A large collection of telegrams, letters, memorandums, memos, new clippings, government reports, maps & some photos. Examples are: 2 Western Union telegrams (8/12 & 8/27/57) from Congressman Wilsojn & a letter reply (8/13/57) from San Diego Port Director John Bate re/ runway lights of MCRD corridor & feasibility study in South San Diego Bay; copies of “Dredging Tijuana River Channel,” Port of San Diego Inter-Depart-mental Communication, Feb. 26, 1958 with two estimated totals of $28.5 & $29.5 million to depths of 40 ft. & 45 ft.;” 1 copy of fold-out map, City of San Diego, Feb. 26, 1958, showing projected breakwater & dredging for Tijuana River; copies of 3 letters (Jan.-Mar. 1958) from Congressman Wilson & Dewey Short (Asst. Sec. of the Army, Civil-Military Affairs) re/ “negative report on the proposed review of the South San Diego Bay and Tijuana River projects;” 1 letter (3/28/58) from Port Dir. John Bate to Wilson re/ Chief of Engineers’ South Bay reports & “it is advisable to let these two projects remain quiet until you have solved the Forrestal dock project;” 2 news clippings – “Walter Winchell of New York,” New York Mirror re/ threat of DODs excesses & Hanson Baldwin, “Waste in the Pentagon,” New York Times, Mar. 3, 1958; 1 letter (7/17/59) from Bob Woll (Secretary, Fish & Game Commission, County of San Diego), Congressman Wilson’s reply (6/27/59) & attached copy of “Rep. Wilson Urges Bay Canal Study,” (Copley Press Dispatch, n.d.) re/ concern of Mr. Woll to be involved in South Bay Channel & Tijuana River projects & there effects on fish & wildlife habitat; 2 letters (10/5 & 10/26/60) from Major General William F. Cassidy (Dir. of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Dept. of the Army) to the Honorable Charles A. Buckley (Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Repre-sentatives) & Wilson Office Memo (3/7/61) re/ a study of the Oneonta Lagoon & the Tijuana River with reference to flooding & Mexican & U.S. interests in land development – “estimated cost of a survey is $65,000” to construct an entrance channel 20 ft. deep and 500 ft. wide; 1 news clipping “South Bay Canal Survey Funds Asked by Kennedy,” Evening Tribune (4/4/61); 1 letter (5/1/61) from Dwight M. Johnston (The Propeller Club of the United States) & Wilson’s reply (5/17/61) re/ support for Army Corps of Engineers’ study for ship channel through lower San Diego Bay to enhance commerce, industry & national defense; 1 letter (5/19/61) from Cincent Kollowski (South Bay District Chamber of Commerce, Inc.) & Wilson’s reply (6/16/61) re/ “Membership of the Chamber is very much in favor of this Ships Canal.” Wilson indicated that the Corps of Engineers flood control survey “will have to tie in the South Bay entrance;” 1 Western Union telegram (5/20/61) from Carleton Lichty (Managing Dir., Hotel Del Coronado) & Wilson’s reply (5/23/61) re/ thanking the Congressman for his efforts “in getting the survey money approved;” “Memorandum” & news clipping – Aurelio Garcia, “Tijuana Slates Work on Basin, Gate Projects,” The San Diego Union, June 1, 1961 re/ urbanization with cemment canal from Agua Calenti to the border; 1 letter (6/7/61) from Congressman Charles A. Buckly (Chairman, Committee on Public Works) to Congressman Wilson & “Enclosed copy of a resolution adopted by the Committee . . . authorizing a review of reports you suggested;” 1 copy of a letter (6/16/61) from Congressman Wilson to Col. Leland H. Hewitt (International Boundary Commission) re/ approval by Public Works Committee of a Resolution by Army Corps of Engineers to survey Tijuana River Basin for purposes of estuary Flood Control Channel; letters (6/19, 6/22 & 7/17/61) from Commissioner L.H. Hewitt (International Boundary & Water Commission, El Paso, TX), Congressman Wilson, Major General William F. Cassidy (Dir. of Civil Works, HQ., Dept. of the Army) & “attached copy of the Mexican Government’s drawing showing its plan for channelization of the Tijuana River in its territory extending to and abutting on the international boundary;” copies of letters (Oct. 1961) from Congressman Wilson, Deputy Dir. Elmer B. Staats (Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office of the President) & Major General Cassidy (Public Works, HQ., Dept. of the Army) re/ resolution by House Public Works Committee authorizing a $65,000 survey for the feasibility of Tijuana Flood Control Project & requesting immediate action by the Bureau of Budget & Office of the Chief of Engineers to “formerly request of Congress funds necessary to begin and complete this project at the earliest possible date;” letters (Jan.