Page images
PDF
EPUB

I pointed out earlier that we recognized our local responsibilities and had spent $80 million in this stream pollution cleanup business in the last 10 years.

In view of the way the committee has dealt with what I've said so far, I think I will not state verbally the criticisms of the Hoover Commission's task-force report, which will appear in my printed testimony, which I hope the committee will admit into your record. I do think that that task force was way off base.

Mr. JONES. In the navigation features of the task-force report, do you agree that tolls should be imposed upon the water users?

Mr. CLARK. I completely disagree. I think it would be turning our back on a couple of centuries of sound national policy. I'm particularly concerned about the fact that the task-force report states these things negatively, and the Federal Government should not do this, the Federal Government should not do that, the States and the local communities should assume this. I'm happy to see that the Commission report itself, in the portion which I read, states the problem positively.

There is no doubt about it-we're going to have more Federal participation, more Federal finance, and not less, as far as the only river valley that I know anything about is concerned-that's this one.

Mr. Chairman, President Eisenhower recently referred to a statement attributed to Abraham Lincoln, in which President Lincoln expressed the idea that government should do for the people those things which the people cannot do for themselves. There are many things which the people as individuals and in their local and State governments are doing for themselves. We have in the Delaware River Basin a problem which is apparently not only too big for individuals, but it is even one which the four State governments cannot do for themselves. I am not suggesting a complete Federal project for the Delaware River, such as TVA, although I admit that wouldn't shock me a bit. What I am suggesting is a definite place for the Federal Government in planning an integrated solution of the Delaware River basin problem and in making substantial financial contributions toward the actual work.

I think we've got to work toward a new concept as far as the Delaware is concerned. I suppose you should call it a partnership basis. There has been so much talk about partnerships in connection with power control in recent years, but as I visualize that thing, these problems are so big that there has got to be a sensible partnership between the Federal Government, the four States involved, all the local communities, and perhaps private capital. That we can't know until study brings forth what has to be tax supported and what could be privately financed.

Mr. JONES. Well, now, let me bring your attention to one matter. Let me refer again to this article appearing in the Saturday Evening Post in 1950 and I'll read one of the paragraphs:

Though INCODEL definitely is opposed to the idea of selling electric power itself, a la TVA, its planners have not overlooked the possibility of revenue from the sale of hydroelectric power that can be generated at the dams and tunnels. The consulting engineers favor a plan to lease power rights to regularly established privately owned utilities.

It would not exclude the Federal interest to see that the preference customers under all Federal acts be excluded from obtaining some of their own property without paying tribute to a private utility.

Mr. CLARK. You and I are on the same side of the fence on that one, Congressman, and I believe myself, although again, what right has a lawyer got to believe these things which are primarily engineering data-but the information which has come to my attention indicates that the power potential of the Delaware has been very much more underestimated in past studies. I would hope that a new study would look carefully into that.

Mr. JONES. You wouldn't advocate to this committee that we violate section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the same provision that is carried in the Bonneville Administration Act, the Southeast Power Administration Act, the Reclamation Act, the Federal Power Act, and all other acts pertaining to the development of hydroelectric power, in any proposal for the orderly development of the Delaware River; would you?

Mr. CLARK. Of course not, sir.

Turning now to the specific recommendations on—well, no, I'm going to skip that; that's more comment on the Hoover task force report and I think the way the testimony has developed, I think that's receding into the background, so I won't impose on the committee's time in that regard.

In conclusion, our general approach to the problem of the Delaware River Basin development leads us to views directly contrary to those expressed in the reports of the Hoover Commission Task Force. Now, I'm just reiterating what I said before, so I'll make it quick. We want more, not less, Federal participation and assistance in planning the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. At this planning stage we feel there should be no artificial limitations on what is to be considered as part of an overall waterway plan, and in that regard, to follow up, if hydroelectric power can be feasibly developed in conjunction with other uses, plans for such development should be presented for consideration and discussion. Also, there should be little concern at this stage as to what is a Federal responsibility and what is State or local. The plan should be prepared with all feasible elements considered, and only then should equitable arrangements be made for sharing the costs.

