Page images

water supply will not be developed until some time in the future, the benefits associated with that irrigation have been discounted to present worth, based on a forecast schedule of development. The benefit figures thus derived were used by the corps, along with the benefits from other functions, to justify construction of its projects and as a basis for an allocation of costs to irrigation.

In the absence of repayment contracts for irrigation water storage, operation of the Willamette Valley reservoirs has been dictated by the criteria for other purposes. Storage of flood flows and gradual release of the water when downstream situations permit, releases to maintain the navigational flow below Oregon City, releases for power operation, and releases to maintain live streams for fish and water quality control, all tend to improve the regimen of the streams and to minimize extremes of either high or low flows. Also, additional waters have been made available as a result of the terms of the Federal Power Commission license recently granted the Oregon City powerplant. The effect of all this has been to increase the amount of water now available for irrigation as incidental to the development of the river, and the necessity for the water users to contract for release of water from storage has been thereby both reduced and deferred.

Under reclamation law and policy, which have been strongly supported also by the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees, we do not commence construction of reclamation works until we have a repayment contract with the water users. In some cases, this policy has been applied to multiple-purpose reservoirs constructed by the corps-for instnace, Black Butte and New Hogan Dams and Reservoirs in California. In these cases, the State of California has agreed to underwrite the costs allocated to irrigation to the extent that water users do not do so. Construction of reservoirs by the corps in the Willamette River Basin was not conditioned on such a requirement. Nevertheless several individuals have executed water service contracts, but prospects for additional contracts are not bright.

We have gone into this subject in some detail in this letter so that you will fully understand the present situation and the events leading up to that situation. We would appreciate any advice or guidance you might suggest as to our future policy with regard to obtaining contracts for repayment of costs allocated to irrigation on projects where we have no control over the initiation of construction or the method of operation of completed projects.

Sincerely yours,

FLOYD E. DOMINY, Commissioner.


Mr. CANNON. John Day River, $400,000.

Please tell us the need for and the interest in this new start. General LAPSLEY. It would be a new start, sir, which we regrettably suggest that you delete because local interests advise that the local economy can no longer guarantee that they can support the project. Mr. CANNON. Without objection, gentlemen, on the part of the committee, this item will be deleted.


Mr. CANNON. Sammamish River, $760,000. Please place the justifications in the record. (The justifications follow:)



Location. The project covers the entire course of the Sammamish River, which rises in Sammamish Lake in King County, Wash., about 11 miles east of Seattle, and flows northwesterly 15 miles to Lake Washington.

Authorization.-1958 Flood Control Act.

Benefit-cost ratio.-1.5 to 1.

[blocks in formation]

1 In addition, local interests have incurred costs of approximately $200,000 for channel straightening to provide improved drainage and partial flood protection in the project area.


Channels: 15 miles of channel improvement.

Relocations: Northern Pacific Railway, alterations of four bridges.

[blocks in formation]

The rich agricultural lands of the Sammamish Valley are only partially utilized because of need for a major drainage channel and protection from spring flooding. The project will provide protection from spring floods for a surburban community and agricultural area along Sammamish Lake and River, provide better drainage in the Sammamish Valley, reduce winter flood damage to suburban residential property and to recreational beach and boating facilities, and permit a higher type of agricultural use. Local interests have been minor improvements to the existing channel; however, damaging floods have occurred 13 times since 1950. The most recent severe flood, occurring in the winter of 1960-61, caused damages of $216,000 at present price level, all of which could have been prevented by the project. In 1951, flooding caused damages of $385,000 at present price level, of which $331,000 could have been prevented by the project. The proposed improvement will prevent flood damages averaging $122,000 annually, and provide annual benefits of $93,000 from increased agricultural returns from higher type of land use.

Fiscal year 1965.-The requested amount of $760,000 will complete the project and will be applied as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Non-Federal cost.-The initial investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $1,163,000, broken down as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Local interests are required to maintain the project upon completion. The annual cost for maintenance is estimated at $10,000.

In addition, local interests have incurred costs of $200,000 for channel straightening to provide improved drainage and partial flood protection in the project


Status of local cooperation.-The Board of County Commissioners of King County, Wash., sponsors of the project, have complied with the local cooperation requirements.

Comparison of Federal cost estimates.-The current Federal cost estimate, $2,615,000, is an increase of $687,000 over the latest estimate ($1,928,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $44,000 for higher price levels, $437,000 based on additional work required not originally contemplated, and $206,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on recent reanalysis of requirements.

