States and our port is booming. We like to call them the Delaware River Ports and not take entire credit for Philadelphia, but Philadelphia is known as the best, the largest port, and generates the largest part of the business.

Then the upper and middle portions of the basin give us unmatched outdoor recreational assets and facilities-we are right in the heart of that now, and I hope that you gentleman are impressed with the beauty of our Pennsylvania scenery in the early fall. If you are here a month later, it will be ever better.

On the problem side, this business of pollution is a very serious one. We are cleaning up our own mess, which we have fouled for so long, but there is a good deal of pollution by the industrial and the municipal on the upper reaches of the river. We have a clean stream program in effect, sponsored by the State government which we are pretty proud of at the moment, but there is still a great deal of work to be done there.

Mr. JONES. Is the pollution problem aggravated during periods of low flow?

Mr. CLARK. Very much so, sir, very much so, and seriously so, so that strict flood regulation is one of the most important elements in this business of proper resources of the basin.

Another problem we get into in low flow which affects us—we are in the tidal basin of the Delaware, which goes all the way up to Trenton, and there is always the problem of salinity. The salt water in the ocean in times of low flow and high tides coming up could easily create very serious problems for the industries which we have got created along the Delaware River Basin, and we hope will continue to come. The flood problem

Mr. JONES. I have heard that down in Philadelphia you bottle your municipal water supply for treatment of athlete's foot. Is that correct?

Mr. CLARK. There is a rumor to that effect, Mr. Congressman, but I would like to assure you it is entirely unfounded. We used to call it the chlorine cocktail. The taste is almost, but not quite, as good as a martini.

We are concerned with this flood problem not so much because of the possible major damage to the city itself, but because of the losses in economic disruption which will be suffered by the hinterland which is so closely related to our whole economy. No great city can prosper unless it has proper trade connections with the hinterland, and we feel we are all in the same boat in this picture. There is no diversity of interest between Philadelphia and a rural area.

It ought to be, and I think it is, all one ball team working for mutual prosperity.

This low water flow in the Delaware is a pretty serious problem, coming either from insufficient rainfall and streamflow on the watershed, or it could conceivably come in the foreseable future by the increase in consumptive use of water above Philadelphia, and that gets us into the problems of our sister States, New York and New Jersey and their water needs as well as the water needs of some of the

Mr. JONES. As I recall, the Supreme Court decision reserved 440 million gallons to the State-city of New York, for its use. Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir; that's right.

Mr. JONES. And the two reservoirs under construction.

A VOICE. 808.

Mr. CLARK. Thanks for the correction. Please step in when you find me being inaccurate. I need some support back there. My knowledge of the details is not as good as I'd like to have it.

We will have the problem, gentlemen, of the needs of the State of New Jersey, which are great, also. They are running into a serious water shortage in the northwest and they, too, are looking to the Delaware. And, of course, when our Pennsylvania communities develop on the upper reaches of the West Branch, we're going to have more need for more water up there. And, of course, this low flow aggravates, as I said, our pollution problem and salt-water problem and gives us a real problem in connection with our own water supply.

We are still taking a good bit of water from the Schuylkill River, but as time goes on it is probably going to be a less and less effective source of Philadelphia's water. It is pretty hard and the pumping problems are serious, and we are looking to an increasing tendency to take more and more of our water supply from the Delaware. We're going to have to go upstream for Philadelphia's water in the foreseeable future. Of course, how far ahead can you plan? Our people tell me we'll be there before the year 2,000. I used to think that time would never come, and I don't suppose very many of us, except some of the younger members of this committee, are apt to see it-I'm pretty sure I won't-but I think you've got to plan ahead for that kind of thing, and our peak daily requirement at that time, if our projections make any sense-and they're the best we can get-would be about 516 million gallons of raw water a day, the average, and the peak in times of hot weather and greatest need would be around 600 million gallons.

We're presently using 388 million gallons, on an average, and a maximum use of 521 million gallons on a single day. So those are figures which are within the realm of possibility; they're not out of sight, I don't think.

