are utilized in a mutually supporting plan which local, State, and Federal agencies can unite in preparing, undertaking, and financing. Under such a plan the fullest economic possibilities for flood control storage, hydroelectric power development, recreation, fish and wildlife and agricultural and forest land conservation and development would be joined with purposes such as navigation, domestic and industrial water supply, pollution, sediment and salinity control and maintenance of streamflow in a truly multiple-purpose development.

Now, such a plan is beyond the financial means of any one level of government. Its joint financing, however, by local, State, and Federal Governments should be entirely feasible.

As I mentioned a minute ago, we are taking, on the basis of local and State initiative, the first somewhat feasible steps to get such a plan going. We have had preliminary conferences which make me sanguine in believing that the four States and the two major cities which are involved, New York and Philadelphia, are going to be able to make a joint application to the Resources for the Future Foundation for a reassembly and a reappraisal of all of the data which has been collected so far on this problem, in the hope that they will come out with a recommended master plan which I would be very hopeful would call for State, local, and Federal participation and financing by all three levels of government. We're not out of the woods on that yet, but we have been given at least some encouragement in proceeding that way, and I'm very hopeful that in the next 60 or 90 days we're going to be able to show that that study is underway.

Now, I think in the interest of expedition I'll skip a little bit of this. I'd like to stress again our feeling that the Federal Government must play a substantial role in cooperating with State and local agencies in undertaking these measures, and it's got to play a much greater role than it has played in the past, both in the planning field, where the broad knowledge of many Federal Government agencies can be invoked, and in the financing of the work, because of the large amounts of money available to the Federal Government by taxation. Perhaps you gentlemen are tired of hearing it, but I'd like to reiterate, with some emphasis, that of every tax dollar that comes out of our pockets, the Federal Government takes 75 cents and the State 121/2 cents and the city 1212 cents. And with the problems of a great community like this, with the hinterland, too, that 122 cents both to State and local governments just isn't anything like enough to meet the many, many problems of a really gigantic nature which this enormous increase in the complexity of modern civilization is throwing back at local levels.

It's all very well to talk about State and local responsibility, and goodness knows it is the foundation of our local democracy, but it's pretty difficult to insist upon responsibility when you don't have the financial resources to meet this responsibility. If the Federal Government is going to take 3 cents out of every 4 that are raised in tax money, it's either going to have to return some of that money in tax sources to the local communities and States or it's going to have to do a lot more on its own to meet some of these enormous domestic problems, of which this is only one, than it has done in the past. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Mayor, isn't that because we've been centralizing too much into the Federal Government and taking too much away from the local and State government?

Mr. CLARK. Well, I used to think that, Mr. Congressman, until I read with some care the report of the Kestnbaum Commission which came out recently. I was rather startled to find that those gentlemen, appointed by President Eisenhower and, I thought, doing a fine, conscientious job, didn't seem to feel that way. They felt we were pretty nearly irrevocably commmitted on a series of grants-in-aid, with the Federal Government helping out the States. They felt that, with minor exception, it was not practical to return to the States and localities many of these tax sources. I think they also felt that in many, many instances the State governments aren't measuring up to their responsibilities and didn't seem to be able to feel they were going to in the near future. And I just thought that Kestnbaum Report, although it didn't receive the publicity it deserved, was a major contribution to our whole thinking on this. I think we've been repeating cliches for too long.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. But the reason your funds have been depleted is because the Federal Government has been taking too much and returning too little.

Mr. CLARK. I don't know whether I could agree with that. I don't think the Kestnbaum Commission did.

Mr. JONES. Well, there is nothing new about the Federal responsibility for activities in the field of navigation and flood control, is there, Mr. Mayor?

Mr. CLARK. No, sir, I don't think there is.

Mr. JONES. As a matter of fact, George Washington, the first President, in the Internal Improvement Acts made request for appropriations to aid navigation. As a matter of fact, it's a constitutional responsibility.

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir; quite right.

