OCR Text |
Show 457 ment.2*8 In addition, the State of California has a plan for development.286 It will be remembered that the act creating the California Debris Commission directed the preparation of plans for nav- igation and flood control on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.m In commenting on the resulting report, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors stated:288 While Congress has hitherto included flood relief among the objects to be accomplished by the work of the debris commission, it appears to have considered this only as incidental to the control of mining debris in the interests of navigation. Should Congress now de- cide to cooperate with the State of California in a com- prehensive project of this magnitude for the purpose of flood control, it is believed that the plan proposed, with such division of cost as Congress may determine, should be adopted, since, in the opinion of the board it is well designed to secure the desired result. The board re- ports, however, that the execution of this project is not necessary in the interests of navigation. Transmitting this report in 1911, the Acting Chief of Engi- neers said:289 This report presents a project for control of floods, the third duty assigned the commission. Recognizing that the interests of navigation, debris control, and flood con- trol are inseparably connected, the commission has con- sidered these problems as one general subject, thus 288 Sen. Doc. No. 113, 81st Cong., 1st sess. (1949) ; H. Doc. No. 36T, 81st Cong., 1st sess. (1949). For a discussion of the controversy over these two plans, see Report of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Bbanch of the Government, App. L, pp. 149-182 (1949). For an ex- tensive treatment of the legal issues involved in the development of the Central Valley, see 38 Calif. L. Rev. No. 4 (October 1950). 288 See Sen. Doc. No. 113, pp. 289-431. 287 See supra, pp. 119-120, 353, 389. 288 H. Doc. No. 81, 62d Cong., 1st sess., p. 3 (1911). *»Id.v.2. |