Page images
PDF
EPUB

the reservoirs, and make large flood control releases unnecessary. He also stated, however, that the potential of above-normal runoffs filling the reservoirs remained and could require large flood control releases from Hoover Dam.

To reduce the potential damages of such major releases, I was told the Bureau was working on three programs: rock stabilized levees; a study to clear vegetation from the river channel in the Yuma area; a pilot program in the Cibola Valley to test strip clearing of vegetation.

To fly over the river, as we did in July and witness the power of the river was awesome-but to witness the destruction of homes, businesses, and farmland was exasperating.

We need to know what happened, and we need to know why it wasn't prevented when so many people knew it could happen. We need to reconstruct the sequence of events to find out what could have been done, and should have been done by public officials and private citizens alike. We need to reconstruct this series of events because this flood could easily happen again next year and the year after that.

Of course, we probably won't solve all of the problems by next year, many are long range, but we have to begin to work together-all the Federal agencies and all the State and local governments and all the people connected with the river.

When a disaster like this occurs, there is a natural tendency to look for blame. But frankly, I don't think we will find a whole lot of blame. I don't think we will be blessed with the convenience of a guilty party-someone to point a condemning finger at, and then hope for a quick fix. It just isn't that simple.

What we will probably find is a tangle of Federal agencies, a tangle of restrictions and permits, and conflicting priorities for the use of the water and the river channel. We will find a virtual combat zone of competing purposes that include irrigation, electric power, municipal water supplies, farmland preservation, recreation and wildlife habitats.

But although it won't be easy to find who is at fault, it is easy to identify the victims. Unfortunately, some people would place blame on the victims-the people who had their property destroyed. It has been said by a few that those who were flooded out brought it upon themselves. In that regard I found a disturbing lack of sensitivity on the part of the Secretary of the Interior. Judging from the mail I received, the Secretary's remarks were regarded as callousand reinforced the fear and suspicion of many people that the flooding was a deliberate attempt to wash unwanted intruders out of the floodway.

Many of those affected by the flood have lived along the river for a long time. Many have attended the hearings and have participated in developing the criteria for the management plans. Many live outside the levees and others were not informed of the risk, or simply did not understand it. Those who have lost their life savings, or watched their property be destroyed, did not plan to do so. When disaster strikes, people need help, not sarcasm.

Mr. Chairman, another benefit of these hearings might be a better definition of flood damage. Here in the Yuma area it is clear to most people that water damage is water damage. It makes little

sense to limit the definition of flood damage to property destroyed by flowing water. You will hear testimony that the river bottom is actually about 10 feet higher than it used to be, due to siltation. Thus the water level in the channel between the levees is higher than adjacent land outside the levees-so that the water sinks into the ground, and then outward-resulting in an underground river much wider than the channel.

The rising ground water in the areas adjacent to the river is so obviously a part of the increased flows that it seems almost unnecessary to make the point. The damage caused by this underground river should be included in the Federal flood insurance coverage. The flow of an underground river cannot be a easily predicted or controlled as surface water can with levees or with dredging.

This brings me to the Bureau's programs as outlined in 1980. It is clear that the river must be maintained as a waterway. It is, perhaps, not necessary to dredge the river from Morelos Dam to Laguna Dam. I have been told by the newly formed Southwest Arizona Flood Control Association that they believe the river can be dragged, even now with high water, for a small fraction of the cost of dredging, and with much less wildlife habitat damage.

They will provide much more information, but that may be something we can get general agreement on. We must pursuade the administration to take action to prevent this level of damage from occurring next year. If the channel is cleaned out sufficiently and stabilized, then all the land outside of the levees can be usable and not considered restricted by the Federal Emergency Management Administration.

Also, and I am sure the Governor will speak to this, Arizona's disaster emergency fund has been sorely depleted in combating various emergencies along the river, and I have written a letter to FEMA in this regard. It would be helpful if FEMA would amend their disaster declaration to include public assistance. An amended declaration would allow Federal assistance to counties and municipalities instead of the State footing the entire bill.

Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your staff for holding these hearings, and for scheduling such an excellent panel of witnesses. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Any questions?

