be cordinated and simplified. But the main question is to face this problem of water control and to know about it nationwide. Mr. LIPSCOMB. In the State of North Carolina do you have any trouble with bridge clearances? Mr. GRAHAM. In just what way do you mean? Mr. LIPSCOMB. The Hoover Commission mentioned in their report that A constant conflict arises between the inland navigators and the highway builders over higher bridge clearance. Under the present law, the Army engineers are required to favor navigation. Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir. Our relations with the Corps of Engineers have been most pleasant and most satisfactory. We recognize that the natural trend of commerce is changing in the entire country. years past water commerce was much more important, even in small streams. Now that commerce cannot compete with the rapid-moving truck traffic and, therefore, we don't have as many problems of that kind as we had in the past. In other words, we are placing more bridges without draw spans than we could have in years gone past. Mr. LIPSCOMB. That is basically what the Commission report says. It says: The highway managers insist on less high bridges and closing of many draw bridges. Mr. GRAHAM. That is because of the change in your method of transportation. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Thank you. Mr. JONES. Off the record. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Graham. Our next witness will be Mr. L. Y. Ballentine, commissioner of agriculture. STATEMENT OF L. Y. BALLENTINE, COMMISSIONER OF Mr. BALLENTINE. Mr. Chairman, I am L. Y. Ballentine. Mr. JONES. All right. If you will summarize it, that will do. What is the first point you are going to make? Mr. BALLENTINE. If you are going to points I will have to read it, because what I am presenting here is a summary statement. So, maybe I had better read it, because it is hard to summarize a brief which I have submitted. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Is it on the recommendations of the Hoover Commission? Mr. BALLENTINE. Yes, sir. Strictly. Mr. JONES. Then suppose you let us have it. Mr. BALLENTINE. With an introductory paragraph or two. Although the North Carolina Department of Agriculture is not charged with any direct responsibility in the field of water resources and power, it is naturally interested in anything which so vitally affects the State's agriculture and welfare of its farming people. It is well to bear in mind that this is primarily an agricultural State. With 1,351,000 persons living on its 288,000 farms, it has the largest farm population of any of the States. Farm people constitute a third of the State's total population of 4,062,000, while another third is rural nonfarm and the remaining third is urban. All but a negligible fraction of our farms now have electricity, and an increasing proportion of them are using electric power for farm production as well as for household purposes. More and more farmers also are turning to irrigation, mostly by sprinkler systems, for increasing their productive capacity. This practice has come about only in the last few years and is expanding rapidly. Most of our farms are small, averaging 67 acres, and their operators are becoming increasingly conscious of the necessity for obtaining maximum benefit from available water as well as from their soil. Some conception of this growing water consciousness can be gained from the thousands of farm ponds which now dot our countryside. In view of the growing importance of water resources and electric power to North Carolina agriculture, it is unfortunate that our farming interests have not had better opportunity to prepare an expression of their views on the so-called Hoover Commission's Report to the Congress on Water Resources and Power. The commissioner of agriculture has not yet received an official copy of either the Commission's report or that of its task force. He has had to rely on an unofficial reprint of the Commission's report, which was received less than a week ago. As yet he has had no opportunity to examine the voluminous findings of the task force. This being the case, he naturally wonders whether other interested persons and groups are not similarly handicapped or whether they have even had a chance to see the Hoover Commission's recommendations. It would seem that the report of the Commission and the report of the task force are so interrelated that they should hardly be considered separately. How can one properly appraise the conclusions of the Commission without access to the full evidence compiled by the task force? Certainly the broad, far-reaching recommendations of the Commission lack adequate support in the brief statements of fact and assumptions accompanying those recommendations in the Commission's report. Generalities elicit generalities, and one genaralized observation of the Commission's recommendations is that they lack definition and need to be far more closely qualified. As they now stand they inevitably invite attack as an effort to dismember some valuable Federal agencies and cripple some public services which have been of great benefit to agriculture and other segments of our economy in North Carolina, as well as in other areas of the Nation. The Commission's first statement of policy (recommendation 1 (a)) is encouraging: That water resources should be developed to assure their optimum use and their maximum contribution to the national economic growth, strength, and general welfare. Such a fine beginning, however, deserves more implementation than is found elsewhere in the Commission's report, which is singularly lacking in concrete, constructive proposals. The very next statement of policy, unless further qualified, could be intepreted as a denial of the wisdom and success of national water resource policies which during the past two decades have contributed much to the wealth and welfare of the Nation. The planning and development of water resources by natural drainage areas would seem logical; but the statement in 1 (b) could be interpreted as restricting the development of such areas to those projects which can be financed. locally and regionally. This, indeed, would mean slow and laborious progress. Specific observations on other proposed policies listed in recommendation 1 are: (c) This is a dealer's-choice provision. It could be interpreted to permit national participation in almost any project, or it could be used to thwart Federal participation in highly important undertakings of broad scope. It depends on who is making the interpretation. (d) As presently stated, this would permit individual States to block national interests or the interests of neighboring States. (e) No objection; a logical and necessary service. (f) It is presumed that the Congress already follows this policy; but Congressmen, Senators, and many others among their constituents differ in their interpretation of what is "economically justified and financially feasible" and whether a given project is "essential to national interest." Will a policy statement correct this? (g) This imposes a great deal of power in a single agency. What assurance is there that it would be representative of all of our varied economic and social interests? Then, too, why limit progress in such a broad field to a single road? (h) This proposed requirement for Treasury deposits and annual appropriations for cash operating expenses places an unnecessary administrative load on the Congress and would make it easier for some future Congress to hamstring