I began, we trying to present this program in this way: We started out with fl control projects where we had agreement with the budget.

Then we are taking surveys.

Then we will cover those seven items where we are not in agreem with the budget.

Then there is a statement to submit on advanced engineering.

SANTA MARIA LEVEES

We come now to the more critical part of our presentation, and th has to do with items on which we are requesting more than is in budget. The first item on page 6 under the Los Angeles Engineer D trict you will note is Santa Maria River levees. There is a budget item of $1,850,000. We are asking $2,300,000.

Mr. CANNON. That is the last in the division?

Mr. CARR. That is right.

This project is one which I am sure some of you are familiar wi It is the city which is receiving so much of the growth as a result the Vandenberg Missile Base in Lompoc, Calif. There is a lot development in the area.

If this amount is appropriated it is my understanding that this ar can be protected in 2 years as against 3 years. It will take 3 years this rate, and it will be protected in 2 years if this additional amou were supplied.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

Mr. JENSEN. Did they know this was a flood area when they moved

Mr. CARR. We have other areas with the same problem. We find very often they do not know what the flood danger is. We are working at the present time with the Corps of Engineers and the Director of Water Resources in trying to set up some sort of program that will keep people out of critical flood areas.

It is extremely difficult, even below Shasta Dam where we posted notices that it was subject to flooding. We found that these signs were removed and people were sold property with the idea this was fully protected because there was a dam upstream.

I merely say we are trying to solve this, but many people do not know about it when they buy the property.

Mr. CANNON. In other words, they bought land or sold land in areas which they knew were subject to inundation, bought it at low prices on that account, and would expect the Federal Government to come in, protect it, and thereby enhance tremendously the value of their properties.

Mr. CARR. I would not say this is done in every case at all, Mr. Chairman, but it has happened where an effort has been made by the local agencies in the State to alert people to flood dangers. We have had some difficulty on it.

assure you we are working on it to prevent this type of thing. The people in Santa Maria, most of them, did not know this was a flood area when they moved in because it is part of the city. Mr. CANNON. It seems difficult to escape knowledge of that kind. They are familiar with the location and the adjoining areas. duficult to imagine anyone coming in, investigating the area, buying land, without knowing that that area is subject to inundation.

It is

Mr. JENSEN. At least, Mr. Chairman, if they do that, even though they did not know they were buying area subject to flood, I do not see where the Federal Government has the responsibility to bail them out. That is beyond my comprehension.

Mr. CARR. This is a project which has been authorized for some time and is underway.

Our request here was to speed it up because of the effect of the missile base employment. That is the sole reason for the request for

extra funds.

Mr. CANNON. Do the beneficiaries propose to bear any part of the expense?

Mr. CARAH. Mr. Chairman, the local participation in this project, I am not sure of the percentage, is quite high. The State of California is purchasing the land easements and rights-of-way and is relocating the utilities required for the construction of the Federal proiect.

Mr. BOLAND. Local interests are putting $850,000 into the project. It was authorized in 1954, long before the Vandenberg base ever went there.

This is purely a levee project with which we are entirely familiar, one of many throughout the Nation. Is that right?

Mr. CARR. Yes. This is a project which has been underway for some time.

Our request is based on the fact we have had a great influx as a result of the base. That is what prompted our asking for the additional funds this year.

The next item, if I may take it up, is the Russian River channel. Mr. CANNON. Before you leave this, I note under the summarized financial data, in which you itemize various items, you have other costs, $850,000. What other costs would be involved here which would come to $850,000?

Mr. CARR. I understand the estimated State costs are $585,420. It may be this will amount to the figure you give by the time the project is completed.

RUSSIAN RIVER CHANNEL

STATEMENT OF MR. GORDON W. MILLER

The next item where we are asking for more money than in the budget is the Russian River channel. I am asking Mr. Gordon W. Miller, chief engineer for the Sonoma County flood control group. to present this.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I have with me today, in support of the Russian River project, two of my county supervisors who also would like to make a brief oral statement upon completion of mine. We also have a written statement of considerable length which we would like to have filed for the record and additionally I would like to give a very brief verbal summary of it.

