Mr. JONES. Let me read further: INCODEL is proud of its plan to develop the basin without Uncle Sam's footing the bill. Its officials believe Mr. LIPSCOMB. Is there anything wrong with that, Mr. Chairman? Mr. JONES. It's wrong if you bring into play all the good things the Federal Government has done in the past-to put these projects up to ridicule and say, "We must take counsel of our fears, because the Federal Government is going to be some wicked bureaucracy, to bring injury to an area.' Mr. LIPSCOMB. I admit that INCODEL may have made mistake in criticizing TVA in 1950 to you, but this is 1955 and we have the Hoover Commission report. Mr. JONES. If it was blessed with good intentions, then it would have advocated what it could do, rather than to go upon a political enterprise and adventure to bring into criticism and disrepute the whole activity of the Federal Government with respect to natural resource development. Now, if that is going to be the policy of INCODEL, if it's going out to damn every other section of the United States, rather than to encourage the development of their own area-I have no objection to INCODEL-if it can be worked, fine. It would certainly be a relief if the Federal Government had no responsibility to build roads, even though the Constitution says that the Congress would appropriate to construct post roads-why, it would make a lot of difference. It wouldn't be necessary for even a man like George Washington-listen, let me just read you what George Washington wrote. Now, George Washington wasn't a bureaucrat. Here's what George Washington wrote, the President to the Congress: The Assemblies of Virginia and Maryland have now under consideration the extension of the inland navigation of the Rivers Potomac and James and opening a communication between them and the western waters. They seem fully impressed with the political as well as the commercial advantages which would result from the accomplishments of these great objects, and I hope will embrace the present moment to put them in train for speedy execution. Would it not at the same time be worthy of the wisdom and attention of Congress to have the western waters well explored and navigation of them fully ascertained, accurately laid down, and a complete and perfect map made of the country, at least as far westerly as the Miami's running into the Ohio and the Lake Erie, and see how the waters of them communicate with the River St. Joseph, which empties into Lake Michigan, and with the Wabash? I cannot forbear observing here that the Miami Village and Hutchins map, if it and the waters here mentioned are laid down with any degree of accuracy, point to a very important possibility for the Union. The expense attending this undertaking could not be great and the advantages would not but be unbounding, for I am sure nature has made such an ample display of her bounties in those regions that the more the country is explored, the more it would rise in estimation; consequently, the greater might the revenue be to the Union. And then he goes on and discusses other aspects. But certainly, in the days of George Washington, when Maryland and Virginia were exploring the possibilities of trying to pursue a navigation project, the Federal Government would not be charged with bureaucracy when it was trying to commit a benevolent act to those people by encouraging construction that would increase the trade and the commerce and the economic growth of that area. I am saddened when I read that the basis of INCODEL was not set upon firmer grounds in 1950. I hope that we won't find ourselves at such odds that we cannot prosecute the work, because I have no de sire to force upon you a TVA, and there is no better advocate in the Congress of TVA than I am. Here is what we are going to under take: First, we're going to undertake flood control. Flood control is one of the development characteristics of all major streams. It doesn't make any difference whether it's the Corps of Engineers, INCODEL, or the Department of Interior-what we want is results. We're not here to patronize or solicit the work to be committed to any agency. The generation of hydroelectric power, if the stream possesses those potentials, the development of navigation, if the stream can lend itself to that type of usefulness, and the recreation, the soil conservation, and all of the related activities in connection with it-now, there is the objective, whether you want to call it TVA, INCODEL, or whatever name you want to give to it. Let's get on the same team and proceed to the same noble objectives of trying to conserve and utilize for the benefit of the people. That is the thing that I'm sorry about that even in 1954-here is a New York article-it's to be subject to the abuse of those who would have exploitation to their own benefit. I've talked too long. Mr. PITKIN. Well, that was very interesting, of course, Mr. Chairman. I think you should recognize, however, that in the development of the INCODEL program in the early years we were working under the 308 recommendation which had been developed and enunciated before 1937, which recommended that any projects for the development of the Delaware watershed be under the