Page images

However, as I say, there has been a concern expressed by various agencies in Kern County and southern California as to this language. We have attempted to draft other language which sets forth more clearly

Senator KUCHEL. The same objective.

Mr. BANKS. The same objective that this be a proportionate use based on relative designed capacities.

Senator ANDERSON. I would not say the same objective. If you say in a guardianship case that the guardian shall have exclusive control and in another case say the guardian has control along with the person to whom money is left, that is different. Here you say the Federal Government shall have exclusive control over those things where the money is joint, but where the money is separate, the State shall have control.

You come in with an amendment saying that from the very beginning the State and Government shall have joint control. Joint control is very hard to exercise as you must well know.

Mr. BANKS. The intent, as Commissioner Dexheimer and I drafted this bill, was that if the Interior needs 1 million acre-feet of storage at the site to serve the Westlands Water District area, and the State needs an additional 1,100,000 that Interior would have the use of 1 million acre-feet and the State would have the use of 1,100,000 out of a total of 2,100,000.

That was the intent when we drafted this. The question has been raised as I say as to whether this original wording properly expresses that intent. We believe that the revised wording perhaps may be better and may more clearly set forth the intent of those that drafted the bill.

Senator ANDERSON. That is something to study.

Mr. BANKS. Again, with (i) the amendments are proposed to remove some of the objections which were voiced to the original language. Senator KUCHEL. This, I take it, is in consonance with what Secretary Aandahl said this morning: that the Department would look with favor upon State operation of the project.

Mr. BANKS. Yes; that was envisioned from the time the bill was first drawn. Senator Kuchel, may I clarify that?

Joint operation of those facilities which are common to both projects, not in toto.

Senator ANDERSON. This provides what? This provides that the Secretary must turn them over if the State asked for them.

Mr. BANKS. That, again, is a unanimous belief of the water users in Kern County and southern California.

Senator ANDERSON. You want the Federal Government to put $290 million into this project interest free for 50 years and when it is done, if the State asks for it, the Government must step out and turn over to the State the care, operation and maintenance of said works.

Mr. BANKS. Not the total project; only those facilities which are common or jointly used between the two projects.

Senator ANDERSON. But the reservoir is used jointly and that is the heart of the whole program.

Mr. BANKS. That does not encompass by any means the whole San Luis project. There are many facilities in this project which are solely used by the Federal Government.

Senator ANDERSON. Who is it that does not trust the Bureau of Reclamation to administer this fairly?

Mr. BANKS. Senator

Senator ANDERSON. Somebody must have raised the objection or you would not have changed the language. This language says when you get it built and use $290 million of Federal money to build it, then if the State comes in and says, "You get out of here; we will run this to suit ourselves," the Federal Government must get out. Where did that ever happen before?

Mr. BANKS. I do not think, Senator, that that was the intent, that we run it to suit ourselves. The agreement between the Secretary and the State, I am sure, and similar matters have been under discussion between the Bureau and the State for some time, the agreement which would have to be entered into before this could be implemented would specify in detail the operating procedures and would have to be, I am sure, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior and satisfactory to him.

I would like, if I may, Senator, to voice one other thing: That under this joint-use concept, as it has been developed in S. 1887 or under the Kern County concept, either, the total development of the Federal Government would be something less than $290 million. It would be between $255 million and $260 million, because there would be some saving to the Federal Government under this joint-venture concept. Senator ANDERSON. That is fine. It may be $260 million, but it is still a fair chunk of money.

Mr. BANKS. Yes, with that I cannot disagree.

Senator ANDERSON. Does the Government run Friant?

Mr. BANKS. It runs Friant. On the other hand, it does not run Sly Park, a unit of the Central Valley project.

Senator ANDERSON. Does it run Shasta?

Mr. BANKS. It does, but it will not run Casetas Dam of the Ventura project. That will be turned over to the local agency.

Senator ANDERSON. Is the Government putting up all the money under those just mentioned?

Mr. BANKS. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. How big a project is the Cachuna?
Senator KUCHEL. About $30 million for Casetas.

Senator ANDERSON. I only say that this is a matter upon which the committee will have to pass. The language with which you are not satisfied is that the Secretary may turn it over. You want to make it "The Secretary shall."

Mr. BANKS. That has been, as I say, a very definite feeling on the part of the Kern County and southern California people, and may I suggest that you get their views on it?

Senator ANDERSON. I will be very happy to get their views. You heard the Assistant Secretary of the Interior testify this morning that he would not mind turning it over. He wants to have something to say about the conditions under which it is turned over. You people say that he has to turn it over.

Mr. BANKS. I am sure that he would have a great deal to say about the conditions.

Senator ANDERSON. I do not know whether he would or not. If he is required to turn it over and cannot reach agreement on conditions,

[blocks in formation]

he would still probably have to turn it over and try to negotiate later on. You greatly weaken the hand of the Secretary and strengthen the hands of the others at the bargaining table.

I know of projects where the Secretary turned over control to the local group, but he went to them and said, "I want you to do it this way. They would have a discussion and the local reclamation people generally came out with an agreement.

[ocr errors]

This says, "We do not trust you on this one. We are going to make you turn it over." I wonder if the language is not pretty strong. Go ahead with the next one.

Mr. BANKS. Section 6 on page 9 of my proposal again is put in there to clarify the fact that to the extent that the State puts money into this and for the areas to be served through State-constructed, State-financed, and State-owned facilities, the provisions of the reclamation law would not apply.

Senator ANDERSON (reading):

The provisions of the Federal reclamation laws shall not be applicable to water deliveries or to the use of drainage facilities serving lands under contract with the State to receive a water supply, outside of the San Luis service area described in the report of the Department of the Interior * * *.

