PROJECT: VILLAGE CREEK, JACKSON AND LAWRENCE COUNTIES, ARK. Location and Description.-Village Creek is a left bank tributary of White River and enters White River about 7 miles below Newport, Arkansas. It has its headwaters in Randolph County in northeast Arkansas and flows southward through Lawrence and Jackson Counties. The project is an improvement for flood control and drainage in the Village Creek Basin. It will consist of a cleared and enlarged channel for Village Creek from mile 61.2 to its mouth, and a system of group laterals and on-farm drainage facilities to be constructed by local interests. Proposed Operations.-The amount of $350,000 would be used to initiate and complete preconstruction planning. Justification. The proposed project would eliminate substantially all of the flood damages in the area under consideration and provide large drainage benefits. About 21,670 acres were overflowed by the maximum flood of record in November 1957, of which about 9,400 acres were cultivation. Due to the time of the year, that flood caused only $32,700 damage. However, the June 1945 flood, of less magnitude, caused $285,000 damages (July 1971 price levels) because it occurred at the height of the planting season. A large portion of recurring floods of the magnitude of 1957 and 1945 would be eliminated by the project. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.8 to 1. The average annual benefits for the project are broken down as follows: Senator STENNIS. There is nothing in the budget and local interests have requested $100,000. What is your capability on this project? General MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, our capability on this project is $100,000 to initiate preconstruction planning. Senator STENNIS. Would you submit a statement for the record? General MORRIS. Yes, sir. (The statement follows:) Total estimated project cost_. Allocations to date___ Balance to complete_-_. Amount that could be be utilized in fiscal year 1973_. (1, 170, 000) 11, 670, 000 0 10, 500, 000 100,000 Authorization.-Flood Control Act of 1968 (H.D. 336/90/2). Location and Description.—Alhambra Creek is located in Contra Costa County, Calif., about 25 miles northeast of San Francisco. The proposed project provides for continuous channel improvements and diversion works along Alhambra Creek to prevent flood damages within the city of Martinez, Calif. Proposed Operations.—The amount of $100,000 could be used to initiate preconstruction planning. Justification.-The Alhambra Creek basin is located in a region subject to intensive winter storms. Two deaths have been caused by flooding within the basin. The 1958 flood, the flood of record, caused damage estimated at $416,000.. It is estimated that, in the event of a standard project flood, damages of about $6,690,000 would occur, based on 1971 prices and conditions, and 660 acres would be inundated. The benefit-to-cost ratio is estimated to be 1.2 to 1. Average annual benefits are as follows: Senator STENNIS. There is nothing in the budget and local interests have requested $50,000. What is your capability on this project? General MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, our capability on this project is $50,000 to initiate preconstruction planning. Senator STENNIS. Would you submit a statement for the record? General MORRIS. Yes, sir. (The statement follows:) PROJECT: BODEGA BAY, CALIF. Summarized Financial Data Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Cash contribution_ Other costs.. $1,300, 000 2, 129, 000 0 1,300,000 50,000 Authorization.-Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (HD 106/89/1). Location and description.-Bodega Bay is located on the California coast about 58 miles north of San Francisco Bay. The harbor is a triangular-shaped inner bay separated from Bodega Bay proper by Doran Beach sandspit. A jettied entrance channel 100 feet wide and 12 feet deep provides access to the harbor channels and turning basins. The proposed harbor modification provides for a 4,500foot riprapped earth mole with a 60-foot top width, parallel to and 250 feet westerly of the innermost channel and turning basin, the fill material is to be dredged from the area between the mole and the channel to create a sheltered basin; and for dredging a channel 100 feet wide and 10 feet deep from the existing Federal channel easterly along the north side of Doran Beach Spit for about 3,150 feet to a proposed small-craft harbor, to be constructed by local interests. Proposed operations.-The amount of $50,000 could be used to initiate preconstruction planning. Justification.-Bodega Bay Harbor serves as an important fishing center and harbor of refuge on the northern California coast. It is the only improved harbor between San Francisco Bay and Noyo Harbor, a reach of about 143 miles. The average annual commercial fish catch at Bodega Bay during the past five years has exceeded 1,450 tons. Serious congestion exists in the harbor, due principally to lack of an adequate mooring area for the 100-vessel fishing fleet based at the harbor and the 40 to 50 additional fishing boats that regularly utilize the harbor and facilities. Vessels are forced to moor several abreast along the fish unloading piers where they intrude into the Federal channel. Mooring areas and piers are unprotected from local wind waves generated by storms from the south and southast. Lack of an adequately protected harbor has resulted not only in damage to the commercial fishing fleet and shore fish-processing facilities, but has hampered the full development of Bodega Bay as a commercial fishing port and harbor for recreational vessels. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 2.4 to 1. The average annual benefits are as follows: Senator STENNIS. There is nothing in the budget and local interests have requested $300,000. What is your capability on this project? General MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, our capability on this project is $250,000 to initiate preconstruction planning. Senator STENNIS. Would you submit a statement for the record? General MORRIS. Yes, sir. (The statement follows:) PROJECT: COTTONWOOD CREEK, CALIF. Summarized Financial Data Estimated total appropriation requirement-- Future non-Federal reimbursement___. $181, 000, 000 -136, 300, 000 44, 700, 000 136, 300, 000 (5, 600, 000) (129, 600, 000) (1, 100, 000) (0) 181, 000, 000 0 181, 000, 000 250,000 Authorization:-Flood Control Act of 1970. Location and Description.