control of an interstate agency competent to coordinate and supervise work under a comprehensive plan formulated in the interest of the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. I would also like to recall, as I believe I mentioned this morning, that it was INCODEL that suggested the authorization by the Senate of the review of this adverse 308 report, the review report made and sent up through Army engineer chanels, now sent back again for a rereview. So that INCODEL, much as might be regretted the language of 1950-which I say again was written not by us but by a newspaperman with a sense of the dramatic-even then INCODEL was seeking Federal participation and assistance, just as we have always used the facilities of the Army engineers, who have worked with us serving with the quantity committee and the quality committee, just as we have used the facilities of the USGS in getting our streamflow data. But be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, the present situation is this, as I see it—and I would like to say again that I have not been authorized to speak by INCODEL, since there has been no meeting since this hearing was proposed-the situation seems to me to be this: that we have found it impossible to bring about the construction of this big, comprehensive, multiple-purpose project through interstate action. We failed in that effort. The time has now passed when that effort could be reactivated by the States with its former scope, because New York State has attained its objectives; it has in sight, through this latest decree of the Supreme Court-it has in sight the answer to its water-supply needs for a generation to come. So that we hold no high hopes for a reactivation, through interstate cooperation, of the whole INCODEL program. We might conceivably get Wallpack Bend through joint agreement by New Jersey and Pennsylvania, if we could solve the tremendously difficult finance problem, but, as was mentioned this morning and again this afternoon by Commissioner McLean and by Secretary Goddard, the finance as well as the compact's legal and administrative problems make that almost more than we could hope for. Accordingly, we do think that the Federal Government's help is very badly needed, not only on the Wallpack Bend project but on something like the INCODEL comprehensive program, which certainly should be developed through restudy, whether it be through this new, privately financed study which Mayor Clark proposed—and that certainly is a very real possibility or whether it be by the Army engineers after they receive the funds which we would hope are appropriated to them next year. We do need action. Mr. JONES. Let me ask your this question : Suppose that independent studies are made. It is going to be absolutely necessary for the Corps of Engineers to review their 308 report. Mr. PITKIN. Of course. Mr. JONES. And don't you think it would be necessary to avoid the duplication of effort of making those surveys? Mr. PITKIN. If there was any assurance that the Corps of Engineers would be able to undertake immediately a comprehensive study, not of the INCODEL program as a flood-control device, but the multiplepurpose aspect, the need Mr. JONES. Now let me ask you a very practical question: Suppose, for instance, you make an independent survey and you find that you want to construct a dam and in that dam you would have the generation of hydroelectric power, making it economically feasible to construct, because that would be a revenue-producing operation. Now, you go to the Federal Government for a license to construct that project. Mr. PITKIN. Yes. Mr. JONES. You still are going to have congressional authorization and you can't proceed any faster than Congress could act; could you? Mr. PITKIN. No; you're quite right on that. Also, we would require congressional approval of an interstate compact to create an interstate agency. Congressional approval would obviously be needed at several different points. But I think the feeling of the basin, particularly in the light of the experience of this last month, is that we must get rolling just as quickly as we can. Mr. JONES. Is there any doubt in the minds of INCODEL that the survey made by the Corps of Engineers would be sufficiently good enough to justify future investments on the State level? Mr. PITKIN. Well, I would think the Corps of Engineers' rereview of this situation certainly would tell a very different story than their earlier reports, in view of the flood record which Colonel Renshaw just presented to you. Mr. JONES. You hope it's a little more comprehensive than the 308 report? Mr. PITKIN. Yes. Certainly this must be viewed as a multiplepurpose project in every sense of that word, and it certainly warrants from several different points of view the interests and support of the 70818-56-pt. 1—8 Federal Government as well as the State and local governments in the area. Mr. JONES. You are a good advocate, Mr. Pitkin; you are a good advocate. Any questions? Mr. PITKIN. In spite of the fact that my name is mentioned in small type in the last paragraph or two of that Saturday Evening Post article? Mr. JONES. In spite of all that. Mr. PITKIN. If I had written the