EUREKA, CALIF., April 4, 19€ Congressman CLEMENT MILLER, HUMBOLDT COUNTY DAIRYMEN ASSOCIATIO Mr. CANNON. You may proceed. Mr. MILLER. We have conscientiously sought to whittle down projects that we might have asked for in order to present a reason: choice to this committee. I am requesting no funds at all for a dc authorized projects in my district. We have also carefully conside our requests in the light of the position of the California Water C mission. We wish to be on all fours with that group which appea here just a few moments ago. I have submitted some pictures to indicate the tremendous dam that the unusually severe winter storms have caused in our area along our entire coast. I listened this morning to the testimony of Congressman Teague I would certainly support his estimate of the unusually serious d: age. The damage to the Noyo jetties, if not corrected, is going cost the Federal Government very dearly. It is penny wise and po foolish for us to invest in our harbors and then dissipate this inv ment because we are unwilling to finish the job. Mr. CANNON. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. MILLER. I would like to point out to the chairman that the con capabilities and the budget figures which we have were received bef these frightful February storms occurred. I have been reliably formed by the engineers, if they could now assess the damage, t would substantially revise those estimates as to what should be d along coastal California. I am not here trying to plead the cause of my congressional dist or even the State of California, because I believe this unusual weat has been a countrywide problem. I would be willing to take my p tion in a system of priorities over the entire country. I am pleas with the testimony of General Itschner, Chief of Engineers, when says that he corps will set up a national system of priorities for harl maintenance and with respect to the maintenance of flood cont works on our rivers. I applaud this. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am urging the Governor of California to up a system of State priorities with respect to harbor developme I applaud what has been done by Mr. James Carr, Mr. William Car and their associates in setting up priorities on flood control. With that in mind, I would like to very briefly go over my priorit which I have whittled from the many, many which I might subm Amounts will be found in my prepared statement. I am asking for, first of all, the Russian River bank stabilizati work. No. 2, the Noyo Harbor breakwater advance design. No. 3, the California Water Commission's recommendation on flo control surveys, and to include Richardson Bay Basin and Cac Creek Basin. No. 4, San Rafael Creek Canal maintenance dredging. No. 5, Bodega Bay navigation review. No. 6, Bolinas Channel navigation review. And, No. 7, the Humboldt Harbor navigation review and repair of the Humboldt and Noyo jetties. Mr. CANNON. Those are in the order of priority? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; and they have been checked with the State Small craft harbor commission and with the State water commission. I want to be in step with their presentation, just as I want our State priorities to be in line with national priorities. I am very hopeful that these will be given consideration in the order named. I cannot emphasize enough that the data on which this committee proceeding is based on a time factual situation prior to the violent inter storms. I would say to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Jensen, that the resulting floods and harbor damage in the last 2 months will alify our projects for the priority system he has requested. That completes my testimony as regards the projects in my district, Ir. Chairman. I would like to put in a word in connection with debris control for ar great harbors, not San Francisco alone, but all of them. This is unsung issue, very hard to popularize, but it is a growing problem over the country, and I would like to see the full amounts for bris control voted out favorably. It is a most important element of harbor maintenance often overlooked by witnesses who appear efore your committee. Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Congressman Miller. Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee. TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1960. CALIFORNIA PROJECTS WITNESS HON. JOHN J. McFALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. CANNON. We shall now hear from the gentleman from California, Mr. McFall. Mr. McFALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the comittee. I would like to file a statement with the committee. Mr. CANNON. It will be included in the record. Mr. McFALL. And, then, I would like to make a few brief comments summary of that statement. (The statement referred to follows:) Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity of appearing again before your committee which has been so generous in the past in your consideration of flood control, irrigation, navigation, and water conservaton projects in the 11th District of California. Earlier you heard testimony from the San Joaquin County delegation, appearing as a part of the California Water Commission presentation. This