Mr. CARTER. Thank you for the courtesy. (Mr. Carter withdrew from the committee table.) STATEMENT OF HON. ALFRED J. ELLIOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator OVERTON. You had better give your name, Congressman. Representative ELLIOTT. Congressman Elliott, Tenth District, Cali fornia. Senator OVERTON. I wish you would mention, before we start, just what features of the bill you want to discuss. Representative ELLIOTT. I am going to discuss just for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, Table Mountain, and then I will devote the rest of my statements to Kings, Kern, Tule, and Kaweah, covering those four dam sites in that area. Senator OVERTON. All right. Representative ELLIOTT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Mr.- Representative ELLIOTT. Those three dams are in my district, and the flood damages in connection with the Kings River Pine Flat Dam are all in my district although the dam construction will be over the line of my district. Before I proceed on those streams I would like for the benefit of Mr. Carter-I mean Mr. Carr who just testified here. Mr. CARTER. No; it is Carter. Representative ELLIOTT. Carter? Is it Carr? I am a member of the Flood Control Committee of the House, and this Table Mountain Dam site came before the committee. Now, the gentleman made the statement that they were not permitteed to testify or make a statement regarding the Table Mountain Dam site. This is the amendment provision on page 20 in the bill, and I read: That this modification of the project shall not be construed to authorize the construction of a high dam at the Table Mountain site but shall authorize only the low-level project to approximately the elevation of 400 feet above mean sea level, said low-level dam to be built on a foundation sufficient for such dam and not on a foundation for future construction of a higher dam. I want to bring that to the attention of the committee, as a member of the committee, and to defend the rights of our full committee. The hearings opened on the 1st day of February and closed on the 23d. Notices were sent out, appearing in many of the papers in the State of California, as to hearings on flood-control projects in all California. And to correct the gentleman, on the hearings, flood-control hearings, plans, and projects on page 11033 you will find a statement in the record of Francis Carr in opposition to this. Senator OVERTON. Is that Mr. Carter? Representative ELLIOTT. The gentleman is in error when he said no one had an opportunity. Senator OVERTON. He said he was permitted to file a statement. Representative ELLIOTT. Yes. Senator OVERTON. But he was not permitted to make a personal appearance, I think, though. Representative ELLIOTT. There was no objection by anybody. Representative ELLIOTT. Because I brought this to the attention of the chairman after Congressman Engle of California Senator OVERTON. Well, that is neither here nor there. Representative ELLIOTT. I just want to bring that out, that as far as our committee was concerned, the doors were wide open to anybody to testify who wanted to come in. Senator OVERTON. I can appreciate your desire to defend the committee of which you are a member. Representative ELLIOTT. Yes. Senator OVERTON. And I am sure they did the best they could under all the circumstances. Representative ELLIOTT. NOW, Mr. Chairman, on Kings River, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern River, as I mentioned awhile ago, three of those streams are in my congressional district, the damages from Kings River-the majority of those damages also fall in my congressional district. I am going back a little further, and I am going to be very plain, honest, to you Senators here, to try to bring out what is behind this whole program. I was very much surprised to sit here this morning and hear statements made, as I have heard over in the House Flood Control Committee, regarding these streams, trying to drag in at the last minute that this is a general over-all program for the Central Valley water project. Senators, that is about the worst falsified statement I have ever heard presented since I have been a Member of the House. In the early stages of the Central Valley project, where that red line is around the map [indicating], these streams at no time were ever intended to be made a part of the Central Valley water project. It was said here this morning that this is a project, and pointed out on the map, to serve the great area of land, the largest piece of agricultural land in California, to give them an additional water supply. Today $150,000,000 has been spent on the Central Valley features, and in this area we speak about what it was built for in the first place. At the inception the plan, through the efforts of the people in Tulare and Kern Counties, was to construct their great irrigation project. Today after 8 long years not 1 acre of land has been irrigated. Not one bucketful, if you please. And this line that was drafted [indicating], drawn there from Friant down to Kern, shows that less than 50 percent of the survey has been completed. All of these years, 8 long years, it could not have been that labor was not available. W. P. A. people and everybody else were falling all over themselves. But I want to impress on the minds of you