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.

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 let 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.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 24, 1948.

SACRAMENTO SHIP CHANNEL

STATEMENT OF W. G. STONE, PORT DIRECTOR, SACRAMENTO-YOLO PORT DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

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.

This district was created on April 15 by a vote of 4 to 1 and includes the whole of Sacramento County and one district in the county across the river from Sacramento. The port district commission took office on May 19 and immediately drew up preliminary plans and specifications and submitted a bond issue to the voters in the dictrict for $3,750,000 to provide necessary funds for terminal facilities, railroad connections, et cetera. This includes, by the way, $600,000 for railroad facilities, so that all the terminal facilities will be provided with adequate railroad facilities as well as highway. This bond issue was approved by a vote of the board 6 to 1. The district was created by a vote of 4 to 1 and they came back 7 months later and approved the bond issue by a vote of better than 6 to 1. It was almost unanimous throughout the entire district. A detailed listing of the vote is included in the brochure.

The port layout you will find in the brochure and you have a map on the wall before you which illustrates it. The city of Sacramento is shown in the background with the Sacramento River below.

The turning basin of the deep-water-channel project is in Lake Washington, a natural lake, 31⁄2 miles long and about 10 feet deep. The turning basin is on the lower right-hand side, Mr. Chairman, and will be large enough in size to permit the easy turning of any vessel in the American merchant marine. The channel will be 30 feet in depth, and will shorten the route to San Francisco by approximately 15 miles. There will be very few bends or curves in the river, making the channel easy of navigation and one which the steamship companies will find economical and will want to use.

The connecting canal between the river and the turning basin is proposed to be of 11-foot depth. That is the very first phase of our construction. It is the connecting channel that calls for urgency in an appropriation at this time. The first phase of the terminal construction will be the grain elevator for the public storage of grain, which is shown at that point. There has never been a provision for public storage of grain in bulk, or a grain elevator, in all of northern California. We are proposing to provide that facility. We will use that for the storage of grain produced in the Sacramento Valley for 100 miles north of Sacramento. The river flows right through the center of that producing area.

This connecting canal is the first item on the agenda for construction and will permit barges to handle grain in bulk right from the grain farms to the terminal elevator on this deep-water-channel project. By constructing that elevator at the outset, it means that it will be in use even before the deep-water-channel project is completed. We will use both rail and highway to make the elevator a financial success, but it requires water transportation. The grain people insist upon having deep water for economic handling of grain.

That elevator will be used not only for California grain, but for Montana wheat which will be shipped in by rail for storage at that point; Dakota wheat; corn, and oats from the Middle West, from such areas as Kansas City and Omaha, for use by milling companies, which will be located immediately adjacent to the grain elevator.

The railroad companies have not opposed this project. At no hearing has any testimony been offered in opposition to the deep-waterchannel project. The project will be a producer of new and additional

traffic and therefore they are not opposing it. There is new tonnage being produced, new industries coming to Sacramento.

The Campbell Soup Co. has just located a plant there costing many millions of dollars to serve 11 Western States, Honolulu, and the Philippines. They are within the switching area, in easy access to these terminal facilities, so that they may use the terminal facilities for their shipments.

Another industry, the Continental Can Co., more recently has invested $14,000,000 in a plant located about 6 miles above the Sacramento River, which will use water transportation, and they will have over 100,000 tons of traffic to go by water through the deep-water channel when it is completed.

I do not want to take up a lot of your time. Our city manager is here, and he will tell you about the inadequacy of their present facilities from the city's point of view; our county manager will tell you about the county interests; and the chamber of commerce will tell you about the general over-all interest. Let me say it is most urgent that this appropriation as now in the budget before you, $2,500,000, be authorized. I understand the engineeers will use the funds for the purpose of constructing the connecting canal to the turning basin, so that this project within 15 or 20 months can be placed in operation. In other words, you are getting a return on your investment immediately.

We urge with all the sincerity we can that you give favorable consideration to this deep-water channel and the $2,500,000 budget now before you.

The local interests are putting up $4,500,000. It is tied in with the appropriation from the Federal Government, and therefore they must be made simultaneously.

I will now ask to be heard Mr. Peter Mitchell, a member of the city council, who will point out to you the local situation.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 24, 1948.

SACRAMENTO SHIP CHANNEL

STATEMENT OF PETER MITCHELL, MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Mr. MITCHELL. My name is Peter Mitchell; I am a city councilman in the city of Sacramento. That group has authorized me to come here and solicit your support for the deep-water canal for Sacramento. I have filed with your committee a brief on what I would like to have said, and I would like to emphasize just one or two points, the main one of which is the inadequacy of the present facilities we have to offer.

We have only the Sacramento River now right in front of the city of Sacramento with four old wharves. There are two presently in operation, one being used exclusively for the shipment of wool, and the other for the shipment of general merchandise, and that one used for the shipment of general merchandise now handles between 400,000 and 500,000 tons of freight annually, and it is right in the city.

We feel the facilities for truck transportation and rail transportation are totally inadequate with a growing community such as we are. With the new people coming in, the needs for the new traffic, and so forth, the needs for the importation of additional goods into our city are going to be great, and the city of Sacramento feels that a further expenditure of funds in the enlarging of the facilities along the Sacramento River would be a rather foolish expenditure of public funds. We also feel, because of its location, being located on a 10foot deep channel, that deep-water shipping is the answer to our section of the State, and we respectfully solicit your support for this project.

Mr. STONE. With your indulgence, there are two points I failed to make. One is that our port district commission has complied in every respect with the requirements of the Federal Government for local participation, and in our brochure you will find a certified copy of the agreement and the assurance of local participation filed with the United States Army engineers. In doing so, we believe we have complied with every request of the Federal Government for local participation.

One further point, that is, that the channel for 25 miles downstream from Sacramento passes through an area which would lend itself to military installations in case of necessity for national defense. In fact, some of the spoil areas after we are through with the dredging would lend themselves-hundreds of acres in various sites-to military installations of both the Navy and Army, as the Federal Government might see fit, in case of necessity for national defense.

Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to offer these pictures as part of the record, showing the crowded conditions of, our present port.

Mr. STONE. Our next witness is Mr. Charles W. Detterding, our county manager.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 24, 1948.

SACRAMENTO SHIP CHANNEL

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. DETTERDING, COUNTY MANAGER, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Mr. DETTERDING. I am county manager of Sacramento, and prior to that time I was county engineer. I am very familiar with the Sacramento River and the difficult problems connected with the maintenance of a 10-foot channel in that river. Certainly, it is inadequate for the needs at this time. Because of our tremendous growth, people moving into the Sacramento area, the whole trade area, there is a tremendous increase in the volume of business.

The whole area affected by this channel are deeply interested in it. I have talked with representatives from many of the surrounding cities and communities and also from Oregon and Nevada, and there is a general interest, and we are anxious that you will authorize the appropriation to start this project.

Mr. STONE. Mr. A. S. Dudley, our secretary-manager, will conclude our presentation, and afterward I believe Congressman Johnson wishes to say a few words.