If not, Senator Goldwater asked me to read a brief statement he sent for the hearings this morning.

He says:

I sincerely appreciate your holding these hearings today in Yuma and tomorrow in Needles, Calif. in order to receive testimony about flooding along the Colorado River.

The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated preliminary total damages caused by the high water releases to be over $80 million. Moreover, no one knows for certain how much destruction to crops, sewage systems, roads and water systems will continue to occur because of rising ground water, particularly in the Yuma area.

I am personally very sympathetic and sorry for the people who have lost their homes, and who have seen all their hard work damaged or destroyed by the flood waters. In addition, I am very concerned for those people who have lost their businesses or who have seen their incomes from these enterprises reduced to almost nothing. It goes without saying that the personal tragedies and suffering caused by this disaster will not be easily forgotten nor will the recovery and restoration of homes and businesses be without a great amount of sweat and frustration.

My heart goes out to our people, particularly those in the Topock Lake Rancheros, along the Parker Strip, and in the Yuma area. This is not to forget our California neighbors and our friends in Mexico who have also suffered from this flood.

In my long lifetime in Arizona, I have seen the Colorado River flood on more than a few occasions. The Colorado River has flooded for millions of years, and will continue to do so. In the natural scheme of things, there will continue to be occasional floods caused by abnormally high rain and snowfalls.

The Goldwater family had a store washed out by flooding along the Colorado River. Our family learned the hard way about building in the flood plain of this river. Needless to say, construction in the flood plain is hazardous and, periodically, the river is going to flood in spite of all the best efforts of man to tame the river by dams and controlled water releases.

From the information and reports that I have seen, I find no fault with the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has a long history in the State of Arizona, and is one of the major components in the development and supply of water. Meeting water needs must also take into account the safety and protection of life and property. The unique beauty and delicate ecology of the Grand Canyon must also be protected from flood damage.

I believe that with better weather projections, snow depth analysis, and increased cooperations and communication among the various concerned Federal agencies, we can do a better job of preventing some of the damage caused by these floods. This is what I hope will be developed as a result of these hearings.

[Prepared statement of Hon. Barry Goldwater may be found in app. I.]

The CHAIRMAN. That is the statement of Senator Goldwater.

We will now turn to two important witnesses in our hearings today and tomorrow, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Honorable Robert Broadbent, Department of the Interior, and Col. Roger Higbee, Deputy District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Los Angeles district.

Colonel Higbee and Dr. Broadbent, if you would take the stand we would be delighted to hear from you.

[Prepared statements of Hon. William N. Broadbent, with attachments, and Lt. Col. Roger Higbee may be found in app. I.]

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. ROBERT BROADBENT, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND LT. COL. ROGER HIGBEE, DEPUTY DISTRICT COMMANDER, LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed when you are ready, Commissioner Broadbent.

Mr. BROADBENT. Mr. Chairman, and Members of Congress, it is my pleasure as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, and representing the Department of the Interior to appear before this group today to discuss the operation of the Colorado River.

My testimony today is for the Department of the Interior. Besides the Bureau of Reclamation we have representatives of the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Geological Survey, all Bureaus of the Department of Interior and all Bureaus which have an active interest along the Colorado River System.

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a comprehensive written statement. Somebody told me it was better by the pound. So it is rather thick. I certainly don't intend to read that testimony. But I felt it was important to get most of the facts as we see it on the oper

ation-what happened, what is going to happen and what are the possible solutions.

So it is rather comprehensive.

The CHAIRMAN. We are determined to find out today what could have been done differently, and what changes are needed, and I am proud of the comprehensive report we are going to make. This is useful and without objection it will be made a part of the record. Mr. BROADBENT. We hope it will be of value, sir.

I would like to orally summarize some of the testimony taking 10 or 15 minutes if that is appropriate, Mr. Chairman.

