justified, the levee system could be extended to protect the entire island. The cost of the initial project would be about $264,000, of which $198,000 would be Federal cost and $66,000 non-Federal cost.

Local interests would be required to assume the usual requirements of local cooperation consisting of furnishing lands, easements, and rights-of-way, making necessary highway, highway-bridge, and utility alterations, holding and saving the United States free from damages, and maintaining and operating the works after completion.

DATA ON PORTLAND AREA

The 1948 Columbia River flood inundated a total of 2,600 acres within the city limits of Portland. An area equivalent to approximately 700 blocks adjacent to Willamette River in the central part of the city was flooded. The harbor wall, along the west bank of Willamette River in the city, protected an area 23 blocks in length and from 5 to 6 blocks wide. Upstream and downstream from the harbor wall a total of 360 blocks was flooded. On the east bank of the river, in the central commercial district, approximately 340 blocks were flooded.

Construction of levees, flood walls, and appurtenant works would be required to protect adequately the most highly developed portion of the areas which were flooded. The cost of furnishing this protection is estimated to be $22,000,000, of which $14,000,000 would be Federal and $8,000,000 non-Federal cost. The estimated average annual damages within the Portland area are $2,415,000. Elimination of a large part of this damage could be credited to the improvement.

The levees would be approximately 19,000 feet in length, and the flood wall would be approximately 26,000 feet in length. The estimated cost of the flood wall is $12,600,000, and the estimated cost of the levees is $1,400,000. If other appurtenant works were required, their cost could be included within the foregoing figures.

Local interests would be required to assume the usual requirements of local cooperation consisting of furnishing lands, easements, and rights-of-way, making necessary highway, highway-bridge, and utility alterations, holding and saving the United States free from damages, and maintaining and operating the works after completion.

DATA ON WASHOUGAL AREA

An

The Washougal area is situated at river mile 125.0, in the southeastern part of Clark County, Wash., and extends from Lawton Creek on the east to include a part of the town of Washougal. It is about 41⁄2 miles long, averages three-quar ters of a mile wide, and generally lies about 30 feet above mean sea level. area of 2,260 acres lies below the 40-foot contour. Steigewald Lake, which extends through the greater portion of the area, is long and narrow and has an area of 350 acres during periods of normal rainfall. A relatively small creek, Gibbons Creek, drains 4,500 acres of adjacent hill lands and enters the area. The flow from the creek increases the problem of draining the lake, but can be handled through automatic drainage gates.

The district has been a dairy center for over 30 years, and has several large dairies adjacent to the landward limits. Prune and filbert groves, which formerly occupied about 3 percent of the area, are now being removed. About 150 persons reside in the flood area. The Washougal Woolen Mill also is located in the area and has become an important factor in the economic life of the community.

A total of 5%1⁄2 miles of levee, two large tide boxes, drainage ditches, and a pumping plant, at a total cost of $820,000, would be required to protect the entire area. Of this amount, about $272,000 would be non-Federal costs. The protection proposed would encourage further industrial development of the town of Washougal and would allow a much higher agricultural development of the remainder of the

area.

Local interests would furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, make any necessary highway, highway-bridge, and utility alterations, hold and save the United States free from damages, and maintain and operate the project, including the pumping plants, after completion.

(Thereupon, at 3:45 p. m., the committee was adjourned until Monday, May 23, 1949, at 10 a. m.)

FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORIZATIONS, 1949

MONDAY, MAY 23, 1949

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Clifford Davis (acting chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis will take charge, and Colonel Gee will make the presentation.

Mr. DAVIS. I think it desirable to take up first this morning Colonel Gee, the authorization for the projects, and the two river basins referred to. What is the first project you have?

STATEMENT OF COL. H. C. GEE, DEPUTY CHIEF, CIVIL WORKS DIVISION OF FLOOD CONTROL, ARMY ENGINEERS

Colonel GEE. The Los Angeles project, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DAVIS. All right, Colonel, will you proceed.

LOS ANGELES-SAN GABRIEL RIVER BASIN, CALIF.

Colonel GEE. Mr. Chairman, the comprehensive plan which involves the Los Angeles-San Gabriel River Basin, was initiated by Congress in the First General Flood Control Act of 1936, which authorized the construction of a number of local flood-protection works and flood. control basins in cooperation with the authorities of Los Angeles County.

Most of these projects have been included among works originally initiated under the provisions of the Emergency Relief Acts of 1935 and 1936, and were transferred to the project, Los Angeles County drainage area, California, on June 30, 1937, for completion.

The Flood Control Act, approved August 18, 1941, adopted the general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the basin of the Los Angeles-San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo and Ballona Creeks as set forth in House Document 838 of the Seventysixth Congress, third session. No substantial expansion or modification of the comprehensive plan has been made since that time. The comprehensive plan provided for the following protective works:

In the Los Angeles River Basin, 3 flood-control basins; 17 debris basins; 49.07 miles of main-stream channel; 53.42 miles of tributary channels; and 109 bridges.

691

9232949- -45

In the San Gabriel-Rio Hondo Basin, there were 2 flood-control basins, 14 debris basins, 45.36 miles of main-stream channel, 104.39 miles of tributary channels, and 207 bridges.

In the Ballona Creek there were 2 debris basins, 26 miles of channels, and 12 bridges.

The total estimated cost of the plan in $328,485,000.

In the major authorized basin plans for Los Angeles County drainage area and subsequent acts of Congress there has been authorized the following amounts for its prosecution:

In the Flood Control Act of 1936, $70,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the act of June 22?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. In the Flood Control Act of 1938, $12,541,000; in the Flood Control Act of 1941, $25,000,000; in the Flood Control Act of 1944, $25,000,000; in the act of 1946, $25,000,000. That makes a total of $157,541,000 to date.

