« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
this hearing not come into being, and move forward with those preliminary steps necessary to getting a detailed engineering design of this tank trail.
Mr. PHILBIN. You are going to take responsibility for all the plans and specifications and all administrative work incidental thereto?
Mr. DEAVER. We have always assumed that, subject to the approval of the Army in regard to criteria set forth in our agreement.
Mr. Phillin. You work with the collaboration of the Army Engi. neers in connection with that?
Mr. DEAVER. Yes.
Mr. PHILBIN. There was another question, that I thought was very pertinent, that I also had in mind, that might bear some inquiry.
That was the point raised by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Byrne—and probably I should yield to you.
Mr. BYRNE. No. Go on.
Mr. PHILBIN. To find out what arrangements, if any, have been made concerning the property owners on this track. What will become of the property owners?
Mr. DEAVER. We fully expect—and the engineer has been dealing with that phase of it—but certainly we fully expect to pay the fair market value of any properties taken.
Mr. PHILBIN. How many property owners do you have on the track in question?
Mr. DEAVER. I defer to Mr. Bunte.
Mr. BUNTE. We have 29 different parcels involved in what we call our appraisal line, which is a line we are using for our preliminary cost estimates.
Of these 29 different parcels 15 are members of the association and 14 are not.
I might point it out on the map here [indicating). This map shows the area and the proposed dam. The blue, of course, is the area at high water line. The area that you see in yellow is the land proposed to be exchanged between the district and the Army.
The green that you see is the boundary of the Hunter Liggett Military Reservation. This [indicating] part on the upper end of the lake will be a flowage easement.
The areas colored in purple are the private lands affected by our appraisal line. Mr. Phillin. Did you say there were 29 property owners in those ?
Mr. DEAVER. Twenty-nine different property owners, fifteen of which are members of the association. There are 14 that are not.
Mr. PHILBIN. Of what association ?
Mr. DEAVER. Of the association that wrote the letter to the committee.
Mr. PHILBIN. San Antonio Land Owners Association ?
Mr. PHILBIN. Do they speak for the owners, for the property owners?
Mr. DEAVER. They speak
Was that established by the owners and in this letter they were speaking for the owners collectively and individually?
Mr. DEAVER. These 15 owners, yes.
They are not speaking, I don't think, for the 14 that don't belong to the association.
Mr. PHILBIN. I see.
Mr. DEAVER. At this [indicating] point. Camp Roberts is just off the map here (indicating]. The area that you see, the heavy line that you see here (indicating) is the proposed right-of-way and tank trail that will be constructed by the district and deeded to the Army connecting with the two points.
Mr. PHILBIN. What do you estimate the total fair valuation—tentative total valuation-of the private property in this area to be?
Mr. DEAVER. Of the private property?
Mr. DEAVER. Within the appraisal line as shown on the map it runs about $700,000.
Mr. Phillin. You are prepared to compensate them?
Mr. PHILBIN. And they will have the right, if they choose, to go into court and have their rights adjudicated ?
Mr. DEAVER. That is correct.
Mr. BYRNE. What is the real estate assessment value on these properties?
Mr. BUNTE. The properties are assessed at about 30 percent of fair market value, so it would be 30 percent times $700,000, about $200,000, roughly.
Mr. BYRNE. That is all.
Mr. NORBLAD. Mr. Slatinshek, was any notice given to these people that were protesting about this hearing today either by letter or was the hearing set forth in the local paper, so they became aware of the fact the hearing was being held?
Mr. SLATINSHEK. We have not advised them of the hearing date; however, we did receive a communication from the San Antonio Land Owners Association and we assured them by acknowledging receipt of the communication that the protestations that they outlined in their letter would be given proper consideration during the hearings, and with the permission of the Chair I would like later in the hearing to briefly review some of these criticisms and have a response from our witness.
Mr. NORBLAD. But there has been no request to be present?