Mr. JONES. So far as the Congress dealing with a new proposition of infringement or trespass on the sovereignty of the States, why, an open political subdivision is not one to be feared by the people, is it? Mr. CLARK. I wouldn't think so, sir. I think the present efforts are to turn the clock back and away from what has been established national policy almost since the foundation of the Republic.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Well, there is no question here, is there, that the Federal Government has a responsibility and is not going to face it? Mr. CLARK. Well, I think the real problem before us is to define the limits of it, so shall I go ahead?

Mr. JONES Yes.

Mr. CLARK. As I said a minute ago, we have urgent requirements and they're present, they're not in the future. We need right now more in domestic and industrial water of better quality, we need more and better navigation facilities for our port, we need now to reduce and, if possible, eliminate flood damage, and we need right now to reduce the ill effects of water pollution. We need right now better outdoor recreational facilities for all of our people, not just for those who can pay a high price and come to a splendid place like this. We've got to conserve and enhance our resources of fish and game. We need better management of our soil and forest resources, both to maintain

and enhance productivity, but also from the point of view of we city dwellers in Philadelphia, to control and decrease that soil erosion which is silting up our streams and requiring the Federal Government to spend millions and millions of dollars to maintain that 40-foot channel. They maintain it, then take the dredges away and it silts up again, and if we could get some adequate all-purpose overall control of this basin, which would include soil-erosion control, that would in the end, I think, save the Federal Government a lot of money.

While our State and local resources are not inconsiderable, we don't think they're adequate to cope with this whole problem. There are agencies at every level of government to deal with these problems, but, as I said a little while ago, the agencies are all operating at the moment on a piecemeal basis, and what I think we need, if I could take the risk of reiterating the obvious again, is a joint plan, jointly financed by State, local, and Federal authorities, each fitting into the pattern much as you put a jigsaw puzzle together, in an overall approach to this problem.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You're speaking now on the local level when you say that you have a lot of piecemeal agencies that are operating. Do you feel that is true on the Federal level, too-that there are a lot of piecemeal agencies?

Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. In other words, they ought to be brought into a joint program, also?

Mr. CLARK. I don't feel competent to express a personal opinion on that, but certainly a reading of the Hoover report would indicate that. I think you're familiar with 12 agencies in the Federal Government concerned with flood abatement, 9 concerned with irrigation, 8 with drainage. That is on page 18 of the Hoover report. I don't know whether you have the same one I have. I've got a blue cover. I don't want to take time to read them now, because I'm sure you gentlemen are very familiar with it.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. It is one of the recommendations.

Mr. JONES. As a matter of fact, Mr. Mayor, when a flood-control problem is proposed to the Federal Government, it brings into play 35 agencies and bureaus of the Federal Government.

Mr. CLARK. It seems like a great many, doesn't it?

Mr. JONES. It does.

Mr. CLARK. Well, with this background in mind, I'd like to comment a little bit on the recommendations on water resources of the Hoover Commission and its task force.

We in Philadelphia were very concerned when that report was published and we read about it in the press. It looked to us as though the Commission and its task force were recommending not the maintenance of existing Federal responsibilities or their increase, as we feel is badly needed in the Delaware Basin, but a drastic curtailment and limitation of Federal activity and initiative in river-basin development.

Through the task force report, and to some extent in the report of the Commission, runs the theme that the Federal Government has usurped functions in these fields which non-Federal agencies are ready, willing, and able to assume, and that certainly is not true in the Delaware Basin. This report suggests that what is required is

70818-56-pt. 1—3

turning over more responsibility for financing to State and local governments and to other private and non-Federal agencies. We've tried that in the Delaware and it doesn't work. We're in the Supreme Court as a result of it and, as I said before, I don't think that is the proper agency to plan and effectuate river-basin control.

I'd like to urge on the committee, in considering this problem, a very careful study of the Kestnbaum Report on Intergovernmental Relations, because it occurs to me that the conclusions of that commission are certainly not in accord with the Hoover Commission, and I would commend that commission as being worthy of at least equal regard.

