Page images
PDF
EPUB

River. I was a member of the Interstate Cooperation Committee back, well, since 1948, when INCODEL was propounding their ideas to try to do something about the cooperation on the Delaware River and particularly from the standpoint of water pollution and water supply. I thought their ideas were quite good at that time and, like Mr. Pitkin, since 1950 my ideas have changed considerably, ever since August 19.

Now, just the idea of having dams in the Delaware River, to me, from the standpoint of protecting from floods my county and other counties on both sides of the Delaware, is something that is beyond the States, the cooperation of two States, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, to handle. I firmly believe that we as individuals in either State should take care of our local problems as well as we can and do as much of it as we can, but this right now I think is something that we're unable to handle. We need the aid and assistance of the Federal Government.

Of course, we were inundated by not only the Delaware River, but some of the tributaries of the Delaware River in my little village of Blairstown, N. J., which has a river going through it, Paulins Kill, that also overflowed its banks; a couple of dams broke and we were cut off entirely for 1 day, the same as many other areas were in the Delaware Valley.

Also, in examining the flood conditions of the Delaware River and looking at the high flood area, I could see myself, just as a layman— although I happen to have an engineering background-that just having dams in the Delaware River, such as INCODEL planned, would not do the job to take care of the flood situation. In fact, one of the county engineers and I and another individual were inspecting the river damage before and afterward, and to see 50 to 55 feet of water a quarter of a mile wide coming through at the rate of anywhere from 20 to 25 knots-that's my own estimate, it might have gone fasterwas something that could not be taken care of by ordinary dams. In my opinion, it had to be something done in the upper reaches of the Delaware River and the other tributaries, where you could have basins, dry basins, to take care of extra flood waters, so you could hold the flood waters back and then release them over a longer period of time. Now, I feel that the States of New York and Pennsylvania and New Jersey are paying large amounts of taxes to the Federal Government, and-such as has been going on in the Western States, such as the flood protection of the Missouri River Basin-I believe that the Federal Government should step in, into our area, in cooperation with the States, to try to do a job in protecting future devastation of the river valleys and also the tributaries.

It's my own opinion, of course, that part of the expense of these dams and so on could be paid for, such as Mr. Pitkin explained, by the idea of INCODEL, which would be to have the Federal Government sell waters backed up by various dams to be constructed to the areas of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware-whoever may need them and to help pay for the expense. That's from the standpoint of the water which we sorely need, particularly in northern New Jersey. To have all that water go by and not be able to use it seems to me rather silly, and it seems to me that men, such as we here -and I think this is a marvelous idea, to be able to express our opinions and to

get something done by the States and the Federal Government-I think that by doing it now it will conserve the water supplies for future generations and the growth of the Delaware Valley and also for future water supplies of this region.

That's about it.

Mr. JONES. We're glad to have had you, Mr. Jamieson.

Is there any question, Mr. Reuss?

Mr. REUSS. No, thank you.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Is there any comment you would care to make about the Hoover Commission report?

Mr. JAMIESON. Well, I'm generally familiar with the Hoover Commission report. I am not too conversant with it at the present time, but I think that the report, insofar as it says that you should not have overlapping bodies, bureaus, doing the same job, is something that would save the people of the United States a lot of money.

Also, with the idea-I think the question was asked if the Corps of Engineers could do the job. I fully believe that the Corps of Engineers are very capable and could do a job whereby the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania and New York could abide by their decisions, and also, if this is to be led by the Federal Government, naturally the Federal Government would take their ideas.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, sir. We are glad to have had you, Mr. Jamieson.

Mr. JAMIESON. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness is Mr. Waldorf Ringe of Philadelphia. Mr. Ringe.

Mr. RINGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Ringe, do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. RINGE. I do, sir.

Mr. JONES. Do you have any extra copies of it?

Mr. RINGE. I think I have one in the bag, sir.

Mr. JONES. All right, you give it to the reporter when you're through.

Mr. RINGE. I'll be very happy to, sir.

