Mr. JONES. You speak of the need for irrigation and you look upon the West as being the recipient of greater benefits at the hand of the Federal Government than any other section of the country. This past session of Congress we had what is known as the small irrigation project bill which would permit the 31 nonreclamation States in the eastern part of the United States to obtain loans, non-interestbearing, up to $50 million. It also provides for industrial and for municipal water supplies to be a part of the overall function. And I would like to assure you as an easterner that the western people were enthusiastic supporters of that bill.

Mr. PITKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. It is now in Congress. I wish that during the consideration of that bill we had some manifestation and demonstration of interest from the people of the East, which was not forthcomingI mean the 31 nonreclamation States. It is still in Congress and you can still put your oar in before it is over.

Mr. PITKIN. I am very much interested in that. Actually the point I am about to make is a little different than that. Supposing I read this.

Mr. JONES. You go right ahead.

Mr. PITKIN. Just a little further, and then we can come back and discuss it.

Mr. JONES. I just wanted to call your attention to it. The war is not over, and we are looking for good soldiers to help us.

Mr. PITKIN. Very good.

This commendable enterprise on the part of our farmers not only saved many crops but also increased yields above normal in many instances. However, this practice which is constantly increasing must inevitably have an adverse effect on downstream areas, which are dependent on stream flows for municipal and industrial water. The farmers' use of water for irrigation further reduces already low summer flows, this making even more imperative the construction of water storage reservoirs for low-flow augmentation.

Do not all of these factors indicate that the time has come to modify our national water policy so as to recognize more adequately that our multiple purpose projects here in the Northeast involve the national interest just as do those elsewhere in the Nation?

The question has been raised as to Pennsylvania's attitude on the Hoover Commission's recommendation that some types of multipurpose water projects should be cooperatively financed by Federal, State, local, or private agencies. There has been no legislative and administrative decision on this point in Pennsylvania since it is obvious that each project would have to be considered on its own merits.

However, as to Pennsylvania's willingness to expend State funds on water resource projects, it is pertinent to note that in recent years the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania expended $32 million on the Schuylkill River cleanup project, a coordinated program in which, in addition to the Commonwealth's expenditure, private industry expended something over $10 million and the Federal Government, through Army engineer dredging of the lower Schuylkill, expended $7,105,000. It may also be of interest to you that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is at present expending some $15 million on a floodcontrol reservoir on the First Fork of the Sinnemahoning Creek,

a tributary of the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. In the past 6 years the Commonwealth expended $2,660,000 for a flood-control reservoir on Little Pine Creek, another tributary of the West Branch of the Susquehanna, and $610,000 on the Shawnee flood-control project on a tributary of the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River. In addition to these projects, the Commonwealth has spent $4,100,000 in channel improvement and other local flood-protection projects in 235 locations throughout Pennsylvania during the last 7 years. These and other projects have been or are being constructed by the Commonwealth without any Federal participation. Also the Commonwealth and the local governing bodies have contributed $3,700,000 toward the construction of Federal-local flood-protection projects in the State. Our department of forests and waters is just finishing its Juniata River flood control study at a cost to the Commonwealth of well over $40,000. This study, copies of which will be sent to you within the next few weeks, recommends immediate construction of flood-control projects costing approximately $32 million. It should be noted, however, that in spite of this record of State expenditures for such projects, the Commonwealth's budgetary situation is such that it would be many years before our water-resources problems could be met without a much more substantial Federal participation than has been available in the past.