Under these authorizations the Congress has appropriated a total of $90,425,000 which has permitted substantial progress toward the completion of the major elements of this comprehensive plan. The status of the works named may be summarized as follows:

The estimated cost of projects completed or essentially completed is $86,134,000.

The estimated cost of the projects under construction is $65,895,000, and the total cost of these projects completed and under construction is $152,934,000. All of this work has been undertaken under existing authorization of the $157,541,000, leaving an actual difference between the authorized value of the work under construction and the amount authorized of $4,606,000 at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that include the appropriation for the current year 1949?

Colonel GEE. 1949; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So that you only have about $5,000,000 remaining? Colonel GEE. With which to initiate additional construction, that is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I mean. What is the total authorization you need to complete the works under construction and under way?

Colonel GEE. The present monetary authorization will complete

the work under construction.

The CHAIRMAN. What about the initiations?

Colonel GEE. It will complete all of the work presently under way, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. And for the remaining backlog of the estimated cost you stated you have an authorization of around $5,000,000?

Colonel GEE. For the remaining $180,000,000, approximately, there remains only a balance of $4,606,000.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we get it now.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Gee, may I ask at this time what additional authorizations you are suggesting?

Colonel GEE. We are recommending to the committee that the authorization be increased in the amount of $40,000,000.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. McDonough.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I would like to ask you, Colonel Gee, in the appropriation bill that is now before the Senate for the flood-control

project in Los Angeles County if there is sufficient unobligated amount authorized for the completion of the amount required. Do you recall the amount?

Colonel GEE. As I recall, the amount is $12,500,000.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. You say the obligations authorized in the Los Angeles drainage area is $5,000,000, plus?

Colonel GEE. There has been actually obligated, Mr. McDonough, $90,425,000 against the $157,541,000. However, the difference between the two figures is adequate to cover the amount-the appropriation presently included in the 1950 appropriation bill is adequate. My point is that the present authorization will only permit the completion of these works presently under way and will not permit any initiation of additional authorization of works in the Los Angeles project. In other words, in order that projects may move ahead and that we may initiate new items it is essential that we have an increase in the monetary authorization.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. That is, authorization of any new additional projects that may include next year's projects?

Colonel GEE. Even to handle those which are presently authorized. Mr. MCDONOUGH. That is the point I was making.

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may extend any statement you wish to make in connection with those projects, Colonel.

Colonel GEE. Thank you, sir.

RIO HONDO CHANNEL, CALIF.

The Flood Control Act of 1936 and subsequent acts authorized the construction of certain public works for flood control in the basins of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Ballona Creek, Calif., in accordance with House Document 838, Seventy-sixth Congress. One of the projects included in the plans was Whittier Narrows Reservoir on San Gabriel River at El Monte, Calif. The original plan called for an improved channel along San Gabriel River from Whittier Narrows Dam to the Pacific Ocean to provide for the release of the project design flood from the reservoir. Rio Hondo, a drainage channel extending from San Gabriel River in the vicinity of Whittier Narrows Dam site to Los Angeles River, was to be improved by local interests in the original plans.

Subsequent investigations have disclosed that, since the peak flows on San Gabriel River and Los Angeles River are not coincident, a considerable saving to the Government can be obtained by improving the Rio Hondo Channel to carry the major overflows from Whittier Narrows Reservoir to Los Angeles River and thence to the ocean. Some improvements along San Gabriel River downstream from Whittier Narrows Dam would be required regardless of where the main overflow from the reservoir is routed, in order to satisfy existing water rights. However, because the channel improvement required for Rio Hondo is less than half of the length of channel improvement that would be necessary to make the San Gabriel River the main overflow channel, a substantial reduction in the total cost of this project will be realized. Therefore, it is recommended that the Rio Hondo Channel be improved to carry the main overflow from Whittier Narrows Reservoir in lieu of San Gabriel River.

The CHAIRMAN. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the colonel a question concerning the Sacramento River project: What is the total authorized appropriation for that project, Colonel Gee?

Colonel GEE. The total estimated cost of the Sacramento project is $87,828,000. The present authorization is $15,000,000; the appropriations to date are $1,680,000 on this project.

The CHAIRMAN. Out of a total estimated authorization of how much?

Colonel GEE. $15,000,000, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The total authorization of $15,000,000?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And what is the total estimated cost of the project? Colonel GEE. $87,828,000, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the appropriation included in the current year 1949 is how much?

Colonel GEE. $1,680,000, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you may extend any further statement you wish to make in the record.

Colonel GEE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The next item is the San Joaquin: What is the estimated cost of the approved project, and what has actually been appropriated?

Colonel GEE. $48,332,000 is the estimated cost.

The project was authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944, and the present monetary authorization is $8,000,000, which authorization includes in that amount

The CHAIRMAN. How much has been appropriated?
Colonel GEE. Appropriated to date, $755,000.

The CHAIRMAN. You may extend in the record any further statement you wish to make in respect to that project.

Colonel GEE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. For the Kaweah-Tule project, what is the estimated cost, and what has been appropirated?

Colonel GEE. The estimated cost of the basic plan for the KaweahTule project is $24,539,000. The present monetary authorization is $4,600,000, included in the Flood Control Act of 1944, which act authorized the project. There has been appropriated to date $570,000. The CHAIRMAN. Does that include both the Kaweah and the Tule, the total authorization of $4,600,000?

Colonel GEE. Both, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Both are in the same authorized project?

Colonel GEE. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And $570,000 has been appropriated?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you may extend any further remarks you wish to make on that project.

Colonel GEE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We have two special bills that have been introduced by members, one by our colleague Mr. McDonough, and the other by the former Chairman, Mr. Dondero.