afternoon I would like to summarize the 11th district needs and highlight some of the testimony. Our major concern is with the New Hogan Dam project. During the past 3 years your committee has recognized the value of this project, adding funds to complete the plans and specifications during fiscal 1958 and 1959 and voting $1,462,500 last year for fiscal 1960 to initiate the actual construction. Since we were last before your committee, the repayment contracts for i tion benefits have been signed by the State of California and the Federal Br of Reclamation and the first construction work is already underway. Last summer your distinguished chairman, Mike Kirwan, together with mittee Member Ed Boland and Staff Member Gene Wilhelm, visited the Hogan site and they have personal knowledge of the need for the proj Briefly, it is the keystone of the flood protection program for the eit Stockton and environs, a project that is designed to alleviate the flood dev tion which periodically has hit this community and environs for more th century. It was only by virtue of the wisdom of the members of this committee this project has progressed to its present state of construction. As you will remember, this was one of the projects added to the appropri bill by your committee last year and retained even in the face of Preside veto which the House, following your leadership, eventually overrode. people of my district, like those of the entire West, will be ever gratefu your wise and constructive decision. As a consequence, the administration budget for fiscal 1961 includes $1,8€ for New Hogan Dam, so this year for the first time, we do not come here a you to add a new project to the budget. We hope you will continue your favorable consideration of this project. my information that the Army Engineers' capability for this project is $3,50 in fiscal 1961. This is stated by way of justification of the budgeted am However, should you determine to increase any of these project amounts, I you would also consider New Hogan, since the $3.5 million capability would the completion date by an entire year. I would also like to put into the record at this point the complete li 15 projects of concern to my district, all of which are budgeted, and for I ask your consideration and support: (1) South San Joaquin Irrigation District, $4,900,000, Small Reclam Project Act loan for irrigation ditch piping. (2) New Hogan Dam, Calaveras River, $1,800,000, to award the main construction contract. (3) San Joaquin River, $1,260,000, to continue levee repairs and realine in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties. (4) San Joaquin River, $200,000, to continue levee maintenance in Joaquin County. (5) New Melones Dam, Stanislaus River, $126,000, to continue water power marketing studies. (6) Bear Creek, San Joaquin County, $70,000, for advance engineering design flood control works. (7) Nashville Reservoir, Cosumnes River, $50,000, for continued feasil studies. (8) Buchanan Reservoir, Chowchilla River, a San Joaquin River tribu $45,800. continued flood control planning. (9) False River cutoff. Stockton to San Francisco, $30,000, to continue route and channel deepening studies. (10) Old River, San Joaquin County, $30,000, continued maintenance. (11) Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, $25,800, to complete flood co planning. (12) New Don Pedro Dam, Tuolumne River, $25,000, to continue flood trol planning. (13) Diverting canal-Mormon Slough, Calaveras River, $20,000, to initiate i levee planning. (14) San Joaquin Delta, west of Stockton, $5,000, to continue survey of 1 control, navigation, and reclamation potentials. (15) Mormon Slough, Stockton Channel, $5,000, continued maintenance. NEW HOGAN DAM Mr. CANNON. You are interested in the New Hogan Dam? As I would like to tell you something about New Hogan Dam. know, that is the project which is now under construction because the wisdom of this committee. It was one of the new starts wh you added to the budget last year. I think when the engineers w before you several weeks ago, at that time the repayment contracts for the irrigation benefits had not been signed. They are signed now and the engineers have been continuing with the work for the last 2 or 3 Teeks. By way of justification for the $1.8 million which is in the budget, all of the items in which I am interested in my district-some 15are in the budget estimates and New Hogan is in for $1.8 million. The gineers have told me, and I believe they have told your committee, that their capability is $3.5 million. I would be less than grateful, I think, for your consideration in the past if I came in here and asked you for $3.5 million. So, in justification at least of the $1.8 million, would say to you that the engineers have a capability of $3.5 mil jon. I know that you are possibly not going to add anything to the get, but if you should add anything to the budget, I hope you ill consider an increase for New Hogan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. All the people in my diset are grateful to this committee for what you have done for us giving us this much needed flood-control facility that has helped rrect a condition which caused so much damage and suffering in district. Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. McFall. Mr. McFALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1960. CALIFORNIA PROJECTS WITNESS ÎN. HAROLD T. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. CANNON. We shall next hear from the gentleman from Calimia, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, I understand you desire to be heard on the Calimia projects? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Mr. CANNON. What are those projects, Mr. Johnson? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the commitI appear here today in support of the many projects discussed rlier by Mr. Carr and his group. I might say that 40 of those ojects, I think, are located in the Second Congressional District, and presenting the mountainous area of California, we have to do with e welfare of the entire State when it comes to water development and od control. I would like to give a brief résumé of one or two of these items. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. CANNON. The gentleman may proceed. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say in representing the cond Congressional District that we have been treated very well by this Appropriations Committee. While the district was represe by Congressman Engle, now our U.S. Senator, he promoted and thorized many projects and you people have certainly followed with the appropriations that have made possible a lot of the deve ment in California which lies within my district, but which has beneficial to the other areas of our State. very I am not going into any great detail because I think they gave the entire program. I do have a prepared statement that I would like to submit for record, and I also have a brief comment on some of those projec Mr. CANNON. The gentleman's statement will be made a part of record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) Mr. Chairman, earlier today you heard the excellent presentation to James Carr, chairman of the California Water Commission, on behalf o official water agencies of the State of California. I would like to give m support to the views expressed by Mr. Carr. My testimony here today signed only to expand further on the official position of the State of Calif especially as its affects the Second Congressional District which I represe Much of the water development in California will be within the bound of the Second District. That district includes much of the Sierra Ne Range where the winter snows are stored for summer irrigation and also fortunately, it is the mother of floods when melts and runoffs are too fast. I would like to divided my presentation into three separate parts, flood co reclamation, and small projects. Let us first take up flood control. vitally concerned with five major flood control projects in California. take them up one at a time: Black Butte Dam.-I strongly endorse the budget recommendation that $5 000 be spent on this project next year. Road and utility relocation worl started through this year's budget contracts for the dam itself will be aw next month. The 1961 budget item will keep the program on schedule. New Hogan Dam.-This another major irrigation and flood control pr started with funds in the 1960 budget. Contracts for the dam will be aw in October. The President has proposed $1,800,000 for continuation of work. I would like to urge this committee to provide $3,500,000 instead. ] additional funds would speed up construction. The faster pace will meal dam will start storing water by November 1962. That additional year of sti could well mean a savings in flood damages which would go far toward am ing the cost of the project. Sacramento River (old project).—A similar situation exists on the S mento River where I urge the appropriation be increased from $2,200,000 ₫ million in order to speed completion and insure earlier flood protection save Federal funds in the face of constantly rising costs. Sacramento River major and minor tributaries.-I strongly urge an a priation of $1,500,000 for the Sacramento River major and minor tributa Such an appropriation will complete the Cherokee Canal unit, as indicate the President's proposed budget. Contracts for the last section of this unit be awarded in a few days. But the appropriation as recommended by the fornia Water Commission also would provide substantial progress on the E Creek unit, the next section of the overall project. You have heard the t mony about the importance of this from Supervisor Davies and Superv Polzin, and I support their position. Also I have been advised only last w that the Corps of Engineers have affected some savings on the Cherokee which could be transferred profitably to the Chico, Mud, and Sycamore units. Last year there was some question as to the scope of the authoriza for this latter unit, but I believe that has been cleared by statements whi will submit for the record. The plan now considered by the Army Engin is much more feasible since it routes flows around the city rather through a built-up area and it has a better cost-benefit ratio. Local partic tion amounts to 43 percent, well above suggested 30-percent minimum. State of California has funds budgeted for land acquisition. I also might |