-Feb. 1962) from constituents John O. Lockwood (Coronado), Arnold I. Glindset (La Mesa), E.B. Smith (San Diego) & Wilson’s responses re/ channel linking South Bay with the ocean, time frame for project & concerns for proposed “6000 acre fill in the south bay area” – these letters do not address the Tijuana River Flood Control Project in connection with a ship channel to the ocean; a small packet containing office note (n.d.)—“pull Tijuana file before Leon writes to C of E,” & letters (Feb.-Mar. 1962) from Congressman Wilson to Imperial Beach Mayor Miles D. Bowler, Paul Steele (South Bay Council, Inc.) & attached copies of a Nov. 11, 1961 petition from the South San Diego Council, Inc. re/ “South Bay Channel Entrance and the Tijuana Flood Control Project” involving authorization for $150,000 for the Harbor & Channel survey & $65,000 for the Tijuana River Flood Control Survey;” “Memorandum To: the Boss From: Leon” (3/5/62), his notes & a copy of “Recommendation of the State of California for Federal Appropriations for California Projects FY 1962-63” (4 pp.) re/ “South Bay Channel Entrance and other other Corps of Engineers Projects,” “Corps . . . can find no economic justification for a South Bay Channel” & other commentary on Tijuana River Flood Control Project; copies of letters (3/62) from Congressmen Wilson & Clarence Cannon & from William M. Carah (Ex. Sec., California Water Commission) re/ “urgency . . . with respect to . . . [Tijuana River Flood Control] project” & need for early action from Appropriation Committee to release $65,000 for project; a small packet of letters (Mar.-Ap. 1962) from Congressmen Cannon, Fenton, Pillar & Anderson & from Carson W. Culp (Staff Asst., Public Works Sub-committee, H.R.) re/ acknowledgement to Wilson for urgency of Tijuana River Flood Control appropriation; 1 letter (6/29/62) from San Diego Mayor Charles C. Dail, attached copy of Resolution 171461 (June 26, 1962) & 2 letters from Congressman Wilson (7/27/62) re/ background on “Flood Control on Tijuana River” & interest in channelization of the River in both Mexico & the U.S.; 1 letter (10/31/62) from E.W. Blom (Asst. City Mgr., San Diego), International Boundary and Water Commissioner J.F. Friedkin’s reply (10/31/62), attached copy of “Memorandum Tijuana River Flood Control – Channelization of River in United States and Mexico” (9/24/62) & Wilson office notes re/ detailed coverage of issues & terrain involved in this project; copy of Western Union telegram (12/7/62) from District Engineer (Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles) to Congressman Wilson & attached copies of the Corps, “Notice of Public Hearing on Tia Juana River, California for Flood Control and Allied Purposes [with enclosed maps]” & “List of Parties To Whom Notice is Being Mailed;” 1 copy of a letter (1/25/63) from Col. Earl G. Peacock (Dist. Engineer, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles) to Congressman Wilson re/ “data on the status of our studies on the second entrance to San Diego Harbor and on the Tia Juana River in your district” – Col Peacok contrasts second entrance through the river vs the Silver Strand (Strand better) & says the Navy considers second entrance “not vitally essential;” 1 news clipping “Mills Will Press South Bay Project,” The San Diego Union (2/6/63) re/ support for ship channel to Tijuana River from ocean & also refers to proposal for a $150 million Gulf Oil Co. refinery in South Bay & a potential 3,000 jobs; “Memorandum To: Bob From: Ed G.,” & letters from Lt. Col. William S. Cumlish (Acting Dist. Engineer, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles) (3/8/63) & attached copy of “Notice of Initiation of Investigation . . . [with] Tia Juana River” map & “ Mailing List. . . .” re/ continued interest & discussion on this topic. The memorandum form Ed Gillenwaters is especially interesting in its commentary on Ed’s private discussion with Col. Peacock, who thought that the second entrance was a “‘promotive dream and is totally unrealistic.’” As to the oil refinery, it “‘was perpetuated by promoters to pressure a Tijuana Channel entrance;’” 4 letters (Mar.