Federal works. We do not claim that the Federal Government has a legal responsibility. We feel that they have a moral responsibility, the same as we might have in local government if, through some works of ours, we caused a damage that we should at least reasonably repair or protect against. I would like to call the attention of the committee, if I might, to the fact that I believe the United States Army engineers have made a very fine report. We have found them tobe very cooperative in working on projects. The interpretation as to what the program or the project it is not for us to say, as to how they should interpret it. Mr. ANGELL. May I interrupt to ask if a number of the buildings there have been destroyed by the action of the tides? Mr. WARNER. It has been in this last winter's storm. Five buildings were destroyed then. There are some 35 that are partially destroyed or which have had to be vacated due to the undermining action of the water and due to the washing out of sewers and water facilities connected with the buildings that make them uninhabitable. We have had to close one area. In general the statement of Mr. Woolley has laid the background for the conditions as they existed there previous to the time of the installation of the Seal Beach ammunition and net depot, and the building of the harbor jetties. At the time that this was contemplated, as soon as we learned about it and were able to get some idea as to what the construction might be, or the intent of the construction, I had the opportunity of contacting the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks in a visit to Long Beach and to this area when they were starting work. I called his attention to the fact that I felt, from discussing it with the county engineers, that the construction of the harbor jetties at the angle proposed would create a problem, and we wanted to get on record that we felt that there was a hazard there. In that same year at a meeting of the American Beach and Shore Preservation Association at Chicago, one of our county engineers, Mr. Patterson, and myself attended that meeting. At the meeting there were members of the United States Beach Erosion Board. Through the courtesy of Mr. O'Brien from the University of California, a civilian member of that Board, the Board met and gave us an opportunity to present to them the picture that we saw was coming through this construction. It was exceedingly interesting to me to find that a number of port engineers and authorities, particularly from the Atlantic coast line and some from the gulf coast were interested to see what this project was. When we unfolded a map and outlined what it was it was immediately taken away from us in general discussion as to the problem that was going to be created, and how you would solve the problem. We filed with the United States Beach Erosion Board a report and statement, and at the time we forwarded copies to Washington. I have one of the previous reports of one of our engineers, who called attention to the fact, and I would like to quote this from his report. This was a report made in 1951, and in his report he quotes and says: Pursuant to the act of Congress under Public Law 525 of the 79th Congress approved July 24, 1946, the district engineer submitted a preliminary report on Anaheim Harbor, with a view to shore protection, to the Chief of Engineers on April 1, 1947. I think that report was the basis on which the emergency appropriation was secured to provide temporary relief pending the development of the comprehensive or constructive plan to eliminate the situation. The report of the district engineer concluded that "further investigations are warranted at this time. A satisfactory and economically justified plan of improvement probably can be developed for preservation of the eroding shoreline downcoast from Anaheim Harbor. The erosion has been caused largely by harbor improvements to the west of Orange County, and has been accelerated by the construction of Anaheim Bay Harbor, which is owned by the United States." Following this preliminary report the Chief of Engineers directed the district engineer to proceed with the completion of the report, and there was a great deal of consideration given to the possible extension of that Long Beach breakwater down into the Orange County area, which possibly would solve the problem in front of this particular area, and possibly move the hazard farther down. That would be a matter, to be determined later. But we feel, gentlemen, that with regard to the original amount of erasion damage, we were in a position to have taken care of it locally and were taking steps on it and making progress in the taking care of it. We feel that the situation we are facing now is due primarily to the public works constructed by the Federal Government, and that this particular unit has accelerated that to such an extent that it is beyond the power of local authorities to keep up with it. I would like to call attention to one face. During the construction of these jetties on the east side, before the work was completed, the erosion became so pronounced that he Navy was required to put in a concrete revetment to keep the ocean from going on through into the harbor. They constructed a rock revetment the whole length of their property over to the Surf Side area to keep the ocean from cutting through into Anaheim Harbor in that area. We feel it is a project in which the Government has a definite responsibility, and we would urge your favorable consideration on that basis. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Scudder, do you have any questions? Mr. SCUDDER. I believe not. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Machrowicz. Mr. MACHROWICZ. Just one question. I believe you expressed your concurrence with the Corps of Engineers' report. Is that right? Mr. WARNER. I concur in the general principles of the report for correction. I think there should be probably some additional facilities constructed there in order to maintain the sand for a longer period, but in general the report is correct. Mr. MACHROWICZ. I call your attention to the fact that the Chief of Engineers recommends as follows: Accordingly, I recommend adoption of projects by the United States authorizing Federal participation by the contribution of Federal funds in an amount equal to the portion of the cost applicable to protecting the federally owned frontage plus one-third of the first cost of measures for the restoration and protection of the other publicly owned portions of the shore in Orange County, Calif. Mr. WARNER. We don't concur in that. We concur in the principle of protection as defined in his report, and not as to his findings. Mr. ANGELL. Dr. Neal, any questions? Mr. NEAL. I do not think so. Mr. OAKMAN. No questions. Mr. WARNER. Mr. Chairman, if I might for the record, the mayor of Seal Beach and the council authorized me in making the presentation to speak on their behalf, as well as the county of Orange. Mr. ANGELL. Very well. The record will so indicate. Have you any further statements? Mr. UTT. No further statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ANGELL. We thank you very much for your cooperation with the committee. Colonel ALLEN. May I make a few explanatory remarks, if you have the time, Mr. Chairman? Mr. ANGELL. Yes, indeed, Colonel. Colonel