It includes a review of what has happened this year, some hypothetical operating scenarios that might have been developed had we had a better crystal ball earlier in the year, and some conclusions on possible actions that might be encompassed in a congressional review by your committee, and by the interested congressional people along the river, and certainly by the appropriate Federal agencies and the seven basin States.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that I am a 30-year resident myself along the Colorado River having lived in Boulder City, Nev., since 1950 and still a resident of that community although temporarily residing in Washington. I am a voter in Congressman Harry Reid's district.

As a former businessman in Boulder City I recognized the importance of the Colorado River system and its many uses. Flood damage represents a potential economic loss to tourism and industry and to farmers along the Colorado River system.

It is certainly something that must be looked at not only by the Federal Establishment but by the States and by Congress itself. We share with you the concern for those people who have suffered these losses as we look at the operation of the Colorado River.

I would, however, like to point out for the record that we feel that the Bureau of Reclamation operated the river in full compliance with the law of the river as we understand it and as it has been interpreted through the years. That is not to say that we shouldn't look for possible changes.

I think it is important again to recognize that this is the highest unregulated runoff on record on the Colorado River system. We started keeping runoff records, I am told, in the early 1900's, and this is the highest unregulated flow on record. We are told that by the hydrologists not only in the Bureau of Reclamation but in other agencies of Government.

We are also told that in their opinion the 24.7 million acre-feet that we anticipate running down the Colorado River system for this year is the approximate equivalent of a 100-year event as you measure those kinds of events along a river system. To put it in a little better perspective, we can look back to 1977 when we had only 5 million acre-feet of water running down the Colorado River system for that full year. This year, it was some 24.7 million acrefeet, so I think it is important to recognize that there is a big variance in flows on the Colorado River.

I think it is also important to recognize that the average flow down the Colorado River system is approximately 15 million acrefeet.

Out of that, the States in the upper basin have by compact 7.5 million acre-feet; the States in the lower basin have by compact some 7.5 million acre-feet, and there are 11⁄2 million acre-feet which are, by treaty, given to the Republic of Mexico, adding up to 16.5 million acre-feet.

Once the Colorado River system is fully appropriated you can see that it is overallocated. That indeed is the serious problem we have along the Colorado River system.

I think it is important again to recognize that the Bureau of Reclamation operates the Colorado River system as a trustee for the seven Basin States. The water rights are really the rights of the seven States granted to them by compact and by law and by court decree. We are there as operating agents or as trustees to manage that system according to the will of the seven basin States. That will is dictated by the Governors as they appoint people who are designated representatives of their States to represent their States in conversations and in discussions and in actions before us in the Bureau of Reclamation. We meet with them regularly to discuss the operations of the Colorado River.

I think it is again important to talk a little bit about what we call the law of the river which governs management and operation of the Colorado River system. The law of the river is a series of Federal laws, compacts, and court decrees which have been handed down over the years for the operation and management of this system.

I would like to talk to you a little about what you are going to hear tomorrow from the Weather Service, but I think it is important for us to cover a portion of what we have on the Colorado River system. Most of you recognize we have a series of 9 or 10 major dams on the Colorado River starting up at the top at Fontenelle in Wyoming; Flaming Gorge, Parker-Davis, and six smaller ones at the bottom of the system.

The average April-through-July inflow in the Colorado River system is approximately 7 million acre-feet.

The flood control regulations prescribe we must have 5.35 million acre-feet in available storage. On January 1, 1983, we had 6.6-1.3 million acre-feet more than required by law and available flood control space.

After January 1 it says that our releases shall be guided by the projections from the Colorado Basin Weather Forecasting Center, which is operated by the Weather Service in conjunction with cooperating agencies of Government. Those cooperating agencies are the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, Soil Conservation Service, the Corps of Engineers, and the National Weather Service itself.

On January 1 we had 6.6 million acre-feet of available storage. The Weather Service forecasting center said there was about 112 percent of average flow; therefore, our releases at that time were mandated to be at a certain level. We met that level. We released a little over 19,000 cubic feet per second starting January 1.

On February 1 our estimate from the Weather Service again was 102 percent; March 1 it was 96 percent; April 1-these dates are approximate, they are usually a couple days later than that-114 percent; on May 1, 117; on June 1, 131.

« PreviousContinue »