Obrázky stránek

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.


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.

(6) 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.

(9) 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 voir 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 flow. age 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.


Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. “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.



Sacramento 10, Calif., April 23, 1947. Mr. WALTER B. HOGAN,

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.


Sacramento 5, Calif., January 9, 1948. Mr. LELAND S. DRAIS,

Stockton, Calif. 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 bearings 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:

First cost

Annual cast

Farmington Reservoir...
Eugene and Rock-Hoods Reservoirs.
Levee and channelization improvement.

$3, 561, 000
4,013, 000
4, 458,000

$162, 100 182, 510 199, 100

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 Fecieral 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 assembly. men, 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.




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.

The board of supervisors of Napa County and the city council of the city of Napa have studied this project, are prepared to meet local requirements, and have asked me to urge you to set that recommendation stand, so that that project may be proceeded with. It is not a very large one as projects go, but it is very badly needed.

Mr. ENGEL. May I put in the record the facts with regard to it? Napa River, Calif., item No. 44: Total estimated Federal cost $839,750; allotments to date $73,750, allocation in the budget $865,000, which will complete the project. Is that right?

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. And I hope, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, you can find your way clear to let that recommendation stand. Mr. ENGEL. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. I want to thank you for your patience in listening to me and if I may want to add a few more words to my statement, I hope I have that permission.

Mr. Engel. Without objection, that permission is granted.





Mr. ENGEL. We are glad at this time to hear Mr. Stone, from Sacramento.

Mr. STONE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is W. G. Stone. I am port director and general manager of the Secramento-Yolo port district. This port district is governed by five commissioners and I have been appointed, as I say, port director and general manager.

This project, a deep-water-channel project of the Secramento River, has the approval of the United States engineers and has the approval of Congress. It was authorized in Public Law 525 of the Seventyninth Congress.

The economic aspects of the project were discussed and found to be satisfactory at that time. In fact, the project was found to be feasible and economically sound. It has the approval of the State of California.

The State legislature at the 1947 session gave its endorsement of the project. It expressed its interest in the project and appropriated $750,000 for the specific purpose of purchasing rights-of-way. The Governor has approved the project and in doing so stated that he was hook, line, and sinker for it. That reflects the viewpoint of the State of California with respect to that project.

I have prepared a brochure setting forth the views of our port district and of the city of Sacramento, and of the county of Sacramento and the chamber of commerce. It shows the unanimity of opinion so far as California interests are concerned with respect to the project. Seven copies of that brochure have been filed with your committee, so that each member of the committee will have a copy. I shall not read it and will merely refer to some of the high lights of the projects.

if I may.

« PředchozíPokračovat »