TIJUANA RIVER INTERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL

governmeni

Storage

PROJECT

H E A R IN G !

BEFORE THE

SUBC OMM ITTE E ON INT ER-AM ERICA N AF FA IR S

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFF AIR S 

HOUSE OF REP RESEN TATIV ES

EIG HTY-NINT II CONGRESS

SE CO ND SE SS IO N

ON

H .R . 7573 an d S. 2540 (H .R . 13825)

TO AUTH ORIZ E TH E CO NC LU SIO N OF AN AG RE EM EN T 

FO R TH E JO IN T CO NS TR UC TION BY T H E UNIT ED ST AT ES 

AN D MEX IC O OF AN IN TE RNATI ONAL FL OO D CO NT RO L 

PR O JE C T FO R TH E TIJ U AN A R IV ER IN ACCO RD AN CE 

W IT H TH E PR OVIS IO NS OF TH E TR EA TY OF FE BR UARY 3, 

1944, W IT H ME XICO , AN D FO R OTH ER PURPO SE S

MA RC H 14, 1966

P ri nte d fo r th e us e of th e Co mmitt ee on Fo re ig n Affairs

U.S. GOVERNM ENT PR INT ING OFF ICE

60 316 WASHINGTON : 1986
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

THOM AS E. M OR GAN , Pennsylvania, Chairma n

C L E M E N T J. ZABLO CK I, Wisconsin 

OM AR BUR LE SO N, Texas 

E D N A F. K E L L Y , New York 

W A YN E L. H AYS, Ohio 

A R M IS TE A D I. SELD EN , Jr., Alabama 

B A R R A T T O’ H AR A, Illinois 

L. H. FO U N TA IN , North Carolina 

D A N TE B. FA SC E L L, Florida 

LE O N ARD FA R B ST E IN , New Yor k 

CH A R LES C. DIG GS, Je., Michigan 

L IN D L E Y B E CK W O R TH , Texas 

H AR RIS B. MCD OW EL L, Je., Delaware 

W IL LI AM T . M U R PH Y, Illinois 

CORNELI U S E. G ALLA G H ER , New Jersey 

R O B E R T N. C. N IX , Pennsylvania 

JOHN S. M ON AG A N, Connecticut 

DO N ALD M. FR A SER , Minnesota 

RO N ALD BROOKS CAM ERON , California 

BEN JA M IN S. RO SE N TH AL, New York 

ED W A R D R. R O YB A L, California 

JOHN C. CU LVER , Iowa 

LEE H. H AM IL TO N , Indiana 

R O Y H. M cV IC K E R , Colorado

B oyd C rawford, Sta ff Adm ini str ator

R oy J. Bullo ck, Senio r Sta ff Co ns ultant

Albert C . F. Westph al, St af f Co nsultan t

Fra nk lin J. S chupp, S ta ff Co ns ultan t

R obe rt F . B ran dt, Sta ff C on su lta nt

Har ry C. C rome r, Sta ff Co ns ultant

Philip B . Billi ngs, Sta ff Co ns ultant

Marian A . Czarneck i, Sta ff Co ns ultant

Melvin O. B enso n, St aff Co ns ultant

Jun e N igh, Se nior Sta ff As sist an t

H elen C. Mattas, Sta ff As sist an t

Hele n L . Hash agen, S ta ff A ss ista nt

Mar y L ouise O ’B rien, S ta ff Assist an t

Mar y M. L alos, St aff Ass ista nt

Jean E . Smith, S ta ff Ass ista nt

R obe rt J. B owen, Clerica l A ss ista nt

FR AN CES P. BOLT ON, Ohio

E. RO SS A D A IR , Indiana

W IL LI AM S. M A IL LIA R D , California 

PE T E R H. B. FR ELIN G H U YSEN , New Jersey 

W IL LI AM S. BR O O M FIE LD , Mich igan 

J. IR VIN G W H A LLE Y, Pennsylvania 

H. R. GR OS S, Iowa

E. Y . B E R R Y , South Dako ta

EDW AR D J. D ER W IN SK I, Illinois

F. B R A D FO R D M OR SE , Massachusetts 

VERNON W. TH OM SO N, Wisconsin 

JA MES G. FU LTO N , Pennsylvania

J i. r; i • f -

Subc om m it te e on I nte r-A m er ic an A ffair s

AR M IS TE AD I. SELD EN, Jr., Alabama, Chairman

B A R R A T T O’H ARA , Illinois WI LL IAM S. M AIL LI ARD , California

D A N T E B. FA SC ELL, Florida J. IR V IN G W H ALL EY, Pennsylvania

OM AR B U R LESO N , Texas H. R. GR OS S, Iowa

L IN D L E Y BECK W ORTH , Texas F. BR A D FO R D MOR SE , Massachusetts

RO N ALD BR O O K S CA MER ON , California

JO HN S. M ON AG AN , Connecticut

EDW ARD R. R O Y B A L, California

R O Y H. M cV IC KER, Colorado

R obert F. B ran dt, S ta ff Co ns ultant

Helen L . Hash age n, Sta ff Co ns ultant
C O N T E N T S

WITNESSES

Bartch, Carl E., Deputy Director, Office of Mexican Affairs, D epartme nt of Page

Sta te_______________ ____ _____________________ _____ ________ 17

Curran, Hon. Frank, mayor of the city of San Diego, Calif____________ 3

Friedkin, Hon. J. F., Commissioner, Internatio nal Boundary and Water

Commission, United States and Mexico___________________________ 5

Hahn, Walter, assistant city manager, city of San Diego, Calif_________ 12

Preston, Lt. Col. Edm und R., Jr., assista nt director of civil works for the

Pacific divisions, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the

Army-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

Van Deerlin, Hon. Lionel, a Representative in Congress from the Statejof

California____________________________________________________ 2

ME MO RANDUM S AND STATEM ENTS SU BM ITTE D 

FO R TH E RECORD

Map, overflow area and recommended plan of improvement, Tiju ana

Text of H.R . 7 5 7 3 . _____ ________ _____ ________________________ 1

Summary statem ent submitted by Hon. J. F. Friedkin, Commissioner,

Internatio nal Boundary and Water Commission, United States and 

Mexico_______________________________________________________ 5

Present and anticip ated land values, Tijuan a River Valley (United

Sta tes)______________ ____ ____________________________________ 25

Letter from Hon. Bob Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, March 21, 1966, to Hon. Thom as E. Morgan, chairman, 

Committee on Foreign Affairs___________________________________ 26

Letter report, August 26, 1966, on H.R . 7573, from the Assistant Secretary

of State for Congressional Relations______________________________ 26

Letter report, August 4, 1966, of Commissioner J. F. Friedkin, to the Secretary of S tate, relative to an inte rnation al flood control project, Tijuana 

River Basin in California a nd Baja California______________________ 28

Letter report, February 23, 1966, on H.R . 7573, from the Assistan t Secretar y of the Interior____________________________________________ 29

Let ter report, February 21, 1966, on H .R. 7573, from the D epu ty Attorney

General______________________________________________________ 30

Letter report, February 11, 1966, on H.R . 7573, from the Acting General

Council of the Treas ury ________________________________________ 30

Appendix: Resolutions of city of San Diego, Calif., and county of San

Diego..................... 31

m

66 (F ace p. 1) - 0 -3 16 60

TIJU ANA RIVER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL

PROJECT

MON DA Y, M ARCH 14, 19 66

H ouse of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

C ommit te e on F orei gn A ffa ir s, 

S ubco m m it te e on I n ter-A mer ic an A ffa ir s,

Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs met in open session, 

pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2200, Rayburn Building, 

Hon. Armistead I. Selden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Selden. The meeting will come to order.

The subcommittee has before it this morning H .R. 7573, a bill to 

authorize the conclusion of an agreement for the joint construction by 

the United States and Mexico of an international flood control project 

on the Tia Juana River in accordance with provisions of the treaty of 

February 3, 1944, with Mexico and for other purposes.

(The text of H.R. 7573 follows:)

[H.H . 7573, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To authorize the conclusion of an agreement for the joint construction by the United States an d

Mexico of an internationa l flood control project for the Tia Jua na River in accordance with the provisions 

of the t rea ty of Feb rua ry 3, 1944, with Mexico, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of State, acting thro ugh the 

United States Commissioner, Internation al Boundary and Wate r Commission, 

United States and Mexico, is hereby authorized to conclude with th e app ropriate 

official or officials of the Government of Mexico a n agreement for the joint construction , operation, and maintenance by the United States and Mexico, in 

accordance with the provisions of the treaty of February 3, 1944, with Mexico, 

of an international flood control project for the Tia Juan a River, which shall 

be located and have substan tially the characteristics described in “Report on an 

Internatio nal Flood Control Project, Tia Juana River Basin”, prepared by the 

United States Section, Inte rna tional Boundary and Wate r Commission, United 

States and Mexico.

Sec. 2. If agreement is concluded pursua nt to section 1 of this Act, the said 

United States Commissioner is authorize d to construct, operate, and maintain 

the portion of such project assigned to the United States, and there is hereby 

authorized to be appropriated to the Departme nt of State for use of the United 

States Section, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 

Act: Provided, That no part of any appropriation made shall be expended for 

construction on any land, site, or easement, except such as has been acquired by 

donation and the title thereto has been appro ved by the Attorney General of the 

United States.

Mr. Selden. In this connection the subcommittee also has before 

it a similar Senate bill, S. 2540, which passed the Senate on March 8.

We are very happy to have with us this morning to testify before 

the subcommittee the Honorable Lionel Van Deerlin, a Representative 

from the State of California; the Honorable Frank Curran, mayor of 

the city of San Diego; Mr. Walter Hahn, assistant city manager, city of 

San Diego; Mr. Carl Bartch, Deputy Director, Office of Mexican
2 TIJUANA RIVER INTERN ATION AL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJEC T

Affairs, Department of State; the Honorable J. F. Friedkin, Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission, United 

States and Mexico; Lt. Col. Edmund R. Preston, Jr., of the Corps of 

Engineers. I understand Mr. T. R. Martin from the Office of Mexican 

Affairs and Mr. John B. Moore, comptroller, International Boundary 

Commission, are also with us.

If I have omitted any who are appearing this morning, if you will 

let Mr. Bran dt know, we will see th at your names are included in the 

record. We will be very happy to hear first from our colleague, the 

Honorable Lionel Van Deerlin.

STATEMENT OF HON. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Van Deerlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to than k both of you for being here on this wet Monday. 

We have quite a concentration of manpower on hand. You will be 

happy to know tha t they all realize the very persuasive qualities of 

brevity. I see no reason, starting at this hour, why we shouldn’t 

have everything wrapped up and require no one to return for an 

afternoon session.

The reason, as you know, tha t H.R . 7573 is before this subcommittee 

rather than being in Public Works is tha t it involves an agreement 

under treaty with Mexico, covering a flood control project on a river 

which is an international river twice over, you might say. The 

biggest tributary to the Tijuana River comes from the United States 

into Mexico and then flows back again, selecting a point about 5 miles 

inland from the ocean between Baja California and San Diego County, 

a portion of San Diego County which I am privileged to represent.

You have already noted the Senate’s passage earlier this month of 

similar legislation introduced by Senators Kuchel and Murphy.

Mr. Frank Curran, the mayor of San Diego, will emphasize the 

great importance of this legislation to San Diego. Mr. Joseph 

Friedkin, who is the International Boundary Commissioner, will give 

you the international aspects and review steps already taken on both 

sides of the border.

Mr. Bartcli, who is Deputy Officer in charge of Mexican Affairs of 

the State Department, will emphasize the importance to our relations 

with Mexico in this legislation, and although Colonel Preston of the 

Army Engineers will not have a formal statement, he is here to answer 

any questions concerning the engineering need and the cost-benefit 

ratio tha t is very favorable in this project.

It might occur to you tha t San Diego County is p art of the arid 

Southwest. This is very true. I would only recall for you our 

colleague Mo Udall’s favorite saying about the rainfall in his district 

down around Tucson, Ariz. He says, “We only get about 7 inches 

of ram there a year, but you ought to be there the day we get it.”

Not only in the years like 1916, 1927, and 1933, when we had 

very damaging floods tha t for several days cut San Diego County 

off from the rest of California, but as recently as this winter tha t is 

not yet completed, San Diego has experienced damaging floods. 

Compared with normal rainfall of 9 or 10 inches, we have already 

ha d 17 inches of rain or more. This has prompted it to be rated 

as a disaster area for Small Business Administration loans, and is the
TIJUANA RIVER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJ EC T 3

newest indication we have tha t you never know when these 100-year 

floods are going to strike in our part of the country.

The area under scrutiny for this project is a built-up. very valuable 

part of the country. The city of Tijuana has a population close to a 

quarter of a million now. Any backup of flooding in there will 

produce devastation and tragedy of the worst kind. The properties 

on our side of the border have great potential for future industrial 

and urban development. In introducing Mayor Curran, I would like to throw in a personal 

note. I can atte st to his reputation for truth and veracity back at 

least 35 years, I am afraid I have to say, because we were in high 

school together. The mayor has been in office now as a councilman or mayor for 

more than 10 years. He is highly esteemed by the citizens of San 

Diego, and will give you, I am sure, a complete rundown on the 

importance of the passage of H.R. 7573 to the city of San Diego, 

which goes all the way to the border now. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Selden. Thank you, Congressman.