Mr. DEAVER. I might make this statement in that regard; of course we gave them no notification, but the authorization of the Board for this trip-or, for Mr. Bunte and myself-has been public knowledge and expressed in the local papers since last Monday.
Mr. NORBLAD. In other words, it is widely known out there that the hearing is being held today?
Mr. DEAVER. Yes.
Mr. NORBLAD. I would think if there was any objection to not being present today it would be overcome by the fact that the people of the county have to vote on the thing in an election and they would have their day in court.
Mr. DEAVER. Yes.
Mr. NORBLAD. You will have an election on the bond issue?
Mr. BYRNE. I want the record to state that no one for or against this bill has contacted me.
The reason I have asked these questions is we have a situation back home with an expressway and I hate to go home on weekends because everybody is raising the devil.
Mr. Phillin. The statements will be noted in the record.
Mr. Phillin. Perhaps this might be a suitable time for Mr. Slatinshek to raise the objections made by these members of the association, and get an answer from the witnesses regarding claims and allegations that have been made in the letters to the chairman of the committee.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. With the permission of the Chair, I would like to read the letter with the accompanying resolution. The letter is about 3 pages long.
Mr. PHILBIN. All right.
Mr. SLATINSHEK [reading]:
DEAR SIR: We are writing you concerning H.R. 12081, introduced in the House of Representatives by Charles Teague of California and assigned to your committee. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to convey certain land and easement interests at Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation for construction of the San Antonio Dam and Reservoir project in exchange for other property.
The San Antonio Land Owners' Association is composed of a group of property owners who own over 8,300 acres of agricultural land which the Monterey County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (hereinafter called the district) is planning to acquire when it builds a dam on the lower San Antonio River in southern Monterey County, Calif.
This is in addition to the 9,910 acres they plan to acquire from the Army through H.R. 12081, which makes a total of 18,240 acres which the district anticipates securing.
Of this total, only 800 acres of land will be under water at the minimum pool level. Of the 9,910 acres of land they want from the Army at Hunter-Liggett, only 90 acres of land will be under water at the minimum pool.
At this point I call attention to the correspondence received by the chairman from the witness, and if the witness will he may call attention to his reply to that particular criticism.
Mr. BUNTE. Yes. The letter points out that there are about 800 acres at minimum pool. At maximum pool, as shown on the map here, there are about 6,900 acres within the reservoir area, which of course is not pointed out in the letter there.
Again, we have to base our take or appraisal line, on the total area that is subject to inundation, not just on the minimum pool area.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. The next ciriticism:
We, as an association, are opposed to the taking out of agriculture such a large amount of land for recreation, when the same river could be dammed at another approved location and take no agricultural land.
Also, we oppose this move because the same district owns 13,000 acres of land just 6 miles away, at the Nacimiento Dam, which acreage lies largely undeveloped and is available for recreation in the same area.
Would you address yourself to the criticism as to location of your site and the failure of the district to properly use the dam area.
Mr. BUNTE. I will answer your second question first.
The Nacimiento Dam, which is just southerly of the proposed San Antonio Dam, was another dam constructed by the district, at a local cost of $7 million, financed entirely with local funds, without Federal or State aid.
In purchasing property around the dam, we ran into several large landholdings which were severed badly by the lake, so we therefore bought total ranches instead of just a line around the lake as such.
Therefore, we have some 3,500 acres that we presently have out on grazing leases which we are holding in order that we may possibly exchange these lands with landowners affected in the San Antonio Reservoir. We have at the present time out for bid commercial lease proposals for the complete development of recreational facilities at the Nacimiento Dam project.
At the present time we are getting 200,000 visitor days per year at Nacimiento Dam without adequate facility.
When we get facilities we expect this to increase.
As to the second point raised in the letter, as to the choice between sites, various sites in the river have been under investigation since 1933, by the State Department of Water Resources Consulting Engineers hired by the district and also the district itself.
All conclude the Pleyto B Dam site, the lower site shown on the map, and the present proposed site, is the more beneficial and economical site.
