3. Belief that an alternate dam site or sites could be found at a higher elevation, which would accomplish the same results and take less agricultural land. To satisfy the opponents on the question of alternate sites, the Chief of Engineers authorized the district engineer to make a comprehensive study of all other possible sites on the watershed. This study was completed and is now in the hands of the Chief of Engineers.

A hearing was held in Stockton, Calif., on December 10, 1946, at which the district engineer explained to all interested parties the results of his finding. This hearing was attended by approximately 150 people, most of whom were landowners in the area both above and below the dam site.

Briefly stated, the findings of the district engineer confirmed those in his original report, viz:

1. That the Farmington Dam site was the most economical and had the highest cost-benefit ratio.

The alternate site proved to be too costly as it took two dams to accomplish the same results. The nearest approach showed an adverse excess cost of approximately $500,000 and a much lower cost-benefit ratio.

On further study of the irrigation needs the district engineer in this review report found that the need for conservation storage was so indeterminate that no special provisions should be made in the dam design in order to facilitate future raising.

Representatives in the regional office of the Bureau of Reclamation concur in the view that there is no immediate need for conservation storage on Littlejohn Creek and that such a need is too far in the future to warrant capital outlay in the initial investment.

The State engineer in his review of this project likewise concludes that there is no apparent need for irrigation storage in Farmington Dam.

The findings of the district engineer in his review report on alternate sites has satisfied the opposition on that score.

In a meeting held in the district engineer's office on March 20, 1947, there were present representatives of the landowners, the city of Stockton, the county of San Joaquin, the Flood Control Association of the Lower San Joaquin River and its tributaries, State engineer's office, and the Bureau of Reclamation. At this meeting the district engineer again gave the landowners assurance that it was the intention of the United States Army engineers to build the Farmington Dam for flood-control purposes only. A representative of the Bureau of Reclamation stated that it was not necessary to make any provisions for irrigation in the initial construction. It was brought out at the hearing that if irrigation should become necessary at a later date very little extra expense for widening the base would be involved over what it would cost initially.

The conclusions of the district engineer and concurrence therein by the regional director of region II of the Bureau of Reclamation and the State engineer that the need for conservation storage is so remote that no provision need be made therefor in the initial construction has completely satisfied the opposition which was based on the fear of being in an irrigation district.

The landowners group, presumably upon representation to the chairman of the California State Water Resources Board that they had not been given sufficient opportunity to present their objections, were granted an interview on January 6, 1948, by Mr. Royal Miller, chairman of the State water-resources board. At this meeting there was also present a representative of the district engineer's office and Edward Hyatt, State engineer, who is secretary of the board. As a result of this meeting, the chairman of the board on January 9, 1948, wrote the representative of the reservoir landowners' group, a Mr. Leland S. Drais, a letter (a copy of which is attached hereto) which letter shows that the landowners at all times have been shown every courtesy and given every opportunity by the State water-resources board and the United States Army engineers (district engineer), to present their views and voice their objections.

The State water-resources board in a meeting on January 16, after again listening to landowners opposing the Farmington Dam, made no change in their previous decision (last year) to request a Federal appropriation to construct a flood-control dam at the Farmington site as recommended by the United States Army engineers.

It developed at the above hearing that some of the landowners now want water stored for irrigation in a reservoir constructed at a higher elevation and are in hopes that any Federal appropriation for the construction of the Farmington Dam might be used for that purpose.

It has been impossible to completely satisfy the opposition because of their constant changing of position and views.

The only valid opposition consists of a few landowners in the basin who for sentimental reasons do not wish to sell their lands or give flowage rights thereon. This opposition is understandable and is encountered in many public-works projects but it must not be allowed to block improvements for the health, safety, and general welfare of many thousands of people or to stop the wheels of progress.

ADDENDA IN REBUTTAL BY W. B. HOGAN, RE FARMINGTON DAM

In recent weeks a few of the landowners in the vicinity of the Farmington Dam have changed their position regarding the storage of water in the Farmington Reservoir for irrigation purposes and now claim that—

(a) Violent opposition in the post.

(b) Water cannot be stored in the Farmington Reservoir because of the previous soil condition and that a dam should be built at a higher elevation with more favorable subsoil conditions.

It is difficult to explain this shift of position in view of the following: (a) Voilent opposition in the past.

(b) Concurrence of the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation in the decision to build the Farmington Dam for flood control only at this time.

(c) Water temporarily stored in a flood-control dam on the site recommended by the Army engineers will improve the underground water conditions below the dam.

(d) The farmers below the dam get the irrigation by means of pumping from the underground storage.

(e) A reservoir basin with a pervious soil would greatly aid in the percolation of water into the underground reservoirs.

(f) When necessary a flood-control dam at the Farmington site can be raised so as to provide for irrigation storage at practically no additional cost.

(g) A flood-control dam should be built at a location so as to control the run-off from the greatest percentage of the area of the watershed. (h) The Farmington Dam site meets the above requirements.

