MIDDLE CREEK

Our recommendation is in accord with the item as set forth in the President's budget.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement.

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. CARR. Let me say at the moment that we realize how crowded you are for time. I have a written statement that I would like to submit for the record; I shall not read it.

Senator ELLENDER. I would appreciate it if you would highlight it. Mr. CARR. I shall say what we plan to do is to have a quick rundown on the items that are budgeted.

Senator ELLENDER. Do not spend too much time on the items that are budgeted; use your time on the others.

Mr. CARR. You can be sure we shall not.

On page 3 of my statement, we have summarized those items where there is a difference from the budget. It amounts to $9,760,000. We shall take these items, call the witnesses to justify these changes, and in that way, I think we can speed up the hearing and get through on time.

Senator HRUSKA. May I ask a question?

Senator ELLENDER. Yes.

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Witness, when you say "recommended amounts," by whom is that recommendation made?

Mr. CARR. This is the recommendation of the California Water Commission and the State reclamation board and Governor Brown. Senator ELLENDER. I suppose the witnesses will appear in support of those increases?

Mr. CARR. That is right, Senator; let me dispose of these items on which we are in agreement.

For that purpose, I would like to turn this over to Mr. William M. Carah.

Mr. CARAH. I shall list these items at which we are in agreement, and which we fully support. These include the San Lorenzo River propect, Eel River at Sandy Prairie, Middle Creek improvements, Terminus Dam, planning money for a new Don Perdo Dam, Truckee River improvements, Pine Flat Channel rectification, Carbon Canyon Dam, Warm, East Twin, Devil, and Lytle Creeks, and Stewart Canyon debris basin and channel.

I would like permission to file a statement on Sandy Prairie flood control project.

Thank you.

Senator ELLENDER. Without objection, that may be done. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE EUREKA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE FORTUNA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF FORTUNA, THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY BOARD OF TRADE, AND The Board of SUPERVISORS OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY, ON THE SANDY PRAIRIE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, EEL RIVER, FORTUNA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIF.

The Sandy prairie flood control project on the Eel River near Fortuna, Humboldt County, Calif., is a project of major importance to the economic and industrial stability of Humboldt County.

To review the economic and moral justification of this project:

1. Fortuna, Humboldt County, Calif., has a population of 3,300 people and a trade area of 15,000 people.

2. One sawmill with 160 direct employees has closed. When the mill was operating approximately 200 other people were employed as truckers and woodsmen. This mill had a payroll of $650,000 annually. Considering the families involved, this closure affected almost 50 percent of the entire population of the city of Fortuna.

3. The Fortuna city sewage disposal plant was and is greatly endangered. 4. Northwestern Pacific RR. Co. is threatened. This railroad serves not only the Fortuna area but also Eureka and Arcata. This means that a minimum of 75,000 people would be without rail service.

5. The Eel River could wash out the remaining portion of U.S. Highway 101. In the State's freeway holdings there is a freeway interchange.

6. Approximately 4 miles of county road were destroyed by the Eel River erosion in the Sandy Prairie area.

7. A high school and a grammar school are in the flood plain, and should the river revert to its original channel these schools would be destroyed. In fact, complete severance of the city of Fortuna would result.

In recognition of the critical bank erosion and flood conditions at Sandy Prairie, and realization of the urgent need for construction of protective works to alleviate the serious problem, enough funds have been appropriated, on the local, State, and National level, to complete the first phase of the construction work. Local interests participated financially toward this project in the amount of $246,000.

However, the project is not complete. The first phase of the work saved the area from damage this winter. But, the floods this year were not as severe as they were in the years 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1957. The project, as it is today, would not hold under similar flooding conditions.

Therefore, in an attempt to protect the total assessed valuation of Fortuna and Humboldt County, Calif., we recommend—

1. That immediate consideration be given to the President's budgetary request, which includes a construction item in the amount of $508,000 to complete the Sandy Prairie flood control project, Eel River, Humboldt County, Calif.; and

2. That the $508,000 for completion of the Sandy Prairie flood control project be appropriated in the 1959-60 budget. Respectfully submitted.