Summary construction program (PB−1), fiscal years 1964 and 1965

[blocks in formation]

Mr. CANNON. You are indicating a 30-percent cost increase on this project. What are the details on this?

General LAPSLEY. Sir, we found, when we constructed a test section. in the final planning of this project, that the cut was much more suscep


tible to slides and erosion than we had anticipated and therefore required a considerable amount of rock revetment we had not counted on. This, together with a bid of $150,000 more than we estimated, accounts for the increase. We ran into a condition we did not anticipate. might note that the county had estimated it would cost them $37,000 to make alterations to the bridges and it is now costing $228,000. While our estimate went up from $1,928,000 to $2,615,000, the total non-Federal estimate went up from $712,000 to over $1 million. This is a good project but we made some bad estimates in the beginning.

Mr. CANNON. The estimated Federal cost and estimated non-Federal cost would approximate $3,778,000?

General LAPSLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. Do you think we would be warranted in investing that much money in the project?

General LAPSLEY. Yes, sir. It has an estimated benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1, sir, on a 50-year life.

Mr. CANNON. It has the advantage that the local sponsors are putting up a very substantial amount.

General LAPSLEY. They are putting up a substantial amount, sir. They have almost doubled the amount originally estimated and they are happy to do it.

Mr. CANNON. Under the circumstances do you recommend it?
General LAPSLEY. I do recommend it, sir.

Mr. CANNON. Any questions, gentlemen?


Mr. CANNON. Please place in the record the justifications for the other Construction, General projects.

(The justifications follow:)



Location.-At the mouth of Yaquina River, Oreg., about 113 miles south of the Columbia River.

Authorization.-1958 River and Harbor Act.

Benefit-cost ratio.-1.3 to 1.

[blocks in formation]

1 In addition, local interests contributed $729,000 for construction of the 18-foot channel and south jetty prior to February 1921.



Outer channel: 40 feet below mean lower low water, 400 feet wide, 3,400 feet long.

Upstream channel: 30 feet deep below mean lower low water, 300 feet wide, 12,700 feet long.

Turning basin: 30 feet deep below mean lower low water, 900 to 1,200 feet wide, 1,400 feet long.

Jetties: Extend north jetty about 1,800 feet:

Type: Dumped quarry stone.

Top width: 30 feet.

Top elevation: 20 feet mean lower low water.

Side slopes: 1 on 2 down to mean lower low water and 1 on 1.5 below mean lower low water.

[blocks in formation]

Shipment of timber products from Yaquina Bay is handicapped by channel depths. Only partial loadings are possible. The present condition of the entrance channel is such that during the winter months ships are frequently delayed several days in entering or leaving the harbor. On those ships that do enter, space allocations are often reduced during the winter months to allow for the unfavorable bar conditions. Industrial development being initiated in the area will materially increase the tonnage shipped, including commodities such as lumber, wood products, wood pulp, and fuel oil. Benefits will accrue to the project by savings in transportation costs, through the elimination of delays and out of sequence loading and through increased loads per vessel trip. The principal benefit occurs as transportation savings on lumber and wood products and is estimated to be $1,045,000 annually. Total annual benefits amount to $1,309,000. In addition the added channel depth and protection of the jetties will also benefit small craft including the commercial fishing fleet, excursion boats, and recreational craft operating out of Yaquina Bay. Fiscal year 1960.-The requested amount of $1,700,000 will be applied to: Continue extension of north jetty. Engineering and design____ Supervision and administration___


$1, 610, 000 25,000 65, 000


The funds requested for fiscal year 1965 are required for orderly construction progress on the north jetty extension.


Work completed consists of a north jetty 4,300 feet long, a south jetty 5,800 feet long, a 26-foot channel of suitable width across the entrance bar, an inner channel 20 feet deep and 300 feet wide to a turning basin 22 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide, and 1,200 feet long, and a small boat mooring basin at Newport, Oreg. The Federal cost for construction of completed works is $2,199,200 and non-Federal cash contributions are $729,000.


Extension of the south jetty, authorized by the 1958 River and Harbor Act, is deferred pending demonstration of its need. Estimated cost of this extension is $6,400,000.

Non-Federal costs.-The cost to local interests in providing the requirements of local cooperation is estimated to be $41,000. This cost consists of payments

« PreviousContinue »