The CHAIRMAN. Is it tribal land? Mr. WELD. No. It is in private ownerships and all of it is either leased or rented to non-Indian farmers who us it with their own land to farm. The management by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is merely a real estate function for the Indians. The CHAIRMAN. And you have the necessary agreements? Mr. WELD. We have that as a blanket agreement from Interior; yes. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Are there further questions? Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goodling. Mr. GOODLING. You say that this project would help the unemployment situation. Are you saying that would be true only during construction or after construction? Mr. WELD. Well, Mr. Goodling, it should not only improve it during construction, particularly for unskilled labor, but the operation and maintenance of the project, for a number of years. Mr. GOODLING. What crops are being grown now? Mr. WELD. Corn, milo, alfalfa. It is a cow/calf enterprise, pretty much, that is followed there. They have the spring calves and then feed them and sell them in the fall. Most of the crops go into the livestock production right there on the farms. The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield right there for a comment on your question? Mr. GOODLING. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. You asked about how long this would help the unemployment situation. I understood the answer was that the operation and maintenance of the project would help it for a long time. Of course, the cost of the operation and maintenance is only estimated at $2,400 a year. That means that one man can get $200 a month per year out of it. That is certainly all it contributes to the unemployment situation. Mr. WELD. Well, it is going to raise the economic level of the landowners as well as the underemployed people. The CHAIRMAN. But the operation and maintenance of the plan cannot do any more than give one man a $200-a-month job, can it? Mr. GOODLING. $2,466 per year. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. GOODLING. What crops would be grown if this project were to be put into effect? The same crops? Mr. WELD. There would be an increased production, of course, but I imagine that they will continue with this same livestock enterprise. Mr. GOODLING. What is their growing season? Mr. WELD. The growing season is about 153 days, Mr. Goodling. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions concerning this project? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. If not, thank you, Mr. Weld. I understand there is a statement which has been sent over to be filed by Congressman Berry, and it will be included in the record. 87-377-67- -12 (Mr. Berry's statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. E. Y. BERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to support the Spring-Bull Creek Watershed project which is in my Congressional district. This watershed is located in the southeastern corner of Charles Mix County in South Dakota and covers 27,000 acres. Almost annually floods damage crop and pasture land and affect crop yields at an average damage cost of $38,557. Land treatment measures will reduce these damages 10 percent and structural measures will further reduce these damages to 76 percent. This total reduction will provide average annual benefits of $29,225 with $25,369 as the portion accruing to the structural measures. According to the work plan for the project prepared by the Charles Mix County and the Emanuel-Choteau Creek Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the Spring-Bull Creek Watershed District, the benefit cost ratio is favorable and local funds will comprise a substantial portion of the total cost. Costs financed under PL 566 will amount to 61.6 percent of the total project estimate. Local people will be responsible for the costs of land, easements, rights-of-way and administration of contracts. I will appreciate the committee's prompt consideration of the Spring-Bull Creek Watershed and urge your support of the project. The CHAIRMAN. We will pass to the Main Street Canyon watershed. MAIN STREET CANYON WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA MAIN STREET CANYON WATERSHED WORK PLAN Size and location: 4,900 acres in Riverside County. Tributary to Tamescal Wash, Santa Ana River, Pacific Ocean. Sponsors: Riverside-Corona Soil Conservation District and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Total watershed land use Cropland Woodland Miscellaneous Watershed privately owned: 63.6%; Federal land, 36.4%. Number of Farms: 80. Size of Farms: About 20 acres average. Purposes: Watershed protection and flood prevention. Percent 33 52 15 Principal measures: Soil conservation practices on farms and rangeland; and structural measures consisting of 3.3 miles of channel improvement, with associated inlet and outlet structures and modification of existing irrigation facilities. Annual benefits: Benefit-cost ratio: 1.3 to 1. With secondary benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.2 to 1. Area benefitted: 1,730 acres. Number of beneficiaries: Owners of about 600 properties will benefit, of which about 13 percent are farm properties and 87 percent non-farm. 1 This is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost sharing from Federal funds appropriated for the agricultural conservation program may be available if included in the county program developed each year in consideration of approved State and National programs and the annual authorization by the Congress. 2 Consisting of construction cost for modifying irrigation facilities, $2,500; land, easements, and rights-of-way, $361,100; administration of contracts, $10,400. The value of measures already installed ($80,450) increases this to 37 percent. Prorated P.L. 566 structural cost per acre benefited: Not computed since benefits are primarily non-agricultural. Carrying out the project: The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District assumes all local responsibilities for installation, operation, and maintenance of the structural measures. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $3,300. Mr. WELD. The Main Street Canyon watershed is located in western Riverside County directly south of the city of Corona, Calif. It comprises a drainage area of 4,900 acres of land on the north slope of the Santa Ana Mountains. About half the watershed consists of steep mountinous brushland of which 1,785 acres is located in the Cleveland National Forest. Now, to orient you gentlemen, the watershed drains northerly so that the upper portion of the watershed is at the bottom here on the map. This area that has been stippled and the overlay of green is the mountainous area. The green designates national forestland and the area not colored is non-Federal brushland. The remainder of the watershed is located on a broad alluvial fan. The headwaters drainage network consists of two main canyons, Main Street and Eagle, which join about midway down the watershed. Below the confluence the channel is identified as Main Street Wash which flows in a northerly direction, emptying into Tamescal Wash, a tributary of the Santa Ana River. The flood plain is covered by citrus groves and urban development. The lower watershed lays completely within the city limits of Corona. The population of the city has increased from 8,764 in 1940 to an estimated 20,000 in 1964. During the past 3 years suburban development has been expanding rapidly on the flood plain. The projected population by 1985 is estimated to be 40,000. Many of the residents commute to places of employment in Riverside and Pomono. Land values in this watershed are high. The present value of land in producing citrus groves ranges from $5,000 to $12,000 per acre with comparatively higher values on lands for urban use. The urban use for residential and industrial can run as high as $20,000, and frontage for commercial business in the town proper is as much as $300 a front foot. The mountainous headwater area contributes most of the storm runoff which produces damaging floods and sediment. The area subject to flooding is 1,730 acres located downstream from the confluence of the two canyons. Because of the steep slope of the terrain, flood runoff is rapid but of relatively short duration. A major category of damage is caused by erosion and sediment deposition in the groves and throughout the urban complex. Major flood damage has been experienced to public streets and the highway system resulting in washouts which requires replacement and extensive cleanup operations. The same problem exists with respect to residential and other urban property. The rapid urbanization of the area on the coastal side of the mountain range greatly increases the potential for forest fires. With the present level of fire protection the annual burn rate in the watershed is 4.6 percent. Because of the rapid urbanization of the area subject to damage a level of protection equal to controlling the 100-year flood was determined to be necessary in setting project objectives. A number of alternative plans were investigated. Potential floodwater retarding sites were located and engineering studies undertaken. Because of the steepness of the canyons, high dams would have been required to store the volume of water required to reduce the outflow discharge to the capacity of the existing channel. The required spillways in connection with these dams would be extremely costly and, furthermore, the geology was questionable because of faulting in the area. Evaluation of these conditions indicated that such a plan was not feasible. The plan finally adopted involves straightening and concrete lining of approximately 3.3 miles of stream channel, from this point of confluence down to the point that the wash empties, with transitional inlet and outlet structures. This channel is designed to carry the peak discharge from the 100-year flood. Land treatment measures consist of onfarm conservation practices on private lands and measures to provide more adequate fire protection in the headwaters brushland area. The total project cost is estimated to be $1,969,300, of which Public Law 566 funds will pay for 65 percent and other funds the remaining 35 percent. Of this, land treatment accounts for $324,200 and structural measures $1,645,000. Local sponsors also will bear the entire cost of operating and maintaining the project, estimated to be $3,300 annually. With the project fully installed all damages caused by a flood of the magnitude of a 100-year recurrence interval will be eliminated. Estimated average annual benefits amounting to $76,000 will accrue to agricultural and nonagricultural interests, the major portion being assigned to nonagricultural improvements. Owners of about 600 properties will be benefited, of which about 13 percent are farm properties and 87 percent nonfarm. The project, like the one previously presented, will produce about $1.30 benefits for each dollar of cost. When we exclude the secondary benefits the ratio is 1.2 to 1. The sponsors of the main street project are the Riverside-Corona Soil Conservation District and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The latter assumes all local responsibilities for installation, operation and maintenance of the structural measures. We did not prorate the Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited since the benefits are primarily nonagricultural. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Teague, do you have any questions? Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Weld, I thought I understood you to say that this project would have some beneficial effect in the area of brush-fire prevention or control. Mr. WELD. Yes, sir. That is a very important element of this plan. Mr. TEAGUE. Will you explain that to me a little more? Mr. WELD. I certainly will. This area up here that I mentioned being in the mountainous area of brushland is similar to the areas all along that slope of the Santa Ana Mountains. The provisions in the plan are for improvement of a truck trail which will facilitate entrance by the Forest Service to these points, wherever a fire might start. They have been subdivided. The area has been subdivided with firebreaks so that any fire starting in a small area can be quickly contained. They are about 50 feet wide. Mr. TEAGUE. The Forest Service does that sort of thing all the time, of course. Mr. WELD. Yes; but there is a much more concentrated effort in this particular watershed, I think, than you would normally find. Then there are fewer breaks all around the perimeter of this watershed to prevent fires from adjacent lands getting in there. Those are 300 feet wide. Then they have all provided a storage tank, I think about a 5,200-gallon storage tank to give them water up there. Also, there are some landing spots for helicopters to permit them to get in there quickly. Mr. TEAGUE. That is all fine and good, Mr. Weld, but I am trying to get at what that has to do with this project, Public Law 566. Mr. WELD. There is some Public Law 566 participation on the private land to furnish this fire protection which would not normally be provided. The Forest Service is picking up the entire tab on their land but there is $5,000 being paid by Public Law 566 to provide these facilities that I just mentioned on this non-Federal land. Mr. TEAGUE. Which would be provided if this project were approved? Mr. WELD. If the project is approved. This is vitally important because this is the flood runoff source area for all this damage down here. If we do not maintain proper fire prevention and the area is burned off, you know only too well what devastation occurs when you denude those slopes. Mr. TEAGUE. Yes, I certainly do. I think that explains it. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN (continuing). In which the agricultural benefits are incidental and not primary. Mr. WELD. They will be accruing for a while, but it is definitely being taken over and expanded into suburban use. Mr. TEAGUE. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, Congressman Tunney will be allowed to file his statement later, as he has requested. |