Mr. JONES. And we will follow you with a great deal of interest. Mr. RINGE. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF WALDORF E. RINGE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Mr. RINGE. Mr. Chairman, you've heard Colonel Renshaw speak about the Army's part in this program, you've heard Dr. Goddard speak about the State's part in this program. You're going to see something very interesting very shortly when you permit Mr. Hoff to go on. It's too bad that you gentlemen couldn't come down to the meeting in Stroudsburg to just witness the atmosphere there after Mr. Hoff had given his presentation and Dr. Goddard make his talk and Colonel Clark had made his presentation.

This prepared statement is in line with the work of Mr. Hoff, or the program he's going to present to you.

Mr. JONES. Now, Mr. Ringe, are you appearing today in any official capacity for any organization, enterprise, or group?

Mr. RINGE. May I say as a citizen of Pennsylvania, sir

Mr. JONES. We're glad to have good citizens of Pennsylvania.

Mr. RINGE. Very much interested not only in Pennsylvania, but the States as a whole, sir.

Mr. JONES. Fine. You qualify.

Mr. RINGE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. RINGE. This presentation of Mr. Hoff is going to show that missing link. We've had the Federal, we've had the State, and we've had the municipality, and then this is going to be the public.

Mr. JONES. You're speaking of the Brandywine?

Mr. RINGE. The Brandywine.

Mr. JONES. Are you familiar with the work that has been done in the Owyhee?

Mr. RINGE. Not too familiar.

Mr. JONES. The Sand Creek of the Owyhee.

Mr. RINGE. I can't qualify to speak on that, sir.

Mr. JONES. Since you're interested in the type of work that is going on in the Brandywine, I'm sure that you would be interested in it. Probably it is the most extensive development of any large area of the land-management flood-control program we have had in the country. Mr. RINGE. I'm going to make a study of that. I've asked Mr. Hoff about it and he will get me the facts which I should read, sir. Mr. JONES. Fine.

Mr. RINGE. May I read that statement?

Mr. JONES. Yes; you may.

Mr. RINGE (reading):

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This issue is a highly controversial one. There are those who would like to see the United States Army Corps of Engineers completely stripped of its authority and responsibility in flood control. Others would like to see the USDA-United States Department of Agriculture-out of watershed activities designed to aid flood retardation.

Proponents of each extreme are completely in error from the standpoint of the qualifications of the two public services as presently constituted. Likewise, neither concept is in keeping with the public interest. Both upstream conservation and downstream water retardation structures are essential to practical and complete stream basin flood problems.

It is absurd to think of farm and forest land owned by the multitudes of landowners, where effective conservation practices contribute so abundantly to reduction of flood damage, being served by technical personnel other than those trained in agriculture and forestry. Such conservation activities must be an integral part of individual farm and forest management plans. Farming and forestry are economic individual enterprises and cannot be operated as a part of public engineering works under the American individual opportunity system. It is equally absurd to think that foresters and agronomists can do an effective job of planning and installing vast water-holding and flow-regulation structures on the main stems of large streams.

Just as important as the technical aspects of flood prevention work is the human element. Economics, sociology, and politics are vital forces. In most areas a very high percentage of water conservation-effective in minimizing flood damage-must be performed by landowners. Why should they not plan and democratically govern their conservation programs locally and with public servants serving local needs, not dictating a master plan? The latter possibility is always a danger when a Federal agency gains too much power.

Based upon these facts and principles, the following recommendations should be made:

1. Federal, State, and local agricultural and forestry agencies should continue to serve the needs of local landowners of open land in accordance with locally planned and locally administered conservation programs.

2. The United States Army Corps of Engineers should be charged with the public responsibility of the Federal Government in large downstream floodcontrol engineering and river and harbors work. Such work should be performed

in cooperation with local authorities and locally administered upstream conservation programs. Extensive upstream conservation work should often precede major downstream installation of structures. Each of these major phases of watershed protection should definitely complement the other.

3. Complete and fully integrated watershed protection, including upstream land treatment and conservation and downstream water-flow regulation, should be performed under the explicit direction of local organizations such as small watershed associations and a federation of such associations throughout major stream basins.

Congress should act in accordance with these principles, which are, no doubt, in the interest of the American people.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Ringe.

Mr. Reuss.

Mr. REUSS. I just want to compliment Mr. Ringe on his presentation and also on his public spirit in coming up here, I presume at his own expense, to enlighten the committee.

Mr. RINGE. You're correct, sir.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Lipscomb.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I would like to do the same. However, I would like to ask you if you have any comment on the Hoover Commission report, as such.

Mr. RINGE. I'm in favor of any organization or group that's going to get into conservation, but I'm in favor of those groups coordinating their activity so that we can accomplish our purpose and reach our goal as quickly as possible.

Does that answer the question, sir?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You have no specific thoughts on the recommendations contained in the Hoover Commission report, as such?

Mr. RINGE. No, I haven't.

I'm very much in favor of every effort

that is in the form of conservation.
This extra copy, sir, you asked for.
Mr. JONES. Thank you very much.
Mr. RINGE. Not at all.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness will be Mr. Clayton M. Hoff, executive vice president of the Brandywine Valley Association of Wilmington, Del.

I understand that you have some slides that you want to show the subcommittee.

Mr. HOFF. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Now, before we get into that, I would like to make an announcement for Thursday's hearing.

The announcement that you received stated that the committee would convene at 10:10 a. m. I hope that we can be ready to go and the witnesses can be here by 9:30 in the morning, to give us a little more time. I hate to rush any witness and I want to give you ample opportunity and time for your presentation.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, we have some new witnesses we didn't know about. We have some local people who have asked to be heard. I have told them 9 o'clock.

Mr. JONES. That is all right.

Mr. WISE. They will be here at 9 o'clock.

Mr. JONES. I'll hear them coming down in the elevator, if necessary. Let me express our thanks to you, the witnesses and the attendants, for coming and for the efforts that you have gone to in making the

presentations that you have given to the committee. I am sure that I express the genuine appreciation of the committee. You have been most cooperative, most helpful.

I am quite sure that the subcommittee in its executive deliberations will take into account the things that you have had to say about your great section of the country.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hagerty; I'm about to overlook Mr. Hagerty. Is he still here? Mr. HAGERTY. Yes.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Hagerty is the executive secretary of Congressman Flood, and Congressman Flood is out of the country. So, Mr. Hagerty, we'll be glad to hear from you, sir.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE D. HAGERTY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO HON. DANIEL FLOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. HAGERTY. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, at the request of Congressman Flood, I would like to obtain the permission of this subcommittee for the Congressman to submit his statement upon his return to the United States.

Mr. JONES. Without objection, the statement will be received. And I would like to say to you, Mr. Hagerty, that I don't know of any Congressman in the country that has been as diligent in the prosecution of flood-control work as the Congressman that you represent. Mr. HAGERTY. He said he is very much interested in it, as long as it doesn't become personal.

Mr. JONES. Yes, indeed; and not only is he interested, he is effective. Thank you very much. We will receive his statement and it will be incorporated at this point in the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL FLOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity of expressing my views on this most vital subject of flood control and in particular the necessity of assistance by the Federal Government in combating this menace to many regions of our country.

I consider the Hoover Commission Water Resources and Power Task Force report recommendations show a complete lack of appreciation and understanding of the realities of the problems of flood control in particular, and in the development of the Nation's water resources in general.

The most recent flood disaster this summer very vividly documents this conclusion because of the history of effort that has been made by the States and the local communities involved to prepare for the type of disaster that occurred as the result of hurricane Diane.

To be specific, I would like to call to the attention of this committee that more than 20 years ago the Army engineers prepared a study of the Delaware River watershed.

At that time, the Army engineers recognized the need for flood control in the upper Delaware Valley, with the supplementary benefits of providing a source of potable water for metropolitan Philadelphia's water supply.

In the intervening years there have been continuing efforts to accomplish these objectives by combining the efforts of the three States involved; namely, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, with the assistance of the major municipalities concerned.

To date little has resulted other than discussion, debate, and frustration because of the lack of a central authority for making decisions necessary, as well

« PreviousContinue »