« PreviousContinue »
That is the basic objectives of the amendments to the bill which were offered by Mr. Peterson.
Senator KUCHEL. I will tell you what I would like to have you do. I would like to have you give the committee your own views as a lawyer on what the legal situation would be, in your opinion, on the basis of the title of the real property having vested in the State.
Mr. GOODCELL. Actually fee title is not important. You take fee title subject to 99-year lease, and I would rather have the 99-year lease. If you take fee title subject to exclusive easement or right of use, all of those rights of use and control can be taken care of in the contract. Senator KUCHEL. What I mean is this: Do you think the Federal Government could take away a piece of property from the State of California without the State agreeing to it?
Mr. GOODCELL. I probably should not answer it. I do not believe the Federal Government could condemn property acquired by the State of California or water development for the same Federal use, not being of higher use.
Mr. PETERSON. I am still worried by the fact that the Federal Government under the situation in the bill could have a physical dam on the land in all probability, because the State couldn't stand forever in the way of these people getting water for their land as the State is interested as well as the Federal Government in them getting some type of agreement.
Senator KUCHEL. However, it would take agreement by the State.
Mr. GOODCELL. It would take agreement, and I want to be very, very sure that the agreement for the use of roughly half of that reservoir is reserved for the State for almost whenever it may be able to come in and use it.
Senator KUCHEL. And build it?
Mr. GOODCELL. And build it. I don't care finally who builds it, but I do care that the capacity is available for the purpose of the State Feather River project.
Mutual contracts can determine the method of operation, the divisions of cost, and all of those problems, and a contract is the essence of this type of arrangement.
Senator KUCHEL. I greatly appreciate your testimony. I ask unanimous consent that the letter I have received from the California farm research and legislative committee in Santa Clara be made a part of the record to go with the attendant papers.
Mr. LINEWEAVER. Senator Kuchel, I ask to be printed along with your insertions a number of other communications addressed to you, Senator Anderson, and members of the staff concerning the San Luis unit. They are as follows: a statement by C. J. Haggerty, on behalf of the California State Federation of Labor; a letter from George Ballis, editor of the Valley Labor Citizen, with enclosures; a statement by Andrew J. Biemiller, director of legislation, American Federation of Labor; a letter from Jesse Bernard, business representative, local 294, International Hodcarriers, Building and Construction Laborers; a statement from the city of Coalinga, Calif.; a resolution adopted by the Young Democrats of Fresno, Calif.; a letter from William Reich, of the 15th Assembly District, Democratic Club of California; and various telegrams from individuals and associations of California.
Senator KUCHEL. They will all be incorporated in the record at this point.
(The material referred to follows:)
LETTER FROM CALIFORNIA RESEARCH AND LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
CALIFORNIA FARM RESEARCH AND LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE,
Hon. THOMAS H. KUCHEL,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SENATOR: Enclosed find the official statement of the California Farm Research and Legislative Committee which we ask that you present at the March 17-18 hearings of the Subcommittee on Reclamation, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate.
We appreciate your cooperation in having presented our material at former hearings and hope that the deepening unemployment emergency, coupled with the water requirements of the San Luis service area will result in Senate authorization of the San Luis project.
Although S. 1887 does not yet contain provisions (as in H. R. 7295, Gubser) to include extension of the water transportation facilities of the San Luis project to Santa Clara, San Benita, and Alameda Counties, we hope that this amendment will be written into the bill during the hearings.
Thanking you for your cooperation.
Mrs. GRACE MCDONALD,
STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM RESEARCH AND LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION
Our committee urges immediate congressional authorization of a Federal San Luis project and related works, California.
We specifically urge that your subcommittee recommend immediate passage of S. 1887, Knowland and Kuchel (April 16, 1957).
At hearings of the House Subcommittee on Reclamation, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, January 15-17, 1958, our committee supported H. R. 6035, Sisk (identical with Knowland-Kuchel bill), and H. R. 7295, Gubser.