In other words, let's find what has to be done and then let's decide how the job of doing it should be split in the best possible way.

We intend to exercise the maximum of local initiative in planning for and carrying out measures for the solution of our natural resources problems, but we see no inconsistency in welcoming the help of the Federal Government in a joint mutually supporting program of planning and action to solve our water problems which, after all, partake of the national as well as the local and State interest. In fact, we're going to have to have that development if this great natural resource, the Delaware River, is going to be utilized as it should be to increase the prosperity of the people who live in its watershed. And that, after all, is the basis of my testimony before your committee, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for the courtesy you have given me.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Reuss.

Mr. REUSS. Just one question, because you steered away from it a little in the last few minutes, Mr. Clark.

In your opinion would the implementation by Congress of the task force recommendations, which recommendations were referred to Congress by Mr. Herbert Hoover on June 15, 1955-would implementation of those recommendations retard or help the drive hereabouts to prevent recurrence of a flood such as we had last month? Mr. CLARK. I think quite clearly they would retard it. They might even wreck it.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask what gives anyone the idea that those task force recommendations have been given to Congress for implementation?

Mr. REUSS, Well, Mr. Herbert Hoover gives them to me, because he submitted them on June 15.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. For what purpose?

Mr. REUSS. For whatever purpose Congress chooses to make of them.

Mr. JONES. Pursuant to the act of 1953.

Mr. REUSS. He says, for example, in his letter which is contained at the start of volume 1 of the task-force report, which, incidentally, is an official Government print, bearing the imprint of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Governmenthe says that the Hoover Commission

submits herewith to the Congress a report of the task force on water resources and power, prepared for the Commission's consideration.

He goes on to say that the Commission's report is also being submitted to the Congress. Now, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't consider the Commission's report, too, but I think we have to consider both. Both are before the Congress.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You missed an important paragraph:

The conclusions and recommendations of the task force were reviewed by the Commission in reaching its own conclusions, but the Commission's own recommendations may not necessarily coincide in all respects with those of the task force.

And what we are considering is the Commission's own recommendations.

Mr. CLARK. Could I make a comment at that point, sir? When I prepared my written testimony and had it mimeographed, I had had my attention directed primarily to the task-force report. It was only yesterday that I had an opportunity to read and really study the Hoover Commission report itself, and I felt that I should moderate my testimony in view of that fact. What has given me grave concern is just what you have in mind-that the Congress is being urged in certain quarters to pretty much ignore the general language of the report itself and to implement its policy in the face of the task-force report, which I hope it won't do.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. What in the world gives you that opinion?

Mr. CLARK. Partly what I've been reading in the press, and I can't cite you chapter and verse. I had a picture in my own mind of what the Hoover Commission has said, which has been somewhat dispelled since I actually read it.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I see. Well, I'm sure you know my position in the

case.

Mr. CLARK. I think you have made it very plain.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Lipscomb, if you'll study the format here, you'll see that the Task Force on Water Resources and Power is an organization that is underneath the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, and the task-force report has been sent to Congress. It seems to me entirely within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee to take a look at what the task force says and take a look at what the Commission says. If we feel that they say good things, let's so indicate. If we don't like what they say, let's indicate our view on that.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I think we ought to get over one hurdle first, and that is the Hoover Commission report. See if it's going to help the water resources and power of our Nation.

Mr. CLARK. If I could drive one nail in the coffin of that task-force report I think my trip up here would have been justified.

Mr. JONES. Mayor Clark, on page 607, volume 2, of the Task Force Report, it states as follows:

Where interstate streams are involved, States should be encouraged and, as a prerequisite to Federal participation, be required to create interstate compacts for the purpose of dealing with water resource development.

Do you think that the condition precedent of your interstate compact has been met and would be satisfying enough

Mr. CLARK. Well, I'm not a believer in interstate compacts. I think our history indicates they don't work, particularly if you've got more than two States involved. The whole process by which an interstate compact is negotiated and carried into effect, the retaining of power by the legislatures of the several States, almost always insist on making those compacts, in my judgment, a very ineffective way of conducting the kind of overall approach to a problem of this sort and the implementation of it which I think is necessary.

