Senator ANDERSON. You would not be in favor of any authorization until the State of California made an appropriation for the master drain, because then they would just pump the water out?

Mr. BATES. That would be all right. As long as the State is committed to build it, yes, I think it could be done together.

Senator ANDERSON. That does not quite answer my question. Do you favor an appropriation for this project until the State of California has made an appropriation for the master drain?

Mr. BATES. I don't think it would interfere, sir, because, say the appropriation was made for the San Luis first, before the State made an appropriation of the master drain. Knowing that no water would be delivered through the project until the master drain was built, there would be terrific pressure, not north versus south but the entire State, to appropriate that money at the next session, knowing that they could not get water deliveries until they did do it.

Senator ANDERSON. You still do not give me a yes or no answer. Mr. BATES. To answer your question, I would say, "Yes," there would be no danger with the wording as it is here, to answer you directly, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Do you feel it would be all right for the Federal Government to put $260 million or $290 million in a water project and not be able thereafter to deliver the water because you would do so with this wording right in front of us?

Mr. BATES. You first asked the question of any appropriation, and this question is the entire amount. I don't believe it would be appropriated all at one time. The minute the first appropriation was made the pressure would be on the State to get going on the master drain, knowing that they would never be able to deliver water until they did, either north or south.

Senator ANDERSON. Your proposal then would be that we go ahead and try to pass the bill, and then try to get an appropriation of a small amount, and that would be immediately

Mr. BATES. Trigger the State to have to do it.

Senator ANDERSON. I thought that was sort of a sensible point of view.

Senator KUCHEL. Then I do not even have to make any comment except to say this: What kind of money are we talking about in this drainage responsibility?

Mr. BATES. Is Mr. Banks here?

I think the first stage of the project which will take care of the San Luis unit service area is estimated at around $7 million, somewhere in that neighborhood.

Senator KUCHEL. In toto how much would it amount to?

Mr. BATES. All the way to Buena Vista Lake, which, as you know, is clear down to the southern part of the valley, I believe the entire project is talking about $55 million.

Senator KUCHEL. Here we deal with a piece of Federal legislation in which the State will participate in the construction and operation. Assuming that this agreement were to be entered into, would it not supply an abundance of good faith with respect to the State's obligations, as recognized by your proposed amendment, to undertake the responsibility in the drainage problem?

23863-58--10

Mr. BATES. I believe so, sir, and I think that can be illustrated, too, by the fact that the construction of this master drain in, I guess you call it, the timetable of the department is in the first features of the California water plan. It is the first thing that they intended to construct. So it would be highly unlikely that it would be put off down at the tail end. It is already there. The State water commission, incidentally, has also gone on official record, which makes it an official policy of the State automatically by the law under which the commission was created, that this master drain be constructed prior to the introduction of new waters.

Senator ANDERSON. Do you have any problem now with bad water?

Mr. BATES. We have a little bit of a problem, sir. A few of the districts are irrigating from the Delta-Mendota Canal, as I mentioned, which was constructed and started in 1951.

An illustrated by the map, the northern end of the area there is fairly close to the hill; so has very few small new districts formed. But if you get farther south, I think I can best illustrate it by an actual occurrence this past year.

I think you are familiar with water quality terms from your own experience. There is a master drain now that has for, I guess, more than 50 years come back into the main canal. Our district, sir, is the old San Joaquin Canal Co. which was wholly owned by Miller & Luchs. This was actually constructed in the 1870's by Chinese coolie labor; so is an antique system in that sense.

With regard to drainage waters entering our canal, they are mixed with our regular irrigation water, but halfway through our system. In other words, taking the drainage water from some of the southern end, I will give you two figures.

We take weekly samples on that drain water to protect ourselves. The average boron of those drainage waters in 1956 was 1.0. As you know, 0.5 is the generally accepted tolerable limit. In 1957 the average boron of that drainage water entering our system was 2.6 in 1 year.