Mr. CARR. Now Mr. William R. Gianelli, assistant to Harvey L. Banks.

Mr. GIANELLI. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is William R. Gianelli, principal hydraulic engineer, representing the director, State Department of Water Resources, California.

Our department agrees with and wholeheartedly supports the statewide presentation made to you by Mr. Carr of the California Water Commission. We respectfully urge your favorable consideration of the requests set forth in his statement.

OROVILLE DAM FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES

We would specifically ask that you approve additional funds in the amount of $10,000 over the budgeted $30,000 to the Sacramento engineer district. This would enable the Corps of Engineers to complete the Oroville Dam flood control allocation studies directed by the Congress at the time it authorized a Federal flood control contribution to this State project.

With the total of $40,000, we understand that this work can be completed and a report submitted to the Congress during the next fiscal year.

The State of California is now completing the final design of Oroville Dam, and is well along with the relocation of the railroad and the highway around the proposed dam. The report from the Corps of Engineers is urgently needed in order that the State's plans for financing the project may be finalized.

In addition to the flood control items which are being presented to you at this hearing, our department is also charged with the State's responsibility in beach erosion control, in cooperation with the U.S. Corps of Engineers. This is the program under which the Federal Government provides one-third of the construction cost upon completion of work by local interests and provisions of assurances to the Chief of Engineers, as specified in the authorizing legislation.

BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS

Two beach erosion control projects are presently affected by this basic Federal legislation. Seal Beach and Imperial Beach in California both will have completed projects next fiscal year under funds made available by the local interests and the State of California. We respectfully request that your committee augment the appropriation to the Corps of Engineers in the amount of $95,000 for the Seal Beach project and $32,000 for the Imperial Beach project so the State of California can be reimbursed for the funds advanced as the Federal share.

We also strongly support the appropriation of $3 million in the Federal budget for the continuation of construction of small craft harbors, including beach erosion control measures, at Port Hueneme, Calif. This project is now under construction by the Corps of Engineers, and is described in House Document 362, 83d Congress, second session.

We appreciate very much your consideration of these matters. Senator ELLENDER. Your prepared statement will be placed in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William R. Gianelli, principal hydraulic engineer, representing the director, State department of water resources, California. In addition to the flood control items which have been presented to you at this hearing, our department is also charged with the State's responsibility in beach erosion control in cooperation with the U.S. Corps of Engineers, under the provisions of Public Law 727, 79th Congress, 2d session, as amended.

This is the program under which the Federal Government provides one-third of the construction cost upon completion of work by local interests and provision of assurances to the Chief of Engineers, as specified in the authorizing legislation. State policy provides that the State will furnish one-third of the total construction cost provided the local jurisdiction provides another one-third of the

cost, which, with the funds authorized by Congress, make up the total project cost. Furthermore, the State will advance the Federal share of the money to be later reimbursed as provided in the basic Federal legislation. Two beach erosion control projects in California are at present affected by this basic Federal legislation.

Seal Beach, Calif.

The Congress of the United States authorized construction of a groin at Seal Beach, Calif., to alleviate beach erosion at that locality. The report of the Chief of Engineers is contained in House Document No. 349, 83d Congress, 2d session. Plans and specifications for a groin and beach replenishment at Seal Beach were approved by the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. Construction is underway by the city of Seal Beach and will be completed this fiscal year with funds furnished by the city of Seal Beach and the State of California. In addition to furnishing its own share of funds, the State has advanced the Federal share of project cost in the amount of $95,000. We respectfully request the committee to augment the appropriation to the Corps of Engineers in the amount of $95,000 so that the State of California can be reimbursed in that amount. Imperial Beach, Calif.