-The project is located on the main stem below the confluence of the North and Middle Forks and on the South Fork of Cottonwood Creek in Shasta and Tehama Counties, Calif. Cottonwood Creek drains into the Sacramento River midway between the cities of Redding and Red Bluff. The plan of improvement provides for two multiple-purpose projects, one at the Dutch Gulch site on the main stem, and one at the Tehama site on the South Fork. Dutch Gulch Lake would have a capacity of 1,100,000 acre-feet, and Tehama Lake a capacity of 900,000 acre-feet, for a combined total storage of 2,000,000 acre-feet. Proposed Operations.-The amount of $250,000 could be used to initiate preconstruction planning on the first stage of the project-the Dutch Gulch Lake unit. Justification.-The project will provide flood protection to about 8,000 acres of predominantly agricultural lands along lower Cottonwood Creek; will reduce flood flows in Sacramento River, thereby providing increased flood protection to some 490,000 acres downstream to Colusa; will improve agricultural crop use; and reduce bank erosion. Average annual flood damages along Cottonwood Creek are estimated at $255,000; flood damages in those downstream areas affected by Cottonwood Creek flows are estimated at $3,178,000 per year. The project would provide water needed for municipal and industrial purposes in other areas of the State, for irrigation in the local service area, and would provide a wide range of outdoor recreational activities, including a warm water fishery in the lakes, and enhancement of the anadromous fishery in Cottonwood Creek, Sacramento River, and ocean waters. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.2 to 1. The average annual benefits are listed below: DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, RUSSIAN RIVER BASIN, CALIF. 2, 098, 000 9, 073, 000 312, 000 310, 000 480, 000 1, 504, 000 Senator STENNIS. The budget request was $8,400,000. The House has included $10,400,000, and local interests have requested $10,400,000. What is your capability on this project? General MORRIS. Our capability on this project is $10,400,000, Mr. Chairman. Senator STENNIS. What would be accomplished with the additional $2,000,000? General MORRIS. The additional amount would be used to complete land acquisition prior to dam closure. GOLETA AND VICINITY, CALIF. Senator STENNIS. There is nothing in the budget and local interests have requested $100,000. What is your capability on this project? General MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, our capability on this project is $100,000 to initiate preconstruction planning. Senator STENNIS. Would you submit a statement for the record? General MORRIS. Yes, sir. Authorization.-Flood Control Act of 1970 (H.D. 91–392). Location and Description. The project will be located in the Goleta Valley area in Santa Barbara County, California. The plan of improvement provides for about 1.3 miles of channel clearing and 11.2 miles of channel improvements. Channel clearing would be accomplished on Maria Ygnacio, San Jose, San Pedro, Las Vegas, and Carneros Creeks. Construction of channel improvements would be accomplished on Atascadero, Maria Ygnacio, San Jose, Las Vegas, San Pedro, Carneros and Tecolotito Creeks. Proposed Operations.—The amount of $100,000 could be used to initiate preconstruction planning. Justification.-The Goleta area is rapidly urbanizing and is subject to frequent severe flooding. The flood of January 1967 caused damages of $760,000 in the project area. The floods of January and February 1969 caused damages of about $530,000 in the project area. Should a standard project flood occur prior to construction of the project, it is estimated that damages of about $9,950,000 would result. The total value of lands and improvements in the area to be protected by the project is estimated at $60,500,000 (1971 prices). The benefit-to-cost ratio is presently estimated at 1.6 to 1. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated to be $2,117,000. MARYSVILLE DAM, CALIF. OPPOSITION Senator STENNIS. The subcommittee has received many letters in opposition to the Marysville Dam project. The letter criticizes the dam on the basis of the need for flood control, the tax losses to the county, the need for irrigation water, the cost of water to the local irrigators, fish losses, recreation cost support by the State, and real estate values. Please comment on these aspects. Colonel NELSON. Yes, sir; studies by the Corps of Engineers on the flood and water resource problems of the Feather and Yuba Rivers have been in progress since the 1930's. A report on the flood control needs of the Feather-Yuba River system was completed in 1960 and published as House Document No. 434, 87th Congress, second session. That report indicated the need for 750,000 acre-feet of flood control storage space on Feather River and 400,000 acre-feet of flood control storage on the mainstem of Yuba River. The now completed Oroville Reservoir provides the needed flood control storage on Feather River. A subsequent report completed in 1963, and published as House Document 180, 89th Congress, first session, indicated that an equivalent of 140,000 acre-feet of flood control storage could be provided by New Bullards Bar Reservoir, and the remaining requirement for flood control storage will be provided by Marysville Lake. Completition of the two existing reservoirs provides a moderate degree of flood protection along Yuba River and Feather River below Yuba River. Construction of Marysville Lake will provide protection against the standard project flood a hypothetical flood event which could reasonably be expected to occur in the future. The basic requirements of flood control storage space on the two streams have not been altered since the completion of the first report in 1960. The hydrologic studies made in 1970, presented in a revised design memorandum in April 1971, were for the purpose of considering additional basic meteorologic and hydrologic data collected since the original studies on the project. These studies are continuing and may result in revisions in details of the project hydrology. |