The only difference between the Gubser bill, H. R. 7295, and the KnowlandKuchel and Sisk bills, is the inclusion (sec. 4, p. 8) of authorization by the Secretary of Interior to extend the water service area of the San Luis unit of the Central Valley project to Santa Clara, San Benito, and Alameda Counties by means of an additional unit, providing its economic and physical feasibility is established. Existing studies of this unit, which have already been made by the Bureau of Reclamation and by the State of California, should be utilized.
The California Farm Research and Legislative Committee has continuously supported a federally constructed San Luis project fully integrated with all existing and future phases of the Central Valley project, including the Trinity River division, and to be operated in accordance with the public power and acreage provisions of reclamation law.
The Trinity project is now under construction. The 1958-59 budget allocates only $37 million for additional construction for the year ending June 30, 1959. This will be applied only on features now under construction: the main dam and Clear Creek tunnel. No funds are provided for such essential features as the Lewiston diversion dam, Whiskeytown Dam and Spring Creek tunnel.
It is our understanding that plans for Trinity's authorized Federal power facilities are not even on the drawing boards. Unless such studies are immediately undertaken and construction of power facilities proceeds concurrently with impounding of Trinity water, large quantities of hydroelectric potential will be lost and integration of Trinity with San Luis will be seriously compromised.
It is essential that work on Trinity and San Luis be coordinated. Conserved Trinity water will be distributed by the San Luis project, and Federal power from Trinity is needed for economical operation of San Luis pumps. Therefore, we urge all possible haste in completing the entire Trinity project, including Federal power facilities, so that this supply of water and electricity will be available when San Luis is completed.
Furthermore, immediate start of work on the San Luis project would alleviate the unemployment situation in California. The number of jobless in the State in January was 364,000-a 63-percent increase over January 1957.
Appended hereto is a copy of our statement on the San Luis project presented to the House Subcommittee on Reclamation of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.
STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM RESEARCH AND LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION
Our committee urges immediate congressional authorization of a Federal San Luis project and related works, California.
We speak for 1,000 committee members operating their own commercial farms and for affiliated producer cooperatives. Our members are located in every agricultural area in California and produce nearly every type of farm commodity grown in this leading agricultural State.
We speak, as well, for church, labor, and community organizations including soil conservation and water districts who are affiliated with us and support our reclamation policies.
We specifically urge passage of H. R. 6035, Sisk (March 14, 1957); H. R. 7295, Gubser (May 7, 1957); and S. 1887, Knowland and Kuchel (April 16, 1957).
We oppose H. R. 2452, Hosmer (January 10, 1957), and an identical bill, H. R. 7047, Utt, because these measures propose State construction and operation with Federal financial assistance without the historical safeguards enacted by Congress in Federal reclamation law.
The specific difference between the Gubser bill, H. R. 7295, and the other measures we support, is the inclusion under section 4, page 8 of authorization by the Secretary of Interior to extend the water service area of the San Luis unit of the Central Valley project to Santa Clara, San Benito, and Alameda Counties and to construct the Santa Clara-San Benito-Alameda unit, provided its physical and economic feasibility is established.
Our position in proposing that the benefits of the San Luis project be extended to the central coastal area is based on testimony placed before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee at the May 1956 hearing as to overdraft of available water supplies in these three counties.
Because of continued and accelerated increases in population and industry in the areas and intensified irrigation to compensate for subdivision and highway encroachment on farmland necessitating shifts in type of crops under cultivation, the need for imported water is becoming more urgent.
In this connection we call attention to the statement made by Gov. Goodwin J. Knight of California January 10, 1958, citing the importance of the San Luis Reservoir to the central coastal area and the need to include this area in the San Luis project and related works, once the Department of Interior has completed a feasibility report.
The California farm research and legislative committee has continuously supported a federally constructed San Luis project fully integrated with all existing and to-be authorized phases of the Central Valley and Trinity River projects and to be operated in accordance with the public power and acreage provisions of reclamation law.
The Trinity project is now under construction and bills which we favor take into consideration Federal-State cooperation to utilize the San Luis Reservoir for possible additional storage under the State water plan. Therefore delay in authorizing the San Luis project is justified.
Since our position on the San Luis project is not a matter of record in the 85th Congress, we appreciate the opportunity afforded by your subcommittee to present our views.
In a statement compiled in 1955 by the California State Department of Agriculture in support of a Trinity-San Luis project, attention was called to the "alarming drop in ground water supplies" in the San Joaquin Valley "as a result of heavy pumping," and the "serious economic curtailment of farming activitiy" which would result from failure to conserve and utilize presently wasted supplies of Trinity River water.
This drop in ground-water supplies has been aggravated rather than alleviated. Water impounded in San Luis Reservoir will come from the San JoaquinSacramento Delta. Privately and publicly owned reservoirs in the northern portion of the State cannot control the normal winter runoff from the swollen
rivers of this area. Thus large surplus flows of waste waters pass through the delta and empty into the Pacific Ocean each winter.
These waters pass the Tracy pumping plant when its huge pumps are idle because no storage reservoirs have been constructed to hold this winter flow.
The San Luis project would utilize this idle equipment to pump surplus water into its storage reservoir for irrigation use during crop seasons.
Some 500,000 acres would be irrigated with impounded San Luis water. Speaking of the economic value of this land, the State department of agriculture said:
"These lands are predominantly excellent in quality, suitable for a wide variety of crops, and much of the service area has been developed to irrigation through the expenditure of large sums of private capital; however, the locally available ground water and surface supplies are inadequate for the area.
"Under conditions of full development with project water available, it is anticipated that 75 percent of these lands will be used for production of highvalue truck, field, and forage crops such as melons, vegetables, and alfalfa, destined both for cash sale and for consumption by dairy stock supplying milk to the San Francisco Bay area and other urban markets."
We may add that a large proportion of replacement stock for dairy herds supplying southern California comes from the San Joaquin Valley and that the population of southern California will be vitally affected beneficially or adversely dependent on whether the San Joaquin Valley receives adequate water supplies for farm production or loses its productivity because such aid is denied.
Gross annual farm income in Merced, Fresno, and Kings counties exceeds half a billion dollars. While only a portion of this wealth would be directly saved as a result of supplementary water from San Luis, indirect benefits would actually be valleywide because the new supply will decrease the present serious overdraft of underground water.
The annual withdrawal of water from existing wells in the San Luis service area, which includes the San Luis Water District, (Merced County), the Panoche Water District, (Fresno County and Merced County), and the Westlands Water District (Fresno County), amounts to more than 1 million acre-feet a year. Annual drop in water table averages 25 feet.
The San Luis Reservoir would initially impound 1 million acre-feet of presently wasted winter surplus, and release the water during irrigation season through the proposed San Luis Canal system extending from the Pacheco Pass through Fresno County and into Kings.
Further southward transportation to a proposed Avenal Gap Reservoir, although not included in the bills before your subcommittee is an essential extension of the project.
We approve a foresighted increased in ultimate San Luis Reservoir capacity so that provision may be made to store additional water from the Feather River project regardless of whether this project is constructed by the State of Federal Government, provided reclamation law is embodied in the expanded project. Integration of all water and power supplies are imperative if California is to meet the responsibilities of its rapidly mounting municipal, industrial, and agricultural needs.
The entire economy of our State and Nation is affected by the well-being of its agricultural base.
What the nearly $3 billion annual gross income from California farms means to the rest of the economy is shown by a recent State chamber of commerce report. This showed that the State's farmers spend $314 million annually for livestock and poultry feed; $100 million for commercial fertilizer; $440 million for hired labor; $70 million for petroleum products.
