In the summertime a very different situation exists. In recent years the water table has been dropping at an alarming rate, while the population has been increasing at an alarming rate. This has been particularly difficult on the city of Lakeport, which derives its source of water supply from Scotts Valley. City officials are extremely disturbed over the critical water supply problem of recent years. In the past 4 years, since the city experienced a water emergency, the old city wells have not supplied water to the city after midsummer and have been largely dependent upon the new well in Scotts Valley. With the constantly increasing demands, it has been proven that even this new well is unable to meet the needs of the city and has been forced to restrict water sales to consumers inside, as well as outside the city, including the new high school plant, which has been forced to supply its own water supply for its yard maintenance.

This project would supply the needs of the city of Lakeport as far into the future as can be predicted, as well as maintain the water table for agriculture use in Scotts Valley and supply water to the now dry Bachelor Valley.

On behalf of the citizens of Lake County and the city of Lakeport, I wish to thank you for the honor of appearing before you to present our case and implore your early consideration for authorization of this project.

Mr. JONES. Thank you.

Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that I am quite familiar with this area since it is within a hundred miles of my own home. I have been in the area on quite a number of occasions. I would like to commend my colleague, Congressman Leggett, who represents the district adjoining mine and a portion of the district I formerly represented for his diligence in getting this project cleared with the Bureau of the Budget in time for consideration by the committee this year. I think the project is a meritorious project and I hope very much the committee will approve it.

Mr. CLAUSEN. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. BALDWIN. I yield.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I simply want to add my own personal comments to those of our friend from California, Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Leggett and his staff certainly have not only been diligent in pursuing this project, through the agencies, but I can also say he and his staff have been very diligent in seeing that I was informed as one of the members because I am certainly familiar with this particular area. As he said before, the county of Lake is immediately contiguous to my district and had been formerly a part of the First District of California.

There is a point, Mr. Leggett, that I think possibly should be clarified and you brought this out in your testimony; that is, this bit of local opposition I believe from the southern part of the lake. We all are familiar with the fact that the lake itself has good and bad water. At certain times of the year there is a tendency for the water to be somewhat brackish. But I think it should be made very clear that as far as I am concerned that the opposition is not really being consistent with what the wishes of the people of Lake County are. I know you have had a meeting with the Bureau of Reclamation regarding its entire Eel River complex development plans to try to have, or

hope to have a southerly diversion so as to enhance the water quality of Clear Lake. Would you like to comment on this, sir?

Mr. LEGGETT. You are exactly right in your comments and certainly Clear Lake leaves something to be desired as far as being an ideal recreation lake at the present time is concerned.

As you know, there are certain parts of the summer when you can't dive into the lake any place when you don't come up green, covered with this larvae and algae which is growing there and there is a tendency on the part of a great many riparian owners who feel very badly about this and know this is a disintegrating condition becoming aggravated, exasperated all the time and they don't want to do any thing to aggravate the situation and I can certainly appreciate the situation.

If they completely immobilize themselves, it will not do any good and we certainly have the situation where we have a lack of beneficial water in the Lake County basin at the time we need it. Certainly this project is going to help.

While we will be holding some of the water in Scotts Creek eventually it is all going to flow into Lake County anyway-into Clear Lake so this basis eventually will be the residual beneficiary of all of this water.

This is a situation where no matter how much APW or ARA funds we pump into Lake County--and they have received some-they are never going to solve the problems of the lake or the area until we do have a large runoff through that lake and hopefully from the Eel River so we can rehabilitate the waters there in a very substantial way and I hope we can get on with that at an early date.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Hansen, as I understand it from your briefings, if the reservoir project is constructed, you will actually have a continuing flow into the lake itself, but it is very minimal at best. Even during flood season, it isn't really resolving the brackish water problem as some people suggest, is that correct?

Mr. HANSEN. That is correct.

In the summertime there now is practically no flow down Scott Creek into Clear Lake. If this project were built, there would be return flow from the project that possibly could enter the lake in the summertime rather than the flood waters in the wintertime.

Mr. CLAUSEN. How far will the reservoir be located from the community of Lakeport itself?

Mr. HANSEN. It is within a mile of the city.

Mr. CLAUSEN. It is an ideal location for the local water supply needs of the area.

Mr. HANSEN. It fits very definitely into the city program because they presently get water in the general area now.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I know that the mayor and the other supervisors met with me the other day in my office and brought this point out so I just wanted the record to show, Mr. Chairman, that while the committee may have a wire from a group of people in the southern part of Clear Lake, I am convinced in my own mind that in the long run once we can move forward with the overall southerly diversion of the Eel River, we will greatly enhance what their objectives are and I don't think they should try to oppose this project at this time so I thoroughly concur with all of the comments that you have made and support it. Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very kindly.

Colonel PRESTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Scotts Creek, a tributary to Clear Lake, is located in the coast ranges of northern California approximately 100 miles northwest of Sacramento. Scotts Creek Basin is about 17 miles long and 10 miles wide, draining an area of 107 square miles.

The Scotts Valley flood plain includes highly developed cropland devoted to such crops as pears, walnuts, alfalfa, and pasture. At one time the canyon area of Scotts Creek included highly developed orchards but such land use has declined due to flooding. The city of Lakeport with a 1960 population of 2,300, the county seat of Lake County and within the service area of Scotts Creek, is expected to increase substantially in population in the future.

A Federal levee along the lower left bank of Scotts Creek was completed in 1959. This project, together with locally constructed levees, provides at present ineffective flood protection. There are about 4,300 acres of land in the Scotts Creek flood plain and some flooding usually occurs each year. Total flood damages attributable to Scotts Creek flooding will average an estimated $214,000 per year if protec

tive measures are not taken.