progress. Is this good business management? (i) This would deprive the public of one of its best means of controlling electric power rates, a means which has proved highly effective without wrecking private power interests. Our Government is a system of checks and balances. This is a good check or balance on the Federal Power Commission. The creation of a Water Resources Board (recommendation No. 2) as an advisory and coordinating group in the Executive Office of the President appears to be reasonable and a step toward improved administration. The Nation's agriculture should be represented on this board both by the Secretary of Agriculture and a lay representative. On the other hand, it appears unnecessary to add any considerable staff of experts to the Bureau of the Budget to pass on the merits of water development projects (recommendation 3). Is such a policy followed by the Budget Bureau in other fields of interest? Does this agency maintain specialized staffs in education, agriculture, public health, and so forth, ad infinitum? North Carolina agriculture is not presently concerned with Federal irrigation projects; but it is conceivable that either irrigation or drainage projects may be developed in some of our eastern areas in the not too distant future. We, therefore, have more than an academic interest in a proposal to establish a new policy on acreage limitations, as proposed in recommendation 4. We would not deny the wisdom of amending what may seem an arbitrary limitation; but this recommendation should be further qualified. Recommendation No. 5 would tend to bring about a short-range development and open the door for unnecessary delays in the completion of worthy projects. Why is it necessary to abolish revolving funds? Why not consider each on its own merits? Of serious concern to agriculture is the Commission's recommendation No. 6 to transfer to the Corps of Engineers responsibility for constructing headwater dams in the program of the Soil Conservation Service. Further clarification is necessary. Is the purpose of this proposal entirely one of economy, or could it be an effort to whittle away the authority of the Soil Conservation Service? Few governmental agencies can boast a finer record of efficient operations and constructive accomplishment. Farmers throughout the Nation will deeply resent any attempt to curtail the soil-conservation program. No question is raised about the engineering competence of the Corps of Engineers, but does its staff include soil specialists? Some economy may be possible through closer coordination of the Soil Conservation Service with the Corps of Engineers and reduction of the former agency's engineering staff. In any event, however, the Soil Conservation Service should retain full authority for determining where and what type of headwater dams should be constructed. Mr. Chairman, maybe I could have done a better job if I had had more time, but these are my sentiments as they were hurriedly recorded. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Ballentine. Any questions, Mr. Lipscomb? Mr. LIPSCOMB. No, but I would like to suggest to Mr. Ballentine that when you do make your study, that you consider only the parts of the task force reports that are concerned with and contained in the Hoover Commission report. The Hoover Commission did not embrace the task force report. Mr. BALLENTINE. I would like to ask you a question. Is it not a fact that the task force report is before you? Mr. LIPSCOMB. That is the chairman's opinion and not mine, sir. Mr. JONES. I am glad I am chairman. Mr. BALLENTINE. I understood that the task force report was presented and submitted along with, or, maybe not along with, but as well as the Hoover Commission report, and that both were before the committee and probably both would be before Congress. However, on your suggestion, sir, I have not had an opportunity even to refer to the references pointed out in the Commission's report, because we have not had the report, that is, the task force report. Mr. JONES. Are you familiar with the signature of Mr. Herbert Hoover? Mr. BALLENTINE. No, sir; I couldn't say that I was. Mr. JONES. On page 3 is the letter of transmittal. They transmitted both documents to the Congress. It is addressed to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, containing and referring, of course, to the transmission of both documents. Mr. LIPSCOMB. First, Mr. Chairman, in one of the paragraphs in that letter it says that the conclusions and recommendations of the task force were reviewed by the Commission in reaching its own conclu sion, but that the Commission's own recommendations may not necessarily coincide in all respects with those of the task force. Mr. JONES. That is trying to separate sin from the devil. [Laughter.] Mr. BALLENTINE. Thank you. Mr. JONES. Our next witness is Mr. Stanley Winborne, chairman of the utilities commission. STATEMENT OF STANLEY WINBORNE, CHAIRMAN, UTILITIES COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. WINBORNE. I am Stanley Winborne, chairman of the North Carolina Utilities Commission. I don't think it will be necessary for me to take the witness chair for the reason that we are filing with your committee the same report which we filed with the task force committee in Chattanooga last year. It concerns the hydroelectric development and the steam-generating development in North Carolina up to that time, and there has been very little change since. That is the basis of our statement that we are filing with the committee. We did not have time to go into it further because when we got notice that we would be wanted to make this report we were engaged in the hearing before the Commission and have been until yesterday afternoon about 4:30. I think this report, though, probably covers all that we would have to say anyway, and that is in the hands of Mr. Rankin, who will furnish you with the statement. Mr. JONES. Without objection, it will be incorporated in the record at this point. Do you want to examine it for the purpose of Mr. LIPSCOMB. I think it is a good policy for the subcommittee that these statements be submitted to the subcommittee and be gone over by the subcommittee and then be inserted in the record. Mr. JONES. I have no feelings about the matter. I do like to know what the witness is testifying to. I feel that statements which are inserted in the record of a cumulative character are all right. However, when they touch on policy it should be the source for further inquiry by the committee. Mr. WINBORNE. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that, of course, the report is a very short one. It just gives a few factual statements concerning hydroelectric development in this State. Mr. JONES. If you will hand this to us we will look at it. Mr. RANKIN. This was already submitted to the task force. Mr. LIPSCOMB. This is all right. Mr. JONES. Without objection, the statement of Mr. Winborne will be inserted at this point in the record. STATEMENT OF STANLEY WINBORNE, CHAIRMAN, UTILITIES COMMISSION STATEMENT BY THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION ON THE GENERATION, TRANSMISSION, AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC POWER IN NORTH CAROLINA TASK FORCE ON WATER RESOURCES AND POWER HEARING IN CHATTANOOGA, TENN., JUNE 1, 1954 The generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy by privately owned companies in North Carolina is under the supervision and regulation of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, an agency of the State, created by |