That only eliminates the lands outside of the service area which would be State financed.

Mr. BANKS. That is correct. There are no further

Senator ANDERSON. That would say, however, that the water from the large dam should be used in these areas but I can see that there is justification for saying that they have put up their share of the money for the large dam so that to take the water out the Federal reclamation laws would not be required to obtain. Offhand, that would be all right.

Do you have further questions?

Thank you. I am sorry to have gone into so many of these things, Mr. Banks.

Mr. BANKS. We were very happy to have attempted to explain this. This is a complicated concept. There is no question about that. I want to thank you very much for the privilege of appearing.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you.

Senator KUCHEL. By the way, Mr. Banks, if you have or if you do not have, will you furnish the comments of the State with respect to the recommendations of the Congressman from Santa Clara County, Mr. Gubser, with respect to his proposal that this bill be amended to include additional reclamation works by which San Benito, Monterey, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties would get a supplemental water supply?

Mr. BANKS. We willl be happy to comment on that after we have had a chance to examine it.

Senator ANDERSON. You have had a chance to see section 4 of his bill. Have you not seen his bill?

Mr. BANKS. We have not had a chance to go into that in detail and discuss it with the Bureau of Reclamation, Senator. We would prefer to discuss that with the Bureau and also to particularize some studies we have in progress. We will be prepared to comment within 2 weeks on that.

Senator KUCHEL. I have just one more question, if you can answer it briefly. Is the water program before the current session of the State

legislature the program which your department has urged for this year's action?

Mr. BANKS. Yes; that is correct.

Senator ANDERSON. The legislature is trying to deal with this water problem?

Mr. BANKS. They are dealing with the budget. This is a budget session this year, Senator, and they will be in session until a week from Friday on the budget. The Governor has issued a special call for certain items of which water is not one, so that they may be in session under special call for a few days thereafter.

Thank you very much.

Senator ANDERSON. The next witness.

Senator KUCHEL. One of my California colleagues, Representative Charles Gubser, is here, and to accommodate him, I would like to have him make any statement he desires now for the record.

We will hear Congressman Gubser at this time.


Representative GUBSER. I can finish in 10 minutes total with my witnesses as well.

Senator KUCHEL. Bring your witnesses up, Congressman.

Representative GUBSER. I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear out of order.

I am Congressman Charles S. Gubser of the 10th District of California. My specific purpose in appearing before the committee is to request inclusion in whatever legislation is passed out of this committee of a provision similar to section 4 in my own bill, H. R. 7295.

The effect of H. R. 7295 would be to extend the service area of the Central Valley project as a part of the San Luis addition to include service to Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties.

By way of orientation, I would like to point out that this white area from about this point, San Benito County up to the San Francisco Bay, is the district which I represent. The Santa Clara County is the 15th largest county in the Nation by way of agricultural production.

I think I can safely say that there is no area in the entire United States which has done so much for itself by way of water conservation as has this area. We have a water system for development of our own water resources which is far more complex for the size of the area involved than is the Great Central Valley project.

In my own particular water conservation district, where I happen to own property, we have gone so far as to pay $4 on each $100 of assessed valuation in taxation for local water conservation, but still, despite these efforts, we are water short, and we definitely will have to import water.

We feel that the San Luis source is our most likely source of water, and we have proposed, and there is a great deal of local acceptance for,

a tunnel from the San Luis Reservoir across to the San Benito and Santa Clara Counties where it could flow by gravity if needed to Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties to the south.

My point, to summarize, is simply this: This is a great agricultural area with a tremendous problem of water recession. The water table is going down each year. It is a valuable area. We have done everything that can be done locally and I will go so far as to say that no people in the United States can present a record of self-help such as the people of my district can present, and that can be borne out by figures.

We know that outside water is our only possibility. Therefore, we respectfully request inclusion of section 4 of H. R. 7295 in this legislation.

Let me point out that there are provisos in section 4 which require that, No. 1, a favorable economic physical feasibility report must be on file before any construction can start; and, No. 2, the State of California must, if it chooses, either move to serve the area by 1962 or, upon notice by the Governor of the State that the State of California is not interested in serving the area, we could, of course, start


That is the sum and substance of section 4. The need is great. I believe we can certainly justify that need, and we would like to be considered while San Luis legislation is being considered.

I have as two of my witnesses Dean George Sullivan, dean emeritus, of the Engineering School at the University of Stant Clara, and Mr. Edward R. Hanna, who is with the San Benito Water Conservation District. Both of these gentlemen are representing the Tricounty Water District, which encompasses most of the area that I am privileged to serve.

I would like to call upon Dean Sullivan, if I may.

Senator KUCHEL. Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have here a map which shows in detail what Representative Gubser was talking about. The San Luis Reservoir is right here.

(The map referred to is on file with the committee for reference purposes.)

Mr. SULLIVAN. The particular thing we are asking for is that the improvements as shown on this map be added to the San Luis Reservoir project. That blueprint shows water being pumped from the San Luis Reservoir or from the Delta Mendota Canal or the Feather River project through a canal and through an aqueduct which will come down here, feed San Benito County, Santa Cruz County, and Monterey County, and then go on up here into the Anderson Reservoir, the Anderson Reservoir being the point of feed or source of water for this whole system that Representative Gubser was talking about, which cost something like $20 million spent by the people in the center of the valley.

This is the Santa Clara Valley represented here in the center of this picture. That $20 million was spent in this area. We have eight dams and reservoirs in which water is collected every year. Already this year we have approximately 114,000 acre-feet of water stored in those reservoirs which will be emptied into the underground system of the valley.

« PreviousContinue »