The program has been commenced under the authority contained in House Document 518, Seventy-eighth Congress. We now find that the authorizations contained therein are inadequate for the expressed purposes and that additional authorization will be required to complete the project. Two main factors have been largely responsible for the increased costs and may be briefly summarized as follows: (1) The original survey report was made in 1938 and 1939. Since that time the problem in the upland areas, where the floodwater and silt and sand originate, has become much more severe. The upland hill area has seen the development by the Union Oil Co. of the La Purisima oil field, with many miles of paved roads and hard-surfaced areas in the vicinity of the oil development; there has also been a greatly expanded agricultural use in these upper canyon areas. There has been a tremendous development by the Johns-Manville Products Corp. in its program of mining for diatomaceous earth in the upper Miguelito Canyon areas, stripping much of the brush and surface soil from large hill areas. All of these conditions and many more have put the tributary watershed in a more hazardous condition, subjecting them to flood burdens during intense rains far greater than those originally the subject of study in 1938-39. Also, since the original survey was made, all of Santa Barbara County, and particularly the drainage area within the tributary canyons the subject of this problem, has experienced heavy, damaging floods, particularly during the wet years of 1940-41, 1941-42, and 1942-43. In 1940-41, some 42 to 50 inches of rain fell throughout the area, in an area where the normal annual rainfall is but 16 inches. The soils in the upper canyon areas, particularly in the Mission and Cebada Canyon areas, is a very unstable, sandy soil; it might best be called a "sugar sand," as it practically melts away when unprotected by protective brush and grasses. Through the gullies already formed in this unstable soil at the time of the original studies, we have seen 10 years of unchecked rainwaters, including the heavy rain years previously mentioned, pour to the valuable farm lands below, carrying their damaging burden of unproductive silt and sand. We have seen the already deep ravines in these tributary watershed valleys become increasingly wider and deeper, thus increasing the size of the control structures necessary for their stabilization and control. I do not believe that the structures and control methods now planned differ from the original program except in the size of the control structures; since the size of the gullies has become wider and deeper, larger structures will have to be erected to fit the changed condition at the structure sites; again, a channel which was originally considered to be adequate with no particular protection for the banks now needs to be stabilized with a more permanent lining because of the increased flows caused by the reasons previously given. (2) The second factor in the increase of the cost of the project is that condition that is typical throughout the country: The rise in the cost of construction work itself. I would estimate that since the war the cost of construction work in our area has more than doubled. Certainly no man can overlook the importance of this factor in considering the reasons for the increased authorizations requested. The board of directors of the Lompoc Soil Conservation District has been working with the technicians of the Soil Conservation Service in developing the specific plans for measures to take care of the increased flood and soil-erosion control problem, and we feel that what is now included in the plans of work for these areas is what is actually needed to get the job done. A delay will only intensify the.problems. Within the past 5 years land values in the valley bottom lands being protected by the program have doubled and sometimes quadrupled in value. Extensive land-leveling work has been carried on in this flood-plain area and extensive irrigation lay-outs developed. Crop production and values have trebled. The lands being protected can be included with the Nation's most valuable and productive farm lands. Local cooperation and interest has been very gratifying. In the Cebada and Mission Canyon areas, the only areas in which any work has been done, all farmers and landowners joined in voluntarily granting to the district the easements and rights-of-way necessary for the erection and maintenance of the control structures. These grants were freely given, without monetary consideration of any kind. Among the property owners involved were corporations, such as the Union Oil Co., and the State of California (La Purisima State Park). We have commitments now from property owners for the furnishing of additional rights-of-way; the city of Lompoc has promised to furnish lands and rights-of-way necessary for the completion of certain of the projects. A petition for the formation of a maintenance district has already been signed by affected property owners. Time is of the utmost importance in this matter. I urge the committee's favorable consideration of the requested increased authorization; should implification be required of any statement herein, it will be furnished immediately upon demand. The CHAIRMAN. When you say that the engineers will furnish us other information, what engineers do you refer to? Mr. KAPPLER. The engineers of the Soil Conservation Service, sir. That would be Mr. Dykes. Mr. PHILLIPS. I would like to point out one additional thing. I do not think it has been made clear that the specific structures involved were not named in the report. What was indicated was the structures necessary to do a certain job. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Then no dimensions were laid out? Mr. PHILLIPS. None other than an indication as to required land stabilization and gully stabilization. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Have you progressed far enough in your plans to specify dimensions in the channels now? Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes. That is why we have this figure to submit to you. Mr. MCDONOUGH. That increased amount is due to the cost of cement and steel necessary to do the job as compared to the estimate at the time the plan was first formulated, which estimate was in the amount of $425,300? Mr. PHILLIPS. The present figure is based on more detailed information. The CHAIRMAN. I have tried my best to get the matter clarified. What we want are the facts. You told me, in answer to my question, that there would not be any additional structures placed in a given gully, but rather that larger structures would be necessary. Now you have come along and stated that you had not completed your plans and that you are going to have to put in other structures. Now, which statement are we to accept? Mr. PHILLIPS. I am asking you to take the statement that it is the same job. The CHAIRMAN. Which one of these statements are we to take? Are we to accept the statement that the same structures will be built in the same gullies, but that they are to be larger, or are we to accept the statement that now, that your plans are completed, you have to put in additional structures? We just want to get the facts because we do not want to waste the money of the Government. Mr. PHILLIPS. It is the first statement. We have more detailed information on the structures now and know what they will cost today. The CHAIRMAN. Now, I will ask you this a third time: Instead of putting larger structures across the same gullies, but in larger sizes, having completed your plans you now find that you have to put in more structures as well as larger structures; is that right? Mr. PHILLIPS. Not necessarily, not as far as we have gone today. It is the same structures in the same places, only larger ones. The CHAIRMAN. You had better find out what you want to do. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear to me, at least, that the job is absolutely the same as it was outlined in 1944, only the whole plan is larger. The CHAIRMAN. I have tried my best to clarify the situation. Mr. MCDONOUGH. It is because the structures are to be larger that more money is required to do the job. Mr. LARCADE. That is the way I understand it. The CHAIRMAN. I asked Mr. Phillips whether it was increased cost. for the same work, and he said "No." Mr. PHILLIPS. If I said that, I was incorrect. Mr. DAVIS. Does anyone else desire to be heard at this time? Mr. BRAMBLETT. In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee very much for this hearing on this project, especially this late in the afternoon at the end of the very busy day I understand you have had. There are one or two points I would like to bring out in addition as background on this project. The value of the land that you see in the center of the picture before you, if I remember correctly, today is some place between $1,000 and $1,200 an acre. That is the valuation on the property that is being protected by this project. Further, Mr. Whittington, the Cachuma Reservoir that you spoke about is under construction and is moving along. The money was appropriated last year, and the project is on its way through this year. This project will have a secondary benefit to the Cachuma project in an area that is having a terrible time for water. You may remember reading about the fact that, during the recent drought in California, water was rationed by the city of Santa Barbara. This project will hold back floodwaters and will have a tendency to hold up the underwater level which is tied in with the Cachuma area, not to a great extent, but somewhat at least. I am sure the Bureau of Reclamation would be glad to back up any statement of that kind. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bramblett whether it was not in this immediate area, and if not in this immediate area then nearby, when the drought was on in California, that a $300 fine was imposed on anyone found washing his automobile. Mr. BRAMBLETT. That was in Santa Barbara County at the time. Mr. DAVIS. That is somewhat in contrast to the amount of water we have been talking about on the Arkansas River a while ago. Mr. MCDONOUGH. I think it is my complete understanding-and if I am wrong I would like to be corrected-that this project is simply an increased project because of the necessity of increasing the size of the installations that were contemplated when this project was first authorized. The CHAIRMAN. That is exactly what I have been trying to find out for half an hour. If there is merely involved an increase in the size of the same structures, in the same gullies, that will help us a lot; but if it is a matter of installing a lot more structures in the same gullies, or a lot more structures in other gullies, we want to know that. Mr. PHILLIPS. May I file a written statement for the record? The CHAIRMAN. That would be desirable, as Mr. McDonough and those who are here will have to explain this matter to the other members of the committee because we get two statements every time we talk about about this project. Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Are there any others who want to testify at this time on any project? ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF E. K. BRAMBLETT, CONGRESSMAN, ELEVENTH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA, ON THE INCREASED AUTHORIZATION ON THE SANTA YNEZ WATERSHED FOR FLOODCONTROL WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. BRAMBLETT. I am restricting my statement to the one point raised, "Is this a new project?" I have discussed this point with representatives of the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture and other interested parties as well as my own personal inspection and am assured that this is not a new project. The increased authorization is requested for two primary reasons: (1) It will be necessary to increase the size of certain structures and other works of improvement due to the 10-year lapse of time between the making of the survey and construction planned for the fiscal year 1950 which has caused the widening and deepening of certain gullies which discharge run-off and erosional debris on the lower lying valley lands; (2) the increased costs of installation. It is understood that it would not be necessary to ask for an increased authorization if this were the only difference in the amount required for the project as compared with that estimated in the flood control bill of 1944. Colonel GEE. Mr. Chairman, I have two statements for the committee on additional basin authorization on the upper Mississippi Basin and the White River Basin. I will be very brief. Mr. DAVIS. We will be glad to hear from you, Colonel. You have been with us, today, I believe, 7 hours. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN Colonel GEE. First, in connection with the upper Mississippi River Basin, the present monetary authorization for the authorized projects in that basin is $29,300,000. The total estimated cost of authorized projects in the upper Mississippi Valley is $239,754,000. The cost of work completed and presently under construction is $88,707,000. That leaves a deficiency of $59,407,000 in the present authorization simply to complete the works now under construction. It is recommended at this time that the basin authorization be increased in the amount of $67,000,000, bringing it to a new total of $96,300,000. The CHAIRMAN. How much money has been appropriated up to and including the present fiscal year? Colonel GEE. $13,934,000. The CHAIRMAN. Are you including the Great Lakes or any project along there? Colonel GEE. No, sir. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT FOR WHITE RIVER BASIN Colonel GEE. The next item is the White River Basin, for which the total estimated cost of authorized works is $257,069,000. The present monetary authorization is $134,000,000. The cost of the projects under construction is $115,829,000. It is recommended that the basin authorization be increased to the amount of $90,000,000, which will permit the initiation of construction on three major reservoirs and allow planning to begin on two others. The CHAIRMAN. Do you speak primarily of the White River in Arkansas? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Of the amounts authorized, what is the estimated cost of the reservoir projects along the White River? Colonel GEE. $257,000,000 is the total estimated cost. The CHAIRMAN. That will include the construction of what projects? Colonel GEE. That would include among others, the construction of the Bull Shoals Reservoir. The CHAIRMAN. What is the estimated cost of that project? Colonel GEE. $76,300,000. The CHAIRMAN. What is the next one? Colonel GEE. The projects completed and now in operation are the Norfork Reservoir, $29,100,000; Clearwater Reservoir, $10,429,000; and four local protection projects, $1,373,000. The CHAIRMAN. What do the remaining works consist of primarily? Colonel GEE. Reservoirs. The CHAIRMAN. Will you name them? Colonel GEE. Water Valley Reservoir, $14,412,000; Table Rock, $76,340,000. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any larger than Table Rock? Colonel GEE. No, sir. Greers Ferry Reservoir, $16,531,000; Bell Foley Reservoir, $8,722,000; Lone Rock Reservoir, $25,235,000, and five additional local protection works at $12,468,000. The CHAIRMAN. The $25,000,000 project and the $76,000,000 project are the two large projects that have been investigated for years? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. There is no river west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains that has a power potential equal to that of the White River; is that correct? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I have only one more question. I believe you have some special items that should be brought to our attention and which have not been mentioned by the president of the Mississippi River Commission. Colonel GEE. I have several special bills, one of which is House Resolution 89, introduced by the chairman of this committee, which would authorize the Corps of Engineers to prepare a revised edition. The CHAIRMAN. We have had hearings on that. The matter is pending before the committee, and it is a question of whether the committee is going to agree on that. Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. |