We will be happy now to hear from M ayor Curran.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK CURRAN, MAYOR OF THE CITY 

OF SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

Mr. Curran. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

I am Mayor Frank Curran from the city of San Diego and I wish 

to make a brief statement in support of the Tijuana River flood 

control project. We will be available for any questions or other information tha t 

the testimony might develop the need for.

The ties between Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, and the city 

of San Diego are strong. Our respective economies depend heavily 

upon one another and our social and cultural lives are closely interwoven. The Tijuana River flood control channel is one of but 

many cooperative projects presently underway in the San Diego 

area between the Governments of the United States and Mexico 

for the protection of health, safety, the furtherance of our historic 

and cultural heritage, and the expansion of our economic relationships. Examples of this cooperation are the emergency sewer connections now being developed for Tijuana into the metropolitan 

sewer system of the city of San Diego, the program for assisting Baja 

California in developing an adequate supply of fresh water, and, 

an almost completed border area planning program.

This planning program, which receives policy guidance from a 

group on which Federal, State, city, and Mexican officials serve, 

encompasses an area of 17,500 acres, lying at the southewst corner 

of California. It is bounded by the city of Tijuana on the south, 

the Pacific Ocean on the west, the steep slopes of Otay Mesa on 

the east and the Otay River Valley on the north. The program, financed jointly by the Federal Government— 

under provisions of section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954—and the 

city of San Diego, has been primarily designed to increase commerce 

and social-cultural interchange between the United States and 

Mexico. Provision of the Tijuana River flood control channel is 

essential in securing the objectives of this planning program.
4 TIJUANA RIVER INT ERN ATION AL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJECT

Th e Go vernm ent of Mexico is alr eady aut horized to proceed with 

the design and con struction of the flood control facility for their side 

of the border. The pa rt of the fac ility in Mexico will prote ct both 

Un ite d States and Mex ican lives and propert y. It is vit al th at this 

co un try proceed sim ultane ously with our stream pro tection in order 

to constru ct the impro vem ent at a minim um cost. It must be recognized t hat the American impro vem ent , like the Mexican im pro vem ent, 

will prote ct lives and prop erty on both sides of the bord er.

Th e urg enc y of this impro vem ent is illustra ted by th e at titu de of 

the prop erty owners adjo inin g th e proposed flood con trol pro ject. 

Within a very short tim e of bein g advised of the prop osed imp rov eme nt, the prop erty owners in the Ti juan a Valley signified by lette r 

to the San Diego Ci ty Council th at they would be willing to assume 

their per acre assessment in accordance with Feder al policies on cost 

sha ring between the Feder al Go vernm ent and local int ere sts for this 

pro tec tion. In a dditio n, the C ity Councils of San Diego a nd I mp erial 

Bea ch have s tro ngly ind icated their willingness to assume their sha re 

of the s ub sta ntial local costs estim ate d to b e $4,190,000.

Th e city of San Diego feels that it is essential t hat this flood control 

pro jec t be construc ted at the ear lies t possible time . Our neig hbors 

in Mexico sha re our belief in the necessity of the proje ct and hav e 

alread y acted to assure dev elopm ent of the pro jec t facilities on their 

side of the border. I resp ectfully urge y ou, Mr. Chairma n and mem ­

bers of this sub com mittee , to take ap prop ria te acti on on thi s vital 

pro ject.

I hav e purposefully ke pt my rem ark s brief, Mr. Ch airma n, in 

deference to yo ur busy sched ule. In the event you or any of the 

mem bers have any questions, however, I will be mo st pleased to 

atte m pt to answ er them .

ESCALATED LOCAL COSTS

Mr. Selden. Th an k you very much, Mayor Cu rran.

You ind icated in your sta temen t th at the people affected in thi s 

are a hav e alread y sta ted their willingness to assum e their sha re of 

the local cost, which is estimate d to be $4,190,000. I un derst and 

these are 1963 figures and the cost ma y have escalat ed since that time . 

If th at is correct, do you feel th ey will also be willing to assume the 

cost of any esca latio n th at may have tak en place?

Mr. Curran. My answ er would be in two parts . Fi rst, I doubt, 

because of our continuing concern and inter est in this proje ct and 

watching the prices and the othe r things invo lved in it, th at we ha ve 

escalated enough to m ake an app reciable difference. Th e second p ar t 

to the answ er it th at if the re is a definite esca latio n of any am ount 

we will proceed on the basis th at thi s has to be com pen sated for and 

the people and the city involve d would be willing to acc ept the ir 

resp onsibility.

Mr. Selde n. Mr. Royba l.

Mr. R oybal. I have no que stio ns. I would, however, like to 

comp lim ent y ou, Mayor Cu rra n, for the work you have done on thi s 

proje ct. I agree th at this is one of the mo st im po rta nt pro jec ts th at 

you could be wor king on. You h ave done an excellent job on it and I 

wan t to tak e this op po rtu nity to com plime nt you.

Mr. Selde n. Mr. Whalley.
TIJUANA RIVER INT ERN ATION AL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJ EC T 5

Mr. Whalley. Mr. Chairman, is the cost of the complete project 

given anywhere?

Mr. Curran. 1 think the testimony tha t will follow mine will 

produce those figures. Mr. Friedkin has all the technical information. 

I am representing primarily the political philospohy rather than the 

technical.

Mr. Selden. Mr. Gross.

Mr. Gross. With tha t answer I will withhold any questions at this 

time.

Mr. Curran. I will be glad to come back and answer any other 

questions.

Mr. Selden. Thank you, Mayor Curran. T note Mr. Hahn, the 

assistant city manager of the city of San Diego, is here. Do you 

have any statement?

Mr. Hahn. I have no comment at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Selden. Our next witness is the Honorable J. F. Friedkin, 

Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission 

United States and Mexico. Commissioner Friedkin, we are happy 

to have you back before this subcommittee, and we will be pleased to 

hear from you on this particular project.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. F. FRIEDKIN, COMMISSIONER, INT ERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION, UNITED

STATES AND MEXICO

Mr. Friedkin. I am glad to be back before this subcommittee and 

this time in support of H.R. 7573. We have already submitted to the 

committee our full report on behalf of this project, which includes as 

an appendix to the report the technical report by the Corps of Engineers covering their study, survey, and report on this project. I also 

have submitted to you a summary statem ent for the record. I am 

prepared to make an oral presentation in summary.

(The Commissioner’s summary statement is as follows:)

Statement of Hon. J. F. F riedkin, Commissioner, I nternational Boundary

and Water Commission, United States and Mexico

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this o ppo rtun ity 

to appear before you in sup port of H.R . 7573, a bill to auth orize th e conclusion of 

an agreement with Mexico to construct an inte rnational flood control project for 

the Tijuan a River in San Diego, Calif., Tijuana, Baja California, in accordance 

with the provisions of the tre aty of February 3, 1944, with Mexico.

The contemp lated agreement would provide for a join t project with Mexico for 

construction of a concrete-lined flood control channel 8.4 miles in length for the 

lower reaches of the Tijuan a River, of which 2.7 miles would be in Mexico a nd 

built by its Government at its expense, and 5.7 miles in the United States at its 

expense, under a coordinated plan for design, construction, operation, and maintenance thro ugh the Internatio nal Boundary and Water Commission, United 

States and Mexico.

The Tijuan a River is an internation al river located in the extrem e southwest 

corner of the United States and northwest corner of Mexico. This river begins in 

Mexico near the city of Tijuana, Baja California, where it is formed by the jun ction of two trib utaries, one from the United States, and the other from Mexico. 

It flows n orthwestward in Mexico a bou t 5 miles, thence across the boundary line 

into the United States, where it continues westward through lands of th e city of 

San Diego, Calif., approximately 5.7 miles to discharge into the Pacific Ocean.

The flow in the Tiiuan a River is usually small, bu t at intervals it discharges 

floods of grea t magnitude which spread over the entire width of the valley in b oth 

60-3 16— 66------ 2
6 TIJUA NA RIV ER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJEC T

countries to cause widespread damages. Until controlled, such floods preclude 

extensive urb an and industrial development except at th e risk of major damages.

The rapidly growing cities of San Diego, Calif., and Tijuana, Baja California, 

with present metrop olitan populations of about 1 million an d 270,000, respectively, 

have reached the point where utilization of the lands of th e Tijuan a River flood 

plain is needed for th eir further growth a nd expansion. For this reason, authorities in th e United States and in Mexico urge early measures to confine and control 

floods in this river in the two countries. The problem is regarded in bot h countries as internatio nal in scope, requiring for its solution an internatio nal project 

sponsored by the two Governments.

At the requ est of the U.S. Commissioner, the District Engineer, U.S. Army 

Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif., Corps of Engineers, made a survey and 

report on the justification and most feasible plan for control of the part of the 

Tijuan a River in the U nited States. He finds t ha t there is a serious flood problem 

and t hat an economically feasible plan for protectiv e works in the United States 

consists of a concrete-lined flood channel to connect with the Mexican works at 

the boundary, and extend westward along the southerly limits of th e flood plain, 

a distance of approximately 5.7 miles to th e Pacific Ocean.

The estimated (1965) total first cost of th e recommended works in the United 

States is $15,400,000, of which $13,300,000 would be for construction and 

$2,100,000 for lands, rights-of-way, and relocations. The estim ated average 

annual costs, including operation and maintenance, would be $565,000. The 

ratio of benefits to costs is 1.4 to 1.

The join t planning, construction, operation, and main tenance by the two 

Governments would be through their respective sections of the Intern ationa l 

Boundary and Water Commission, in accordance with the terms of the 1944 

tre aty with Mexico. As agent of the U.S. section of the Commission, the Corps 

of Engineers would perform the design and supervise construction of the work 

in the United States.

Of the t ota l estimated cost of $15,400,000 to the United States, the Council of 

the City of San Diego, Calif., agreed by resolutions to assume the responsibility 

for paymen t of a n estim ated $4,500,000, the final allocations to be based upon 

final costs. This cost sharing is in accord with Federal practices for domestic 

flood control projects.

My colleague, the Mexican Commissioner, advises th at he alread y has author ­

ization of his Government to enter into agreement for the internatio nal project 

and th at his Government is much interested in early undertak ing of this project 

join tly with th e United States.

This completes my general statem ent, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy 

to answer any questions you or the members of th e subcommittee may have.

Mr. Selde n. You m ay proceed.

Mr. Gross. Pa rdon me, Mr. Chairma n, migh t I ask, Mr. Friedk in, 

did you say 7573?

Mr. F ried kin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Gross. Are we considering H.R . 7573, Mr. Ch airma n, or S. 

2540?

Mr. Seld en. We are conside ring bo th. Th ere is no t a grea t dea l 

of difference in the two bills.

Mr. F ri ed ki n. We are in supp ort of the Senate bill, too.

Mr. Gross. All rig ht. Ju st so I know wh at we are wor king on.

AUTHORIZATION TO EN TE R AGREEMENT

Mr. F ried ki n. Th e conte mp lated agr eem ent with Mexico which 

we ask autho riz ati on to enter int o, would provide for a jo in t un de rtak ing by the Un ite d State s and Mexico of the con struction of 8.4 

miles of concrete-lined river cha nne l for the Tijuan a River, 2.7 miles 

of which would be in Mexico and bu ilt and paid for by Mexico; 5.7 

miles would be in the Un ited State s to be bu ilt and paid for by the 

Un ite d Sta tes . The work in the two cou ntries would be coo rdinated 

and supervised by the Interna tio na l B oundary and W ate r Comm ission.
TIJUAN A RIVER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJ EC T 7

The 1944 trea ty with Mexico contemplated such a flood control 

project bu t it was not specifically authorized in the treaty. Therefore, 

we come to you asking authorization to enter into this agreement with 

Mexico.

AREA IN V O LV ED

Referring to the map, the Tijuana project area, as I am sure you 

are familiar, is in the far southwest corner of the United States, the 

far northwest corner of Mexico. The Tijuana River Basin itself is 

situated partly in Mexico and partly in the United States. On this 

map the green shaded areas is the Tijuana River Basin. The total 

basin area is about 1,700 square miles of which 70 percent is in Mexico 

and about 30 percent in the United States.

However, the areas in the United States are higher elevations 

and are capable of about as much flood runoff as in Mexico. It is, 

as you see, an international basin, situated partly in both countries.

T his is a map of the lower portion of the Tijuana River, the boundary line being the red line between the United States and Mexico. To 

the south of the boundary is the city of Tijuana and to the north, 

the cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach. The Tijuana River itself 

is formed by the confluence of two tributaries, one from the United 

States and one from Mexico. Formed at this point [pointing to the 

map] the river flows in a meandering channel in a broad flood plain 

through lands of the city of Tijuana, a distance of about 5 miles to 

the international boundary. At the boundary the river crosses into 

the United States to continue westward through lands of the city of 

San Diego, a distance of about 6 miles, to discharge into the Pacific 

Ocean.