-May 1963) from J.F. Friedkin (Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission, El Paso, TX) & Congressman Wilson re/ aerial photograph of Tijuana River area (not found with these letters); 1 coply of “Subject: Telephone Call from Sandy Coggan” 94/25/63) re/ forth-coming Corps of Engineers report on the pros and cons of a South Bay Channel;” 1 letter (8/6/63) from Imperial Beach constituent George W. Jenkins to Congressman Wilson re/ a tirade promoting a ship channel to the Tijuana River & then to the Ocean as preferable to a Silver Strand entrance. He also pushes the oil refinery concept and disclaims the “vast amount of tidelands that could be put to some good use . . . instead of laying there stinking” – there is no indication that Wilson responded to this letter; 1 copy of a fold out map – “Projects of the Commission” of the international border from Texas to California with notations on flood control, irrigation diversion, sanitation, etc. (Revised, 8/14/57); 1 news clipping – “Saline Phase Left Out of Channel Study – Economic Factors Also Cited,” & Tijuana Chamber To Fight For Port,” The San Diego Union (10/15/63) – River = $90.8 million vs. Strand = $40.8 million; “Memorandum To: Boss From: Ed G.” (12/11/63) & attached news clipping “Drive Seen For Channel Via River,” The San Diego Union (11/10/63) re/ the memorandum indicates opposition from the State Dept., Mexico & the Border Commission to combing flood control with a deep water ship channel, the South Bay Chamber of Commerce was fighting for “a bay-to-ocean ship channel via the Tia Juana River;” 1 letter (5/11/64) from CA Assemblyman Richard J. Donovan (77th Dist.), 1 copy of CA “Assembly Join Resolution No. 11” & attached note – “Boss Need your comments for reply Ed” – [Wilson comment?] “Thanks but no thanks” re/ Assemblyman Donovan requested Wilson’s assistance in the passage of H.R. 10491 as introduced by Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin; 1 letter (8/4/65) from San Diego Mayor Frank Curran to Commissioner Friedkin (I. B. & W. Commission) & attached copies of Resolution No. 184420 adopted unanimously by the City Council on July 29, 1965 re/ supporting the flood control project as a “joint construction by the United States and Mexico” and as supported by Congressman Van Deerlin; copy of a letter (3/21/66) from Congressman Wilson & a reply from Congress-man Thomas E. Morgan (3/21/66) re/ “The need for quick and positive action to implament the joint construction by the United States and Mexico of an inter-national flood control project for the Tijuana River;” copies of 2 letters (4/4/66) from Congressman Wilson & attached copy of San Diego County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 28, March 22, 1966 re/ “Support of Tia Juana River Flood Control Project;” 1 letter (9/21/66) from Congressman Wilson Lionell Van Deerlin & copy of “Public Law 89-640, 89th Congress, S. 2540, October 10, 1966,” 80 STAT.884 re/ Van Deerlin encourages his colleagues to support H.R. 13825 & the eventual passage of “An Act To authorize . . . joint construction by the United States and Mexico of an international flood control project for the Tijuana River. . . .” Not to exceed $12.6 million for the U.S. side; 1 office note (n.d.), 1 letter (12/15/66) & 1 telegram (4/15/67) from Congress-man Wilson re/ constituent inqueries as to the joint agreement for the Tijuana River; 1 Memorandum (4/14/67) re/ cost projections for Tijuana River Flood Control Project – 1968-1969; photocopies of 3 letters (4/26, 5/5, & 5/15/67) from C.R. Campbell (Chairman, San Diego