ALLEN. The question of frontage that was considered for Federal participation was brought up. I would like to point out that the frontage considered was not limited to Seal Beach and the areas shown here in light green at Surf Side. It was carried on down here to Sunset Beach because it was recognized as these gentlemen pointed out that if this condition were allowed to continue, eventually the problem area would move to the south and east at a rate estimated to be one mile per year. The frontage considered in determining the Federal share went as far south as Sunset Beach, even though at this time or at the time of the report, Sunset Beach was not yet suffering erosion. But we have seen theer over the period of the last year or 6 months, particularly, that this material which has been progressively ending at Surf Side is no longer available for the waves to move. The waves have a certain competence to move a certain yardage of material. If it is not available here, the waves will continue to get their load at locations farther downdrift. Unless the beach is nourished from some outside source the erosion zone will continue to expand down the coast of California, so that the points made by the gentlemen are correct in that the situation, if not corrected in the area now eroding, will gradually enlarge to the south and east. Mr. ANGELL. Is it the view of the Army engineers that this is a beach-erosion project? Colonel ALLEN. It was treated as such because the basic authority said "with a view to shore protection." Public Law 727, which was passed subsequent to the basic law, was interpreted to the sense of Congress with respect to beach erosion. Mr. ANGELL. The report of the Corps of Engineers is based on the premise that it is a beach-erosion project? Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir. Mr. SCUDDER. There is no disposition on the part of the engineers then to recognize this as a condition existent and caused by certain jetty construction from the standpoint of damages? Colonel ALLEN. It is recognized in the report as consequential damage due to the construction of a number of structures-the Anaheim Bay jetties, the Long Beach breakwater, and the improving of the rivers I previously mentioned. Mr. SCUDDER. Then it will be a matter of determination by this committee as to whether the damage was actually caused by the construction of jetties, or whether we are going to proceed under the new law to remedy beach erosion. Colonel ALLEN. That is correct. Mr. SCUDDER. There are two theories to this, I believe. Mr. SCUDDER. The general law for beach-erosion work and beach protection does not take into consideration some conditions precedent which had caused the condition. Colonel ALLEN. That is correct. Mr. ANGELL. We thank you, Colonel. Mr. OAKMAN. Can I ask the colonel one more question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. ANGELL. You may. Mr. OAKMAN. Do you feel, Colonel, that this work is now all necessary because of previous undertakings that the Federal Government had made there?" Colonel ALLEN. I would have to go back again, sir, to the condition of this shoreline in nature before any man-made structures were there. The fact that this shore was nourished by streams which carried material into the Los Angeles Harbor, and that prior to the construction of the Federal breakwaters the wave pattern was such that they were competent to carry this material on down and nourish the beaches; and the combination and sequence of the construction of the control measures on the rivers and breakwaters at Anaheim, all had an effect on the entire shoreline of this area. Mr. OAKMAN. You would feel quite an appreciable effect, would you not? Colonel ALLEN. Yes, one that would alter the regimen of that area appreciably. Mr. OAKMAN. So that there does seem to be a moral responsibility on the part of the Government over the one-third permitted by the existing law. Do you care to comment on that? Colonel ALLEN. I think it has been held that these were all built for the public interest-both the flood-control measures and the breakwaters. This, of course, was also built for the public interest. Mr. ANGELL. Colonel, was the damage caused by any errors on the part of the Army engineers in any of that construction work? Were there any errors in the plans or construction of the remedial projects that were put in? Did the damage arise by reason of erroneous construction? Colonel ALLEN. No, sir. That was implicit in the purpose for which the major project was designed. When we put a flood-control dam on the Los Angeles River that affected the material by impounding it and preventing it from reaching the shoreline. Mr. MACHROWICZ. Is there not a series of factors, and these Federal structures are just one of the series? Colonel ALLEN. That is correct. Mr. ANGELL. If there is nothing further, the committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:30 a. m. the subcommittee adjourned.) RIVERS AND HARBORS OMNIBUS BILL TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1954 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10: 10 a. m., in room 1302, New House Office Building, Hon. Homer D. Angell, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Mr. ANGELL. The meeting is called this morning to consider H. R. 8390, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Mack, and H. R. 8377, introduced by myself. They are companion bills and both identical. The purpose of the bill is to increase the authorization for the Columbia River Basin project some $16 million in order to keep the construction work, which is now under way, going. (H. R. 8377 and H. R. 8390 are as follows:) [H. R. 8377, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL Authorizing the appropriation of funds to provide for the prosecution of projects in the Columbia River Basin for flood control and other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph (b) under the title "Columbia River Basin" in section 204 of the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, as amended by Public Law 75, Eighty-third Congress, approved June 22, 1953, is hereby further amended by striking out "$150,000,000" and substituting in lieu thereof "$166,000,000". [H. R. 8390, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL Authorizing the appropriation of funds to provide for the prosecution of projects in the Columbia River Basin for flood control and other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph (b) under the title "Columbia River Basin" in section 204 of the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, as amended by Public Law 75, Eighty-third Congress, approved June 22, 1953, is hereby further amended by striking out "$150,000,000" and substituting in lieu thereof "$166,000,000". Mr. ANGELL. The authorization is not sufficient, as I understand it, to provide for that, and a portion of the moneys is needed to strengthen the bill that passed the House recently, that is, the appropriation bill, the reason being there is no authorization for $5 million. We will ask the colonel to explain this bill. STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM WHIPPLE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-Resumed Colonel WHIPPLE. As the committee knows, the comprehensive plan for the Columbia River Basin has been authorized over a series |