[Western Union]

STOCKTON, CALIF., January 22, 1948.

WALTER B. HOGAN,

Statler Hotel, Washington, D. C.

Letter received this morning from Colonel Gorlinski, district engineer, Sacramento, follows:

"You will recall that at a meeting held on March 20, 1947, in this office, you were advised that the plan to be recommended to higher authority for the construction of flood-protective works on Littlejohn Creek would comprise a reservoir of approximately 52,000 acre-feet capacity at the Farmington site for flood control only and with no specific provisions to be made for any future enlargement. Rights-of-way for the reservoir would be obtained by purchase of flowage easements rather than by acquisition of land titles. You were also advised that the views of both the Chief of Engineers and the reclamation commissioner regarding this recommendation, would be obtained and furnished you. I am pleased to inform you that the Chief of Engineers had approved the recommendation of this office and further that the plans of this department for Farmington Reservoir, to be built for flood control only, have been concurred in by the Bureau of Reclamation for your information, there is enclosed a copy of a letter dated December 17, 1947, from the reclamation commissioner to the Chief of Engineers in this regard.

"To Lt. Gen. RAYMOND A. WHEELER,

Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army.

"GORLINSKI."

"In yur letter of November 7, 1947, you stated that the Corps of Engineers is now preparing its definite project report on the Farmington Reservoir project on Littlejohn Creek in California, which was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944. You requested our concurrence in the present plans of the Corps of Engineers to construct the Farmington Dam and Reservoir for flood control

only, to a capacity of about 52,000 acre-feet without specific provisions for future raising of the dam. As explained in your letter Farmington Reservoir was authorized for construction to a capacity of 100,000 acre-feet on the basis of the proposal of the Bureau of Reclamation that additional storage be provided in the reservoir for conservation purposes. You are correct in your statement that we believe irrigation storage on Littlejohn Creek may be desired ultimately, but that the need for such storage is too far in the future to warrant provision therefor in the initial construction. Accordingly we have no objection to the construction of Farmington Reservoir for flood control only, without specific provisions for future raising of the dam as presently planned by Corps of Engineers, signed Wesley R. Nelson, Acting Commissioner."

Correspondence above air-mailed you special delivery on receipt.

ELIZABETH MCADAMS. (True copy of wire to W. B. Hogan, city manager, Stockton, Calif., from Elizabeth McAdams, his secretary.) W. B. H.

Mr. WALTER B. HOGAN,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
Sacramento 10, Calif., April 23, 1947.

City Manager, City Hall, Stockton, Calif.

DEAR MR. HOGAN: Reference is made to our conversation of last week in which you inquired as to our position in regard to construction of Farmington Reservoir on Littlejohn Creek for flood control purposes. As I recall, you requested a letter which you might use in hearings which you expect to attend in Washington on flood control projects for California.

The Bureau of Reclamation has no objection to the construction of Farmington Reservoir for flood control to the capacity proposed by the Corps of Engineers. The Bureau does not contemplate any present use of this reservoir for irrigation purposes.

You are at liberty to use this letter in the proposed hearings in Washington. Sincerely yours,

RICHARD L. BOKE, Regional Director.

Mr. LELAND S. DRAIS,

Stockton, Calif.

STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD,
Sacramento 5, Calif., January 9, 1948.

DEAR MR. DRAIS: As I promised at our meeting with yourself, Mr. Mobley, and Supervisor Drais on January 6, 1948, I have made a further investigation of the hearings and the engineering background of the Farmington Reservoir project. Yesterday I spent the entire afternoon with Mr. L. E. Bossen of the United States Army engineers who conducted the surveys on the Farmington project, State Engineer Edward Hyatt, and Assistant State Engineer A. D. Edmonston, going over all phases of the engineering studies for flood control on Littlejohn Creek.

Before I take up the engineering phases of the project I want to tell you that I read through all of the testimony taken at the hearing held in Stockton December 10, 1946, and memoranda on your subsequent meeting in the district engineer's office in Sacramento on March 20, 1947, when you were assigned the task of getting together the people you represented for another meeting with the Army engineers which was held at the Farmington Reservoir site on March 26, 1947. In some manner I got the impression during our conference here on January 6 that approval of the Farmington Reservoir project had caught you unaware of the true situation and that you were not prepared to register opposition. In reading through the records I find the Army engineers offered every opportunity for you and the people you represent to make your position clear and that you were present and testified at all of the hearings. The record also shows that although Mr. Ford withdrew his opposition he very clearly stated that he could not speak for the other owners of property in the Farmington Reservoir site. It appears from the record that you had a much better understanding of just

what the situation was than you led me to infer at our conference on January 6. As I told you at that meeting, there is bound to be some opposition to any project and the Board's position in representing the State as a whole, is that it must consider these matters on the basis of the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

As to the engineering details of the project, Mr. Bossen reviewed in detail all of the sites which were investigated. Some 16 reservoir sites were studied and various alternate plans explored. To give the degree of flood protection required to the area subject to flooding from Littlejohn Creek, the Corps of Engineers finally determined that the Farmington site was the most feasible solution of the problem. Use of two alternate reservoirs up-stream at RockHoods and Eugene was considered and discarded on the ground that the two reservoirs were more expensive, less efficient, and would flood approximately the same amount of land as the Farmington Reservoir. The State engineer's report on the Army plan supported this opinion with this language: "No other site in the vicinity which has been investigated appears to be a feasible substitute for the Farmington site."