Farm commodities account for one third of all railway freight traffic in the State. Supply one-third of the Nation's canned food products, a large proporportion of which originate in the service area of the San Luis project, every State will benefit from conservation of this annual reservoir of food and fiber. Handling and processing of raw farm products provides an additional tax base of $5.7 billion.
The San Luis project, proven feasible by engineering standards of the Bureau of Reclamation has a 2.5 to 1 benefit ratio. Water can be delivered to the immediate service area at $7.50 an acre-foot.
There is no alternative to the San Luis project which is the only available means for saving the agricultural wealth of the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
As wells now being drilled go deeper and deeper and cost more and more thousands of dollars to drill, the price of irrigation water, added to other constantly rising production expenses, becomes prohibitive.
Even where wells are sunk there is no certainty that they will not bring boron and salt up with the water in such quantities as to poison the land.
The San Luis project is merely an extension of already financed and constructed features of the Central Valley project such as the Tracy pumping plant and the Delta Mendota Canal, in which the people of our Nation have already invested more than $75 million.
Federal investment in reservoir and pumping plant to lift and store water into the San Luis Reservoir would, moreover, be fully repaid through contracts with water districts within a 40-year period.
Agricultural wealth, conserved and expanded through project water, will provide additional millions of dollars to municipal, county, State, and Federal Government in the form of auxiliary businesses, employment, economic stability and taxes.
Were the San Luis project under construction today it would provide a substantial deterrent to growing unemployment and stalemated rural business. Since we have allowed this opportunity to be delayed, let us take the essential step now to get this project underway. It can be completed within 5 or 6 years if financed and constructed by the Federal Government, as provided in the Sisk, Gubser, Knowland-Kuchel measures before your subcommittee.
We urge you to carry the Trinity Diversion project, now under construction, to its logical expanded development, and authorize immediate construction of the San Luis Reservoir project.
STATEMENT OF C. J. HAGGERTY, SECRETARY-TREASURER, CALIFORNIA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR
In accordance with the long-established policy of the California State Federation of Labor, I appreciate the opportunity to support a request for further Federal aid for water development in California, specifically for construction of the San Luis project.
The feasibility of the San Luis project and the absolute necessity of its construction have been established beyond all reasonable doubt. We strongly urge its immediate authorization, and that construction of the project be started as soon as possible. Both the economics of service area of the proposed project and of the State demand that this be the course of action.
We recognize and support the position that provision should be made in the authorizing legislation for coordination of the Federal project with California water plans should the State enter the field of water and power development. At the same time, however, we insist that the Federal San Luis unit be constructed under reclamation law without deviation or evasion.
In this regard, we are disturbed at the outset by the text of S. 1887. It is authored by Senator William F. Knowland, whose opposition to the excess-land provision is well known since he joined in 1947 with former Senator Sheridan Downey to sponsor the bill rejected by the 80th Congress (S. 912) that attempted to exempt the Central Valley project. While S. 1887 appears at first sight to include the excess-land provision, examination of its text_contradicts this first impression. On page 2, lines 12 and 13, it reveals that Federal reclamation law is to apply to San Luis project only insofar as S. 1887 does not eliminate it.
Examination of S. 1887 discloses a number of efforts to eliminate reclamation law. Among these are the following:
(1) Apparently, the Federal reclamation law is not to be applied to State use of Federal facilities, in contradiction to the Warren Act of 1911. We believe that on page 2, line 23, after the words "facilities of the San Luis unit", Congress should insert the words "under the Federal reclamation laws, and provided that these are legally recognized in the State of California."
(2) We believe that subsection (e) on page 5 should be stricken from the bill. Congress has not yet transferred title of the Central Valley project works to the State of California, although the matter has been discussed. Apparently one of the reasons why no transfer has taken place is that the State of California has not declared its willingness to abide by the Federal reclamation laws under which Central Valley project was built. We see no reason, therefore, to authorize a transfer now, to take effect some years hence, of a part