We believe that the record will show that Pennsylvania and her sister States in the Delaware River Basin have tried to find a solution to the water needs of the Delaware Basin through interstate cooperation. The four States united in supporting the Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin and the three upper basin States financed an engineering study of the water supply needs and potentialities of the basin, and developed the terms of a proposed compact to implement these engineering recommendations. The project proposed was a tremendous one, contemplating the expenditure of $565 million and involving complicated administrative and legal relationships between the four States. In spite of these determined, and we believe intelligent efforts, it was impossible to secure unanimous agreement of the four States involved. This would seem to indicate that if we are to make progress in the solution of such highly complex problems involving tremendous sums of money and complicated intergovernmental relationships we must look to the Federal Government for leadership and financial assistance. While our experience in the effort to solve this kind of problem by interstate cooperation is limited to the Delaware River Basin, we believe that exactly the same situation would be encountered in any other major drainage basin in Pennsylvania or elsewhere in the Nation. So far as we know, no large-scale basin development program involving more than one State has gone ahead without Federal leadership and participation. We would summarize our comments on Federal water policy as follows:

First, leadership and major financial participation by the Federal Government is essential to large-scale multiple-purpose river basin development, particularly when the basin embraces more than one State.

Second, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania needs and is obviously entitled to larger Federal appropriations for water resource control and development than it has ever received in the past.

Third, such expanded Federal appropriations should be available for (a) execution by the Federal Government of water projects which are clearly in the traditional fields of Federal responsibility; and (b) financing, in whole or in part, projects for water resource development and control which the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cannot finance.

Fourth, the enormous damage in Pennsylvania occasioned by Hurricane Diane makes immediately necessary a prompt and effective cooperative effort on the part of the Federal and State agencies involved to expedite water resource projects which are known to be urgently needed, including (a) congressional appropriation to energize the construction of currently authorized flood control works in the Lehigh, Lackawaxan, and Lackawanna River Basins; (b) development of agreement between the Federal Government, the State of New Jersey, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as to the immediate construction of the Wallpack Bend Reservoir, including determination of allocation of costs and responsibility for construction and operation; (c) development of agreement between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as to the prompt construction of the flood-control facilities recommended in the Juniata River flood control study of the Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters.

Fifth, a joint study should be undertaken by Federal, State, and interstate agencies of the overall water development needs of the Delaware River Basin, including, of course, a review of the comprehensive program proposed by INCODEL.

Sixth, similar joint studies are necessary for the other drainage basins of Pennsylvania.

Seventh, a more realistic national water policy should be developed which recognizes that the water supply and control needs of the Northeast are of national interest just as are the water problems of the southern and western portions of our Nation.

Gentlemen, I thank you.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Pitkin.
Any questions, Mr. Reuss?"

Mr. REUSS. Yes. I would like to add my plaudits to what the chairman has just said, Mr. Pitkin. This is a most informative presentation.

Now, may I get down to

Mr. PITKIN. Might I break in and make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman?

Dr. Goddard, the secretary of forests and waters, who is the other representative of Governor Leader, I believe is your next scheduled witness. Perhaps in view of the fact that we both represent the Governor, it might be appropriate to hear from him. He might answer some of these questions you have in mind. Then after his presentation, we would both be available for questioning and comment. Mr. JONES. I think that is a good suggestion.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Has the Federal Government been a great deal of help in an emergency way since the flood?

Mr. PITKIN. Oh, yes; no question about that.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I mean there was no delay; I mean they stepped right in and did it?

Mr. PITKIN. Yes. The Army engineers, of course, have been extremely helpful, as was the Federal civil-defense organization.

Secretary Goddard, as an administrative official in the waters field, perhaps, could speak more intimately, more directly on that subject of the relationship between his departmental activity and the Army engineers than I could. But I am sure that all of us are deeply appreciative of the work done by the Army engineers and by the USGS in their flood forecasting, the cooperative program, Federal, State, and in the bringing of technical personnel into the area after the flood to determine exactly the extent, locally, of the flood situation. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. I am going to change the order of our witnesses. We have Mayor Clark of the city of Philadelphia here. He has to go back this afternoon, and we will save Mr. Goddard until later this afternoon, at which time we can have you both for interrogation. Mr. Clark?

Mr. Mayor, we are glad to have you, and we know that you have a busy schedule as mayor of one of the great cities of our country. We are looking forward to your presentation and the comments that you might make. You may proceed at your pleasure.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH CLARK, MAYOR, CITY OF

PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to be here before your committee and I am wondering if you have any time schedule. I do not want to infringe on you. I have a fairly long statement here. I would like to do what I could to summarize it.

Mr. JONES. You have come a long way. We are not going to cut you off; so you proceed as you desire.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, sir.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to appear here before this committee and I think your subcommittee is rendering a very real public service in coming up here during your congressional recess to take a look at the implication of our problems along the Delaware on national water resources policy. We have got a real problem here, and I think we need Federal help and a lot more Federal help than we have had so far.

I would like to try to sketch the overall nature of the problem as we see it in Philadelphia, discuss it in the light of some of the recommendations of the Hoover report, and at least make a general suggestion as to where it seems to me we ought to go from here.

We did not have too much trouble with these recent floods in Philadelphia, although we did have almost three-quarters of a million dollars worth of damage in our Fairmount Park and our recreational areas, and we were lucky this time that we are not in the same condition that they are up here in the Stroudsburg area. We are a little bit concerned as to whether we are getting a permanent change of climate as a result of these hurricanes which seem to be heading up our way-very much more than formerly or whether they are just a series of unhappy coincidences. But in any event, it seems to us that the events, ever since the hurricane of 1938 came up this way, give us ample warning that the government at all levels ought to be

thinking pretty seriously about how we are going to meet the impact of the problem which confronts us as these Caribbean hurricanes come up the coast and do untold damage in areas which it is pretty hard to tell ahead of time. And I would think, again, an ounce of prevention at every level of government would be a whole lot better than a pound of cure.

Incidentally, we were fortunate in Philadelphia in having a very fine camp for boys and girls in the Poconos, Camp William Penn, which we were able to turn over for use to the local government and which we were able to turn over to provide housing for some of the unfortunate who were put out of house and home and business by the flood. We are glad to have been able to have done that, but our major and overriding problem is not so much this one aspect of flood control as the larger problem of the future of the development of the Delaware River Basin and how to plan for its best and wisest use, how to control it to minimize the unhappy results of inadequate overall planning which face us today.

I think this is another good example, along the Delaware, of that principle which seems to overwhelm our democracy in so many areas that we tend to come too late with too little and we get overwhelmed by these problems before we have done the planning and programing which is necessary to put them ahead. If this recent flood can have resulted in alerting the different agencies and different individuals in key positions who have responsibility for water resources development in the United States to the need for moving now, perhaps all the damage will turn out in the end to have been worthwhile despite the terrible human loss which we have been faced with. I do not think, and I would be fairly sure the committee would agree, that there are any shortcuts-that there are any diplomatic solutions where you could pull a rabbit out of the hat and come up with a problem solved. This is a long, tough, hard road to follow, and I think we can all resist that temptation to look for a quick profit in terms of improvement of the area.

Let me illustrate the importance of this overall approach by listing the ways in which this Delaware River Basin affects the social and economic life of Philadelphia.

We get most of our water supply from the Delaware River in Philadelphia, and most of our waste is carried in the Delaware Bay and the ocean, down the Delaware. In the future we hope, after it has been properly treated-we were pretty bad in Philadelphia in our measuring up to civic responsibility years ago and we have been dumping raw sewage in the Delaware for far too long. We were under injunctions from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as far back as 1911 to stop that and the city fathers did not do much about it until shortly after World War II. We are now in the process of completing sewage-disposal projects for waste disposal in the Delaware which will result in our spending $80 million of Philadelphia city funds in the decade since World War II to get respectable again. We had no business to do it. We are meeting that responsibility.

The lower river, as you gentlemen know, provides a navigational channel for oceangoing ships to what we, in our Philadelphia way, like to consider as being one of the great ports in the United States. We had the largest import tonnage last year of any port in the United