Bulletin 3 which is the official California State water plan, points out and has cost estimates for the two sites, and I quote those as such. On page 77 of the May 1957 issue of Bulletin 3 it is shown that for a gross storage capacity of 175 acre-feet, total cost would be over $8 million. That is on the upper or Milpitas B site. At this time I would also like to point out the small amount of drainage area that the Milpitas B site would catch. The dark brown line is the drainage area, the Paso Robles Dam. The yellow area you see in the upper left-hand corner of the map is the small part of the drainage area that would be subject to catch by the Milpitas site.
In contrast to the $8 million for 175,000 acre-feet at the upper site, or the Milpitas site, the cost estimate by the State indicates that for 200,000 acre-feet, or 25,000 acre-feet more, the capital cost would be about 412 million, or something a little less than half.
I also would like to point out that, of course, the yield from the two reservoirs would vary.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. I will go on with the letter. We feel that Charles Teague who has introduced this bill at this time in Congress as a vote-getting device for his current campaign in California. Mr. Teague no longer represents nor speaks for our congressional district, due to the redistricting in this area. opposition to Government control. It is a Republican giveaway scheme. Monterey County has always voted Republican and this whole setup is being used by helping Republicans get reelected. We are asking that this bill be killed in your committee. We present the following facts :
This criticism was spoken to by Mr. Teague during his appearance. Mr. PHILBIN. Yes.
We feel that he is in favor of this bill because of his
Mr. SLATINSHEK. The letter goes on: We are aware of and have studied President Kennedy's national resources program which was sent to Congress in 1961. We are in agreement with him that it is very important to plan for the future recreational needs of the Nation. But, we are not convinced that the proposed San Antonio Dam project is the answer to this problem here in Monterey County.
Monterey County already has approximately 390,000 acres of State and Federal parks and national forest which are used for public recreation, including both ocean and river frontage.
This could be further developed as the need arises.
In addition, over 412 years ago the district built a dam on the Nacimiento River just 6 miles from the proposed San Antonio damsite. At that time they 'acquired 13,000 acres of land at that site for recreational purposes. In the 442 years it has been in operation, Nacimiento Dam has been a burden to the taxpayers, lies mostly undeveloped, and is posted with “No Trespassing" signs which prevent even hikers in the area. The district has been subject to much public criticism because of the alleged mismanagement of the area. This Naci. miento Lake area should provide adequate recreational facilities for the anticipated increase in population if properly developed and administered. This would also be available to the Army personnel at Camp Roberts, Hunter-Liggett, and Fort Ord, as readily as the land which they are asking to obtain at San Antonio Dam.
I believe the witness responded to this criticism.
Mr. BUNTE. Part of it. I would like to point out this one thing that I did not mention before:
This is that the Legislature of the State of California has enacted into law a bill authorizing a grant by the department of water resources for $3,820,000 for statewide recreational benefits to be derived by the construction of the San Antonio Dam.
Mr. PHILBIN. Proceed.
FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION
We feel that a dam built at this present proposed Pleyto B site will not give the best return for the money spent. It has a physical as well as an economical limitation.
According to the California Plan, Bulletin No. 3, published by the Department of Water Resources of the State of California, there is a better damsite on the upper San Antonio River on the Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation. This is called the Milputas B. Reservoir. It is our opinion that the Federal Government should build the dam on the Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation at this location.
By so doing, the Army would have a complete control, and could have its own airstrip and golf course close by, which would make the entire area easily accessible to the military from long distances.
This is one of the best hunting and fishing areas in the State and would also furnish an available location to send injured and convalescent personnel.
If the Federal Government were to build a dam at that site, the county could have the adequate flood control and water conservation they need, the taxpayers would be saved a $15 million bond issue, and the military would have a recreational area of their own in a climate which is one of the most healthful in the State of California.
I believe the witness has responded to this criticism in speaking to the location of the sites; is that correct?
Mr. BUNTE. That is true.