Senator ANDERSON. So you have a problem already of your own. Mr. BATES. We have a small problem; yes, sir. But we are solving it on a local basis by various means.

You notice on the map the brown in the middle there is Grasslands Water District, which is your duck club swamp area. That drainage water is being put through that area, and each fall the duck clubs are filled, flushed on through during the winter. We can take care of it on an interim basis.

Senator ANDERSON. I am looking at your language on page 3 of your statement:

The conduit would convey poor-quality surface water wasting from the valley during the late irrigation season and other critical periods, sewage and industrial waste, degraded surface waters of minor west-side tributaries, poorquality ground water pumped for quality control ***.

That is getting into a pretty big field; is it not?

Mr. BATES. This statement of the department is talking about the entire valley drainage problem and not just this area here. It is a quotation here.

Senator ANDERSON. However, if you are going to pump poor-quality ground water and waste it, that is a pretty expensive process.

Mr. BATES. That is right. We don't pump any ground water for quality control at the present time. There is a little bit in the Firebaugh area.

I take that back.

They are doing tile draining now quite extensively and pumping that out to maintain the ground water.

Senator ANDERSON. Do you understand if the Federal Government gets into this that you are not trying to commit us to go in and have the Federal Government take out the poor-quality ground water for quality control?

Mr. BATES. No, sir. Anything that goes into section 4 of the bill as written pertains to the internal drainage system, you might say, of the San Luis, which, of course, would be undoubtedly a reimbursable feature of the project at a later date. And it would be foolish to put in a drainage system unless you know where the internal drains are going to be needed.

But there is no point in putting in the internal drainage until there is some method of getting it out of the valley. That is the main point

here.

Senator ANDERSON. Will you tell me what would happen if the Federal Government went ahead and spent $292 million and the State of California decided not to build the master drain? Would the pressure not be on the Federal Government to go ahead and do it and appropriate another $55 million?

Obviously, the Federal Government cannot afford to put all this money in and then not be able to dispose of the water.

Mr. BATES. I don't think the Federal Government would put any money into drainage unless it was on a reimbursable basis.

Senator ANDERSON. Wait a minute.

I have a brandnew water plant up here on the side of the mountain. I have a dam and reservoir with a million acre-feet of water in it, if I was Uncle Sam, and I cannot deliver it until I build a $55 million plant. Nobody would throw away the millions.he already has in it. The Federal Government would have to go ahead and build the drain if the State of California does not do it; is that not correct? Mr. BATES. You are undoubtedly right, sir.

Could not that be covered in the agreement between the State and the Secretary as called for on the other features of the San Luis unit? Senator ANDERSON. I think it might. I just wondered who can bind the State. Is there anybody you know that can guarantee the next legislature will appropriate $55 million?

Mr. BATES. No, sír; nobody can, no more than I can or the Congress. Senator KUCHEL. Is it not true, if the legislation as introduced here were adopted, and the agreement were entered into, and the construction were then to proceed, that the people in the area would be interested in meeting that condition if the State did not in order to receive supplemental water?

Mr. BATES. We would have to. Not only our area, sir, but the entire valley.

Senator KUCHEL. In other words, it is a problem that must be met. Your belief is that the State should meet it, and your belief is that the State will meet it.

up

Mr. BATES. And has definitely shown good faith on it by setting these funds and conducting this study that being in the first stage.

Senator ANDERSON. I want to ask why it is not desirable to put in the legislation that before any money is appropriated for this project there shall be some sort of agreement as to who will build the master drain. I do not believe that the Government has any right to put a lot of money in a project and not be able to deliver water.

Mr. BATES. I see your point.

Senator ANDERSON. I do not know what the problem is there, but we have now available to the people an absolute method of measuring whether or not there is water seepage coming into the land. Therefore, we would know whether this property was being damaged by the irrigation waters.

I do not blame you for worrying about this. This is a problem. It does seem to me, Senator, before the Government is asked to start putting up its money there ought to be some sort of commitment from some group that the State of California will put up its money.