I'm not very familiar with the Colorado Basin situation, but it has been my understanding that that is one of the outstanding examples of an interstate compact that is so inflexible that it really stops adequate development.

Our compacts here, as drafted, even the one Pennsylvania rejected and the one we've now got for the Delaware River Port Authority, are in my judgment far too inflexible to be effective. I testified before Congress in connection with that.

Mr. JONES. So if you were to ask Federal assistance for the comprehensive development of the Delaware River and this had been met by the attempt to carry out an interstate compact which has not been

proven

Mr. CLARK. An attempted failure. I think we've got to devise new methods, new procedures to meet these problems. The old-fashioned method which was fine when the Constitution was formed, I just don't think works anymore.

Mr. JONES. Let us summarize:

There is a need for the comprehensive development of the Delaware River for flood control, for municipal and industrial water use, for navigation, for the related byproducts of the type of development you would get-recreation, fish and wildlife, soil conservation

Mr. CLARK. Pollution.

Mr. JONES. And pollution measures on the stream.

With this great industrial empire that you have here, Mr. Mayor, with the increase in poulation, it would seem to me that if the Federal Government is to assume its responsibilities, we should act with all haste to see that wise and prudent investments are made in orderly development to save a recurrence of the devastation and the great economic losses caused by dislocation of industry. That, with the loss of life, would mean that it is a problem not peculiar just to the Delaware River, but is a national problem, for the economy of the country is indivisible. Either we have prosperity in Philadelphia or we don't have prosperity in any section of the country. So, I'll assure you, as one member of this committee, I look with sympathy upon your problem, and I hope that the Federal Government will in due course discharge its responsibility to develop a plan which will mean that the maximum development and economic growth and prosperity of this section will continue without impairment.

It is good to have had you here today and we welcome the opportunity to hear you on this most important subject.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Clark, mayor of Philadelphia, Pa., is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH CLARK, MAYOR, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PA.

First, let me say how much I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you today to discuss the interest and concern of the city of Philadelphia in the resources and problems of the Delaware River Valley. These problems are once again before us, this time with a sense of urgency, as a result of the recent disastrous floods which unhappily took such a serious toll in human lives and suffering as well as in property damage and financial loss. Your subcommittee is to be commended for taking the time during the congressional recess period to come to the valley and observe conditions first hand and hear those of us who are concerned intimately with the social and economic well-being of the people of the region and with the wise use and control of its physical resources.

Philadelphia was fortunate in escaping the worst effects of the recent rains and floods, which did such fearful damage in this vicinity. We were not unprepared, however, to cope with the flood menace. The various branches of the city government took necessary precautions and our civilian defense organization was alerted. In some low-lying areas along the Schuylkill River residents were evacuated to higher ground and movable equipment was removed to places of safety. The citizens of Philadelphia have also responded generously to calls from the Red Cross and various other welfare and relief agencies for help to flood victims. In doing this, of course, we are only joining in the nationwide effort to give immediate relief to flood victims, and to provide oppor tunities for their rehabilitation.

But it is of the larger problem of the Delaware River-how to plan for its best and wisest use, and how to control it to minimize ill effects-that I wish to speak to you today. There is always a temptation after a catastrophe such as the recent flood to look for short-cut solutions for preventing recurrence at the expense of other vital considerations. Specifically, the temptation in this case will be to look for solutions to the flood-control problem on the Delaware River and its tributaries without giving adequate consideration to other resources problems and uses in the basin within the framework of a carefully considered overall plan. But we can and must look at the total problem. To illustrate the importance of the total approach, let me merely list the ways in which the Delaware River Basin affects the social and economic life of Philadelphia. The river and its tributaries provide the city with its water supply and are the carriers of the city's wastes to Delaware Bay. The lower river provides a navigation channel for ocean-going vessels to the great industrial and commercial complex stretching from Wilmington to Trenton and centering in the port of Philadelphia. The middle and upper portions of the basin provide unmatched outdoor recreational assets and facilities for our citizens. On the problem side, pollution and siltation of basin streams bring

« PreviousContinue »