In addition to a flood problem, this area is dependent upon Scotts Creek wells for its water supply. The present yield of 7,400 acre-feet per year for municipal and irrigation water is inadequate for the present demand and compares with an estimated requirement for 25,200 acre-feet per year under full development.

In addition, the rapidly expanding California population has created a need for recreation to be provided for in this and other nearby areas.

The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a multiplepurpose dam and reservoir for flood control, water supply, irrigation, recreation, with downstream channel improvements and levees. The local cooperation includes, in addition to the usual requirements to provide lands, easements and rights-of-way and other associated requirements, assurances regarding arrangements with the Secretary of the Interior for repayment of costs allocated to water supply and irrigation; and repayment of one-half the separable costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife.

The first cost of these works is estimated at $9,620,000 including $9,360,000 Federal and $260,000 non-Federal. Reimbursements by local interests are estimated to total $4,334,000 making a net Federal cost after reimbursement of $5,026,000.

The annual benefits are estimated at $560,000 and annual charges at $443,000 giving a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.3.

The State of California and Federal agencies concerned favor the project and the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to its submission to Congress.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement.

Mr. JONES. Where does the saline line intrusion commence?

Colonel PRESTON. We have no brackish problem on Scotts Creek. The Congressman had reference to come of the other streams draining into the basin.

Mr. JONES. I see.

YAKIMA RIVER, ELLENSBURG, WASH.

Mr. JONES. The next report is on H.R. 828, the Yakima River, Ellensburg, Wash.

Mr. ROBERTS (presiding). We have our distinguished colleague, Mrs. May, here.

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE MAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mrs. MAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am certainly glad to have this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of my bill, H.R. 828, which will very simply extend the period of time within which assurances of local cooperation may be furnished the Department of the Army in connection with a flood control project on the Yakima River at Ellensburg, Wash.

This is a simple bill which would merely extend the present expiration date of June 1965 to June 1970, the authorization of a proposed flood control project along the Yakima River near Ellensburg, Wash. This extension would give the local interests the time necessary to study a number of changes which are taking place in project requirements before giving the local assurances required by the Corps of Engineers.

The original authorization, as approved in May of 1950, was for a single-purpose flood control project of a number of dikes along the Yakima River in order to provide some measure of flood protection. Since this original authorization, however, the Washington State Highway Commission had decided to occupy the same general area with its relocation of Interstate Highway 90, formerly U.S. 10. Upon review of the highway plans, the Washington State Department of Conservation found that the planned construction would render much of the proposed Corps of Engineers project useless, and in addition, would possibly increase the flood hazard to the area.

Because of these findings, the Washington State Department of Conservation has suggested an alternate plan of combining the two proposed projects by modifying both plans and using the highway as a dike where possible and eliminating the planned corps dikes in these locations.

The Washington State Department of Highways and the Corps of Engineers, Seattle district, have agreed to make preliminary estimates of the feasibility of combining the two proposed projects in light of the possible savings and increased benefits.

It is the opinion of the Washington State Department of Conservation that, by combining the highway and dike system, five costly twin bridges and/or culvert sections can be eliminated from the highway plan; the material obtained in excavating the floodway will reduce the amount of high-cost fill material for the roadway sections, and numerous sections of the proposed Corps of Engineers dikes can be eliminated.

The combined projects should not only reduce the flood problems of Elleneburg and surrounding valley floor from the Yakima River, it should eliminate them. Also, it will increase drainage and irrigation benefits and reduce highway maintenance costs.

The extension of authorization, as requested, will give the necessary time needed to complete these studies and to arrange for the local cooperation and assurances.

This, Mr. Chairman, is an opportunity to increase the benefits at what I feel will be greatly reduced overall costs-a situation which does not occur very often in engineering projects.

I am pleased to note, Mr. Chairman, that the Secretary of the Army, in his June 1 legislative report on H.R. 828, states the Department of the Army has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 828 and that the Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of the report or the consideration of the committee.

It is my request, Mr. Chairman, that the provisions of H.R. 828 be made a part of the omnibus rivers and harbors and flood control bill. May I again express my appreciation to the committee for its consideration of the provisions of H.R. 828.

Mr. ROBERTS. We thank the distinguished Congresswoman for a clear, concise, and eloquent statement.

Mr. BALDWIN. I would like to join you, Mr. Chairman, in thanking Mrs. May, for the very constructive presentation which she has made to the committee on the problems involved in this project.

I notice the Corps of Engineers has submitted a favorable report on the bill. We will certainly be inclined to view such a bill favorably with this background information.

Mrs. MAY. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DORN. We welcome the gentlelady to the committee. We are delighted to have you, Mrs. May.

Mrs. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Dorn. I simply want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mrs. May has discussed this project with me over the past few months. I too want to compliment Mrs. May on a very concise statement. She always has an unusual ability to articulate so well.

Mrs. MAY. I thank the chairman and the members of the committee. Colonel PRESTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Ellensburg, Wash. lies about 100 miles southeast of Seattle, on the Yakima River. A project to provide such local flood protection works as were found to be economically justified along the Yakima River in the vicinity of Ellensburg was authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1950.

Based upon a report dated September 12, 1957, which was accepted by the Chief of Engineers as establishing economic justification for a system of levees to protect the city of Ellensburg and vicinity from flood damages, contingent upon local interests furnishing the usual items of local cooperation, formal request was made on June 10, 1960, to local interests for the required cooperation. Since this was not forthcoming, the project was classified inactive and the authorization has expired on June 10, 1965, 5 years from the date of the formal request.

H.R. 828, now pending, would extend the authorization for this project 5 additional years to June 10, 1970, thus allowing additional time for local interests to furnish required cooperation and also allowing additional study by the corps to take into account the con