Senator KUCHEL. I can see why the Senator makes that statement. The fact does remain that in the government of California, just like this in Washington, you have to rely in part upon annual recognition by each government of good faith, because assuming that the legislature in 1959 appropriated X million dollars for this program, but, for some unaccountable reason, the legislature in 1961 refused to carry it on, or, contrarywise, the Congress under authorization appropriated the first year but refused to the second.

I think he has made a good case.

Senator ANDERSON. The reason that the Congress makes the second year's appropriation is that it authorizes the project completely and thereby guarantees to the people that it intends to go through with it, and you and I and the other Members of the Senate and the House vote to see that the Government keeps its pledge.

Senator KUCHEL. That is right.

Senator ANDERSON. The State of California under this is not required to make any pledge. The people say "Put in language that says no water shall be delivered until * * * "

The "until" depends upon action on the part of California. So why should not California sign a pledge along with the Federal Government?

Senator KUCHEL. Has not the pledge been recognized in the appropriation by the legislature, of the study moneys, which I assume is under authorization?

Mr. O'NEILL (J. E. O'Neill, president, Westlands Water District). I think you will find in our estimates of the $190 million, money which will provide not only for distribution systems but for a drainage system, and, if we have to, we will take care of our own drain down to the outlet.

Senator ANDERSON. However, the $190 million does not involve this property here.

Mr. O'NEILL. We are prepared to take the water from the Westlands Water District.

Senator ANDERSON. I did not think it did. I still do not think it does.

Mr. O'NEILL. It doesn't specifically state, but it does take care of drainage, and we had in mind that if we had to, and if the State of California did not proceed with the master drainage, we could carry our own drainage down to the outlet.

Senator ANDERSON. Is that the aqueduct from Delta to San Luis?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. Set up here at $55 million?

Mr. ONEILL. Those are not our figures, Mr. Chairman. from the so-called Kern County concept.

That comes

Senator ANDERSON. It comes from the Department of Water Resources of California.

Mr. O'NEILL. We are talking about our appropriation on the $190 million.

Mr. BATES. I think I can explain, sir.

What is being driven at here is that under the Federal report on the San Luis they recognize the need for drainage from this new project, too. They have a very generalized plan of disposing of the drainage waters from the San Luis units through an interceptor drain along the lower edge of the San Luis unit.

The reason the State has gotten into this is that the drainage problem is more than just the San Luis unit area itself. In other words, it would be foolish to put the master drain that high just to take care of the San Luis unit. It would be better to get it lower so that it could be used not only by the San Luis unit but also by others in projects in the future.

But the Senator mentioned about the appropriation for study funds. I would also like to emphasize again that the State water commission has gone on official record that it is the first stage of the California water plan for construction. It is perfectly true the legislature cannot appropriate the money.

Senator ANDERSON. I would not worry so much about what the legislature would do if the State of California through its legislature had obligated itself to build this master drain in case the Federal Government went through with the project. I would feel that there should be the same responsibility on the part of the members of the California Legislature as when we authorize projects here.

I do not like language that says that, having built a plant, you cannot use it.

Mr. BATES. I can certainly see your point.

Senator ANDERSON. I unfortunately have to sit here although I am not directly interested in the California project. It is not my function to try to get the California project through. It is to try to see that the Government does not put any money in this and then have it frozen, as it could if it could not deliver water.

I do not know whose responsibility it is to build the dam. You say that your folks will do it. Mr. O'Neill says their district will do it. There ought to be some commitment pretty well expressed.

I think you should recognize that we would not appropriate the whole $260 million unless California was moving along.

Mr. BATES. The main thing we are afraid of in talking about construction is the technicality that actually you might say the project is already under construction by the acquisition of some of the reservoir site land.

Senator ANDERSON. I do not believe that is a good interpretation. I do not believe that would hold up in court.

Mr. BATES. I am no lawyer.

Senator ANDERSON. I am not either. That is why I can speak freely.