(Mr. Miller's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE SONOMA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN SUPPORT OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1961 FOR THE RUSSIAN RIVER PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIF.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Gordon W. Miller. I am chief engineer of the Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Appearing with me today in support of appropriations for the Russian River project-Coyote Dam and channel improvements are Supervisors Everett L. Lampson and E. J. "Nin" Guidotti, members of the board of supervisors of the county of Sonoma and the board of directors of the flood control district. The budget includes $400,000 for this project, of which, we are advised, $300,000 is for construction of recreational facilities, fire protection, and access roads at Coyote Dam, and $100,000 is for the construction of channel improvements. We are supporting the budget amount of $300,000 for construction at and around Coyote Dam, but are requesting that $500,000 be budgeted for construction of channel works, for a total budget for the Russian River project of $800,000.

The following facts are pertinent to our request for additional funds: The Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has met all local agency requirements, including the payment of $5,598,000 cash in advance to the Federal Government as one of the local agency requirements.

The document authorizing the Russian River project indicated that channel improvements would be undertaken concurrently with construction of Coyote Dam, with initial works to be primarily between river mile 34 and river mile 63. Coyote Dam was completed 2 years ago.

To date, initial channel improvement works have been completed on only 4 miles of the Russian River between river mile 52 and river mile 56. Only $186,000 of the $2,030,000 authorized for construction of channel works has been budgeted over the 10-year period since authorization of the Russian river project. This sum has been sufficient to complete only 9 percent of the channel works. No channel works have been undertaken since 1956.

The channel improvements are critically needed to curetail sever bank erosion along the Russian River which destroys many acres of improved properties yearly and threatens to destroy thousands more. The eroded material from the riverbanks is constantly being deposited in the streambed and, at many locations, has filled the streambed to where its capacity is totally inadequate to carry even minor floodflows. Several times a year the river breaks out of its banks, floods thousands of acres of improved properties, and deposits gravel and debris on them-debris which must be removed to continue land productivity.

Gentlemen, it is just plain horsesense that a bucket half full of sand will not carry a bucket full of water and, if you add more sand to the bucket, it will carry even less water. Likewise, we can all agree that a streambed half full of gravel, and getting fuller year after year, cannot be expected to carry floodflows.

The critical and urgent need for channel stabilization and the need to protect certain properties from bank erosion within the reach of the Russian River included in the authorized Federal project, can be amply demonstrated by the fact that local interests have spent, during the past 10 years since the Russian River project was authorized, $760,832 for construction of bank stabilization and bank protective works which were expected to have been completed long ago as a part of the Federal project. This sum represents $4 local expended for every $1 Federal, not including local costs incurred in providing lands, easements, and rights of way for the Federal program. It is becoming more and more difficult to explain to these people who are yearly damaged and subject to the ravaging effects of the Russian River, why we must continue to spend local funds to accomplish, in part, work authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers. Previous testimony given to your committee by the Chief of Engineers over the past several years states that the channel improvements are scheduled to be completed in 1963, or 3 years hence. How far will small appropriations of $100,000 take us toward meeting a completion schedule in 1963? With over $1,800,000 forth of channel improvements yet to be accomplished, such small appropriations would indicate completion, not in 3 years but in 18 to 20 years. The requested $500,000 for channel stabilization will come close to meeting the scheduled completion in 3 years.

Gentlemen, we urgently request that you grant a total appropriation of $800,000 for the Russian River project so that the commitments and obligations to stabilize the channel of the Russian River will be met as scheduled.

INVESTIGATIONS AND SURVEYS

Mr. Chairman and committee members, at this time we would also like to make a brief statement in support of two projects included in the investigations and surveys budget item.

Russian River resurvey

There is $50,000 included in the investigations and surveys budget item to continue the authorized resurvey of the Russian River Basin. This is the second appropriation of $50,000 for this resurvey. We would like to support the appropriation of $50,000 as budgeted for this project.

Sonoma Creek survey

There is $20,000 included in the investigations and surveys budget item to initiate a survey for flood control on Sonoma Creek. This is the first appropriation toward this authorized survey. We would like to support the appropriation of $20,000 as budgeted for this project.

Mr. MILLER. The Russian River project was spoken of briefly by Mr. Carah earlier. We are in agreement with the budget, of $300,000 for work at and around Coyote Dam.

In addition to this amount there is included in the budget $100,000 to continue the construction of downstream channel improvements. We do not believe that the $100,000 is a sufficiently large figure in view of the magnitude of the work required on the Russian River to actually be an economical amount of money to spend.

By the time you move a contractor in on a small contract and out again, a good portion of a $100,000 appropriation will be eaten up in overhead.

There are several things I would like to briefly summarize on this project.

First of all, as to local cooperation, the Sonoma County Flood Control District has paid $5,598,000 cash as a local obligation on this project.