"Last year, as part of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, the Congress enacted a flood insurance program. A great deal of professional study and groundwork preceded its enactment, and it would appear that it will be some time before the flood insurance program will actually be in operation. The landslide study, authorized by my amendment, is just such a professional background study in the landslide area. Experts tell me that the study is an important step if we are to develop a federal insurance program for landslides.

"The reasons are simple. A basis for determination of insurance rates must be provided before any insurance can be offered. This involves the probability of occurrence of a given type of natural catastrophe, the frequency of various intensities of occurrences of catastrophes and their relationship to the degree of damage to different types of structures. For example, in flood insurance, data are needed on the frequency of floods of given height, and for earthquake insurance, data are required on the frequency of earthquakes of given intensities. To a large degree, the potential hazard from mud flows to urban communities can be determined and the probability of their occurrence estimated. Geologic surveys are needed to map probable sources of mud flows and the structures that would be damaged or destroyed. The Corps of Engineers has requested the Geological Survey to update landslide maps of the Pacific Palisades region, and it is expected that these maps will be available some time next year.

"When combined with climatological information on rainstorm magnitudes and frequencies, the potential mud flow hazard for the surveyed areas can be determined. Thus, the information obtained from these investigations, such as my amendment has authorized the Corps of Engineers to make, not only as vital to insurance considerations, but also would be valuable in the engineering design of mud flow preventative measures and in the planning of future urban development. "It is imperative that we move ahead quickly in this area so that we might hopefully prevent a repetition of the tragic disaster which Californians recently experienced. I would therefore be most appreciative if you would assist in any way you can by providing the $25,000 which will advance by one full year the target date for completion of this study.

"With best wishes, I am,

"Sincerely,

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

"GEORGE MURPHY."

I am assured that this subcommittee will be made well aware by the witnesses who will testify of the totality and the extensiveness of the troubles which have come to exist and will try, to the best of its ability, to rectify them.

As I have said, along with me are three gentlemen who are at the table with me, you will be hearing from Mr. Ruben S. Ayala, Mr. A. P. Stokes, Mr. Raymond T. Seeley, and Mr. Elston Kidwell.

I thank you.

Mr. Chairman, of course, we will be glad to answer any questions that you may have or, possibly, Mr. Moe could make his statement, with the chairman's permission.

Senator JORDAN. Yes. We will be pleased to hear from Mr. Moe or from anyone else you have with you.

I might add, also, at this juncture, that Congressman Pettis was here in support of this bill. He had another hearing of his own so he had to leave.

I am also informed that Senator Cranston has planned to be here. Senator MURPHY. Yes. Unfortunately, the Senator had a death in his family and had to return to California.'

Senator JORDAN. I know he had planned to be here.
We would be glad to hear from Mr. Moe.

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. MOE, CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC

WORKS

Mr. MOE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James A. Moe, director of public works of the State of California.

It is my purpose to present an updated report on the estimated storm damage to State highways, city streets, and county roads in California. On February 11, 1969, a special report on flood damage on California's highways was presented in Sacramento, Calif., before a joint session of the Subcommittee of Rivers and Harbors and the Subcommittee on Flood Control of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives.

On March 21, 1969, a further report was presented in Washington, D.C., before the Subcommittee on Flood Control of the House of Representatives Committee on Public Works.

Continuing storms between the dates of the two reports required upward revision of the estimated amounts of damage. Since March 21, 1969, later damage reports have indicated increased costs in the amount of $1,600,00 for city streets and county roads, but the State highway damage estimate is unchanged.

In the report of March 21, 1969, to the House Subcommittee on Flood Control, the Federal reimbursement under title 23 was estimated on the basis of normal Federal aid systems pro rata reimbursement. Subsequently, California received approval of 100-percent Federal' reimbursement on those portions of the damage repair program eligible under section 125 of the Federal Aid Highway Act. Approval of such an increased reimbursement had been requested by the State under revised provisions in the 1968 Federal Aid Highway Act where the Secretary of Transportation may find an increased Federal share to be in the public interest.