Board of Port Commissioners), Congressman Wilson & Carl F. Reupsch (Dir., Planning, Port of San Diego) re/ Sweetwater River Projects & completion of Zuniga Jetty; 1 letter (6/2/67) from Lt. Col. Lewis A. Pick, Jr. (Asst. Dir. of Civil Works for Pacific Divisions, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Dept. of the Army) to Congressman Wilson & enclosed copies of letters (5/67) from Lt. General William F. Cassidy (Chief of Engineers, Dept. of the Army) & Major General R.G. MacDonell (Chairman, Bd. of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Dept. of the Army) re/ Tijuana River Basin & flood control as per PL 89-640; photocopy of a letter (10/27/67) from David E. McGiffert (Acting Secretary of the Army) & enclosed copies of letters from Generals Cassidy & MacDonell (as above) re/ Tijuana River Flood Control Project; Wilson office notes & memos (2/69) & copy of 2 pages from City of San Diego, “Report on Port District Projects (3/20/68) re/ “status of the Tijuana Flood Control project” & information on Spanish Landing, Sweetwater River Flood Control Project, Second Entrance & Bay Dredging Project; 1 copy of “Testimony of Congressman Bob Wilson Before the House Public Works Appropriations SubCommittee, June 9, 1969” re/ dredging of South Bay, second entrance issue, flood control for the San Diego River, Mission Valley, Chollas Creek & Sweetwater River; 1 letter (3/3/70) from Commissioner J.F. Friedkin (International Boundary and Water Commission) to William Penn Mott, Jr. (Dir., CA Dept. of Parks & Recreation) re/ the commissioner’s review of events from 1962 to present in response to Director Mott’s request (12/19/69) that “the location of the proposed Tijuana River Flood Control Channel [be changed to ] . . . a northerly course . . . instead of along the southerly course as authorized. I must advise you at the out-set that for the impelling reasons outlined below, your proposal cannot be adopted;” Congressman Van Deerlin office note (3/12/70) from John McClarin to Paul Tsompanas & attached draft copy of a Van Deerlin Press Release for March 14, 1970 re/ H.R. 1717 raising statutory limit for the federal contribution to the Tijuana Flood Control Project from $12.6 million to $21.5 million; 1 letter (5/15/70) from Paul Tsompanas (Wilson’s Admin. Asst.), telephone message to Paul (n.d.), photocopy of “County Projects Included in U.S. Fiscal Plan,” Evening Tribune (2/2/70) & page H4386 Congressional Record—House, May 14, 1970 re/ H.R. 17575 “provides $400,000 to complete the design and specification of the flood control channel on the United States side of the border;” 1 Congressman Van Deerlin office memo (5/15/70) from John McClarin to Paul Tsompanas & attached copy of page H4386 (as above) re/ more commentary on “TJ River” & appropriations; Wilson office notes (1/4 & 1/5/71) & 2 copies of “Memo For Record” (1/5 & 2/23/71) re/ further information on cost factors for Tijuana River Flood Control Project – “inflation may cause this project to jump from 1.9 million to an estimated 30 million dollars;” photocopies of 3 “Memorandums” (Mar. & Ap. 1971) from William M. Monroe (Secretary’s Field Rep., Pacific Southwest Region, Dept. of the Interior) & Kent E. Kroonemeyer (Fishery Biologist, Fish & Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior)re/ “Early Environmental Warning – Impending Destruction of the Tijuana River estuary . . . associated with Corps of Engineers’ Flood Control Project, Tijuana River;” Copies of Report 92-297 & H.R. 9272 (92nd Cong., 1st Sess.) re/ Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 1972; unsigned note to Paul (7/7/71) re/ comments from John McClarin of Van Deerlin’s office – the bill “Asked [for] 1.9 million for Tijuana Flood Control [&] 4.5 million for Rio Grande Project – Granted 4.5 million to be divided between these two projects, but “a lot of local opposition had developed to the [Tijuana River] project;” 1 letter (7/12/71) from Howard Miller (Newport Investments, Inc.) & attached “Petition on Behalf of the Tia Juana River Flood Control Channel” with 25 signatories re/ appeal to members of the