COMMISSION ON ORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT (Water Resources and Power Report) WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND POWER OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Raleigh, N. C. The special subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, in the board room, State Agriculture Building, Raleigh, N. C., at 10:05 a. m., Hon. Robert E. Jones, Jr. (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Jones and Lipscomb. Also present: William C. Wise, staff director; William L. Sturdevant, staff member; and Robert Morris. Mr. JONES. The subcommittee will come to order. My name is Robert E. Jones, a Representative in Congress from Alabama, chairman of the subcommittee. My associate on my left is Mr. Glen Lipscomb, a Member of the House of Representatives of the United States from the State of California. We are expecting two other associate members of the committee to be with us either late this afternoon or tomorrow. This is the second hearing held by the Special Subcommittee on Water Resources and Power of the House Committee on Government Operations. We have before us the five-volume report of the Hoover Commission and its Task Force on Water Resources and Power, covering navigation, flood control, reclamation, hydroelectric power, water supply, stream pollution, and associated water-resource problems and programs. The purpose of this hearing is to seek out opinions and comment on the Commission and task force recommendations. In announcing this hearing on September 20, I said-and I repeat now: North Carolina's interest in flood control has increased since the recent hurricane caused serious flooding. We will wish to find out whether the Hoover Commission recommendations would bring about the necessary protection. Also, North Carolina is a seaport State, and it has many miles of the inland waterways flowing through its territory. We will get opinions on the Hoover Commission's recommendation to impose toll charges on the waterways and harbor projects. Among other things, this subcommittee is interested in getting the complete and detailed story of the damage done in this area by the recent floods. We wish to know what plans have been formulated to prevent floods in this region, and whether there are any changes in these plans as a result of the floods. We wish to know how the Hoover recommendations would affect plans for adequate flood protection and for the solution of other problems concerning water supply, navigation, hydroelectric power, stream pollution, and similar matters. The Hoover Commission and its Task Force on Water Resources and Power recommend a drastically reduced Federal role in the development of the Nation's water resources. This role began some 130 years ago, when the Federal Government first exercised its responsibility for navigation on the country's rivers. Then in successively later years came Federal activity in flood control, electric power generation and distribution, irrigation and reclamation, pollution abatement and water supply. Much of the economic, industrial, and social progress of the United States has its roots in the Federal Government's development of water resources for the general welfare. The Hoover Commission would minimize and in some cases cancel out Federal participation in these development programs. Question has been raised as to whether the task-force report as well as the full Commission report is before this subcommittee. There can be no serious question that this is the fact. The task-force report, consisting of 3 volumes totaling some 1,800 pages, was formally transmitted to Congress by Mr. Hoover on June 15, 1955, 12 days ahead of the full Commission report. Although Mr. Hoover attempts to enter a disclaimer at one point, the fact is that one cannot read the Commission report without reading the task-force report. Otherwise, whole sections of the Commission report are meaningless. The Commission report refers to the task-force report on no less than 43 occasions, over half of these references being in favorable terms. MoreMr. Hoover refers in his letter of transmittal to the "exhaustive investigation" conducted by the "able task force" headed by Adm. Ben Moreell. The Hoover Commission report and the task-force report are inseparable and are so considered by this subcommittee. over, The task force recommends certain criteria for determining the economic justification of proposed projects that are considerably more stringent than present requirements. They apply to all Federal waterresource programs. They are found on pages 104-110 of the taskforce report, volume I. The task-force recommendations on flood control are found on pages 99, 100, and 101 of volume I of the task-force report. Generally, they recommend that local or State governments be responsible for floodcontrol projects on local and intrastate streams; that if Federal participation is necessary it be done only on the basis of 50 percent costsharing by "clearly identifiable non-Federal beneficiaries"; and that even in the case of Federal participation in the construction of a project, the operation and maintenance costs should be paid by non-Federal interests. The task force also recommends that headwater dam building under the program of the Soil Conservation Service be transferred to the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This latter recommendation is embraced by the full Commission as its recommendation No. 6, found on page 71 of volume I of the Commission report. On navigation, the task force and the full Commission recommend, among other things, the imposition of user charges on the inland waterways. The full Commission also recommends (recommendation No. 7, p. 83, vol. I) that all projects declared obsolete or unsound by the Chief of Engineers should be removed from congressional authorizations. The task force has certain other recommendations, found on pages 101-103 of volume I. Another recommendation of more than passing interest to this region is the one on pollution abatement. The task force recommends (p. 103, vol. I) that Congress continue the present Federal activities in this field but exclude the assumption of financial responsibility for building abatement facilities. This subcommittee is also, of course, receptive to testimony on the recommendations on hydroelectric power and reclamation, which are of an extremely far-reaching character. We cannot be with you longer than 2 days and we have a host of witnesses listed. I am informed by the clerk that we have still others who, at a late hour, have made known their wish to appear before the committe. We will move as rapidly and as expeditiously as we possibly can. If you have a prepared statement and you can summarize that prepared statement and bring out the pertinent points, that would save considerable time. Mr. Lipscomb? Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, concerning this statement that you just read, is that a statement of the subcommittee or your own personal statement? Mr. JONES. That is my statement as chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. LIPSCOMB. I wanted to point that out, because on the second page of your statement you say, "The Hoover Commission report and the task-force report are inseparable and are so considered by this subcommittee." I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, as I stated at the Pennsylvania hearing, that I believe the responsibility of this subcommittee is to look into only the recommendations made by the Hoover Commission. I would like to reread the statement that you made in Pennsylvania, when you said: The Special Subcommittee on Water Resources and Power meeting here meaning Pennsylvania today and tomorrow, has been given by Chairman Dawson of the full committee the single responsibility of studying and reporting on the Hoover Report on Water Resources and Power. Further I would like to read another sentence on roman page X of the Hoover Commission report, in which Mr. Hoover in his statement says of the Commission: It has committed itself only in respect to the recommendations it makes in this report. Meaning there the Hoover Commission report itself. I believe that the Hoover Commission in functioning was just as free to disregard the task-force reports as this particular subcommittee is free to disregard the investigations and the recommendations of our particular staff. In going over the report I feel the only things that are of consequence to this subcommittee are the Hoover Commission report recommendations. I would also just like to clarify in my mind, and perhaps in the minds of the witnesses, one thing. I would like to know for what pur pose and why-besides the laudable reason of learning with interest about the problems in North Carolina-why "this subcommittee is interested in getting the complete and detailed story of the damage done in this area by the recent floods." Mr. JONES. Of course, Mr. Lipscomb, your latter inquiry as to what business it is of this committee to concern itself with flood conditions that existed as a result of the recent flood, requires me to say that to bring about any orderly analysis of a project and the Federal responsibility therein, you have to analyze the proposals for dealing with that flood to ascertain whether or not there is a Federal responsibility involved in seeing that there is not a recurrence or that there is remedial work done in the area where the flood occurred. We might have a situation that will require an analysis of the Corps of Engeneers' projects and projects that are to be undertaken by the State in their relationship to Federal properties on which we have authorized projects, and see how the flood conditions would affect them. Therefore it would be impossible for us to take up the task force report with any meaning to the people of the State of North Carolina unless we scrutinize and analyze the flood conditions that existed here at that time; not for the purpose of ascertaining whether they possess merit in the future authorization of projects by the various agencies involved, but to see whether or not the policy of the Federal Government and that recommended by the Hoover Commission is sufficient to meet the needs required by Federal responsibility in the State of North Carolina. Of course, you have to bring into play a discussion of the proposed projects and the projects that are underway and the projects that have been completed. Mr. LIPSCOMB. My second question, Mr. Chairman, is why this subcommittee wishes "to know what plans have been formulated to prevent floods in this region, and whether there are any changes in these plans as a result of the flood. Mr. JONES. Yes. For the same reason you have to go into any new plans to ascertain their relationship to Federal responsibility. Mr. LIPSCOMB. I feel it should be made clear to the witnesses that this subcommittee has no jurisdiction over recommending or proposing authorizations or appropriations for flood control public works projects, or going to the Appropriations Committee with their problems, and that the subcommittee is properly concerned with nothing other than the Hoover Commission recommendations. Is that right? Mr. JONES. That is correct, except it needs a little bit more explanation. This is not an authorizing committee. We will make the report to the Committee on Government Operations as to how the water resource policies as practiced by the Federal Government in the past compare in satisfying the needs of the people with the recommendations made by the Hoover Commission and the task force report. Certainly we will not advise the Committee on Appropriations that we expect them to take certain action as a result of our study, but I do hope the Congress will take judicial notice of what we have done and what we do report in order to be informed as to what the people think with respect to the Hoover Commission report and their future welfare as far as water resource problems are concerned. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Thank you. Mr. JONES. I think your point is well taken that we are not a legislative committee in the sense that we will make certain recommenda |