there are subdivision plans being held up pending resolution of the problem. The need, I believe, has been stated adequately by Mr. Foster and Supervisor Pryde. For these reasons, I support the proposed increase in the budget for the Sacnamento River major and minor tributaries. We must complete the Cherokee Canal and get on with the business of Elder Creek and the Chico-Mud-Sycamore project. Truckee River and tributaries.-The $153,000 provided in the budget would be suficient to keep this project going through the coming season. The work bould be done at a time when releases from Lake Tahoe are reduced sufficiently permit the work to be completed economically. Advanced engineering and design: The budget for these items has my wholehearted support. The funds would keep three most important projects in my district on schedule. These are the Oroville Reservoir, $50,000; Chico Landing to Red Bluff on the Sacramento River, $50,000; and the Tuolumne River New Don Pedro project, $25,000. Oroville is a key unit of the entire statewide water evelopment program. Chico Landing-Red Bluff is an integral unit of the Sacramento River flood project and Don Pedro is vital to large farming areas of the San Joaquin Valley, the city of San Francisco, and Tuolumne County which I represent. Investigations: The commission supports an appropriation of $500,000 for food control project surveys in California and urges that the 15 surveys budgeted pursued to completion at the full capability of the Corps of Engineers. Those which I have a direct concern are: Yuba River: This is one of the studies currently underway by the corps, State of California, Bureau of Reclamation, and local organizations. The $10,000 in the budget would permit the corps to keep pace with studies of other trencies. This is needed in order that a coordinated plan may be developed for the basin. Merced River: The corps, State, and Merced Irrigation District are working this and $15,000 in the budget would permit continued study coordination. Mokelumne and Consumnes Rivers: Again cooperative studies are underway volving the corps, State, and East Bay Municipal Utility District. The $25,800 adget would permit completion of this report in fiscal 1962. The balance of the appropriation would be used on remaining authorized surreya, and I am advised the Army Engineers have a capability of turning out the following project studies and I urge they be permitted to do so: Bear River, Garden Bar: $20,000. Big Valley, Pit River: There is no dollar capability established here because has been held up pending completion of State studies which now are about complete. I now urge the corps proceed immediately in order to be in a position to act effectively, expeditiously, and in concert with other agencies: Chester, Plumas County, flood protection, $5,000; Coon Creek stream group, $15,000; Truckee River, $15,000; Walker River, $10,000. Now to turn to the Bureau of Reclamation's portion of this budget. Generally I endorse the proposed budgets for these projects. A substantial portion of the budgeted funds going to California will be for the Trinity division of the Central Valley project. This is well underway, and of course we must keep it going. To outline briefly the Trinity division: Except for one omission, I strongly urge the Congress to approve the budget as presented, but I would like to make a comment about the electrical generation and transmission system. The budgeted amounts are sufficient to award contracts for the powerplants and transmission facilities to the existing Keswick switchyard. The amounts also provide for studies leading to the best route for transmission facilities from Keswick to the Tracy load center. I urge that these studied be expedited. Early last year Secretary Seaton made public a construction schedule for the Trinity power features, and I note that the 1961 budget figures represent a substantial reduction from the Secretary's schedule. In supporting these lesser figures ($14 million instead of $21 million), I wish to go on record that I will strongly advocate an increased appropriation next year so construction can be in accord with the Secretary's announced schedule. Trinity Reservoir is expected to fill in the spring of 1963. It is just plain, ordinary good business to complete the power and transmission facilities to coincide with that event. In this way, repayment of the public investment in this project can be started without delay. The one omission in the Trinity division budget I mentioned involves the Cow Creek unit. Negotiations between the Shasta County Water Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation for a repayment contract on the Cow Creek unit are nearing consummation. For that reason. I urge appropriation of $555.000 for construction contingent on execution of the repayment contracts. With the rapid economic and population growth around the city of Redding, the need for additional water supplies is accelerating. A somewhat similar situation exists in the area of the western Sacramento Valley which will be served by the Tehama-Colusa Canal, a unit of the Sacramento Canal system of the Central Valley project. Negotiations leading to repayment contracts are progressing among several additional public districts and the Bureau of Reclamation. I am confident that contracts sufficient to start construction will be executed soon. Additional water from the Trinity River will be available to this area soon and the Sacramento canals should be completed so that the new supply can be used efficiently and effectively. For that reason, I advocate an increase in the budgeted item to $300,000 for contract negotiations and preconstruction activities, contingent on the execution of additional contracts. Distribution must keep pace with storage and power development. I would also like to endorse other items contained in the budget for the Central Valley project: Corning Canal__ Corning Canal distribution systems- American River division's El Dorado Irrigation District distribution system---- $450,000 1, 143, 000 1,600,000 Two other Bureau of Reclamation projects of vital concern to the people I represent are included in the budget, and I would like to speak in their support: Washoe project: A California-Nevada project which includes construction of Prosser Creek Dam and