Senators, here is the background of this thing: A plan to definitely starve the people in the San Joaquin Valley to the point of permitting, if you please, the drying of their lands until they become desert lands, until they could force them into a socialistic program that the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Ickes, has in the back of his mind. That is very apparent. The bill as introduced by Mr. Hatch for the Department of the Interior in the last few days practically states that condition. Mr. Chairman, this legislation passed the House without one opposing vote. This legislation was voted out of the House committee without one opposing vote. But all this time the Secretary of the Interior would not give up. He has refused to permit the construction of the canals from Friant south. Money has been provided by the House and Senate year after year, a carry-over of funds of as much as $10,000,000. Has he made any effort to ask for bids? Gentlemen, no, he has made no efforts. We have waited 8 long years. No one talked about constructing dams and reservoirs to care for these flood areas; not, Mr. Chairman, until this year when the House. committee reported out all these streams in the flood-control bill. The Secretary of the Interior has done everything in his power, even having the President write letters to the chairman of the committee asking that these provisions be kept out of the bill. Then they had the gall to go over to the Committee on Appropriations and ask for a lousy million dollars to apply on the $19,700,000 cost of Pine Flat Dam. They asked for a lousy million dollars. What for? To get their foot in the doorway. There was no intention to construct anything. I have the highest regard for Harry Bashore, and if Harry Bashore would be permitted to sit down here and tell the truth without fear of being discharged by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, gentlemen, he would tell you a different story than he told you this morning. I am confident of that. There is too much behind this thing, and I can say to you, Mr. Chairman, that our people will never surrender their water rights to permit the Bureau of Reclamation to construct a dam or reservoir in my congressional district. Neither will the people join in a set-up of water districts to purchase the water from the Department of the Interior under the present regimentation of programs that they have down in that Department. You gentlemen heard the discussion on the 160-acre limitation, and know why I introduced the amendment to lift the 160-acre limitation, to make this a free country like we thought it was, instead of being strangled as the bill that has been introduced by Senator Hatch of New Mexico would permit. I want to show you gentlemen what I am driving at here. Back in May 5, 1941, this issue was before the House Flood Control Committee. Mr. Ickes couldn't have his way with our people and me, so he has President Roosevelt to intercede in his behalf, and I am going to quote a paragraph of the President's letter, which is the meat of the letter of that date, on May 5, 1941: A good rule for the Congress to apply in considering these water projects, in my opinion, would be that the dominant interest should determine which agency should build and which should operate the project. Projects in which flood control or navigation clearly dominate are those in which the interest of the Corps of Engineers is superior and projects in which irrigation and related conservation uses dominate fall into the legitimate field of the Bureau of Reclamation. That was on May 5, 1941. Where was the Kern River project? What was the Department of the Interior doing to bring that out to make it possible we could determine between the Corps of Army Engi needs and the Bureau report? For over 3 years, gentlemen, that report was held up so that the legislation could not be considered by the Flood Control Committee. That is the kind of dealings we have been dealt with, unscrupulous tactics. And I would bow my head in shame if I had been any of these men here this morning who testified when they know in their heart that is the truth and nothing but the truth, the way the people have been treated in the San Joaquin Valley, bringing them to the point where our water table is getting a little lower and a little lower, and when we have a rush of water in the mountain areas, and Lord knows we don't know when it is going to come, that we might be flooded out down below. All this obstruction to get us down to the point where they can dictate policies and rules and regulations, and we would have to adopt them, by some bureau here in Washington. We don't want that in America. I would like to know, when we are at war, while the boys of these families in the San Joaquin Valley are fighting today on the front, why we have men like Mr. İckes and the ones he has employed around him who want to destroy the homes of those boys who are on the firing line, while the mothers and fathers are trying to hang on at home while they are gone. That is the kind of treatment our people have been given. And I read a quotation of February 7, 1944, again from the President of the United States, on this stream, right back to the same language again. Senator OVERTON. To whom was that letter? Representative ELLIOTT. TO Mr. Whittington, chairman of the Flood Control Committee: In my letter of May 5 He refers back 1941, I suggested that a sound policy in connection with these water projects would consist of selecting the construction agency by determining the dominant interest. Projects in which navigation or flood control clearly dominate are those in which the interest of the Corps of Engineers is superior and should be so recognized. On the other hand, projects in which irrigation and related conservation dominate are those in which the interest of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department The same wording appears in those two letters, May 5, 1941, and February 7, 1944. I read in the record at this point a letter from Mr. Whittington to the President of the United States, February 17, 1944: I gladly read your letter of February 7, 1944, into the record of hearings now being conducted by the Flood Control Committee on February 9, 1944, when the multiple-purpose projects on the Kings and Kern Rivers, Calif., were under consideration. The committee had previously given most careful consideration to your letter of May 5, 1941, The reports on these projects were submitted by the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army in response to the authorization in the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936. The Chief of Engineers and the Commissioner of Reclamation were heard by the Committee on Flood Control. I think it is a fair statement to say that aside from either the statements or reports of the Chief of Engineers or the Commissioner of Reclamation the testimony given at the hearings, including the testimony of consulting engineers of outstanding merit and reputation, shows conclusively that flood control is the dominant interest in the Kings and Kern River projects and that these projects have no direct relation to the Central Valley project, including the Mt. Shasta and Friant Dams and related works, under construction by the Bureau of Reclamation. I think it proper also to report to you that the testimony shows that there are no Federal Reclamation projects nor have there ever been any such projects along the Kings and Kern Rivers. The local interests have constructed and maintained through the years reclamation projects without Federal aid. The testimony shows that no public lands are involved and that very little, if any, new land is to be brought under water. The hearings also disclose that there is a definite flood problem and that the local interests without Federal contribution have constructed local protective works. Recent excessive floods have demonstrated that these works are inadequate. The local interests, seeking flood protection through the construction of the projects in question, have over many years acquired adequate water rights under California laws and, as stated, have established and operated their own irrigation systems. The citizens and the landowners with one accord object as disclosed by the hearings to being brought under the restrictions of the Reclamation Act. I beg to assure you that the policies as outlined in your letter of February 7, 1944, will be fully considered by the Committee on Flood Control in the light of the facts developed at the hearings. Very sincerely, Mr. Whittington, Chairman of the Flood Control Committee. Now Mr. Chairman, that is evidence of statements by the President asking to set the policy; and I will say to you those four streams, namely: Kings River is about 2% to 1 flood control; Kaweah in percentage is about 87 percent flood control. I mean Kaweah is 75 percent and Tule is 87 percent. Now, get that: Flood control 75 percent on Kaweah; Tule 87 percent flood control; Kern River about 67% percent; and I think there will be other engineers here following me who will testify that the flood control is more proportionally than I have given it to you. Senator BURTON. What do you figure on Kings River, Congressman? Representative ELLIOTT. About 21⁄2 to 1. Senator BURTON. That would be about 66 percent? Senator BURTON. What do you mean when you say 66 percent and 75 percent and 87 percent? Representative ELLIOTT. 75 percent flood control, the benefits would be, flood control over irrigation or power or any other feature; and on the Tule, 87 percent. Senator BURTON. The benefits from the investment would accrue in that proportion? Representative ELLIOTT. That is right. And that is proportionally the first consideration-we are talking about the great Central Valley's water project conserving the waters and utilizing if for the greatest of purposes. They are doing their figuring today for the greatest benefit, but the first consideration to keep from destroying the property is to have some dams or reservoirs located at the proper places, as has been outlined on the map there, to hold the water in abeyance, because that water might accumulate within 24 to 48 hours in this. Senator BURTON. Could I ask you a question, Congressman? Representative ELLIOTT. Yes. Senator BURTON. Where do you get those figures? Representative ELLIOTT. These figures here, the 75 and 87 and 621 percent, are the Corps of Engineers' figures, and I am using I think, Mr. May's figures. Not Mr. May's, but the engineer that appeared before the committee in the House. Mr. J. H. TURNER. Hale? |