And the importance of flood protection, although the cost is so small in dollar amount, I think is of equal importance to any other aspects of the problem. With your permission, I will present the Governor's statement. STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PRESENTED BY IRVINE H. SPRAGUE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. SPRAGUE. I strongly support passage of H.R. 485 and companion bills to authorize the Auburn-Folsom South unit of the Central Valley project. Recent floods in California have brought into sharp focus the extreme urgency for expeditiously bringing forth this much needed project. It will be exceptionally beneficial for California and the Nation and it is fully compatible with all other plans for water development within the State. Over a period of many years, and in numerous studies and hearings by the Congress and agencies of the Federal Government, there has been developed overwhelming evidence of the need for this important project. Its economic feasibility is unquestioned. It has nearly unanimous support from all State agencies, private institutions, and other organizations concerned with water development, flood control, and recreation in California. I strongly urge congressional action at this session. Today I would like to briefly review for you the principal reasons for creation of this multipurpose water development project. First, flood control: I am sure many of you will recall the disastrous floods in northern California in late December of last year. In many areas, we experienced record high flows. Entire towns were swept away in Humboldt County. Millions of dollars worth of highways and bridges were destroyed. The lumbering industry suffered tens of millions of dollars of damage. Thirty northern California counties were declared major disaster areas as a result of the floods and have applied for Federal aid under Public Law 875. That the disaster was not worse can be credited to the Central Valley project whose great dams at Shasta and Folsom and others saved the city of Sacramento and scores of smaller communities from certain destruction. Orville Dam of the State water project played a similar role. Nevertheless, there still existed a very real danger from flooding of the Sacramento and American Rivers. Reclamation Commissioner Floyd E. Dominy, commenting on the dangerously high waters on the two streams, said recently: Only a benign providence which stopped the rain just in time prevented spills at Folsom which, if added to the flow of the Sacramento River, would have overtopped the levees at Sacramento. The Auburn Dam would provide the safety factor which is urgently needed now. We cannot be sure that 1965 will not bring more, and perhaps greater floods in northern Califoria. The lives and property of hundreds of thousands of persons lie in the balance. The 1964 flood was by no means an isolated incident. Since the days of pioneer settlement, the residents of California have suffered great floods, the flood of 1772 was followed by six major floods before the near legendary flood of 1861-62. These were followed by 16 major floods in the period between 1862 and 1950. Since 1950 there have been eight major floods of the American River, bringing great suffering and damage to people, property, and economy of California and the Nation. The floods of November and December 1950, December 1955, February, March, and April 1958, October 1962, January and February 1963, and December 1964 are of such recent occurrence that they are firmly imprinted in the mindsof present-day Californians. Four of these floods established new records of flow. Flooding of the American River has not been an isolated instance. The Auburn Dam will change this. Three times since 1955, even with the existing Folsom Reservoir in operation, inundation of a major portion of the Sacramento metropolitan area, with a current population of about 600,000, was avoided. by the narrowest of margins. In each case, if the storm had continued for a period of less than 1 additional day, the results would have been a flood disaster of a greater magnitude than any ever experienced in California. Because of the dramatic nature of last December's floods, I have dwelt heavily on the flood control aspects of the Auburn project. This alone would make construction of Auburn Dam worth while. But there are other cogent reasons for its construction along with related projects. Second, water development: The area to be served by the AuburnFolsom South project is one of the fastest growing population centers in the State. Both industrial and agricultural expansion is taking place rapidly. Existing water supplies simply are not enough to meet current and future needs. The overdraft on our very important ground water reservoirs has reached an alarming rate of 3 million acre-feet each year. Withdrawals at this rate cannot continue without causing irreparable damage to the ground water reservoirs and to our economy. The Auburn-Folsom South project will help maintain our current agricultural economy by partially offsetting some of our ground water overdraft problems and will provide supplemental water to service areas where water is now in short supply. It would supply irrigation water for Placer, El Dorado, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties. Ultimately, through the East Side Canal, it would service a portion of the lower San Joaquin Valley. In addition, it would make possible industrial expansion in communities that now are water deficient. Third, the need for more power: The State has a direct interest in the power to be produced at Auburn Dam. The $2 billion State water project now under construction in northern, central, and southern California is power deficient. More power will be required for pumping than will be produced by the project itself. The California Department of Water Resources, as a public agency preferenced customer under reclamation law, has formally asked the Bureau of Reclamation to sell it power from the Central Valley project to help make up our deficit. With an initial production of 240,000 kilowatts of power and a potential of 400,000 kilowatts. Auburn Dam would help us meet our power needs both for the State water project and for local irrigation and industrial purposes. Fourth, the recreational potential: Although California is rich in recreational resources, current utilization indicates that future needs cannot be met by present facilities. At Folsom Lake, for example, there is a present annual count of more than 3 billion visitor-days. Auburn reservoir, readily available to residents of the Sacramento and San Francisco Bay area population centers, would provide an average water surface of 8,700 acres, larger than Folsom Lake, for boating, fishing, and swimming. Additionally, Auburn Dam, being upstream from Folsom, will help maintain Folsom Reservoir at higher, more stable levels, improving both its recreational and flood control capabilities. Finally, and in conclusion, let me say that the Auburn-Folsom South project will be financially feasible. The benefit-cost ratio is extraordinarily high and is comparable with other projects in the Central Valley project. The Central Valley project is years ahead of its payout schedule, a dramatic reminder that water development in California and in other parts of the West, is a gilt-edged investment that continues to pay rich dividends to Federal, State, and local governments. The record is clear. The Auburn project is necessary and feasible. I urge you to authorize it this year. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Sprague. It is nice to have you here. And we are happy to have you representing Governor Brown. Mr. Aspinall, do you have any questions? Mr. ASPINALL. I have some questions. I didn't understand the emphasis that the Governor put on flood control. Was it because of the fact that perhaps the other purposes of the project that have been pretty well taken care of? When you look at this project, Mr. Sprague, the $425 million, and you can only find an allocation of $9,324,000 for the flood control, the flood control is a very minimum part of the project, even though it could be very important at any particular time. The $450,000 worth of flood damage annually that can be traced to one serious flood is a rather minor part of the project. Mr. SPRAGUE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. One of the reasons why this approach was taken this year is because of the history of the project before this committee. This is the third Congress in which I have had the privilege of presenting a statement for the Governor. In the past two Congresses we went into great detail on the reclamation phases of the project. And that is included in your record. And the committee, we realize, took favorable action last year because of these reclamation aspects primarily. It is just a matter of emphasis that seems quite timely that at this point to bring out the flood benefits which are real and are quite important to California. I can see that the dollar amounts in relation to the entire project are small. I think our record has been made in the previous years on reclamation. Mr. ASPINALL. The real reason that you are having the hearing this year is to bring this project into the purview of the new allocation procedure. Otherwise we don't expect to receive very much new material as far as that is concerned. There is some property that will be taken off the tax rolls, Mr. Sprague. Do you know whether or not the subdivisions of the government are favorable toward taking these small areas off the tax rolls in order to have this project become a reality? Mr. SPRAGUE. I am not aware of any opposition to the project by any local government instrumentality or organization. There may be, but I am not aware of it. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Skubitz? Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Johnson? Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sprague, I am very sorry that the Governor wasn't here today. He was in Washington here about a week or so ago, and we had him. on several other matters. And he would have liked to have testified on that occasion, but it wasn't possible to set the bill for hearing. I very much appreciate your bringing his statement here today. And as the chairman of the full committee has said, the five counties have agreed to this fine project, and have no concern about the tax loss. And the major portion of this land will come within a very steep river canyon. And I don't think there is over 10 or 15 people who will be disturbed by the whole project. Mr. ASPINALL. My colleagues brought it up. Do you have resolutions from your taxing authorities in the record? Mr. JOHNSON. We have all of the counties on record as being in favor of the project from the board of supervisors. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Burton? Mr. BURTON of Utah. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Reinecke? Mr. REINECKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to welcome Mr. Sprague on behalf of the Governor. And I want to say that you have full support here, Mr. Sprague. And I want to say for the record that California, I believe, is unusual in the fact that it has bonded itself-correct me if I am wrong-to almost $2 billion to develop water within its own State boundaries. And as such it indicates a greater degree of participation than I believe most other States. And I think this makes this project even more attractive, in addition to its high benefit ratio. We have a State that is very anxious to do for itself as much as it can. We thank you for appearing. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Sprague. Mr. SPRAGUE. And Mr. Ralph M. Brody, chairman of the California Water Commission, is here with me. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Brody? STATEMENT OF RALPH M. BRODY, CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION Mr. BRODY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Ralph M. Brody. I am chairman, as Mr. Sprague indicated, of the California Water Commission. We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you in support of FI.R. 485 and related bills which will authorize the Auburn-Folsom South unit of the Central Valley project. The California Water Commission is an official agency of the State of California. It has broad responsibility to give advice on water development matters to the director of water resources, the Governor, and the State legislature. It also has been delegated the responsibility to appear on behalf of the State before congressional committees on certain matters. My appearance here today is responsive to both duties, and to a request by Congressman Johnson to present our views and to correlate the testimony for the convenience of this committee of local agencies. With the committee's permission, and upon the completion of my own testimony, I will introduce the other witnesses from the local groups. I want to emphasize, at the outset, that while we have just a small number of witnesses here today in person, Mr. Chairman, to present testimony and statements, this is in recognition of the importance of the time of this committee, and in addition the fact that a complete record has been made on this by local witnesses in past hearings on this same project. There is unanimous support throughout the entire 300-mile length of the valley, and indeed the entire State for the project itself. And these people urge strongly and respectfully today, as they have done in the past, your approval of this particular project. The chairman of the full committee has mentioned a point here in connection with the flood control aspects of this. I might mention in addition to what Mr. Sprague has responded to in connection with this that we merely point out in emphasis of flood control at this particular point of time because these recent floods are fresh in our minds. There have been three very recent floods since 1955. And this becomes important from the standpoint of time for the projects. It does provide these additional flood control benefits. The need for Auburn-Folsom South continues to grow with the growth of California, but the floods of December 1964 emphasize that immediate need in a dramatic way. Governor Brown has indicated in his statement how close the Sacramento metropolitan area, with its 600,000 people, came to disaster. Auburn Dam will provide the margin of safety needed to completely eliminate possibility of floods on the American River. There is another side of the coin, perhaps not so dramatic, but equally important. During the Christmas week floods and immediately thereafter, the Bureau of Reclamation was forced to waste 1,500,000 acre-feet of water to maintain a flood control reservation in the existing Folsom Reservoir, downstream from Auburn. Had Auburn Dam been completed, all of that precious water could have been stored for use later in the year, and during subsequent dry years. I would also like to stress that less than-and this point was raised this morning, I believe-less than 1 percent of California's agricultural production is in price supported commodities. I would also point out that these water supplies and the ones to be provided by the AuburnFolsom South unit, have been and will be to stabilize existing economies rather than to bring new lands into farm production. As you will hear later from local witnesses, Auburn-Folsom South has unanimous support from an area reaching from a point north of |