N E E D FO R P R O JE C T

The flow of this river is usually small. Often there is practically 

no flow. But on the other hand, at intervals floodflows occur which 

inundate most and at times all of the valley floor on the Tijuana River 

both in the United States and in Mexico. There are about 5,200 

acres in the United States comprising the valley floor and about 

2,300 acres on the Mexican side of the valley floor in the cities of 

San Diego and Tijuana, respectively. In 1916 there was a flood of 

nearly 100,000 second-feet which inundated the valley on both sides. 

Since 1938 there have been 10 floods which have overflowed the river 

channel and flooded partially or entirely the valley floor.

Mr. Gross. What year?

Mr. Friedkin. 1938. The Corps of Engineers study indicates a 

capability of this watershed to produce a flood of 135,000 second-feet. 

This is about 10 times the average flow of the Potomac River here in 

Washington. This attests to the view of Congressman Van Deerlin 

that this area is subject to seldom but heavy rains.

There can be no extensive urban or commercial development in 

either the valley floor of the United States or in Mexico until there is 

control of this river, except at the risk of great damages. The city 

of San Diego, now with the metropolitan area having a to tal population of about 1 million, is reaching the point where it needs to develop 

the lower T ijuana Valley lands, particularly in connection with the 

border development program.
8 TIJUANA RIVER INT ERN ATIONAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJE CT

On the Mexican side the city of Tijuana has a population of about 

270,000 people. It has grown all over the hills to the east, south, and 

west of the city of Tijuana. This city needs to develop the lands of 

the Tijuana Valley in Mexico. So the interests of the State of California, the city of San Diego, the interests of the State of Baja California, Mexico, and of Tijuana, urge an international flood control 

project to control this river so that the valley floor in both countries 

can be developed.

INT ERNATIO NAL-T YPE PROJECT

On the international need or the need for an international-type 

project, let me go into this for just a moment. For either country to 

develop independently or separately a channel would be more costly 

for th at country and could cause damages to the other country.

Let me illustrate: To construct only a channel for the U.S. part of 

the river, without coordination with Mexico, there would have to be 

a levee built across the boundary line to funnel the waters into the 

United States. This would back waters up into Mexico and could 

cause damages. On the other hand, Mexico, to build a channel only 

in Mexico, separately and independently of the United States, would 

have to build levees along the boundary to protect its land. Furthermore, Mexico would have to provide at the boundary an energy dissipating unit in order tha t the concentrated flows coming out of its 

lined channel would not cause damages in the United States.

So we have a very basic interdependence of the channel in one 

country with the channel of the other. The further point is the need 

for a coordinated project in both countries, since the United States is 

dependent upon the levee works in Mexico, because a break in Mexico 

would result in flooding in the United States. Similarly, Mexico is 

dependent upon the United States, since a break in the left-bank levee 

in this country could cause flooding in the city of Tijuana. Thus, 

there is an important need for coordination and a joint international 

project.

CORPS OF EN GINE ER S REPORT

Soon after the request of the Governor of California, and the 

authorities of the San Diego area for an international project, my 

office called upon the Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army, which is 

the domestic flood control agency in this country, to make a study 

and report on the need, the most feasible plan and justification for a 

flood control project in the United States. The district engineer of 

the U.S. Army Engineer District at Los Angeles reports there is a 

serious problem. There is urgent need for flood control. He finds 

the most feasible plan would be a concrete-lined channel in the United 

States, 5.7 miles in length, extending along the alinement indicated 

on the map, following along the boundary and foothills and extending 

to the ocean.

This channel would have a bottom width of about 230 feet in the 

upstream part and in the lower part 310 feet, with a depth of 20 to 29 

feet. It would have a capacity of 135,000 second-feet to take care 

of the design or maximum flood which may be anticipated.
TIJUANA RIVER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJ EC T 9

BE N E FIT -C O ST RATIO

The district engineer advises that the estimated costs under 1965 

prices amounts to $15,400,000. The annual cost including amortization of the capital investment and operation and maintenance is 

$565,000 per year. The annual benefits the district engineer estimates 

at $765,000, making a favorable benefit to cost ratio of 1.4 to 1.

I mentioned earlier tha t the bill contemplates an agreement with 

Mexico for the joint supervision by the Commission. So far as the 

United States is concerned, the U.S. Section would ask the Corps of 

Engineers to perform the design work and supervise the construction 

in the United States, as the agent for the U.S. Section.

LO CA L PA R T IC IP A T IO N

The city of San Diego, as Mayor Curran well presented, has together with the property owners, fully cooperated in the solution of 

this problem. The city, by resolutions dated May 21, 1964, and Ju ly 

29, 1965, has agreed to share in the costs of this project to the extent 

of a now-estimated $4,500,000.

Mr. Chairman, there is a difference from the earlier reported estimate due to escalation in the estimates from 1963 to 1965.

Mr. Selden. This is an increase; is it not?

Mr. Friedkin. Yes, sir. This is an estimate. The extent and 

how true this increase, we won’t know until we get the final costs. 

There is a definite commitment and full cooperation on the pa rt of the 

city and on the p art of the landowners, for sharing of costs in accord 

with the Federal policies for cost sharing on domestic flood control 

projects.

A G R E E M E N T BY M EX IC O

My colleague, the Commissioner for the Mexican Section of our 

International Boundary and Water Commission, advises tha t he 

already has the authorization of his Government to enter into the 

proposed agreement. He also advises, and I have his confirmation 

just last week, th at the Mexican Government is very much interested 

in early undertaking of this project with the United States as a joint 

project.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, this completes my summary statement. I would be glad to attempt to answer any questions. I 

would like to introduce, if I may, first, Col. Edmund R. Preston, 

whom you introduced earlier. We have had excellent support and 

cooperation and coordination by the Corps of Engineers on this 

project. As I mentioned earlier the technical work was prepared 

by the Corps of Engineers. Colonel Preston does not have a statement but he is available here for your call for any information.

Mr. Selden. Colonel Preston, would you come up and take a 

chair? There may be questions for you also.

Mr. Friedkin. Mr. Carl Bartch does have a statement of the 

Office of Mexican Affairs, Department of State.

Mr. Selden. Before you begin, Mr. Bartch, let us ask Mr. Friedkin 

some questions and then we will move on to your statem ent.
10 TIJUAN A RIV ER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJECT

MEXICAN COSTS

Mr. Friedkin, what is th e estimated cost of the Mexican share of 

this project?

Mr. Friedkin. Around $7 million. They do the part in their 

country. The $15,400,000 figure which I gave you is for the work in 

the United States which is 5.7 miles in length. The work in Mexico 

is 2.7 miles and is to be performed by Mexico.

LOCATION OF NEW CHANNEL

Mr. Selden. I note that a section of this channel is along the 

U.S. side of the boundary line. Is there any reason why it was put on 

our side of the line rather than on the Mexican side of th e line?

Mr. F riedkin. Yes, sir. The present channel of the Tijuana River, 

the natural channel is here, on the U.S. side of the line. We felt 

tha t the new channel should also be in the United States, since the 

natural channel is on the U.S. side. One of the earlier plans was to 

aline the new channel right down the center of the valley, along the 

alinement of the present river channel. This would have split the 

valley. For more economic development and be tter use of the valley 

the channel was put down on one side.

Mr. Selden. I understand. In other words, the United States will 

have access to tha t portion of the valley when the new channel is 

built?

Mr. F riedkin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Gross. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question on that point? 

Is it proposed that San Diego and other interests will build out into 

that valley?

U.S . AREAS AFFECTED

Mr. Friedkin. Yes, sir. These are proposed new developments. 

There is development in the valley now, largely agriculture with some 

residential. There are about 250 homes in the valley. There is the 

Ream Field of the Navy, there is Border Field here, also of the Navy. 

This project will permit more development of the valley. This is 

one of the reasons why the city of San Diego, the landowners are contributing to the cost of this development.

There are two military areas:

(а) Border Field occupies 305 acres, in the Tijuana Valley, 

subject to inundation. Of the total area in this field, 259 acres 

are used by the Navy for communication towers and radar 

screens. The remaining 118 acres are leased to private interests 

for ranching.

(б) Ream Field occupies 196 acres in the valley subject to 

inundation. It is used by the Navy—as an airfield for helicopter 

and training planes. (In addition, this field occupies 425 acres 

outside of the valley.)

The part of these two military installations in the Tijuana Valley 

have an estimated present (1963) value of $1 million and estimated 

damages from the standard project flood on the Tijuana River would 

amount to about $200,000.

There are in addition in the Tijuana Valley 233 acres of land owned 

by local public entities and used for public purposes. These comprise 

the city of Imperial Beach, 57 acres; San Diego School District, 105
TIJ UA NA RIV ER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJ EC T 11

acres; Tijuana Valley Water Co., 33 acres; and the San Ysidro Irrigation District, 38 acres.

M AXIM UM FL OOD CONTR OL

Mr. Gross. Then it is not proposed to hold this basin—this water 

basin as a discharge outlet for floodwaters? You are going to build 

in there-----

Mr. Friedkin. Yes, sir. The purpose of the project is to protect 

the valley floor from flooding; the floodwaters will instead be confined 

and contained in a concrete-lined channel which would permit the 

improvement of this valley land.

Mr. Gross. What I am trying to get at is, if this is approved are 

you going to be able to contain the water th at comes down in this new 

channel and still develop and take up the expansion joint—in other 

words, are you going to have enough expansion joint there when the 

floodwaters do come?

Mr. Friedkin. Yes, sir, Mr. Gross. The channel would be designed to take care of the maximum probable flood of the Tijuana 

River. The design project flood as the corps has determined from its 

study is 135,000 second-feet.

Mr. Gross. That is the trouble in our country in some instances. 

Indu stry builds into a stream, restricts the expansion joint, and Congress has to come along and do something else in order to alleviate 

the narrower channel for the discharge of flood waters.

Mr. Friedkin. May I repeat again, the new channel would be designed to take the full quantity of the floodwaters. With no quantity overflowing the valley outside of the channel. It would contain 

and confine all floodwaters to the channel.

Mr. Gross. How far does the Pacific come up?

Mr. Friedkin. Only a short distance, sir. There is practically no 

tidal inflow up the channel. There is a natural tidal bar across the 

channel mouth. At the end of the new channel there would be a 400- 

foot rock jetty tha t would go out in the surf to help keep the channel 

open.

Mr. Gross. How far up is there water now the year round? Is 

there any water on either side of th at channel t hat you show there?

Mr. Friedkin. You mean at the mouth of the river, sir?

Mr. Gross. At the lower reaches of the river.

Mr. Friedkin. Near the ocean? Practically none. There is a 

natural bar tha t looms across the mouth. There is some swampland 

tha t is close to the ocean and tha t is all.

O W N E R SH IP OF R IV E R CH A N N EL

Mr. Selden. Who will own the property tha t is now in the river 

channel?

Mr. Friedkin. The United States. The city of San Diego will 

acquire the rights-of-way, will acquire these properties from the 

private landowners, donate them to the Federal Government for this 

project. This is the land for the new river channel.

Mr. Selden. No. I asked who will then own the lands that are 

now in the present river channel?

Mr. F riedkin. The private owners will continue to own-----
12 TIJUA NA RIV ER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Mr. Selden. Do the private owners own the river channel?

Mr. F riedkin. Mr. Hahn, in the State of California, what is your 

law?

STATEMENT OF WALTER HAHN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, 

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

Mr. Hahn. The private owners and some governmental interest do 

own the entire present river channel.

Mr. Selden. You mean that the river channels in California are 

owned by private interests?

Mr. H ahn. Tha t is right. This is not tideland properties. This 

is simply a river channel. The underlying fee does vest in the property 

owners in th e area.

Mr. Selden. Then adjacent property owners own the river channel.

Mr. H ahn. Y es, that is right. The river channel has been farmed 

in the past years.

W A T ER U SE

Mr. Roybal. If this is the case, then have you reached any agreement with Mexico as to the use of the water after this is constructed? 

Are we going to have problems with regard to water use?

Mr. Friedkin. I don’t believe so. This is purely a flood control 

project to take care of the floodwaters coming down the river. We do 

have separately an authorization under the tre aty to enter negotiations 

and develop a treaty for division of waters with Mexico. We do 

have this under consideration but this is a separate matter which is 

to be dealt with later.

Mr. Roybal. Supposing the people who now own tha t river 

bottom feel there is not enough water coming in from the Mexican 

side. Will there then be some kind of protest tha t would in effect 

create problems or do you have th at pretty well worked out?

Mr. Friedkin. This is a part of the project I did not present in 

my discussion. At the present time the farmers in this area irrigate 

by pumping from the ground waters. This is the source of their water 

for irrigation. This ground water is now largely recharged by 

overflows of the river at times of flood. With the new concrete-lined 

river channel it will deprive the river of the natural overflow and 

natural recharge. And to compensate for this, the project plan 

provides for a diversion from the new channel near the boundary 

when there is water in the river, up to 30 second-feet, with a spreading 

area for such waters to percolate into the ground or continue down 

the old channel, to percolate into the ground to replace the present 

natural recharge. There should not be any problem. This has been 

worked out with the State of California authorities as well as the 

local authorities by the Corps of Engineers.

RO LE OF CORPS OF E N G IN E E R S

Mr. Gross. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a question.

On what basis is the Corps of Engineers in this project if this is 

owned, privately owned, even the river bed privately owned? It 

apparently is not navigable, so on what basis does the Corps of Engineers get into this?
TIJUANA RIVER INT ERN ATION AL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJECT 13

STATEMENT OF IT . COL. EDMUND R. PRESTON, JR., ASSISTANT 

DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR THE PACIFIC DIVISIONS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

ARMY

Colonel P rest on. We are acting as the agen t of the Inter na tio na l

Bound ary and W ate r Commission. We were r equeste d by them on a 

consulting and a n engineering basis, to assist. Our part ici patio n, thu s 

far, has been in th at role. Th e plan, I think, so far as Mr. Friedk in 

has outlined it, is for the Co rps of Engineers, if the work is au thorized, 

to do the design and the con struction for the Inter natio na l Boundar y 

and Wate r Comm ission. We are only in that role.

Mr. Gross. It seems to me that is an importa nt role.

Colonel P rest on. Yes, sir.

Mr. F rie dk in. May I go back of th at a little bit. Th e Corps of

Enginee rs, to be sure, is th e dom estic flood control agen cy in the 

United Sta tes . Th ere was in the early stag es an autho riz ati on to the 

Cor ps of Eng ineers by the Congress to mak e a flood control stu dy in 

this area. We hav e been merely following up on th at autho riz ati on 

for the stu dy with our own autho rization for stu dy of int ern ational 

rivers. For an inter natio nal flood con trol project.

Mr. Gross. Is n ’t th is an un us ua l situ atio n?

Colonel Preston. We have had seve ral instances of this, sir.

Th ere are not too ma ny situatio ns of this sort.

Mr. G ross. Mr. Chairma n, I have a few oth er questions.

Mr. Seld en. If you do n’t mind, let me finish mine and then we

will go down the line.

B E N E FIT -C O ST RATIO

Colonel, what is the Cor ps of Engineers estim ate of the benefit-tocost ratio?

Colonel Preston. 1.4, sir. Th e same as Mr. Fried kin poin ted out.

Mr. Seld en. Th e reason I asked, if I am no t mis taken, you had 

one rep ort issued in Ma y 1964 showing a 2.1 rati o.

Colonel Preston. I have no such figure, sir. The last estimate 

subm itted to the B oundary Commission was based on the 1963 values 

which showed 1.5 to 1. Based on 1965 values, the figure is 1.4 to 1 

the difference being an esca lation in the charges.

Mr. Fried kin. Mr. Chairma n, there was an earlier rep ort of 1964 

which did show the benefit-cost ratio of 2.1 to 1, of which you spea k.

Mr. Selden. This rep ort was made by the Corps of Engineers, 

was it not?

Mr. F ried kin. Yes sir; however, the re is an addendum to this 

rep ort which is w ith your copy which modifies the earlier estimate.

Mr. Seld en. What mad e th at treme ndous difference in only a 

period of a year?

Colonel P reston. I would like to confer on th at , sir. Actually, 

sir, red uct ion in the benefits was the basis. 1 thi nk the difference 

mig ht be attribut ab le to the stage of pla nning th at was repres ent ed 

by th at earlier figure. Th e curre nt figures based on 1963 and 1965 

values reflect benefits that tot al $765,000 per year at the 1963 and 

1965 levels and charges, or costs, of $508,000, and $565,000. respec ­

tively. These da ta appear to be rea son ably firm. We are, at the

00 316— 66------ 3
14 TIJUANA RIVER INT ERN ATIONA L FLOOD CONTROL PROJE CT

momen t, at a rea son ably firm level. I thi nk the earlier figure of 2.1 

might be tak en as prelim ina ry and not firm.

Mr. Seld en. 1 hav e been dealing with th e Corps of Engineers for 

a long tim e and I have never seen such a l arge chan ge in a benefit-tocost ratio. I was rig ht on this , however. Th e Corps of Engineers 

did show a 2.1 to 1 in 1964. I might also add th at the State of 

Califor nia, only 2 ye ars ago, showed a r ati o of 2.2 to 1. So t here is a 

good deal of variation and I would like to have it firmly sta ted now 

for the record th at the benefit- to-cost rat io is 1.4 to 1.

Inc ide nta lly, the Senate rep ort on S. 2540 shows 1.5 to 1. So we 

hav e been up and down the tra ck on th at one.

Mr. F ried kin. The latest figures are based on 1965 costs and 

benefits.

Mr. Selden. I might say at th at 1.4 to 1 is still a good benefit-tocost ratio. But there is a good deal of difference between 2.1 and 1.4, 

as 1 un derst and the Corps of Engineers estimates.

Mr. Whalley.

Mr. Whalley. Can you tell me how wide t he pre sen t rive r ch annel 

is?

Mr. F ried kin. Tt is only 50 to 100 feet. But at flood times it 

spread s ou t to the width of the valley which average s about 1.3 miles. 

Th e new channel here will hav e a right-o f-w ay of abou t 450 feet.

CONTRIBUTION— CITY AND PRIVATE

Mr. Whall ey. Tt seems the adjac ent prop erty owne rs will gre atly 

benefit from thi s flood control pro jec t. Will they contrib ute an ything?

Mr. F ried kin. Yes, sir; as the ma yor sta ted, they will contr ibu te 

to the cost.

Mr. Whalley. That is in add itio n to wh at San Diego will give?

Mr. Fried kin. It is divided there. Th e cit y of San Diego will contribute all the right-of-way costs, loca tion of bridges, utilities. The 

farm ers in the valley will contr ibute pa rt for the app reciation of land 

valu es and the city of San Diego also pa rt.

Mr. Whall ey. The total of bo th is $4,190,000.

Mr. F ried kin. Yes. To keep the figures str aig ht, this figure is 

also up from $4,190,000 to $4,500,000 and if the re were a furth er 

advance, as the chairman said, as the ma yor said, they would assum e 

them.

Mr. Gross. I am not a cquainted w ith the geogra phy. On this ma p 

T see a boun dary line. T assum e this is the U.S. terri tory, thi s hum p 

th at goes up to the north?

Mr. F rie dk in. The watershe d—is this the same as you hav e before 

you?

Mr. Gross. T think so. Tt isn’t colored here.

Mr. F ried kin. This is t he same.

Mr. Gross. This is U.S. ter ritory?

Mr. F ri ed ki n. Yes, sir. The heavy line on the map is the internatio nal boundary, and th at is Mexican territo ry south of the line.

RESERVOIRS

Mr. Gross. I note two reservoirs up here.

Mr. F ri ed kin. Yes, sir; Bar re tt and Moreno Reservoirs on the------
TIJUANA RIVER INT ERN ATION AL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJECT 15

Mr. Gross. Who built those ?

Mr. F ri ed kin. The city of S an Diego. Th ey are for wa ter supp ly.

Mr. Gross. Do they control the wa ter in the tri bu tarie s to this 

stream ?

Mr. F ried kin. T o the exten t of their capacit y; yes, sir. We hav e 

had spills at bo th the rese rvoirs at tim es of flood.

Mr. Gross. Do th ey c ontr ol all the tri bu tarie s to this?

Mr. F rie dk in. The major pa rt of the tribu tarie s on the U.S. 

side, bu t not all of th em. Similarly t here is a rese rvoir on the Mexican 

side of the basin, at just abou t where I am pointing here, kno wn as 

Rod rigu ez Reservoir, which controls pa rt of the watershe d in Mexico. 

This is only for dom estic use. There is no flood control sto rag e. 

Th ere is ab ou t on e-t hir d of t he en tir e d rainag e basin which is e ntirely 

uncontrolled.

wate rshed

Mr. Gross. Does the Ti juan a River come out of th at hump , 

th at U.S. territo ry up there?

Mr. F ried kin. Th e Ti juan a River is form ed by a ma jor trib ut ar y 

coming out of the hump area and a ma jor trib ut ar y on the Mexican 

side which joins here to form the Ti juan a River.

Mr. G ross. It flows up ou t of Mexico, too?

Mr. Fried kin. Yes sir.

Mr. Gross. T wondered how in the world this riv er came down. 

Tha t is apparen tly north .

Mr. F rie dkin. Th ere are two stream system s here. One coming 

in from Mexico and moving northw estw ard and meeting here (pointing 

to the map ) with the stream sys tem known as Cottonwood from the 

Un ited Sta tes.

TIJUANA RIVER FLOODS

Mr. Gross. The flow from Mexico doesn’t co ntrib ute to floods; 

does it?

Mr. F rie dk in. Yes, sir; it does. Th e Rod riguez Reservoir spilled, 

they had heavy spills in 1938------

Mr. Gr ss. With reservoirs abov e, and below in Mexico, you ca n’t 

control the floodwaters?

Mr. F rie dk in. No. This is only for the dom estic con servation of 

waters. Th ey are no t adequate to han dle floods. Floo ds occu r 

during yea rs of heavy rain fall and at these time s the reservoirs fill 

and spill. Mr. Ha hn , you may wa nt to com men t on this, also.

Mr. H ahn. In answer, 1 think, to your question, Con gressman, the 

two reservoirs und er the jur isd iction of the cit y of San Diego, Moreno 

and Bar re tt—in cidentally , the y are both sizab le reservoirs— to give 

you an example of overflow, Moreno overflowed in 1916, 1917, 1927, 

and 1928; in 1941, 1942, 1943, and 1944. Bar rett overflowed in 

app rox imately the same years. Th ey dc not give full pro tection 

aga inst floodflow in this valley. In fact, w ith 2 years of heavy rain ­

fall, one following the other, they are bovnd to overflow.

A L T E R N A T IV E M ET HOD

Mr. F ried kin. Ma y 1 say furth er, in comp uting the design flood 

require me nt here, the Corps of Eng ineers did, to be sure, tak e into 

account the existing rese rvoirs on the waters hed .
16 TIJU ANA RIVER INTERN ATIONA L FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Mr. Gross. What I am trying to get at is, can’t you exp and the 

rese rvoir system to control floods and furth er insure the wa ter s upp ly 

for San Diego and Tij uana? 1 assum e the y both get wa ter from up 

there.

Mr. F rie dk in. Mr. Gross, this was an alternative which was 

carefully considered. But the cost of either enla rgin g existing reservoirs or p uttin g a dditional reservoirs was mu ch more t ha n the proposed 

pro jec t, and moreover, the reservoir sites are no t ava ilab le to control 

all the flow of the river.

Mr. Gross. Does the Corps of Eng ineers concur th at rese rvoir 

sites are not. availab le in th at area?

Colonel P resto n. Yes; based on the econom ics, sir.

Mr. Seld en. Mr. Whalley.

D E SIG N OF PR O JE C T AND W A T ER FLO W

Mr. Whall ey. How wide is the channel of the new stream ?

Mr. F rie dk in. The bottom wid th varies from 230 to 310 feet.

Mr. Whalley. Will this be straig ht wall or slope wall?

Colonel P reston. Slope wall.

Mr. Whalley. How much faster will the con crete wall sho ot the 

wa ter through than the regula r chan nel?

Mr. F rie dk in. It will be somewhere between 10 and 20 times as 

fast. The water will be at sup er critical velo city. It will be very 

fast.

Mr. Whalley. Will thi s be a sloping wall?

Mr. F ried kin. One on two slopes.

Mr. Whalley. You are going to increase the wid th from 50 to 

100 feet to 230?

Mr. F rie dkin. The present low-flow cha nne l, which carries only a 

tric kle of water, will be increased in width. But the present flood 

channel spread s the entire width of the channel, a mile or more in 

places, and it will be reduced to 230 to 310 feet.

Mr. Whalley. How often does it get th at way?

Mr. F ried kin. The last time the river spr ead over the valley was 

in 1938. However, just this last year we had it spread ing ove r a 

good pa rt of the valley floor—not entirel y, but over a good pa rt.

VALLE Y PR O PE R T Y ---- IR R IG A T IO N

Mr. Gross. What is in this valle y, res ide nti al pro per ty?

Mr. F ried ki n. Mostly now it is farm pro per ties, agricultura l d evelopm ent pro perties . There are about 250 res ide ntial pro perties along 

the margin .

Mr. Gross. Truck farm ing, I tak e it?

Mr. Fri ed kin. Yes, sir.

Mr. G ross. Th at must be irriga ted ?

Mr. Fried kin. Th ey are watere d by pump ing from the ground 

waters. For the replenishment of ground waters special diversion 

is being mad e from the new channe l as 1 described before.

Mr. G ross. I have been tryi i g for a loi g time to get a flood con trol 

project i.i Waterloo, Iow a, a,.d I still ha ve n’t g ot it. Now you fellows 

come in here and ap pa rently move p re tty fast with this deal. I would 

like to see mine go forw ard.
TIJUANA RIVER INTERNATIONAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT 17

We have had some serious floods. We can’t build reservoirs out 

there for the land is too flat.

Mr. Whalley. Why don’t you move to San Diego, Mr. Gross?

Mr. Gross. I guess I will have to do something.

Mr. Selden. Are there any further questions that any members 

would like to ask Mr. Friedkin or Colonel Preston?

If not, then, thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner, and thank 

you Colonel Preston.

We would like now to hear from Mr. Bartch, the Deputy Director, 

Office of Mexican Affairs, Department of State.

STATEMENT OF CARL E. BARTCH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF MEXICAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Bartch. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee, 1 appreciate this opportunity to appear before you. 

The project Commissioner Friedkin has described is the kind of 

project in which the International Boundary and Water Commission 

can be so helpful both to the United States and Mexico. Both 

countries have watched the need for the Tijuana channelization 

project grow over more than a decade.

Each Government could have proceeded independently, with little 

regard for the interests of the other, channelizing tha t part of the 

Tijuana River running through its own territory.

We asked the United States and Mexican Commissioners to consider whether, by acting jointly, the two Governments might resolve 

the international problems that would have been presented to each 

by attempting independent action on an international waterway; 

and whether they might at the same time achieve other advantages 

from joint planning, simultaneous construction, and international 

supervision of operation and maintenance.

Partially as a consequence of measures approved and supported by 

this subcommittee in recent years, our relations with Mexico have 

never been better. New joint projects are already underway at 

various places along the border. Amistad Dam rises on the Rio 

Grande, soon to bring that river under control. A clearing project 

for flood control on the lower Colorado River is practically complete 

and under regular international maintenance.

Similarly, the Government of Mexico has been ready for several 

years to join with the United States in the Tijuana channelization 

project. It has postponed a project of its own so that the two Governments could proceed jointly, if tha t should be the wish of the 

Congress.

There would seem to be no doubt of the advantages of a joint undertaking. We are fortunate in having already in existence, and with 

ample experience, a Commission which, under the trea ty of 1944, can 

engage in such an international project.

The Department of State accordingly recommends enactment of 

the pending bill, which would authorize the U.S. Section of the Commission to undertake the project for the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

M r. Sel de n. Are th er e an y qu es tio ns an y of th e mem be rs wo uld 

like to ask M r. Bar tc h?
18 TIJUANA RIVER INTERN ATIONA L FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

COM M IT M EN T BY M EXIC AN G O V ERN M EN T

Mr. Gross. Yes, I would like to ask Mr. B artch a question. Mr. 

Friedkin spoke of the assurance from the Mexican Government or 

some representative of the Mexican Government tha t they are ready 

to proceed. Do we have anything in writing to tha t effect?

Mr. Bartch. I understand this assurance was given orally rather 

than in writing, was it not, Mr. Friedkin?

Mr. Friedkin. Yes. 1 can give full assurance, although not in 

writing, that the Mexican Commissioner has the authorization of his 

Government to enter into an agreement for this proposed project.

Also 1 have his assurance, his advice, that the Mexican Government 

is very much interested in early starting dates. 1 do not have this in 

writing. However his verbal assurances as well as written have been 

firm.

Mr. Gross. Is this budgeted?

Mr. Friedkin. No, sir; it is not. We cannot of course ask for 

budgeting until we have authorization.

A U TH O RIZ A TIO N OF FU NDS

Mr. Selden. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Friedkin. 1 notice 

both bills provide open-end authorizations. This subcommittee has 

been reluctant in the past to vote open-end authorizations. Would 

there be any objection from the Corps of Engineers or the Boundary 

Commission if we wrote in a specific authorization, a limitation on the 

amount that can be spent but in accordance with your estimate?

Mr. Friedkin. No, Mr. Chairman, with one qualification, if I 

may. With a ceiling figure, and we appreciate your need for such, we 

would need to put in a ceiling figure which would cover costs at the 

time of construction which is estimated for 1969 completion. On 

this basis the Federal cost on this would be $12,600,000. This is 

allowing for escalation from now to 1969.

We could suggest a figure there of $12,600,000 for the total Federal 

cost on this for the committee’s consideration.

FE D E R A L AN D LO CA L CO ST PA R T IC IP A T IO N

Mr. Selden. You feel there will be an increase in that time of 

approximately $2 million?

Mr. Friedkin. Yes, sir; $1.7 million. Present Federal cost is 

estimated $10,900,000, under 1965 costs. We are suggesting a ceiling 

figure of $12.6 million to allow for the escalation to 1969.

Mr. Monagan. What is the local cost estimate?

Mr. Friedkin. The cost is estimated, as of 1965, at $4,500,000.

Mr. Gross. Let me go over this briefly again. That river channel is 

owned by private interests or private and public interests?

Mr. Friedkin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Gross. Owned by public and private interests?

Mr. Friedkin. Yes, sir.
TIJUANA RIVER INT ERN ATION AL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJEC T 19

RIG HTS-O F-W A Y

Mr. Gross. In order to cure this flood situation you want to relocate the river channel. Is Federal taxpayers’ money going to be 

used to acquire the right-of-way for the new channel?

Mr. Friedkin. No, sir, Mr. Gross, The rights-of-way for the new 

channel would be acquired by the local interests, the city of San 

Diego interests.

Mr. Gross. The private landowners who control the present 

channel are not going to donate-----

Mr. F riedkin. Yes, sir; the private landowners will also participate 

in the costs of this project because their lands will be enhanced by 

this project.

Mr. Gross. I would think they would be, and tremendously 

enhanced.

Mr. Friedkin. They will contribute to the cost.

Mr. Gross. This is why it is becoming more difficult by the minute 

to-----

Mr. Friedkin. Their participation is in accord with the Corps of 

Engineers policy for domestic flood control projects.

LA ND A C Q U IS IT IO N

Mr. Gross. What are the land acquisition costs?

Mr. Friedkin. The total is estimated at $2,100,000 for lands, et 

cetera, and the land appreciation cost at $2,400,000. making the total 

local contribution, non-Federal contribution, of $4,500,000 (1965 

estimate).

resettlement costs

Mr. Selden. Will there be any resettlement costs either on the 

Mexican or United States side?

Mr. Friedkin. No, sir; the value paid for the lands, by the city, 

would cover resettlement costs. There are only a few residential 

properties in tha t new river channel location in the United States.

Mr. Selden. Would that be taken care of by local interests and 

not constitute a cost to the Federal Government?

Mr. Friedkin. That is right.

Mr. Selden. What about on the Mexican side?

Mr. Friedkin. On the Mexican side there may be a problem. 

Mexico does have to clear part of its lands for the new channel on its 

side. This the Mexican Government would undertake.

Mr. Selden. They will pay for the entire cost for any resettlement 

on the Mexican side?

Mr. Friedkin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Gross. We are not putting up any money for the Mexican 

work?

Mr. Friedkin. No, sir.

LA ND E N H A N C E M E N T

Mr. Monagan. You used an expression tha t T am not familiar 

with. I think you said “land appreciation.”

Mr. Friedkin. Land enhancement.
20 TIJUANA RIVER INTERN ATIONA L FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Mr. Monagan. In oth er words, the increase in value to the land as 

a res ult of the ins tallation of this facility?

Mr. F ried kin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Monagan. I s this assessed again st the ind ividual landow ners ? 

There is abou t $2 million?

Mr. F ried kin. May 1 ask the Ci ty of San Diego Au thority how 

they are han dling this?

LOCAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

Mr. ITahn . La nd enhan cem ent is a new’ proced ure for our local 

gov ernment also, Mr. Congres sma n.

We have set up an assessment procedure within the fram ewo rk of 

our city ch arter und er which we will be able to assess prop ert y benefited from this impro vem ent and the y will p ay their sha re of the cost. 

Th e city is also propo sing out of its general fund to c ontribute appro xima tely $1 million of the amount. Then the city of Imperial Beach, 

sir, will also pa rticip ate in this because some of the properties within 

the ir corporate limits are also benefited.

Mr. Monagan. As I u nderstood the te stim ony , there was $2,100,000 

for lan d acquisition and would th at come ou t of general reve nues o f the municipalities that were affected?

Mr. H ahn. Yes. Un der our State laws, the State of California 

will also pa rticip ate in this proje ct in connection with the righ t-of - 

way a cquisition. It will be pa rtl y city costs ou t of general fund revenues and pa rtl y from the State of C alifo rnia.

Mr. Monagan. So of the $2 million for lan d acquisition, th at will 

come ou t of general revenues, either municipal or Sta te? Then the 

rem aining 2-million-plus would come as a result of assessments on the 

individ ual tax pay ers who are benefited?

Mr. Hahn . Th at is c orrect.

Mr. Monagan. T o th at exten t, the benefit is being paid for by 

these landowners?

Mr. Hahn. Th at is correct. They, to use these lands, I thi nk 

this comm itte e shou ld realize, will have to do a great deal more work 

once the cha nnel is built. Th ey have ma ny tho usa nds and millions 

of dollars to spend in th at basin to rea lly upgra de the prop erty to 

the point where it can be fully utilized.

cost sharing

Mr. Monagan. Th e local int ere sts are payin g ab ou t 25 percen t 

of the cost?

Mr. F ried kin. Tw ent y-n ine percen t.

Mr. Monagan. The Federal pay ing $12,600,000?

Mr. F ried kin. Yes, sir— the est im ate d 1969 cost.

Mr. Monagan. What is the justifi cation for th at? Has this been 

gone into ?

Mr. Selden. Som ewhat, bu t you ma y wan t to pursue it furth er.

Mr. Monagan. I jus t won dere d as to the justification of this 

division of expense.

Mr. F ried kin. The Feder al flood con trol cos t sha ring policy for 

dom estic pro jec ts is based on equal sha ring by the Federal Government and non -Federal intere sts of the portio n of the firs t cost of the
TIJUANA RIVER INTERNATIONAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT 21

project allocated to appreciation in land value on the basis of the 

relation between land appreciation benefits and total benefits.

Mr. Monagan. The benefits have been calculated according to the 

normal standard-----

Mr. Friedkin. Yes, sir; by the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Monagan. What sort of damage has been involved in these 

floods here? Of what order of magnitude?

Mr. Friedkin. The order of magnitude of damages, with the 

present development in the river, and with the maximum flood of 

record, with the valley inundated from side to side, woidd be about 

$1,300,000, tha t is with the present development.

Mr. Monagan. Is tha t related to a particular flood, or is tha t 

annual?

Mr. Friedkin. This is related to a major flood, as occurred in 

1916, which would inundate the entire valley. With lesser floods, 

it would be much less. There is contemplated there would be improvements in this valley. In fact, there are already plans made 

for extensive improvements in this valley without a flood control 

project. With the present improvements the standard project flood 

would result in damages over $2 million.

Mr. Monagan. What has been the maximum experience in any 

particular flood?

Mr. Friedkin. There were several lives lost in 1916. The maximum flood we have of record was 1916 which approached about 

100,000 cubic feet per second.

Mr. Monagan. I didn’t mean in terms of water, but prop erty 

damage.

Mr. Friedkin. The estimated damage in 1916 was $200,000 with 

the small improvements in the valley at tha t time. The maximum of 

record with today’s improvements would be in the order of around 

2 million dollars.

Mr. Gross. A million dollars a year?

Mr. Friedkin. No, sir; this is with the maximum flood so far tha t 

has been experienced in this area with today’s developments in the 

valley. This has been largely an agricultural area.

Mr. Gross. Over what period of time?

Mr. F riedkin. This is the period of record, 1900 to date.

Mr. Morse. What is the aggregate?

Colonel P reston. I might explain, sir, as another point, the 

economics of this project are evaluated on a 100-year life. The 

average annual flood damages that would be prevented by the proposed 

project, based on its history, is estimated at $335,000 a year over the 

whole period. These are 1965 values. When the project is evaluated, 

the framework, economically, is the 100-year life.

Mr. Gross. Why 100 years? Just as a matter of curiosity.

Colonel P reston. On the normal project—I would say normal in 

the sense tha t the other projects of this sort throughout the country 

are evaluated on that basis, either 50 or 100 years—to make a realistic 

appraisal of the objective which the project is designed to reach, we 

naturally have to choose some timespan. This is in line with the 

method of evaluation of other flood control projects about the United 

States.

Mr. Gross. In tha t damage figure, are you talking about damage 

in Mexico as well as on this side?
22 TIJ UA NA RIVER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJEC T

Mr. F ri ed kin. Only in the Un ite d Sta tes .

Mr. M onagan. Th e reason I asked this is th at I am fam iliar with 

some flood co ntrol projects. Th ere are some in the Na ug atuc k Valley 

in my ow n dis trict, where the cos t of a d am t hat was to cu t down h alf 

of t he prospec tive flood dam age was ab ou t $8 million and the dam age 

would ru n int o the hundred s of millions. So this is qu ite a co ntrast 

betw een th at , which was the dam age done in one pa rti cu lar flood, 

and thi s proposal here where the average annual dam age is $335,000 

and the total cos t of the proje ct is $16 million.

Mr. Selde n. Is n’t this reflected in the benefit-cost rat io?

Mr. F ried kin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Selde n. W ha t was the ben efit-co st rat io on yo ur pro ject?

Mr. M onagan. I don’t recall now.

STANDARD BENEFIT -CO ST RATIO

Mr. M orse. W ha t is the sta nd ar d or acc eptable benefit-to-cost 

rati o?

Colonel P reston. A dollar return ed for a dollar inv ested is the 

minim um th at we nor ma lly consider.

Mr. Gross. If the gen tlema n will yield.

Mr. M onagan. I yield.

Mr. Gross. Th ere is no rec rea tional fac tor and the re is no power 

fac tor in this, is there?

Colonel P reston. T hat is corr ect.

Mr. Gross. Th is is s tri ctly flood control.

Mr. F ried kin. Yes.

land enh anc eme nt factor

Mr. M ors e. N o oth er fac tors exc ept the flood pre vention aspects 

were fed int o the cost ratio? La nd enhancement?

Colonel P rest on. La nd enhancem ent is pro vid ed for. I t is reflected in the cash contr ibu tio n by the local people.

Mr. M orse. I s i t par t of the ben efit-cost r atio?

Mr. F rie dk in. Yes, sir.

Mr. M orse. W ha t would the bene fit-cost rati o be with ou t the la nd 

enhancem ent ingredie nt?

Colonel P rest on. The flood con trol benefits, I can give you this in 

this way , the flood con trol benefits am ou nt to 44 perce nt of the total 

bene fits, and the lan d enhancem ent is the rem aining 56 percen t.

Mr. M orse. W ith ou t the lan d enhance me nt fac tor, the benefitcos t r atio would be 0.7 or less?

Colonel P reston . I t w ould b e in th at m agn itude.

Mr. M ors e. I t is less th an th e sta nd ard.

Mr. Seld en. You take in th e lan d enhance me nt in all pro jects?

Colo nel P reston. We would take into acc ount the lan d enhancemen t ben efit in arriving at a benefit-to-cost ratio.

Mr. M ors e. You said a few mo me nts ago. Colonel, th at you 

req uir ed a ben efit-cost ratio to be 1 to 1, right?

Colonel P reston. I m ay have oversimp lified tha t, sir. Th e benefitto-cos t r atio as calculated for the proj ect as a whole, rep res enting the 

re tu rn on the inv est me nt, normally must be 1 to 1 before we would 

consider it economically ju stified.
TIJUA NA RIV ER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJ EC T 23

Mr. Selden. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Morse. Yes.

Mr. Selden. Aren’t all projects figured on the same basis?

Colonel P reston. Yes, sir.

Mr. Morse. What is the minimum actual benefit-to-cost ratio tha t 

is acceptable excluding all other factors except the flood prevention 

factor for domestic projects?

Colonel P reston. Sir, I may, as I said, have oversimplified my 

answer to the previous question, and it ties into this one. Land 

enhancement is a flood control benefit. The answer to your question 

is still 1 to 1. We don’t normally recommend to Congress or the 

administration the construction of a project less than 1 to 1.

DEFI N IT IO N OF LAND EN HA NC EM EN T

Mr. Morse. What do you mean by “land enhancement”?

Colonel P reston. It is the appreciaiton in the real estate which

comes about directly as a result of the construction of the project. If 

you have for example, in the flood plain shown in blue on the map 

before you, an area which is subject to periodic flooding, you have 

possibly quite a low value on the real estate. If, on the other hand, 

you channelize the water and you produce a protected area where a 

real estate developer can build apartment houses or other developments, you have raised the value of his property. Consequently we 

take tha t into account in the economics of a project of this sort.

CO NT RI BU TION BY PR OPE RT Y OW NERS

Mr. Morse. What proportion of land enhancement value is the 

private owner required to contribute?

Colonel P reston. We have here, sir, equal sharing by the Fedral 

Government and the local interests, non-Federal interests, of th at p art 

of the first cost of the project which is allocated to land enhancement.

The figures tha t Mr. Friedkin has given you for the cash contribution 

of $2,400,000 represents that equal sharing by the Federal Government 

and the non-Federal interests.

Mr. Morse. In other words, if I owned riparian lands here which 

had a value today of $10,000, and their value was to be increased to 

$20,000 by virtue of this project, I would be required to contribute, 

as a private owner, something less than 50 percent and probably 

something less than 25 percent?

Colonel Preston. Sir, the only way I could-----

Mr. Morse. Is tha t accurate?

AP PO RT IO NM EN T OF PR OJE CT COST

Colonel Preston. I think in principle that is accurate. The only 

way I could answer is that we make an assessment, or apportionment 

of a portion of the project cost to a non-Federal entity, in this case the 

city of San Diego, or Imperial Beach. The way they break th at down 

to the local interests is strictly up to them. In this particular case I 

think they have indicated they have fu rther assessed p art of th at cost 

against the individual owners in the area which would, I think, in 

your case amount to what you said.
24 TIJUANA RIV ER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Mr. Friedkin. May I add to this, Mr. Morse?

Mr. Morse. Yes, indeed.

Mr. Friedkin. What you say is right in principle, sir. There are 

two reasons why the local interest only participate to the amount of 

50 percent. One is tha t the local interests have to develop the land 

themselves at their cost. There need to be the streets and utilities 

and other development costs to them. The second reason is tha t a 

part of the benefits of development is much more widespread than 

simply the individual property owner. These are the two reasons— 

the philosophy back of the equal sharing.

Mr. Monagan. I would like to ask something else. I think of this 

flood control program as being one where the Government goes in and 

in cooperation provides dams to prevent damage tha t is anticipated 

because of past experience. That is what has happened in the Northeast. There is an aspect to this as I hear the testimony here, of 

enhancing the value of the land.

FL OO D CO NTR OL AND LA ND E N H A N C E M E N T CO ST S

Can you isolate in the cost the amount tha t is devoted to flood 

control and the proportion tha t is devoted to simply enhancing the 

land which seems to me to be a totally different function?

Colonel P reston. Yes, sir, on the annual benefits basis I indicated 

before, $335,000 a year to damage prevention, based on a hundredyear life.

Mr. Monagan. Tha t is the flood control, the damage.

Colonel P reston. The additional benefit of $430,000 a year, 

representing 56 percent of the benefits, is attributable to the land 

enhancement, giving a total of $765,000 total benefits on an annual 

basis.

Mr. F riedkin. In most Corps of Engineers projects such as you 

speak of, where most of the benefit is in damages, there is no participation by the local interest for the land-enhancement costs.

Mr. Monagan. They acquire the rights-of-way or something like 

that?

requirement for cost sharing

Mr. F riedkin. It is all Federal costs except for the rights-of-way. 

But here, in the case where there is an appreciable land-enhancement 

cost, the requirement is tha t the local interests share in this.

Mr. Monagan. I would think there would be. This is a new concept to me. I wasn’t aware that we were involved in it. I am interested to the degree tha t we are contributing appreciation tha t isn’t 

compensated for.

Colonel P reston. I might add, sir, we have had other projects 

which are not international in character where this same process had 

been followed. This is not limited to this project alone.

Mr. Monagan. The Public Works Committee normally would be 

involved in this.

Colonel P reston. Yes.

Mr. Whalley. Would it be possible to supply for the record the 

present market value of the land as compared with the anticipated 

market value of the land after the project was completed?
TIJUANA RIVER INTERNATIONAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT 25

Mr. F riedkin. Yes.

(The following information was subsequently submitted by Commissioner Friedkin:)

P r e s e n t an d An tic ip a t ed L an d Va lu es— T ij u a n a Vall ey

The estim ated present (1963) value for the total of 5,200 acres of lands and improvements in the Tijuana Valley in the United States amounts to $20,700,000.

Of the total area, 2,700 acres is expected to apprecia te in value by reason of its 

availability for a higher use incident to the flood control improvement. The 

remaining acreage is either already being utilized for a higher use, is in salt marsh 

or tidal lands, or is needed for the new project (338 acres).

The 2,700 acres expected to appreciate in value because of the project has a 

presently (1963) estim ated land value of $2,760 per acre or $7,450,000.

With th e project, the Corps of Engineers estimates th at over the next 25 years 

the 2,700 acres of lands would be put to a higher use, a nd th at a t the end of th at 

period they would have a lan d value of $6,570 per acre or a total value in 1988 of 

about $17,700,000.

M A IN T EN A N C E O F PR O JE C T

Mr. Whalley. Who is going to maintain the project after it is 

completed?

Mr. Friedkin. The United States would through our International 

Boundary and W ater Commission.

Mr. Selden. Our portion of it?

Mr. Friedkin. Yes.

Mr. Whalley. What would be the approximate cost?

Mr. Friedkin. Presently, $17,000 a year.

Mr. Gross. The big end of it is in the United States, isn’t it?

Mr. Friedkin. Yes.

Mr. Gross. How much in Mexico?

Mr. Friedkin. 2.7 miles are in Mexico and 5.7 miles in the United 

States.

FA CT ORS IN LA ND E N H A N C E M E N T

Mr. Gross. Does the Corps of Engineers take into consideration 

in strictly flood control project enhancement, if it can be called 

enhancement, urban renewal or urban development as part of the 

cost-to-benefit ratio?

Colonel P reston. We do, sir.

Mr. Gross. One other question, and I think I will be through. 

I assume there are bridges across the present river channel.

Mr. F riedkin. Yes. There are two bridges tha t have to be built. 

They will have to be replaced at the cost of the local interests.

Mr. Gross. Then we are not going to get a bill later for bridges 

connecting the United States and Mexico?

Mr. Friedkin. No, sir.

domestic projects

Mr. Selden. In connection with the questions tha t have been 

asked, Colonel, I think it is important to emphasize a point, if it is 

correct, by your answer to the following question: In figuring your 

benefit-cost ratio, have you done so on this project just as you have 

done on all domestic projects?

Colonel P reston. Essentially that is correct, sir.

Mr. Selden. Are there any further questions?
26 TIJ UA NA RIV ER INT ERN ATION AL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJEC T

Mr. Gross. “Essentially.” That is qualifying it, Mr. Chairman. 

Is there any unessential element?

Colonel Preston. I only qualified it in the sense that we normally 

would take account of the entire project where here we have only a 

portion of a channel to figure out benefits and costs on.

Mr. Morse. Mr. Chairman, what is the total Mexican cost going 

to be?

Mr. Friedkin. It is estimated around $7 million.

Mr. Selden. Are there any further questions?

If not, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record in connection with these hearings the reports from the executive branch of the 

Government, including Mr. Friedkin’s letter of August 4, 1965, and 

any maps th at the staff may feel will be beneficial. I understand th at 

Congressman Wilson may also have some comment, which will be inserted at this point.

(The documents referred to follow:)

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D.C., March 21, 1966.

Hon. Thomas E . Morgan,

Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear M r. Chairman : The need for quick and positive action to implement t he 

join t construction by the United States and Mexico of an internatio nal flood control pro ject for the Tijuana River has been dram atically emphasized by the heavy 

rain and floods of rec ent months.

In 1961,1 originated a resolution authorizing the expenditure of $65,000 for th e 

Corps of Engineers to conduct a survey on how best to control the Tiju ana River 

flood problem. The House Public Works Committee approved this resolution 

and the stud y ultimately produced the program being proposed.

This project is of gre at importance to the city of San Diego as we are annually 

faced with the th reat of severe damage to property, and hazard to residents. The 

feasibility, construction, operation, and maintenance of the welcomed improvements in the United States are dependent upon the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of similar works in the Tijuan a River in Mexico and it is anticipated 

th at such actio n will be carried out under the supervision of the Int ern ational 

Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, as an internation al 

project.

Mr. Chairman, the need for full congressional support of the Tijuan a flood 

control project by all facts presented is more than adequately justified. I appreciate having this opportu nity to make clear to each member of your distinguished Foreign Affairs Committee th at I give my full backing to this valuable 

flood control plan.

Sincerely,

Bob Wilson, 

Member of Congress.

Department of State, 

Washington, August 26, 1965.

Hon. Thomas E. Morgan,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your lett er of July 27, 1965, requesting 

the De partm ent’s comments on II. R. 7573 en title d “A bill to authorize the conclusion of an agreement for the join t construction by the United States and 

Mexico of an international flood control project for the Tia Juana River in accordance with the provisions of the tre aty of February 3, 1944, with Mexico, a nd for 

other purposes.” The Departme nt and U.S. Commissioner Fried kin on the 

Intern ational Boundary and Water Commission were consulted in the drafting 

of this bill a nd concur in its provisions.
TIJUANA RIV ER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJ EC T 27

The Tijuan a River, formed by the confluence in Mexico of tributaries heading 

in both the United States and Mexico, flows northwesterly through Tijuana, 

Mexico, and the cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach, Calif. It meanders 

over a flood plain up to 2 miles in width. Although the river is dry for long 

periods, even small floods inunda te most of its valley in bot h countries. It is 

capable of discharging high floods up to 135,000 cubic feet per second. This is 

more than 10 times the average flow of the Potomac at Washington. Until the 

river is controlled, there can be no urba n development in the valley lands in any 

of the cities thro ugh which it flows, except at the risk of serious flood damages.

For control of the river on its side, Mexico has definite plans and has in fac t 

started channelization to provide a narrow concrete-lined floodway extending 

2.7 miles to the boundary . Work at the moment is suspended so tha t construction can be coordinated with the plans being made in the United States for an 

inte rnation al project. The cities of San Diego and Imperial Beach are similarly 

desirous of developing the ir parts of the Tijuan a Valley for residential and commercial purposes, and of including parks and recreational areas for improvem ent 

of th is border area. The opportune time for control of the river would appear to 

be now when design, construction, and operation and main tenance can be fully 

coordinated between the two Governm ents.

The Corps of Engineers has prepared a plan which it recommends for control 

of the Tijuana River in the United States. The total first cost is estim ated to 

amoun t to $14,540,000. The Corps finds tha t the p roject would be economically 

justified with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5:1, provided the project is fully coordinated 

with the project in Mexico. U.S. Commissioner Fried kin concurs in the plan, 

and believes th at the Mexican Government would agree to a joint project along 

the lines proposed. A copy of his letter supporting the project and describing 

it in some detail is enclosed.

By resolutions dated May 21, 1964, a nd July 29, 1965, the city of San Diego, 

Calif, has agreed to share in the cost of the U.S. pa rt of the project in accord 

with the Federal policy for domestic flood control projects. The city’s share 

will am ount to $4,190,000 or 29 percent of the total first cost of the project.

By enactment of H.R . 7573 the Congress would authorize the U.S. Commissioner to conclude with the Mexican Commissioner an agreement for the two 

Governments to construct works subs tantially like those described in Commissioner Friedkin’s “R eport on an Inte rna tional Flood Control Project for the 

Tijuana Basin ,” submitted with his enclosed letter. The report of the Corps 

of Engineers dated May 1, 1964, and addendum dated July 9, 1965, are incorporated in the Commissioner’s report.

Enactment of the bill would furth er authorize construction jo intly with Mexico 

of th e works agreed upon and authorize appropriations to carry out th e U.S. p art 

of the work. As you know, the Senate’s advice and consent to ratification of 

the treaty of 1944 with Mexico s tipulated th at no commitm ent for works to be 

built by the United States, other tha n those specifically provided for in the 

treaty, should be made without the prior approval of the Congress. The Departm ent is accordingly following the typical procedure for the authorization of 

an Internatio nal Boundary and Water Commission project not authorized 

specifically by tre aty . Once agreement is reached with Mexico, the Departme nt 

of State would requ est funds to proceed with construction of the works in the 

United States provided for in the agreem ent. The contemplated agreement 

with Mexico would provide th at each Government pay the cost of the works in 

its territory.

The Commissioner’s recommendations appear to be well-founded with respect 

to both the need for flood control in the valley of this inte rnational river, and the 

desirability of an international project. The Department recommends enactment of the bill.

H.R . 7573 uses the name “Tia Juana River” throughout. Since the tre aty of 

1944 with Mexico adopted the Mexican name “T ijuana River” in both the 

English and Spanish texts, the bill might be amended to conform to this usage.

The Bureau of the Budget advises th at from the standpo int of the adm inistration’s program there is no objection to the submission of this project.

Sincerely yours,

Douglas MacArthur II,

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

(For the Secretary of S tate).
28 TIJUA NA RIVER INT ERN ATION AL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJEC T

I n ter n a tio n a l B oundary an d W ate r C o m m is si o n,

U n it ed Sta tes an d M e x ic o ,

El Pas o, Tex., Aug us t 4, 1965.

H on . D ea n R u s k ,

Sec reta ry of S tate,

Wa shing ton , D.C .

D ea r M r. Se c r e t a r y : I su bm it he re w ith fo r yo ur rev iew , an d su bje ct to 

yo ur ap pr ov al , fo r tran sm ission to th e Co ng res s, my re port reco m men di ng U.S. 

par ticip ati on w ith Me xico i n a jo in t i nte rn ati onal p ro je ct to pro vi de im pr ov em en ts 

fo r floo d co nt ro l in th e T ijuan a R iv er Va lle y, in Califo rnia, an d B aj a Califo rnia. 

Thi s re port wa s pre pa re d un de r au th o ri ty of Pu blic La w 286, 74 th Co ng res s, 

in ac co rd an ce w ith th e 1944 w at er tr e a ty w ith Me xic o, an d in pu rs ua nc e of th e 

prov isions of M in ute No . 182 of th e In te rn ati o n al Bou nd ar y an d W at er Co mmi ssi on . T he re port is in resp on se to a re so lu tion by th e U.S. in te re st s in th e 

T ij uana Va lley, en do rsed by th e G ov er no r of Califo rnia.

The T ij uana Riv er ha s its so ur ce part ly in th e United S ta te s an d part ly in 

Me xico. I t is fo rm ed by th e co nfluence of tw o tr ib uta ri es in Me xic o, flows 

nort hw es tw ar d 2.7 miles th ro ugh th e ci ty of T ijuan a, Baja Califor ni a to th e 

in te rn ati onal bo un dar y, crosse s th e bounda ry in to th e U ni te d Sta te s, an d continue s w es tw ar d th ro ugh land s in th e citie s of Sa n Diego and Im per ia l Be ach, 

Calif. , a di st an ce of about 6 mi les to disc ha rg e in to th e Pacific Oc ean. Th e 

T ij uana R iv er is th er ef or e in te rn ati onal in ch ar ac te r.

The rive r mea nd er s in a flood pl ai n 1 to 2 miles wide. The re is li ttle or no 

flow in th e rive r fo r lon g pe rio ds , b u t ev en sm al l floods in undat e m os t of its flood 

pl ai n in both co un tries. I t is ca pa bl e of di sc ha rg ing high floo ds up to 135,000 

cu bic fe et pe r seco nd . N ei th er countr y ca n fu lly de ve lop i ts lan ds a long the riv er 

u n ti l flo od -con tro l works ar e in stal le d. E ac h is dep en de nt up on floo d pr ot ec tive 

works co nst ru ct ed in th e oth er countr y. For th es e reason s, auth ori ties an d 

in te re st s in both co un tries re ga rd th e pr ob lem of co nt ro l of its floods as a m att er 

fo r in te rn ati onal ac tio n. The y prop os e reso lu tio n of th e pr ob le m by a jo in t 

in te rn ati onal floo d co nt ro l pro je ct to as su re opt im um co or di na tion in th e desig n, 

co ns truc tion , an d ope ra tion of wor ks in th e tw o co un tries, to secu re max im um 

feas ible be ne fit s fo r th e in te re st s in ea ch countr y. Und er th e co nt em pl at ed , 

ag re em en t w ith Me xic o, ea ch G ov er nm en t wo uld pay th e co st of co nst ru ct io n 

op er at io n, and m ai nt en an ce of works in its count ry .

A ut ho rities of th e cities of Sa n Diego an d Im pe rial Be ach, an d of th e S ta te 

of Califo rnia urge ea rly co ns truc tion of flood pr ot ec tive wo rks to en ab le un de rta kin g of re si de nt ia l an d co mmercial im pr ov em en ts, an d an ex tens ive bo rd er 

im pr ov em en t pla n for cu ltura l an d re cr ea tiona l de ve lopm en ts in th e T ijuan a 

Va lley in th is co un try. Simila rly , Mex ican au th ori ties urge ea rly co ns truc tion 

of flo od -con tro l wo rks in th ei r co un tr y to en ab le pl an ned bo rd er im pr ov em en ts 

in th ei r ci ty of Tijua na . Be cause of th e ur ge nc y, Me xic o ha s in fa ct st art ed 

ch an ne liza tion wo rks in its co untry as a do mes tic pr oje ct , b u t work is su sp en de d 

w ith t he v iew t o co or di na tio n of de sign a nd c on st ru ct io n w ith wo rks in th e U ni te d 

Sta te s as an in te rn ati onal pr oj ec t.

For co nt ro l of th e p a rt of th e T ij uana River in th e U ni te d Sta te s, th e dis tric t 

•engine er, U.S. Arm y Eng inee r D is tr ic t, Los An geles, mad e a su rv ey an d re port 

date d M ay 1, 1964, w ith ad de nd um dat ed Ju ly 9, 1965, which is at ta ched to 

an d form s a p a rt of my enclo sed re port . T he dis tr ic t en gine er finds th a t flood 

co nt ro l im pr ov em en ts ar e ne ed ed in th e p a rt of th e T ijuan a River Vall ey in th e 

U ni te d Sta te s, ar e en gine eringly fea sib le, an d econ om icall y ju stifi ed in co nn ec tio n 

w ith sim ila r floo d co nt ro l im pr ov em en ts to be co nst ru ct ed by Me xic o in its 

te rr it ory . H e st ate s th a t co ns truc tion , op er at io n an d m ai nt en an ce of th e 

im pr ov em en ts in th e tw o co un tries sh ou ld be fu lly co or di na te d un de r a sin gle 

in te rn ati onal pr oj ec t. He reco mmen ds th a t fro m th e te rm in us of th e Mexica n 

ch an ne l a t th e inte rn at io nal b ou nd ar y, th er e be c on st ru ct ed a co nc re te t ra pe zo id al 

ch an ne l 5.5 miles in le ng th to th e Pacific Oc ean. Th is ch an ne l wo uld con fine 

th e floo d w at er s to a na rrow w at er w ay , an d th u s en ab le de ve lo pm en t of th e l an ds 

in the m aj or p a rt of t he flo od p lain. The e st im at ed fi rst c os t w ou ld be 814,540,000 , 

of wh ich $12 ,60 0,0 00 wo uld be for co ns truc tion an d $1,940 ,000 for land s an d 

re lo ca tio ns .

The d is tr ic t en gine er r ep ort s th a t th e a ve ra ge an nu al be nefits from c on stru ct io n 

of th e pr op os ed T ij uana Ri ve r ch an ne l im pr ov em en ts am ount to $765,000, of 

of which $335,00 0 wo uld ac crue fro m floo d da mag es pr ev en te d, an d $43 0,00 0 

wo uld ac cr ue from increa se d utiliza tion of la nd of which 75 pe rc en t wo uld ac crue 

to loc al p ri v ate land ow ne rs. The annual ch arge s, a t th e in te re st ra te of 3%
TIJUANA RIVER INTERNATIONAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT 29

perc ent prescribed for such Federal projects, amount to $508,000. The rati o 

of benefits to cost is 1.5:1.

The district engineer also advises th at in accordance with the Federal policy 

for domestic flood control projects, the local interests should (1) contribute the 

total costs of necessary lands and relocations of public facilities, estim ated to 

amount to $1,940,000, and (2) contribute 17.8 percent of the construction cost, 

presently estim ated to amount to $2,250,000, because the project would resu lt 

in large land value appreciation to local private owners. The total estim ated 

local contribution would therefore amount to $4,190,000. The remaining estimated Federal cost would be $10,350,000.

I concur in the findings of the district engineer.

The city of San Diego, Calif., by Resolution No. 180058, dated May 1, 1964, 

agreed to assume t he costs estimated to amount to $1,940,000 for necessary lands 

and relocations in the United States; and by Resolution No. 184420, dated 

July 29, 1965, the city agreed to assume 17.8 percent of th e construction cost of 

the part of the Tijuan a River flood control project in this country, presently 

estim ated at $2,250,000, with the final amoun t to be based upon actu al costs. 

Copies of the resolutions are contained in th e enclosed report as exhibits D and E.

Congressman Van Deerlin introduced in the House of Representatives, on 

April 22, 1965, H.R . 7573:

“To authorize the conclusion of an agreement for the joint construction by 

the United States and Mexico of an inte rnational flood control project for the 

Tia Juana River in accordance with the provisions of the Tre aty of February 3, 

1944, w ith Mexico, a nd for other purposes.”

I recommend th at the Departme nt support enactm ent of this legislation, and 

subm it the enclosed “Re port of an Intern ationa l Flood Control Project, Tijuan a 

River Basin in California and B aja California,” to the Congress for its consideration in connection with t ha t proposed legislation.

Respectfully submitted.

J. F. Friedkin, Commissioner. Enclosures.1

U.S. Department of the I nterior,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, D.C., February 23, 1966. Hon. Thomas E. Morgan,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear M r. Morgan: This responds to your request for the views of this De partment on H.R. 7573, a bill “To authorize the conclusion of a n agreem ent for the 

join t construction by the United States and Mexico of an international flood control project for the Tia Juana River in accordance with the provisions of the tre aty 

of Feb ruary 3, 1944, with Mexico, and for other purposes.”

We have no objection to enactment of this legislation.

The bill authorizes the Secretary of State, actin g through the Int ern ationa l 

Boundary and Wate r Commission, to conclude an agreement for the joint construction , operation, and maintenance of an international flood control project of 

the Tia Juana River. Following the conclusion of such an agreement the U.S. 

Commissioner is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain the U.S. portion 

of the project and the bill authorizes appropriation for th at purpose. The bill 

prohibits expenditures for construction on any land, site, or easement except 

such as has been acquired by donation upon approval of title by the Attorney 

General.

The plan for the project was formulated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. It 

envisions the improvement of the channel of the Tia Juana River in bo th countries 

by a coordinated plan which would portect the extensive flood plains of the river 

and permit their developm ent for residential, industrial, a nd recreational purposes

Enactment of this legislation would not disadvantageously affect any project or 

program in existence or a ntic ipated by this Dep artm ent.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised t ha t there is no objectio n to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the adm inistratio n’s program.

Sincerely yours,

Kenneth II olum, 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

1

 Retained in committee file.
30 TIJUAN A RIV ER INT ERNATIO NAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJEC T

Office of the Deputy Attorney General,

Washington, D.C., February 21, 1966.

Hon. Thomas E. Morgan,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request for the views of this 

Departme nt concerning H .R. 7573, a bill “To authorize the conclusion of an agreement for the join t construction by the United States and Mexico of a n inte rna ­

tional flood control project for the Tia Juana River in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of February 3, 1944, w ith Mexico, and for other purposes.”

The bill would authorize the Secretary of State, acting through the U.S. Commissioner for the Internatio nal Boundary and Water Commission, to conclude 

an agreement with Mexican officials for the joint construction and operation by 

the United States and Mexico of an internatio nal flood control project for the 

Tia Juana River. This would implement the February 3, 1944, Treaty between 

the United States and Mexico, 59 Sta t. 1219. No authorized appropriation s are 

to be expended for construction, except on land acquired by donation and as to 

which title has been approved by the Attorney General.

The bill would only affect this Department in t ha t we would be called upon to 

approve title to the donated land. We have no objection to performing this 

service.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised th at there is no objection to the submission of th is report from the standp oint of th e adm inistration’s program. 

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark,

Deputy Attorney General.

The General Counsel of the Treasury,

Washington, D.C., February 11, 1966.

Hon. T homas E . Morgan,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Reference is made to your request for the views of this 

Depar tment on H.R . 7573, to auth orize the conclusion of an agreement for the 

joint construction by the United States and Mexico of an inte rna tional flood 

control project for the Tia Juana River in accordance with the provisions of the 

tre aty of F ebruary 3, 1944, with Mexico, and for other purposes.

The proposed legislation would auth orize th e Secretary of S tate , acting through 

the U.S. Commissioner, Intern ational Boundary and Water Commission, United 

States and Mexico, to conclude with the appropriate officials of the Government 

of Mexico, an agreement for the join t construction, operation , and maintenance 

by the United States and Mexico, in accordance w ith the provisions of the tre aty 

of February 3, 1944, with Mexico, of an interna tional flood control project for the 

Tia Juana River.

The Treasury Departme nt has no comm ent to make on the proposed legislation.

The Department was advised by the Bureau of the Budget th at there was no 

objection from the standpoint of the adm inistratio n’s program to the submission 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations of an identical rep ort on S. 2540, an 

iden tical bill.

Sincerely yours,

Fred B. Smith,

Acting General Counsel.

Mr. Selden. If there are no further questions, the hearing is 

concluded.

I would like to request tha t the members stay for a few minutes to 

discuss the setting of a time for further consideration of this legislation.

I want to thank all the witnesses who appeared this morning. 

The committee will now recess for a few minutes while the witnesses 

leave.

(At 11:30 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned.)
A P P E N D I X

Resolution No. 180058 op the City of San Diego, Calif.

Whereas, the Secretary of State is negotiatin g with the Mexican Governm ent 

for joint participation in the construction, operation, and main tenance of flood 

control facilities on the Tia Juana River from within Mexico to th e Pacific Ocean; 

and

Whereas it is of great importance to the city of San Diego th at steps be tak en 

as soon as possible to provide Tia Jua na River flood control facilities within the 

city of San Diego in order to eliminate the threat of severe damage to pro per ty 

and haza rd to residents of the sou th San Diego area; and

Whereas it is antic ipated tha t the Tia Jua na River flood control proje ct will be 

approved by Congress in 1964 and the Internatio nal Boundary and Water 

Commission will include this project in its 1965-66 budg et; and

Whereas the Corps of Army Engineers has estimated the tota l cost of the 

flood control facilities to be con structed within the United States to be $14,540,000, 

of which the sum of $12,600,000 is proposed to be borne by the Federal 

Government; and

Whereas it is proposed th at the city of San Diego shall assume the following 

obligations and responsibilities in connection with said project:

1. Provide withou t cost to the United States all land, easements, and rightsof-way necessary for construction and operation of th e project;

2. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the constru ction and operation of the project;

3. Make any alterations to existing improvements, other than railroads 

or improvements constructed and maintain ed by the United States, which 

may be required becuase of the construction works;

4. Prevent encroachments on the flood channel which would reduce its 

design capacities; and

5. Take steps to prevent encroachment upon existing defined waterways 

tir bu tary to the project, by zoning or other means such as enlargement or 

other modification of the existing waterway facilities to prevent the minor 

flood problems on these trib utary waterways from developing into problem s 

of serious proportions; and

Whereas the cost of fulfilling said obligations a nd responsibilities to be assumed 

by the city is estimated at $1,940,000, as more specifically set forth as follows:

Rights of way______________________________________________ $1, 220, 000

Road a nd bridge relocations__________________________________ 575, 000

Utility relocations__________________________________________ 25, 000

W’ater spreading system (ground water recharging)______________ 120, 000

To tal _____ ___ _______ _________________________ ____ 1,940,000

and

Whereas upon completion of each phase of the work it is expected th at the 

State will reimburse the city for the city’s expenditures: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Council of the City of San Diego, Th at the inten t of th e Council 

in the premises be, and it is hereby declared as follows:

Th at the city of San Diego will partic ipate in th e Tia Juana River flood control 

project to the extent hereinabove set forth, and th at approxim ately $1 million in 

capital outlay funds will be included in the city’s budget for 1965-66 to act as a 

revolving fund from which the city may advance such am ounts as may be required 

to meet the non-Federal obligations.

Presented b y :------------------ .

Approved: Edward T. Butler, City Attorney.

B y ------------------ .

31
32 TIJUANA RIVER INT ERN ATION AL FLOOD CONTROL PROJE CT

Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of San Diego on May 21, 1964, 

by the following vote:

Yeas: Councilmen Cobb, de Kirby, Scheidle, Hitch, Hom, Walsh, Mayor 

Curran.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Authenticated by:

Frank E. Curran,

Mayor of the City of San Diego, Calif.

Phillip Acker,

City Clerk of the City of San Diego, Calif.

[seal] By Ruth Klauer, Deputy.

I hereby certify th at the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of 

Resolution No. 180058 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of San 

Diego, Calif., May 21, 1964.

Phillip Acker,

City Clerk of the City of San Diego, Calif.

[seal] By Ruth Klauer, Deputy.

Resolution No. 184420

Whereas, pursuant to the request of the city of San Diego and other interests 

in the State of California, the U.S. Section of the Internatio nal Boundary and 

Water Commission, United States and Mexico, and the Corps of Engineers, Los 

Angeles District, have developed an engineeringly feasible and economically 

justified project for flood control improvements in the Tijuana River Basin within 

the city of San Diego as described and recommended in th e report by the District 

Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif., dated May 1, 1964; 

and

Whereas it is of great importance to the city th at steps be taken as soon as 

possible to provide Tijuana River flood control improvements within the city of 

San Diego in order to eliminate the thr eat of severe damage to property and 

hazard to residents of the South San Diego area; and

Whereas the feasibility, construction, operation, and maintenance of the 

recommended improvements in the United States are dependent upon the construction, operation, and maintenance of similar works in the Tijuana River in 

Mexico, and it is an ticipate d th at such construction, operation, and main tenance 

will be carried out under the supervision of the Internation al Boundary and Water 

Commission, United States and Mexico, as an international project; and

Whereas Congressman Van Deerlin has introduced in th e House of Representatives II.R . 7573, “To authorize the conclusion of an agreement for the joint construction by the United States and Mexico of an inte rnational flood control 

project for the Tijuana River in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of 

February 3, 1944, with Mexico, and for other purposes; and

Whereas the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, has determined that the benefits 

of the flood control improvements are more tha n sufficient to justify the project 

costs, th at a large percentage of such benefits is of special nature; and

Whereas the benefits from flood damages prevented and those of special nature 

accrue predominantly to lands within the city of San Diego; and

Whereas the benefits of special nature are of such magnitude as to require a 

contribution from local interests toward the cost of construction of the project 

in accord w ith domestic procedures of agencies of the U.S. Government; and

Whereas the amount of the required local contribution toward the cost of 

construction of the project has been determ ined by the Corps of Engineers to be 

17.8 percent of the construction cost presently estim ated at $2,250,000, the final 

amount of contribution to be based upon actual costs; and

Whereas it is understood th at this contribution of 17.8 percent (presently estimated as $2,250,000, the final amount to be based on actual costs) is in addition 

to the obligations a nd responsibilities stated and assumed by the city in its Resolution No. 180058 adopted May 21, 1964: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Council of the City of San Diego, as follows:

Th at the city of San Diego agrees to assume responsibility for the required 

contribution to the Federal Government of 17.8 percent of the cost of construction of the recommended Tijuan a flood control improvements. The contribution presently estim ated at $2,250,000 (the final amount of contribution to be
TIJUANA RIVER INT ERN ATIONAL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJEC T 33

determined after actual costs have been determined) will be paid as determined 

by the city, either in a lump sum prior to commencement of c onstruction or in 

installments prior to commencement of pertin ent work items, in accordance with 

construction schedules as approved by the U.S. commissioner.

Presented by:

Approved:

Edward T. Butler,

City Attorney.

By James S. Milch,

Deputy.

Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of San Diego on July 29, 1965’ 

by the following vote:

Yeas: Councilmen Cobb, de Kirby, Scheidle, Hom, Walsh.

Nays: None.

Absent: Councilman Hitch.

Authenticated by:

Frank E. Curran,

Mayor of the City of San Diego, Calif.

Phillip Acker,

City Clerk of the City of San Diego, Calif.

[seal] By Ruth E. Klauer,

Deputy.

I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true , and correct copy 

of Resolution No. 184420 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of San 

Diego, Calif., July 29, 1965.

Phillip Acker,

City Clerk of the City of San Diego, Calif.

[seal] By Elfa F. Hamel,

Deputy.

County of San Diego, Calif., Resolution No. 28, Re Support of Tia J uana

River F lood Control Project

On motion of Supervisor Gibson, seconded by Supervisor Cozens, the following 

resolution is adopted:

Whereas there exists an urgent and prese nt need for the design and construction 

of a flood control channel in the Tia Ju ana River area of the County of San Diego, 

Sta te of California, and the Republic of Mexico; and

Whereas all of such area lying within the County of San Diego is within the 

corporate limits of the city of San Diego and said city is the local sponsoring 

agency for such project; and

Whereas the city of San Diego acting as such local sponsoring agency is presently 

seeking to obtain Federal and State funds to further accomplish the design and 

construction of such flood control channel; and

W'hereas it is to the best interests of not only the United States of America and 

the Republic of Mexico, b ut to the county of San Diego, S tate of California, and 

the inhabitants thereof, th at such flood control channel in the Tia Jua na River 

flood plain be constructed: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, Th at the County of San Diego hereby declares its sup port for such 

project and endorses to the fullest extent the efforts of th e city of San Diego acting 

as the local sponsoring agency to secure Federal and State funds necessary for the 

Tia Jua na River flood control project.

Passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, 

State of California, this 22d day of March 1966 by the following vote:

Ayes: Supervisors Gibson, Boney, Dent, Austin, and Cozens.

Noes: Supervisors. None.

Absent. Supervisors. None.

State of California,

County of San Diego, ss:

I Helen Kleckner, clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, 

State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with 

the original resolution passed and adopted by said board, at a regular meeting 

thereof, at the time and by the vote therein stated, which original resolution is
34 TIJUA NA RIV ER INT ERN ATION AL FLOOD CONTROL PR OJ EC T

now on file in my office; th at the same contains a full, true, and correct transc ript 

therefrom and of the whole thereof.

Witness my han d and the seal of said board of supervisors, this 22d day of 

March 1966.

Helen Kleckner,

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

[seal] By Florinda Clark,

Dep uty.

o

. ; ' : i: ■ ■ '

■■■ . •; ■

3 . ’ >

'.M T

• u C

i l l . ;: • ’ »O O ? ; ; i i 

.*... ■ • •;

• 4

 • • : ;

b •

.-V.-y

■ ■■ ■ .1

y . . * to *? .‘ K>

. » . 'r . A • .

.: I P ■ " b ’. . ; ;

. ’U . i; . • ■ . ■ i u - •. ■■ ■ ■ ■■ •. . • ■

-. i t

• .1

: . -J-' ! ■ • ■ • • .i

• .

)TU tfif T " I’.') '. ’

■ i f ! - •:

’ ?!'■ . r r

i p v ■ :

t ; -pj . . ■ ! • . -.. p .m

■ ( A

A 1 '■ ; i ’.! ■ ' t H

J . .. : " i

i i i : ? ’ ■ » : .i.i '; f . ■ ■ - • ?• ••• «.! h i •!■ , Ml.-t .. .! !

,1111! . .'M i.! . • ‘ O ■ A M, . .’Ml'. , ' •. !•■!

• M ii ' l l . i ~1 ■v; r . ' • / •;> “ d .i

: u - i i : . . ' . f'. : . J