article, I would have mentioned my name further forward than that. Mr. JONES. I don't want you to misunderstand. I'm not imputing to you the responsibility for such an article. I think it's unfortunate for everybody. I think it is a great misfortune. Mr. PITKIN. I would point out there is a very great difference between 1955 and 1950, a very great difference in many ways. We've had floods and we've had landslides in this area. Mr. REUSS. On just that point, Mr. Pitkin, I take it your feeling today, in 1955, and particularly after the flood, is that the States cannot by themselves do an adequate overall job of handling the resources of the Delaware region and that some Federal assistance is in order. Is that a fair conclusion? Mr. PITKIN. Yes; I would say so. Mr. REUSS. That view, then, is certainly markedly different from that contained in the last two paragraphs of this 1950 article of the Saturday Evening Post we're talking about, where it says: To this, Executive Secretary Jim Allen adds that he thinks there'll always be an INCODEL-at least, a need for it-to stand up boldly in a proud and independent region and function as "an antidote to socialism." "Someone," he says, "has to show those disciples of the 'Uncle Sam is Everything' school of thought in that the States can and will do things for themselves." You think that whatever may have been the validity of that view in 1950, it is not a sound view in 1955? Mr. PITKIN. Certainly not in those terms. I do think, however, there is a field for interstate cooperation. That was demonstrated in our pollution-abatement effort, and I never got a chance to finish that sentence, Mr. Chairman. Mr. REUSS. Before we go into that Mr. PITKIN. I'm never going to get to the end of that sentence. Mr. PITKIN. INCODEL did develop uniform standards of purity for the main stream and tributaries. Those standards of purity were adopted by legislative action in the four States and the stream pollution abatement activities of the enforcement agencies in the four States are working on the basis of those uniform standards which came about through interstate cooperation. That was the step forward that led to the $80 million program which Mayor Clark of Philadelphia spoke of. It led to similar activity in Camden and all the way up and down the river-Wilmington and so on. Mr. JONES. Did you have any aid or assistance or cooperation of the Corps of Engineers in the pollution work? Mr. PITKIN. Why, they do not directly participate. We have, of course, used their technical forces and technical data in all phases of our work. We've had very close cooperative relationships with the Army engineers. Mr. REUSS. That I may get the setting of this 1950 statement that we've been talking about here, What was the political party of the Governor of New York in 1950? Mr. PITKIN. Republican. Mr. REUSS. You're an easterner; I'm from the Midwest. What was the political party of the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1950? Mr. PITKIN. Republican. Mr. REUSS. What was the political party of the Governor of New Jersey in 1950? Mr. PITKIN. Republican. Mr. REUSS. And what is the political party of the Governors of those three States today? Mr. PITKIN. Let's see-Democratic. Mr. REUSS. Democratic; all right. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out to my colleague that people progress and that is why America is great. Nineteen-fifty was 5 years ago, and I hope your views will change most considerably in the next 50 years, and mine, too, and that is why we get things done and do big things. Mr. REUSS. I agree. Mr. LIPSCOMB. And a man doesn't have to be saddled in a hearing with an article that came out in the Saturday Evening Post in 1950. Mr. JONES. I didn't want to saddle him, just make inquiries. Mr. REUSS. On the subject of saddling, Mr. Pitkin, I want to say that the statements attributed to you in 1950, which are right above the paragraph Mr. PITKIN. I have my fingers crossed that he can't find it. There is plenty of work for INCODEL in other fields in which enlightened leadership is sorely needed-development of recreational facilities, for instance; constant campaigning on the river-cleanup front; and encouragement, through moral support and constructive publicity, of the soil-conservation and reforestation efforts of the proper Federal, State, and local agencies. So I agree with you today and in 1950. Mr. PITKIN. I'm against sin, too, unless it's either profitable or enjoyable. Mr. JONES. You're not like the preacher who enjoys both of them, though, are you? Mr. PITKIN. Is there anything else, sir? Mr. JONES. Yes, Mr. Lipscomb. Mr. LIPSCOMB. No, sir; I got mine in. Mr. JONES. All right. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr. James Č. Jamieson, of the New Jersey Legislature. Would you come around, Mr. Jamieson? STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. JAMIESON, MEMBER, NEW JERSEY GENERAL ASSEMBLY Mr. JAMIESON. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest here today. I came up here today not as an expert on water, but as a representative of the people of my county, which is the county of Warren, and the entire western boundary of the county is on the Delaware |