plans would be formulated to best use available water resources and serve local needs without regard to institutional constraints. Then institutional constraints would be overlaid to identify constraints that might be relaxed or changed to permit best use of local water resources. Finally, after review of the results, several alternatives will be selected for evaluation and analysis. General criteria for formulating alternative are that: (1) Water originating in the basin would be used in the basin; (2) Equity be achieved among basin water users; and (3) The plan must meet the tests of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability, as defined in Federal Principal and Guidelines for Planning Water Resource Projects.

This planning study and formulation of a locally supported plan cannot be accomplished by Reclamation or any other agency alone. Reclamation will rely on a high degree of interaction and cooperation with local interests. At key times, personnel from SAWPA and its member agencies will work along side the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation planners in the formulation and evaluation of alternatives.

In accord with Federal guidelines for planning, the public will be kept informed of study activities and comments input on various issues will be sought for the study. A public meeting will need to be conducted to scope the environmental issues to be dealt with in the study, in order to comply with NEPA.

BUDGET

In-Kind Services: The local contribution to the San Bernardino Groundwater Project will consist partly of in-kind services performed or procured by SAWPA, its constituent agencies, or other local entities. Such in-kind services will include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Compiling and abstracting water rights and related local legal issues; (2) Adaptations of existing water supply operation models for use in the study, and providing them for use in the study; (3) Providing the services of various technical people form the staffs of local water agencies to work closely with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation during various phases of the study; (4) Providing the services of outside experts in various phases of water management for participation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation planning activities as needed to assure a quality product; (5) Analyzing water quality aspects of project alternatives; (6) Making local arrangements for public meetings; and (7) Printing various public information and technical documents for use during the study.

STATEMENT OF SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Terry L. Paxton, Director of Engineering Services of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) a joint powers organization formed in October 1989 with the specific objective to obtain regional solutions to the flood control problems facing the greater Sacramento area.

I appear before you on behalf of this agency which includes the City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, Sutter County, Reclamation District 1000, American River Flood Control District, Sacramento Area Water Agency and the Sutter County Water Agency. The constituency of these member agencies totals approximately 1.5 million of which 350,000 live in flood prone areas having depths of flooding of up to 25 feet.

I am here today to thank the Subcommittee on behalf of SAFCA and its constituency and to request your continued support of our projects. For the American River Watershed and the Sacramento Metropolitan Area Studies it is requested that the committee support reprogramming of funds, if necessary, to assure completion of these feasibility studies. It would appear that the amount of money set aside in the President's budget for the American and Sacramento River Preconstruction Engineering and Design and the Sacramento Urban Area Levee Reconstruction project is adequate for FY91. Additionally we are requesting that $300 thousand be included in the President's budget to complete the environmental impact statement for the Folsom Reoperation Study under Operation and Maintenance General. The reoperation of Folsom Reservoir for a finite period will be an essential component of Sacramento's omnibus flood control program and we need to be fully prepared to reoperate at the time when the project is authorize, hopefully by October 1992.

The local funding for the American River Watershed Study has been included in the existing budgets of the various affected agencies and over $11 million is available to pay the locals' share of the non-federal cost of the Sacramento River Urban Area Levee Reconstruction Project. The various agencies have set this money aside in advance of its actual need in order that the project can be completed in as short a time frame as possible.

This stepping out and actually providing advanced cost shared funds prior their actual need demonstrates that we are united and committed to expediting additional flood protection to the greater Sacramento area. Another witness to this commitment was the development in early 1990 of a consensus on what type of upstream flood control facility that the Corps should continue to analyze in the American River Watershed Study. Both SAFCA and the State Reclamation Board, the local sponsor, have adopted resolutions requesting the Corps to continue their studies and consider constructing an expandable dam at Auburn and raising certain levees and controlling flows in the Natomas area as the locally preferred project.

Before closing I would like once more to express our gratitude to the Subcommittee and the Sacramento Area's Congressional Delegation, especially Congressmen Vic Fazio and Robert Matsui, for their strong support this last year in encouraging the Corps of Engineers to undertake, without delay, the reconstruction of the existing Sacramento River levee system. Additionally, I would like to state that the help and cooperation we have received this year from the Corps of Engineers in identifying and finding solution to our flood problems was commendable.

Thank you for your consideration and continued support.

TATEMENT OF SECOND DISTRICT, KERN COUNTY, CA

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee:

I am Ben Austin, Second District Supervisor of Kern County, ornia. With me is Stuart T. Pyle, General Manager of the County Water Agency, the leading local sponsor for the Corps gineers' Caliente Creek Flood Control Project. We are here

I to request a $250,000 addition to the President's Proposed et to continue work on the Caliente project. This money will ost-shared by Agency, County and other local interests to inue the feasibility-level investigation of solutions to the ente flooding problem.

The feasibility report that was completed in December, 1988, mended a single flood detention reservoir and two flood hels. During the Washington-level review of that recommended ect configuration, previously unknown sedimentation problems found, and have resulted in a determination that the mmended project is technically infeasible. We were

cially advised of this determination by the Corps on February 990, at a meeting of the local Caliente Creek Flood Control

Force.

We are disappointed, of course, but we are determined to go As you know, the Caliente project is the first federal ect in the nation for which local interests cost-shared 50 ent for the feasibility study. Please be assured that we in totally committed to resolving the Caliente flooding lem. We are willing to cost-share the work necessary to inue the feasibility study on other project alternatives and a new recommendation. This time around, we will get the it project. We are right now negotiating to implement a twoe cost-sharing agreement. We are proposing to implement the it phase now on work needed to confirm and finalize the Imentation study results. The Agency and the County propose nake $30,000 in local payments through June of this year. working with the Corps to determine the extent of the iment study costs, and we will commit the balance of our share the studies in the next fiscal year. We expect to complete sediment work by the end of this year, and will use our iment conclusions to select the other project alternatives to sue at the feasibility level. We will then negotiate the ms for and implement the feasibility-level work phase of the t-sharing agreement.

We

Meanwhile, work continues among the Agency, the County, 'in-Edison Water Storage District, Kern Delta Water District,

Lamont Storm Water District and the City of Arvin to define and implement appropriate local institutional structure to assume the local cost-sharing responsibility for project construction costs and operation and maintenance functions. These local sponsors have already spent more than $1.3 million in cash and in-kind services to cost-share and facilitate the feasibility study.

Our Caliente Creek flooding problems may be small to the Congress and the Corps of Engineers, but to us, Caliente Creek is a major problem with recorded flooding since 1932. We cannot afford repetition of these devastating floods, which most recently occurred in 1978 and 1983, together causing more than $36 million in damages. Since those floods, the area is seeing extensive new urban development, a result of the Los Angeles-area overflow into many parts of Kern County. We have no choice but to find the right solution, and we need your help.

Mr. Chairman, we deeply appreciate your past support of the Caliente project, and urge your continued support.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

STATEMENT OF CARL L. BLUM, ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA

Mr. HILL. Next is Mr. Carl Blum, assistant director, Los Angeles Department of Public Works.

Mr. BLUM. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Los Angeles County strongly supports the budget allocations to the U.S. Corps of Engineers for the Los Angeles County drainage area project.

We are deeply appreciative for the continued support of this committee for this largest of all urban flood control systems. We strongly support the California Water Commission's recommendations to the committee for $2 million to fund the preconstruction engineering and design phase of this LACDA project. Because of the threat to public and private property caused by inadequacies in major elements of this flood control system within a primary population center of the United States, we further urge that Congress consider authorizing construction of the remedial work of this Federal project as soon as possible. Thank you.

Mr. HILL. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]