The current estimates of damage are some $28,600,000 for State highways and $50,800,000 for city streets and county roads or a total of some $79,400,000. These estimates are shown in the attachments, including a breakdown as to the State and local jurisdictions of the highways, the amount of damage on the various Federal highway systems and the amounts off Federal systems. It will be noted that although 100-percent reimbursement for eligible portions of the work has been approved for damage on Federal systems, the tabulations. utilize less than the 100-percent factor because some portions of the restoration will most likely be found ineligible for Federal reimbursement.

This disaster developed from continuous and unusually severe winter storms in California, especially since January 17, 1969, which

caused widespread major damage to the highway system on State, county, and city routes. The attachment to this report, showing damage for each county in the State, illustrates how widespread the damage has been.

As soon as it became apparent that storm damage would reach disaster proportions, immediate action was taken at the State level to bring into play those Federal support programs which are available under these circumstances. The chronology of such actions is listed in an attachment to this summary report.

The storms continued, one after another, throughout the last part of January and the month of February, often hitting the areas first devastated two and three times again. Coupled with heavy rain were sustained snowstorms over the Siskiyous, Sierras, the southern mountain ranges, and the eastern slopes of the Sierras. Unprecedented snowfall occurred on the eastern slopes and near-record snowfalls were recorded elsewhere in the Sierra mountains.

In the attachments to our report are photographs of some of the heavy snow areas.

Damage survey teams were dispatched to the locations of storm damage to make on-the-spot estimates of cost of restoration of State highways. Due to recurring storms, damage surveys had to be repeated in several areas. These teams were composed of representatives from our division of highways headquarters, the Federal Bureau of Public Roads and local highway district personnel. Similar teams were dispatched, and some are still in the field, surveying the damage to city streets and county roads. These teams were similarly composed, including added local government representation.

Based on current estimates, support programs to finance emergency openings and restoration of highways are estimated to provide for approximately $47 million of the $79,400,000 estimated damage cost, leaving $32,400,000 of costs to be funded by other means.

The estimated damage is exclusive of snow removal costs and exclusive of future damage if we experience a fast snow melt. It is also exclusive of any costs to upgrade damaged roads beyond their condition prior to the floods.

Detailed estimates of funding for damages to the three classes of roadways are included in the attachment. In California about 80 percent of State highways are on a Federal-aid system of one kind or another, but only 20 percent of the city street and county road network are on Federal-aid systems.

As mentioned previously, snowfall in the Sierras has been unusually high. Snow surveys indicate the water content of the snowpack is between 150 percent of normal in the northern areas to 450 percent of normal in the southern San Joaquin watershed. Best predictions, assuming normal weather during the spring melt, indicate a sustained heavy streamflow from April through July, in which case additional damage to highways could well occur. The extent depends entirely on weather conditions during the critical months. The snow melt runoff in the northern Sierras is not expected to cause significant damage. Neither is the runoff on the southern slopes of the southern mountain

ranges.

(The attachments referred to follow :)

CHRONOLOGY OF GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATIONS FOR STORM DAMAGE FROM 1969 STORMS

ER Proclamations

January 30, 1969-Proclamation of emergency covering all counties in the state except the counties of San Diego, Imperial, Modoc, Lassen, Nevada, Placer and El Dorado.

March 12, 1969 Amended emergency proclamation adding San Diego County. Public Law 875 Proclamations

January 23, 1969-Declared disaster area in San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles Counties.

January 25, 1969-Declared disaster area in the counties of Fresno, Inyo, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura.

January 28, 1969-Declared disaster area in the counties of Amador, El Dorado, Kern, Kings, Madera, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Orange, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus and Tuolumne.

January 29, 1969-Declared disaster area in Mariposa and Merced Counties. February 8, 1969-Declared disaster area in San Benito, Sierra and Calaveras Counties.

February 10, 1969-Declared disaster area in counties of Contra Costa, Humboldt, Mendocino and Sonoma.

February 16, 1969-Declared disaster area in Plumas, Tehama and Yuba Counties.

March 12, 1969-Declared disaster area in the counties of Butte, Marin and Yolo.

The Governor's Proclamations of emergency now cover all but six of the 58 counties. The Governor's Disaster Proclamations now cover 40 of the 58 counties.

ESTIMATED DAMAGE TO STATE AND LOCAL ROADS FOR STORMS OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 1969