The Corps of Engineers also considered a plan of channelization which was discarded because of cost.

Based on 1946 prices, costs of the various plans were estimated as follows:

At the Stockton hearing it was agreed by everyone that there was need for flood control on Littlejohn Creek. It also was developed that there would be opposition to each of the three plans proposed by the Army engineers. A good deal of this opposition seemed to be based on the fear that the Federal Government would not pay enough money for the lands to be acquired rather than opposition to the project itself. When this fear was largely dissipated at the hearing and a dam for flood control alone was agreed upon the major portion of the opposition withdrew. It is therefore understandable that the Corps of Engineers, after these extensive hearings, decided upon the cheapest and most efficient plan evolved. That is good business for a governmental standpoint and I believe you would be the first to agree that to follow any other course of action would be poor business and certainly questionable procedure on the part of our Federal employees. The State water resources board certainly maintains this position and I believe you will find it is true of all governmental agencies.

Last year the board recommended to the Congress the construction for Farmington Reservoir and no one appeared before the board in opposition to the construction of the project nor at the hearings in Washington so far as I know. The board this year on November 12 sent out a notice of public hearing and listed the projects for which appropriations would be considered including the Farmington project. This notice was sent to all State senators and assemblymen, all United States Senators and Congressmen from California, boards of supervisors of all counties, to the city council of Stockton, and the city manager of Stockton. In looking back over the record I find Supervisor J. B. Manthey, of San Joaquin County, City Manager W. B. Hogan, of Stockton, and Senator Bradford S. Crittenden, of San Joaquin County, all attended the public hearing on December 5, 1947. At that time the California Flood Control Conference, representing flood control interests of the entire State, recommended an ap propriation of $1,500,000 for construction of Farmington Reservoir and no one appeared in opposition to the request.

The board has attempted to give everyone an adequate opportunity to state his views in regard to proposed flood-control projects in California. It has been advised by the engineering staff of the division of water resources that the Farmington Reservoir site is the most feasible, economic, and desirable solution of a bad flood-control problem on Littlejohn Creek. It is my belief that unless some new and important engineering evidence is presented which would provide a suitable alternate for the Farmington project, the board will not change its present position.

However, I do not wish to close the door to any group that still feels it should be heard. We will be considering our flood-control recommendations at our next meeting in the board room of the public works building January 16, which opens at 10 o'clock in the morning. If you still desire to be heard by the board, I would advise you to be on hand early as considerations of flood control recommendations are the first matter of business on our agenda.

I am not sure whether I have made myself clear in this letter but I have sincerely attempted to go into every phase of this matter before replying to you and I hope you will understand the board's position.

Very truly yours,

ROYAL MILLER, Chairman.

Mr. DRAIS. Mr. Chairman, may I make a short statement?

Mr. ENGEL. Yes.

Mr. DRAIS. At the time that I left Stockton, there was not a drop of water in the Littlejohn Creek. It was dry as a bone, on the 22d day of January.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, representing the State of California and the State water resources board I want to thank you and your committee very much for the attention you have given us. There is one item that we did overlook and that is $900,000 for planning. Mr. ENGEL. I believe that was mentioned before.

Mr. MILLER. The engineers do need that for conducting the examinations, for the protection of the State. I should like to say that I would appreciate it if my statement would go in the record; and we thank you very much.

Mr. ENGEL. I want to express the appreciation of the chairman and of the committee for the way in which you have handled this hearing. Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, sir.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 24, 1948.

NAPA RIVER PROJECT, CALIFORNIA

STATEMENT OF HON. J. LEROY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. ENGEL. We should be glad to hear Mr. Johnson at this time. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, there are two statements to be made concerning my district. One is in regard to Napa, which I should like to make now.

Mr. ENGEL. You may proceed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Napa is a little town about 50 miles east of San Francisco and for over 40 years they have barged a great deal of products down the Napa River, a very short stream that enters into the upper reaches of San Francisco Bay.

Several years ago, the Army engineers made a survey and an estimate of the feasibility of enlarging the depth of the river and cutting out a very bad bend known as Horseshoe Bend. After their studies on the economic phases of the project and its physical phases, they filed a favorable report and recommended the construction of this project. The Chief of Engineers recommended to the Budget Bureau an appropriation of $890,000. The item is in the present budget recommended to the President.