The beach erosion control project at Imperial Beach authorized by Congress is described in House Document No. 399, 84th Congress, 2d session. The city of Imperial Beach and the State of California have appropriated their respective shares of the cost of the first unit of the project. In addition, the State of California has appropriated the sum of $32,000 as the Federal share of cost for this unit and turned over to the U.S. District Engineer of the Los Angeles Corps of Engineers District, funds equal to the entire cost including the $32,000 advanced as the Federal share. The district engineer, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, is preparing plans and specifications for advertising for construction bids this present fiscal year. We respectfully request the committee to augment the appropriation to the Corps of Engineers in the amount of $32,000 so that the State of California can be reimbursed in that amount.

Hueneme, Calif.

A small-craft harbor, including beach erosion control measures described in House Document No. 362, 83d Congress, 2d session, is now under construction by the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. The Federal budget now before this session of Congress contains an appropriation item of $3 million to the Corps of Engineers for continuation of construction of this project. We hereby express our firm support of this item.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters.

Mr. CARR. I shall call now, on the Russian River project, Mr. E. J. Guidotti and Mr. Gordon A. Miller, of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.

RUSSIAN RIVER PROJECT

STATEMENTS OF E. J. GUIDOTTI AND GORDON A. MILLER, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIF., BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gordon A. Miller, chief engineer, Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, here to support the Russian River project.

I have a prepared statement which I would like to have filed for the record. I would like to briefly highlight the construction needs on this particular project.

Currently, there are $255,000 in the President's budget. We feel this should be increased to a total of $750,000, so that some of the channel work which was authorized 10 years ago could be completed. To date, this project is only 9 percent complete, and we believe the channel stabilization work should be accelerated to pre

vent needless damage to properties adjacent to the Russian River; completion of the dam actually aggravates the erosion conditions for which the channel stabilization is proposed to correct.

I would also like to briefly mention-it is not a part of this statement-a need which we have in Sonoma County for a survey on Sonoma Creek. Sonoma Creek is a channel tributary to the San Francisco Bay. We understand that a survey could be started on it, but completion of the survey is going to be pretty much dependent upon completion of further studies on the bay special study and model, which I believe is going to be testified to by other witnesses. At this time, I would like to introduce Supervisor Guidotti, who will testify specifically on the need for a resurvey on the Russian River project, and particularly of the Dry Creek Dam portion of that project.

Mr. GUIDOTTI. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would ask that the written statement in the brochure that has been filed with you, entitled "Russian River Resurvey, Dry Creek Dam," be received by you as my statement. In the interest of time, I would only like to add that the Dry Creek project is considered by all of our people, a unanimous opinion in our county, as the most important flood control project to be accomplished. We have an old survey, about 10 years old, however, which has become obsolete, originally provided for about one-third flood control and two-thirds water conservation.

On account of the floods of December 1955, and other floods that we have had since, we know from the Corps of Engineers that they feel that the old survey is inadequate or obsolete, and they are practically willing to almost guess, without the definite resurvey, that the ratio there between flood control and water conservaion should be reversed.

Now, we are prepared locally, through my own board of supervisors, to offer financial assistance or engineering assistance or any other local help that we can give toward accomplishing this project. Senator ELLENDER. This project, you say, is about 90 percent complete? What do you envision with a new study? More work there, or a bigger dam, or exactly what is it you propose?

Mr. GUIDOTTI. Mr. Chairman, I think you are referring to the channel stabilization, which is in connection with Coyote Dam project. Coyote Dam has been completed and is now in operation for the first winter.

Senator ELLENDER. That is the reservoir.

Mr. GUIDOTTI. Yes, but that is in the upper reaches.

Senator ELLENDER. The survey, then, does not pertain to what has already been completed?

Mr. GUIDOTTI. No, this is a second phase of the Russian River project.

Senator ELLENDER. Upstream?

Mr. GUIDOTTI. No, downstream. It takes care of Dry Creek, one of the main tributaries of the Russian River.

Senator ELLENDER. I see.

Mr. CARR. Mr. Chairman, in summary, let me emphasize that on the Dry Creek restudy, for which we are asking $50,000, this is an area where a study was made in 1949. Since then, they have had the worst floods of record. In addition to that, this area has developed