I do think, in all fairness, that I should say that I think the recommendations of the Hoover Commission itself are far less drastic than the implications of the task force report or the statements which have been made by some of the members of the Hoover Commission, which I can't quote in detail but which generally speaking, I think, lead us to the belief that they were recommending a step backward, as far as our point of view was concerned.

I would think that it would be possible to carry out the overall plan for joint State, local, and Federal responsibility for planning and organization on the Delaware River Basin and not run up against the critical recommendation in the Hoover report, which to me seems to be this and I'm reading now recommendation 1 (c) of that report, which is on page 36 of my copy-the recommendation that the Congress adopt a national water policy which should include:

(c) That the Federal Government should assume responsibility—

and that is a positive recommendation; the task force put it negatively, but the Commission puts it positively, that the Federal Government should assume

* * * to further or safeguard the national interest or to accomplish broad national objectives—

There is a certain amount of question-begging in that and I discard that particular part of it to read the next:

That the Federal Government should assume responsibility-where projects, because of size or complexity or potential multiple purposes or benefits, are beyond the means or the needs of local or private enterprise.

Now, I think this falls right in that category.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Today, you have no reason to believe that the Delaware River Basin that we've been talking about would not fall within the recommendation that they make at that point? It could?

Mr. CLARK. It could, and if I had the brief, as a lawyer, I would argue very strenuously that it should. The thing that disturbs me is not so much what is actually said, as the implications which have been put on it, both because it is backed up by the task force report, which I can't concur with, and the press.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Again I want to state that I feel that the Hoover. Commission did not embrace the recommendations of the task force. Mr. CLARK. I would have to agree.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. They did not buy all the recommendations of the task force, and these recommendations, No. 1 and No. 6, on flood control are the only two recommendations that they bought in that particular field.

Mr. CLARK. I can't disagree with you.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. So I'm concerning myself, as a member of this committee, with seeing whether these recommendations will help the situation as far as water resources and power are concerned, and I'm not concerning myself with the background of the Hoover Commission task force except where it pertains to these particular recommendations.

Mr. CLARK. Well, I don't think there is any necessary inconsistency between your views and mine. All I'm up here for is to enlist the support of the Federal Government, which I think is very badly needed. Mr. JONES. The statement you've just read from the Commission is the same statement Abraham Lincoln made many years ago—the Federal Government should not be involved where the local people can do it.

Mr. CLARK. I was going to come to that.

Mr. JONES. There is nothing new in that philosophy. The only question is when, when is the Federal Government going to assume its responsibility?

Mr. CLARK. We would like to see it do it today in the Delaware Valley.

Mr. JONES. Well, I'd like to do it for you today.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, sir.

Again I'll skip a little bit, but I would hope that in the preoccupation which the public press has with the Hoover report we won't forget that Kestnbaum report. I'd like to read two quotations from that, and this has to do with their consideration of this water resources problem-and I'm quoting. The Kestnbaum report recommends— that the Congress and the executive branch of the National Government adopt the policy that capital costs of multipurpose, basinwide water resource developments be equitably divided between the National Government and the States concerned, in the light of beenfits received, ability to pay, and other attendant circumstances. I like that better than the Hoover statement. Note particularly that ability to pay is one of the criteria. And again I point out what I said before about where the tax dollar goes, which I think has a verv real impact on the ability to pay.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I think they are basically talking about the same thing, but state it in different words.

Mr. CLARK. I think they probably are, Congressman, and my concern is with the advocates as you say, the vested interests on both sides are each attempting to claim that the reports support their particular point of view, when, perhaps consciously, perhaps unconsciously, they tend to make their policy recommendations in such general terms that a good lawyer could argue either case with some effect.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, I know it's almost an impossible task, but that is what I hope this committee can clarify as far as the Hoover Commission reports are concerned.

Mr. CLARK. I would like to quote again from the Kestnbaum report. While recognizing the primary responsibilities of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, the Commission believes that the magnitude of the problem, the involvement of navigable streams under Federal jurisdiction, and the frequency of situations where waste disposal in one State pollutes streams in another State, justify increased participation of the National Government in coping with this hazard to domestic and industrial water users.