California Congressional Delegation from the owners of 2489.03 acres of property west of Interstate 5 & north of the Mexican border to support channelization of the Tijuana River to the Pacific Ocean; 1 copy of “A message” (7/22/71) from constituent E.A. Keen to Congressman Wilson & enclosed copies of “Statement of Citizens Coordinate Century 3 Proposed Tijuana River Flood Control Project” (7/71, 2 pages) & photocopy of “Tijuana River Flood Control Construction Due In Spring,” The San Diego Union (7/21/71) re/ Mr. Keen noted that “The project is a boondoggle of the highest order. . . . [that it] is justified by erroneous economic reasoning [and] . . . will lead to ruining one of Southern California’s few remaing viable coastline salt water environments;” photocopies of 2 letters (7/15 &  9/7/71) from Robert E. Baida (Regional Admin-istrator, H.U.D.) & Arlene Haynes (Office of the Regional Administrator, H.U.D.) re/ Their commentary on the Tijuana River Channel Project to the Corps of Engineers that river channelization would be negative & that the project should not be undertaken; “Memo To The Boss” (9/9/71) from Phyleis re/ “Dr. H.C. Merigan called . . . hopes the funding for the Tijuana Flood projects goes through;” 1 photocopy of a 3 page letter (10/9/71) from E.A. Keen (Chairman, Ecology and Coastal Zone Committee, Citizesn Coordinate Century 3) to LTC H. Mck. Roper, Jr. (District Engineer, Corps of Engineers) & attached copy of “Statement of Citizens Coordinate Century 3 Proposed Tijuana River Flood Control Project” re/ Mr. Keen’s extensive commentary on the Corps’ “Draft Environmental Statement of the Tijuana River . . .Project;” 1 copy of a “Citizens Coordinate for Century Three” brochure; a small collection of memorandums & a news clipping (July, Oct. & Nov. 1971) re/ Tijuana River Flood Control, opposition & possible legislative action by the end of the year, since it is an international project & the Foreign Afffairs Committee is handling the bill; 2 letters (11/8/71) from Evelyn Gayman (Conservation Chairman, Desomount Club, CA) to Congressman Bob Wilson & Senator John Tunney re/ opposition to Tijuana River Flood Control Channel & to H.R. 1717; 2 postal cards & 2 letters (11/71) from constituents John North, Mrs. Linda La Grange, Dr. Leslie Pratt Spelman, J. Whitehead & Wilson’s replies (11/71) re/ opposition to H.R. 1717 & authorizing construction of the Tijuana River Flood Control Channel – all the constituents stressed preservation of open space, agriculture & wetlands; 1 Resolution (11/4/71) from the South Bay District Chamber of Commerce & enclosed copy of a news article by Cecil Scaglione, “Battle Joined On South Bay Flood Control New District Chamber President Vows Fight On Tia Juana River,” The San Diego Union, Nov. 5, 1971 & 2 b&w photographs of the “Tijuana River 1927 Flood” re/ support for “Army Corps of Engineers’ 1963 Plan be expedited as soon as possible;” 1 letter (11/19/71) from Frederick G. Tellam (Law Offices of Jones, Tellam, Irving & Estes) & Wilson’s reply 11/29/71) re/ support for passage of “Van Deerlin’s bill H.R. 1717. . . . failure to construct this Channel will result in approximately 3,000 acres becoming a virtual desert and eyesore;” 1 Western Union telegram (12/5/71) & attached 3 page, legal size discourse from H.M, C.M., D.L. & A.P. Davisson to Congressman Wilson re/ support for a concrete lined Flood channel in the 5.3 miles of the Tijuana River. “Ten years ago, we (four people) purchased 4 parcels in the valley for future development.” These owners rejected farmland preservation in the area because of too much salt in the water supply & rejected the idea of leaving the slough area in its natural state; a small collection of news clippings – “Doubts influence second look at Tia Juana River flood plan,” Tribune (12/27/71), “ZPG talks of animal refuge and Van D talks of highways,” The Star News (1/9/72) & Jackie Dewey Welnik, “TIA JUANA RIVER: green belt vs. greenbacks,” The Star News (1/6/72) – this long article has a map of the region & raises questions about “Ghost lands or a Goldmine?” End of folder contents.