[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 15 (Monday, February 5, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E164-E165]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CONGRESS SHOULD VOTE ``NO'' ON THE AUBURN DAM

                                 ______


                          HON. THOMAS E. PETRI

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 1, 1996

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to prohibit the 
use of Federal funds to pay for the construction of a dam on the North 
Fork of the American River at Auburn, CA. In 1992, I led the successful 
bipartisan effort to defeat the authorization of the $700,000,000 
Auburn Dam--potentially the most expensive dam project in U.S. history. 
However, this project has been resurrected. I understand that the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers is poised to seek Congressional authority and 
funding once again for another Auburn Dam project--this time, for a 
larger, more expensive version of the dam that we defeated on the House 
floor in 1992. Furthermore, I understand that the Federal Bureau of 
Reclamation is now also considering dam construction proposals.
  This project has been opposed and rejected time and time again in 
recent history. Back in 1965, it was authorized as a multipurpose 
project, mainly for the purpose of farm irrigation. In 1975, after 
about $200 million had been spent on site preparation and other 
separate features, construction was halted because of concerns that the 
dam might trigger seismic activity. In 1979, the Department of the 
Interior concluded that seismic activity in the earthquake faults 
located under the proposed dam site might jeopardize the structural 
integrity of the dam, the failure of which could devastate the 
Sacramento metropolitan area.
  In 1980, the dam was redesigned, but the project never moved forward 
because of the advent of Federal water program cost sharing reforms 
under the Reagan administration. Under these reforms, traditional 
beneficiaries of Auburn Dam were no longer interested in advancing the 
project if they were to be partly responsible for its financing. 
Realizing that the multipurpose dam proposal was doomed, in 1992 
proponents found a new reason for the dam to live: flood control. But 
the evidence against a dam project hadn't changed, and the House 
rejected funding authority for the project again on September 23, 1992.
  I am introducing this legislation today to once again deliver a 
strong message to my fellow Members of Congress, the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation: 

[[Page E165]]
Financial constraints, environmental concerns, and the availability of 
less expensive, less environmentally intrusive alternatives led the 
House to reject previous Auburn Dam proposals--and they will do so 
again if the issue is brought before Congress. Every time this proposal 
has been reincarnated, its estimated costs have risen dramatically. 
This time, the price tag has ballooned to just under $1 billion. At a 
time when the Congress is grappling with the question of exactly how to 
balance the Federal budget and desperately seeking solutions on how the 
deal with our $5 trillion public debt, how can the Congress possibly 
justify the unnecessary expenditure of such a gross amount of money?
  It is not necessary to build a dam at Auburn in order to protect the 
California Central Valley community and the city of Sacramento from 
flooding in the event of a storm the size of any which have previously 
struck. In order to justify the latest proposal, proponents claim that 
the dam is needed to protect the region from storms that are far larger 
than the greatest flood that may reasonably be expected on the American 
River. Fortunately, however, the Corps of Engineers and regional flood 
control authorities have identified much less expensive alternatives 
which will significantly improve the performance of Sacramento's flood 
control system. And it is possible that these alternatives could be 
paid for by the local community without any Federal funding--or at 
least without the majority of project costs being borne by Federal 
taxpayers.

  In order to build the latest Auburn Dam, project supporters expect 
U.S. taxpayers to bear 75 percent of its approximate cost of $1 
billion. I feel strongly that the Federal civil works program is not an 
entitlement program, and that it certainly should not be expected to 
bear this kind of burden in the case of a regional water project. Those 
who know flood control concur with this assessment. In fact, the 
National Academy of Engineering released a blue ribbon report on the 
American River flood control project which found that, since the 
project was without widespread benefits and located in an area with 
substantial financial resources, there was no Federal interest in 
additional flood control work on the American River.
  But cost is far from the only reason why I am introducing this bill 
today. A few months ago, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 
declared an Auburn Dam to be environmentally unacceptable. Each year, 
about half a million people visit the American River canyons that would 
be inundated by such a dam, and many of them strongly oppose actions by 
their government to take this resource away from them. Up to 39 miles 
of pristine canyon habitat would be flooded by a dam built according to 
the latest proposal, robbing wildlife of precious habitat. Citizens and 
editorial boards throughout California have denounced the dam in both 
its past and present incarnations.
  This dam was stopped in the seventies because of concerns about 
seismic safety. It never moved forward during the eighties because of 
President Reagan's commitment to seek full reimbursement for the water 
and power benefits which a multipurpose dam would provide to the region 
and its residents. In the nineties, Congress has thus far said no once 
already to an Auburn Dam because of economic and environmental 
concerns. My introduction of this legislation today is intended to send 
a strong message: Congress must say no to building an Auburn Dam once 
again--for all of the above reasons.

                          ____________________