One of the reasons we're going to need more water is that, thanks to Congress having listened to our pleas, we're getting-in fact, substantially have got the 40-foot channel in the Delaware River up to Philadelphia and we're still hoping we're going to get it all the way up to Morrisville, whether or not the United States Steel Corp. has to pay some part of the cost. You'll recall there was some controversy in Congress about that this spring and summer.

That is going to bring in, inevitably, more and more industries on the banks of the Delaware on water sites in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and that, in turn, is going to be cause for a good deal more need for water for industrial uses and also residential uses, because industry brings with it residential building for the workers who have jobs provided for them.

We've got a critical social condition up in lower Bucks County as a result of the settling of the United States Steel plant in Morrisville and the coming in of some of the pilot industries, so that the whole need for utilities to support a very much larger population in that part of the Delaware Basin north of Philadelphia and south of Trenton is becoming a critical governmental problem. It is changing the whole economy of Bucks County, and, well, it's a headache that we have problems dealing with.

We think that any plan or proposal for reservoirs for upstream consumptive use, including diversion of water to New York and New Jersey, has got to take account, and they do take account, of the basic future requirement of the Greater Philadelphia area. We've been doing something about this; we haven't just been sitting and talking; and in conjunction with Governor Leader of Pennsylvania, Governor Meyner, Governor Harriman, and Mayor Wagner, we've been trying to get together to see how we could best move jointly to develop a program for achieving the optimum control and use of the basin's resources, in the light of our sometimes competing requirements.

The current status, I think, is worth calling to your attention. We like to think that the New York-New Jersey-eastern Pennsylvania metropolitan industrial complex represents the greatest concentration of population and industry in the Nation, and I guess that's right. On any basis of figures there are more people around this part of the woods than anywhere else, and that makes pretty serious and overwhelming problems. That population can't stay here and can't grow unless it's going to have adequate water supply, and the water supply has got to come from the Delaware River Basin, particularly since we've lost our battle, apparently, to ask our New York friends to go back on the Hudson. That's something they had to make up their minds on, and they decided not to go there, and that makes our problem just so much worse.

An approach to this overall plan was made by INCODEL, the Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin, and you've just heard the very able executive director of that group, Mr. Pitkin, who with Mr. Allen has made a really wonderful contribution to the thinking in this whole field. But, unfortunately, Pennsylvania wouldn't agree I'm not purporting to pass judgment on whether they should or shouldn't agree but they didn't, and so the INCODEL plan pretty much failed for the time being. There is some doubt of its being revived, and what has happened is that the lawyers have taken over the development of the river basin. I'm a lawyer myself, but I don't think that's right.

Mr. JONES. In other words, you brought yourself a good lawsuit. Mr. CLARK. That's right, sir.

Mr. JONES. A little over a million dollars, so far, isn't it?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir, and with all due respect to the Supreme Court of the United States, I just don't think that is the ideal tribunal to plan for the future use of the Delaware River Basin.

When this flood struck we got an indication of how far we were behind in planning for proper utilization of the basin. There weren't any multiple-purpose storage dams in place in the upper basin with the function of providing flood control. There were a few privately owned electric dams, with no flood-control function. New York had these two single-purpose water-supply reservoirs, with no flood-control function. Furthermore, the only authorized plan was for the construction of another single-purpose water supply reservoir by New York City, also with no flood-control function. And while INCODEL's plan envisaged some incidental flood-control benefits, there was no storage specifically allocated to flood control.

How did all this come about? Why, during a period when the Federal Government, with wholehearted local interest and support, was planning and carrying out comprehensive river basin development

programs in such areas as the Tennessee, Columbia, and California Central Valleys, was so little actually accomplished in the way of comprehensive development on the Delaware?

Α

I think that goes back to some history and some psychology. The controversy between New York and New Jersey, which reached the Supreme Court in 1929, certainly gave us an early warning that some day we'd have to get to work on an overall solution based upon utilizing the full potential of the stream to its economic limit. We got off to a promising start. The Army engineers made a 308 report, completed in 1934, which sketched an overall plan for storage of the waters of the basin for the combined purposes of domestic water supply and hydroelectric power. This plan was only a start and it was just a framework on which more comprehensive and detailed planning could have been based. But, unlike the situation in other regions of the Nation where a 308 report would be the springboard for action on comprehensive development, no early action was taken in the Delaware River Basin to follow up the 308 report with detailed development plans of comprehensive scope. State and local initiative, instead, was directed toward solving water problems on an individual basis. INCODEL started with pollution and then they would take these other problems up, piecemeal, as they arose. lot of stress was laid on the virtue of the States and localities jointly solving their own water resources problems and undertaking development on their own, without the active intervention of the Federal Govenment. Continuation of overall basin planning by the Federal Government, to follow up the planning done under the 308 study, was not encouraged. The Federal Government would be asked to solve a particular problem when it got out of hand-like the pollution problem on the Schuylkill, where we got a lot of Federal money to help us clean it up, or a particular flood-control problem such as they've got on the Lehigh and the Lackawaxen, or a particular navigation problem like the 40-foot channel for the lower Delaware. And for over a decade the responsible State and local officials made no serious move on their own to develop an overall plan for effective use and control of the waters of the Delaware on an interstate basis. When such a plan was developed in 1950 by a firm of consulting engineers under INCODEL auspices, it dealt largely with the upper basin of the Delaware, and, in my judgment, was not sufficiently comprehensive in scope.

Mr. JONES. Was that Malcolm Pirnie of New York City and Albright and Friel of Philadelphia?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. Those are the engineers?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. They drew up the plan for the $100-million works?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.

There was no evidence in those reports that the manifold skills and resources of all the various Federal agencies concerned were effectively brought into the planning process, in the interests of developing a fully comprehensive plan which would tap the full potential of the river and its tributaries, and, of course, as I pointed out, the plan was not acceptable to all of the States, and it wasn't adopted.

Now, I said there were particular overtones in that, and I think the fact of the matter is, by and large, with some exceptions, our whole concept of this business has been an example of what I call "Piltdown thinking." The people who have been in charge of this thing have had a phobia against the Federal Government. They talk about socialism, they scream about what a dreadful thing the Tennessee Valley Authority was, and

Mr. JONES. I would just like to call your attention to Look What They're Doing to the Delaware, an article appearing in the Saturday Evening Post in 1950, and it is rather dramatic. It incites all the schisms that it possibly can against TVA. You might find it of interest.

(NOTE: The article referred to appears on p. 95.)

Mr. CLARK. Well, one of the great things in America is that you don't have to agree with the other fellow, and in view of the source, I'm not surprised at the conclusion. Times are changing, gentlemen, and a group that

Mr. JONES. Mr. Mayor, let me call your attention to a more recent article in the New York Herald Tribune of April 18, 1954, written by Mat Adams. It also is the answer to the water crises on the Delaware River.

(NOTE: The article referred to appears on p. 102.)

Mr. CLARK. I shall read both of those with interest.

Mr. JONES. You read them, but we want to keep them.

Mr. CLARK. You don't want me to read them now, sir, do you?

Mr. JONES. Well, I would like to have you in your spare moments obtain copies of them and read them.

Mr. CLARK. I'll certainly do that, sir.

Mr. JONES. Because it is apparent now that the solution wasn't to be found in that sort of planning.

Mr. CLARK. Well, I think we're all familiar with the pressures and the vested interests which have their impact, I can assure you, not only on the Congress of the United States, but on the Council of the City of Philadelphia, and there are always a good many pretty-well-heeled individuals who probably sincerely believe that certain approaches to these problems are in the best interest of the community, but the other side doesn't too often get told in the Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald Tribune.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Mayor, there are vested interests on both sides.. Mr. CLARK. Of course there are, sure.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. And you're referring to both sides?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir, but I think I should say, with all deference,. Mr. Congressman, that the vested interests on one side are apt to have a little more money and more influence than the vested interests on the other. That's my personal judgment.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I can't disagree with you more.

Mr. CLARK. That's what makes a horserace, isn't it?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Lobbyists' reports were just issued in the Congressional Record of this last session of Congress which might be interesting.

Mr. CLARK. I had a look at them; yes.

Well, that is our situation here today, and our conclusion is that we need in the Delaware Basin an overall approach in which the fullest economic potentialities for basin development for all relevant purposes.