Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

It is in fact a corridor. Now, by this arrangement we would have full control over that corridor and the movements back and forth, which we do not have in part at the present time because there is land between the two reservations now which is not owned by the Army.

Under the bill we have complete control on a physical connection between the two military installations.

Mr. DoYLE. Then you in effect are stating that this would be a great military benefit; is that correct?

Mr. MERRILL. Well, we gain some, yes, we will have some amphibious training that can be carried out if the reservoir is built, which we don't have. We are giving up some land, which we won't have. There are pros and cons.

Mr. DOYLE. If I delete the word "great” from my question, is there a military benefit acceptable in the judgment of the military?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, there is.

Colonel TALBOTT. If I might expand on that: the connection we now use between Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation and Camp Roberts is not a completely satisfactory situation and the shortcomings of this present situation will be cured from a military point of view by this arrangement, so that we believe that it will be a fair exchange, which will adequately protect the interest of the Government.

Mr. DOYLE. I have visited both of these areas and I remember very well some of the problems. I have no further questions.

Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Clancy?
Mr. CLANCY. No questions.
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Byrne?

Mr. CLANCY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know something about the property owners, whether they are being chiseled out on condemnation or being paid for the property?

Mr. TEAGUE. May I offer this suggestion: These subsequent witnesses, who are from the area flood control and conservation district, can give you complete details.

Mr. CLANCY. OK.
Mr. TEAGUE. Probably better than the Army people.
Mr. CLANCY. Yes.
Mr. PHILBIN. You may interrogate them, of course.
Mr. CLANCY. OK.
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Wickersham ?
Mr. WICKERSHAM. No questions.
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Slatinshek.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. I have just two questions.

Mr. Secretary, you mentioned that the Army would acquire this tank trail right-of-way, which is valued at approximately $16,250. For purpose of the record, could you translate that into terms of acreage that might be involved ?

Mr. MERRILL. That is 60-foot-wide tank trail of about 8 miles.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. For the purpose of the record, would you develop a figure which would reflect in acreage what we have involved ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. One final question-
Mr. MERRILL. We have the acreage now.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Between the boundary of Hunter-Liggett and Camp Roberts, about 25 acres and up here (indicating] about a hundred. So about 125 acres in all.

Mr. PHILBIN. Any further questions?
Mr. SLATINSHEK. One further question, Mr. Chairman.

For purpose of the record, the report of the Department of the Army suggested an amendment to the bill which would appear after the final period of the bill:

Except such sums as may be or have been furnished to the Department of the Army for development of plans and specifications, real estate surveys, and other expenses, incidental to the authorized exchange.

Could you tell the committee, very briefly, the purpose of this amendment, so that when the representatives of the Monterey Flood District appear before the committee we can address our questions to their acceptance, or rejection of this amendment?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes. That was a safety clause we inserted in the event there were expenses placed on the Corps of Engineers for developing plans and specifications for the road to be built, the tank trail to be built, and the other properties to be relocated.

Now, if the board takes upon themselves the financial responsibility and the responsibility of making detailed plans and specifications, relieving the Corps of Engineers of any such work, then it would not be necessary to have that clause in the bill.

Mr. PHILBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. NORBLAD. Is Camp Roberts being used ?

Mr. MERRILL. There are about 3,000 people stationed there now. It is used considerably for training by the National Guard, by the Army Reserve, and then there is the operating center there of the combat development experimental center.

Mr. Phillin. Thank you very much. Mr. MERRILL. But it is not used to capacity. It has much greater capacity and we consider it is a vital installation in case of mobilization.

Mr. Phillin. Your statement has been very helpful to us.
Mr. MERRILL. Thank you, sir. .

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to make one more very brief statement.

Mr. PHILBIN. Yes.

Mr. TEAGUE. Another advantage, which perhaps these gentlemen had intended to point out, an advantage to the Army, which was not mentioned, is the fact that in all of central and southern California we have water supply problems. The Army language school, Navy postgraduate school, are all downstream from this proposed dam, and if and when it is built it will provide a more secure source of future water supply for military installations. Mr. Phillin. Thank you.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Included in the brochure is the printed statement that will be read by the witness from the Monterey Flood Control District. It is the first item in the brochure.

Mr. PHILBIN. You may proceed with your statement.
Mr. DEAVER. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF CHESTER DEAVER, SUPERVISOR OF BOARD,

MONTEREY COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, SALINAS, CALIF.; ACCOMPANIED BY LORAN BUNTE, JR., DISTRICT ENGINEER, MONTEREY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, SALINAS, CALIF.; AND JESS LARSON, COUNSEL, MONTEREY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Mr. DEAVER. I am Chester Deaver, member of the board of supervisors of the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District with headquarters at Salinas, Calif., the county seat at Monterey County.

The Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is a municipal subdivision of the State of California, created by act of the legislature (ch. 699—statutes of 1947).

It is a public body with full rights to administer, regulate, condemn property for its use; and levy and collect taxes.

It is supported entirely by public revenues. Within the appropriate statutes of the State of California, it is authorized to initiate, construct, and administer flood control and water conservation projects deemed to be necessary to the welfare of the district. Our district encompasses the entire county of Monterey which is located as shown on the map of the coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The provisions of the statutes creating the district provide that its board of supervisors shall be the board of supervisors elected by the county to administer the county government.

In other words, the supervisors of the district are likewise the supervisors of the county and each of the five supervisors is elected from an election district within the county.

As the duly authorized representative and spokesman of the district, I wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss H.R. 12081.