Reservoir. The $3,137,000 contained in the budget would permit continued construction of the dam, which by year end is scheduled to be more than two-thirds complete. On this same project, I also support the general investigation outlay proposed for the Bureau next year. Among these studies would be one of those portions of the Washoe project other than the Prosser Dam and Reservoir. This will permit continued coordinated development of the entire project. Klamath project: Another two-State venture-California and Oregon-this project has $4,868.000 budgeted for installation of much needed pumping plants and completion of laterals. Differences which held up work there for a while have been resolved and this project would improve the operation of the reservoir for the benefit of all concerned. The third category is loans for small projects. I would like to voice my general commendation for this program which helps small local agencies to help themselves. Two Public Law 984 loans budgeted are $2,261,175 for the Georgetown Divide Public Utilities District and $927,000 for the Jackson Valley Irrigation District. Both of these are most worthwhile projects and I commend them to you and urge the budgeted items be retained intact. The recommended appropriations will permit completion of these projects. The application of Brown's Valley Irrigation District for its Virginia Ranch project was not approved in time for inclusion in the budget. It since has been transmitted to the Congress and has been approved by the Senate Public Works Committee and is pending before the House Public Works Committee. In view of these developments, and the immediate need for irrigation and domestic water supplies in the district, I ask that an appropriation of $4,804,000 be made der the terms of Public Law 984, 84th Congress. Another district which is in even greater need is the South Sutter Water District, which has applied for a loan of $4,875,000, also under Public Law 984. I am asking that such an appropriation be made contingent, of course, that the Application meets the requirement of the law for a 60-day review period by the appropriate committees of Congress. Mr. Chairman, northern California has many water development projects, but I know that you and this committee realize that the entire future developbent of the State of California is dependent upon water resources of northern California. While my concern for my district is great, I am appealing to you pot only from a district standpoint, but also I urge the committee to accept the recommendations considered here because they are vital to all the people of the Nation's second largest State, California. I would like to make one further request, gentlemen, and that is that you masider the $11 million appropriation for the Sacramento River deep water hip channel. This project has been under construction for 11 years now, and it only half finished. An $11 million appropriation in fiscal 1961 and $8,500,000 fiscal 1962 will finish up this job which is of vital importance to the economy I central and northern California. I believe the testimony of the Army Corps of Engineers has been that $11 million could be applied efficiently, effectively, and economically to this project and I urge this committee to take this action. Thank you for your courtesy of permitting me to appear before this committee. SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES Mr. JOHNSON. On the Sacramento River, major and minor tribuaries, we have three projects: the Cherokee Canal unit, the Elder Creek unit, and the Chico-Mud-Sycamore Creek unit. They were authorized a long time ago. The Cherokee project is under conruction and there are enough funds in the budget to do that job. The bids have just come in and they are well below the budget estimate. So, we would like consideration given to those other projects, the Elder Creek unit and Chico-Mud-Sycamore unit. I am also going to file with the committee, if I am permitted to do three letters concerning the consideration as to authorization on Chico, Mud, and Sycamore Creek, one from Mr. Buckley, chairman of the Committee on Public Works, one from Senator Chavez, and The from Senator Kuchel. Mr. CANNON. They will be included in the record at this point. (The letters referred to follow :) Lt. Gen. E. C. ITSCHNER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, DEAR GENERAL ITSCHNER: Representative Harold T. Johnson has called to my attention the situation which exists with respect to a unit of the flood control project for the Sacramento River and tributaries, California, from Collinsville to Shasta Dam, involving improvement of Chico, Mud, Sandy Gulch, and Sycamore Creeks. This improvement was authorized by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, as recommended in House Document 649, 78th Congress. The improvement provides for the construction of levees and channel improvements to protect adjacent lands from periodic and highly damaging overflows. No appropriations have yet been made for construction of the project. Since the time of authorization extensive development has taken place in the area through which the improvements would be located, which would result in a 54265-60-pt. 4—28 relatively high increase in the cost of lands and real estate. It is my understanding that the Corps of Engineers has made a restudy of the plan and has found that an engineering modification of the project involving a diversion, called the Sycamore Creek diversion, would require less expensive real estate acquisition and would be, in general, a more feasible plan. The original plan of the Corps of Engineers is referred to as plan A-2 and the new plan B-3. The rights-of-way costs for plan B-3 are now less than the rights-of-way costs for plan A-2. The total cost of plan B-3 is currently estimated at $4,900,000 whereas the presently estimated cost of plan A-2 as originally authorized is $5,170,000. In addition, plan A-2 has a benefit-cost ratio less than unity which indicates that it is not now justified economically, whereas plan B-3 has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2 which indicates substantial economic justification. It is my understanding that State officials and other local interests have agreed to participate to the extent required by law, which is furnishing lands and rights-of-way. The cost to local interests for rights-of-way in plan B-3 would be $2,100,000 out of a total first cost of $4,900,000 which is approximately 43 percent of the total cost of the project, an unusually high degree of local participation. In view of the extensive development in the project area since the project was authorized, requiring considerably more costly real estate acquisition, the fact that the modified plan is better from an engineering and economic standpont, and finally the high degree of local participation, it is my opinion that the change is warranted and is within the discretionary authority of the Chief of Engineers. Sincerely yours, CHARLES A. BUCKLEY, Chairman, Committee on Public Works. Maj. Gen. E. C. ITSCHNER, U.S. SENATE, April 2, 1900. COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, DEAR GENERAL ITSCHNER: Senator Engle has directed to my attention a situation which exists with respect to a unit of the flood-control project for the Sacramento River and tributaries, California, involving improvement of Chico, Mud, Sandy Gulch, and Sycamore Creeks. This improvement was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944, as recommended in House Document 649, 78th Congress. It provides for the construction of levees and channel works to protect adjacent lands from periodic overflows. No appropriation yet has been made for construction. Since the time of authorization extensive development has taken place in the Chico area which would result in a relatively high increase in the cost of lands and real estate. It is my understanding that the Corps of Engineers has made a restudy of the plan and has found that an engineering modification, called the Sycamore Creek diversion, would require less expensive real estate acquisition and would be, in general, a more feasible plan. The original plan of the corps is referred to as plan A-2 and the new plan B-3. The rights-of-way costs for plan B-3 are now less than the rights-of-way costs for plan A-2. The total cost of plan B-3 is currently estimated at $4,900,000, whereas the presently estimated cost of plan A-2 as originally authorized is $5,170,000. In addition, plan A-2 has a benefit-cost ratio less than unity, whereas plan B-3 has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2. Senator Engle informs me that State officials and other local interests have agreed to participate to the extent required by law, which is furnishing lands and rights-of-way. The cost to local interests for rights-of-way in plan B-3 would be $2,100,000 out of a total first cost of the project, an unusually high degree of local participation. In view of the extensive development in the area since the project was authorized, requiring considerably more costly real estate, plus the fact that the modified plan is better from an engineering and economic standpoint, and finally the high degree of local participation, it is my opinion that the change is warranted and is within the discretionary authority of the Chief of Engineers. Sincerely yours, DENNIS CHAVEZ, Chairman. APRIL 1, 1960. Lt. Gen. E. C. ITSCHNER, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, DEAR GENERAL ITSCHNER: You undoubtedly will recall my desire to see that authorized flood protection for the city of Chico is provided as early as possible and my concern about agreement on an adequate plan by which this may be achieved. A few years ago I had a part in urging the corps to review previous plans to correct the problem. I am informed that an alternative plan has been developed which it is hoped will overcome obstacles in the form of high rights-of-way costs. I believe this plan has been worked out in detail, in consultation with the district engineer. I also am advised that the chairman of the House Public Works Committee, Representative Buckley, has communicated with you regarding the possibility of proceeding with the so-called plan B-3, which has a favorable benefit-cost ratio and will involve a high degree of local participation. Chairman Buckley has indicated he feels this proposal can be carried out in conformity with the existing authorization for the major and minor tributaries. In view of the fact that some years have passed while the best method of procedure was being investigated, I am hopeful that the way now may be cleared for early action. I will be grateful if you will let me know your views on this matter and inform me of the response which you make to Chairman Buckley. With kind regards, I am, Sincerely yours, Mr. CANNON. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) COW CREEK UNIT THOMAS H. KUCHEL, U.S. Senator. Mr. JOHNSON. The other item mentioned here is the Cow Creek unit within the Trinity River project. Mr. Carr gave a very thorough explanation of the project and it is one that our people expect to repay for its development. They are working out the repayment contracts now and we would like to see consideration on that. TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL The other matter is the Tehama-Colusa Canal. Two members of this fine committee, Congressman Boland and Congressman Kirwan, were out there and I think we traveled over most of the area this canal would serve. We are vitally interested in seeing this project get underway. It was authorized to consume some of the water that is being stored at the Trinity River project, which will soon be under operation along about 1963. This area is very important to the development of northern California. So, any consideration that you folks could give to it certainly would be appreciated by the people in the area. The other items are loans unded Public Law 984. They also will be repaid to the Government. They are the loans affecting small projects. Last year your committee was very generous to us. You gave us a start on two projects of that nature, namely the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District and the Jackson Valley Irrigation District. This year you have budgeted the balance of the appropriations to complete the projects and they are both underway. We also have the Brown's Valley Irrigation District and the South Sutter Water District. Their applications and their contracts are back here now with the various governmental agencies. We are in high hopes that you will give us consideration when they are proc |