The legislation which you are considering today has come about as a result of long and extensive negotiations with various command echelons of the Army and the Department of Defense.

It is an example of close and careful working relationships between a local government and the Federal Military Establishment. Mr. Merrill and his staff have been most helpful in working out our problems leading up to the introduction of this bill by Congressman Teague from our district, who has appeared before you this morning.

Mr. Merrill's statement covers the provisions of the bill and the result of its enactment. The passage of this bill by the Congress is absolutely necessary to the construction of this project.

As Mr. Merrill's statement has pointed out, the district desires and expects to construct properties and perform services which will enhance the Army's utilization of both Camp Roberts and HunterLiggett Military Reservation.

In addition, the construction of this project would make available to the Army and its personnel, beneficial and useful recreational areas and facilities, as well as a vastly improved local road net.

The cost of these benefits will be borne entirely by the district and will be paid for from funds derived as a result of the issuance of bonds. It is our conviction that the cost of these benefits will considerably exceed the fair market value of the land which will be made available in exchange as a result of the passage of this bill.

The economy of Monterey County is strictly one of agriculture. The success of this economy is entirely dependent upon water.

The groạnd water level supplying all waters used within the county, including irrigation, is rapidly and dangerously receding.

Therefore, it has become necessary to form this district and take the necessary steps to protect and replenish our water supply by the impounding of valued waters, otherwise wasted to the ocean.

Attached to this statement, there is a brochure entitled “Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Presentation in Support of H.R. 12081 and S. 3437.”

This brochure, with attached maps, gives a brief but concise outline of the needs of the project and the benefits to be derived therefrom. I will not burden you by additional recitation of this information.

Since all progress in public works necessitates some sacrifices on the part of individuals directly affected thereby, it is understandable that there has been formed in our district to oppose this project, an organization consisting of some 20 or 30 individuals who call themselves the San Antonio Land Owners' Association.

By letter dated July 7, they protested to the chairman and members of this committee the enactment of this legislation and took exceptions to the soundness and necessity of this project.

I have made available to you by attachment to this statement, a letter from our district dated August 1, 1962, addressed to the chairman of the committee and signed by Loran Bunte, Jr., engineer for the district, which letter answers in detail the arguments raised by the protestants in their letter of July 7.

I will not repeat these arguments here. I will only remind you that this project is a part of a master plan of development designed to save the agricultural economy of the county, to provide necessary water needs to the county, to provide adequate flood control measures, and to provide needed recreational areas and facilities for a county whose population increased 50 percent during 1950–60 and is still increasing at an equal or greater rate. These vital and necessary public works are being accomplished by our own resources without Federal grants.

In our long and pleasant negotiations with the Department of the Army, we have reached a complete and unanimous agreement as to exactly what the district is to do in return for the deeding of land and other benefits as provided by the bill before you.

This agreement was spelled out in detail by a proposal which was submitted to the Army through the office of the district engineer, Corps of Engineers, supervising this area.

The proposal was authorized by the board of supervisors as a result of the passage of Resolution No. 62-1 on March 12, 1962.

The vote was unanimous with only one of the five supervisors absent. This resolution and its attachment legally binds the district to carry out their commitments upon the passage of this legislation and the approval of this project by the voters of the county.

The criteria for construction of the military benefits such as “tank road” and so forth are quite clear and in detail. All of the development of detailed plans and specifications, real estate surveys, and other administrative actions necessary to carry out the "exchange” authorized by this bill, are to be borne by the district.

Neither the Corps of Engineers nor any other establishment of the Army will be called upon or expected to obligate any funds for these items.

This is the full responsibility of the district and the district accepts this responsibility as a part of the consideration for the "exchange" provided for in the bill.

Therefore, as a result of this unequivocal obligation, the district respectively takes exception to the necessity for the amendment to the bill as suggested by the Secretary of the Army in his letter to the chairman of this committee dated July 20, 1962, as set forth on the bottom of page 3 thereof.

We urge the enactment of the legislation as introduced in order that there be no question in the minds of the voters of Monterey County as to what their financial obligations are when it comes to carrying out the district's obligations to the Army in the exchange provided for in this bill.

We sincerely believe that the suggested amendment leaves an open end obligation which a public body such as ours should not be required to support under the circumstances.

I have with me here today, Mr. Loran Bunte, engineer for the district and Mr. Jess Larson, special counsel for the district.

They are prepared to join with me in answering more fully and in detail, any questions which might occur to you regarding this project and this proposed legislation.

We have available a larger relief map which graphically displays the project in relation to the California coastline and the surrounding area. Mr. Bunte will point out the installations and locations referred to in my statement.

In closing, I wish to again express my appreciation to this committee for having made this hearing possible and urge your favorable consideration for the enactment of this legislation as a necessary and vital link in the building and survival of our community.

Thank you. That concludes my statement.

Mr. PHILBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Deaver. You have made an excellent and most informative statement for us.

We are, as always, pleased to have constituents of our very distinguished colleague, Congressman Teague, with us.

I notice in your statement you refer to the amendment proposed by the Army. Did I understand from the testimony of the Secretary that the objections raised by Mr. Deaver and associates have been resolved?

Mr. MERRILL. In view of the testimony given to you we would waive our requests for the amendment.

Mr. PHILBIN. You have come into agreement then with the repre. sentatives of the district? Mr. MERRILL. That is correct, sir.

Mr. DEAVER. I would like to make this statement, Mr. Chairman, in that regard that to carry out our responsibilities to that end, we have flown the route, and we were prepared to walk the route this week had

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »