List of Corps of Engineers Navigation Projects in North Carolina (September 1955)-Continued Bay River Silver Lake Harbor Contentnea Creek Swift Creek Drum Inlet Cape Fear River above Wilmington Northeast (Cape Fear) River Black River Smiths Creek (Wilmington) Shallotte River Waccamaw River PROJECTS UNDER WAY Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway between Norfolk, Va., and the St. Johns River, Fla. (Wilmington district) Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Far Creek Waterway connecting Swan Quarter Bay with Deep Bay Rollinson Channel Neuse River Trent River Smiths Creek (Pamlico County), N. C. Channel connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay Waterway connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor Channel from Back Sound to Lookout Bight Harbor of Refuge, Cape Lookout Lockwoods Folly River Morehead City Harbor Wilmington Harbor Yadkin River List of Corps of Engineers flood-control projects in North Carolina (September 1955) Tar River Neuse River near Goldsboro PROJECTS COMPLETED PROJECTS NOT STARTED Pasquotank River Yadkin River Reservoirs List of outstanding navigations reports in North Carolina (September 1955) Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway: Side Channel to Elizabeth City Albemarle Sound to Pungo River (effects of AIWW on lands in area) Bogue Inlet and Swansboro Harbor List of outstanding flood-control reports in North Carolina (September 1955) Perquimans River Filberts Creek at Edenton Pantego and Cucklers Creek Core Creek (Neuse River) Neuse River between Smithfield and the Wayne County line Neuse Rievr and tributaries Six Runs River Northeast (Cape Fear) River Cape Fear River Waccamaw River List of outstanding cooperative beach erosion reports in North Carolina Carolina Beach, N. C. List of outstanding hurricane studies Detailed studies in sample areas and general appraisal of damage in other areas in coastal North Carolina and South Carolina Mr. JONES. Our next witness is Mr. E. B. Garrett, representing the United States Soil Conservation Service and the Association of Soil Conservation District Supervisors. Mr. Garrett. STATEMENT OF E. B. GARRETT, STATE CONSERVATIONIST, RALEIGH, N. C. Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lipscomb, I am coming first to represent the Association of Soil Conservation District Supervisors because I am expressing the sentiments of 300 farmers in North Carolina on this important topic. We have farmers in every county in the State whom the soil conservation district supervises. Allen Swindell, the president of this association, asked me to present these views, which he concurs in, in the brief statement I have before me that I have prepared. I have written it in the form of a letter to the Governor, since it is at his request that I am here. which Under the 6 items in the charge he gave me as being applicable to the Soil Conservation Service and the things he thought I might comment on, they were the first 6 items in the chart of the Hoover Commission report. Under recommendation No. 1 we concur in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f). As for paragraph (g), deals with the collection of hydrologic data under Public Law 566, in the carrying out of that program we have to collect hydrologic data with reference to cost benefits and fit it in with the economic evaluations that are necessary to carry on this watershed protection work. Under items (h) and (2), we are not in a position to comment on that on account of the hurricanes. Recommendation No. 2, which deals with the Water Resources Commission and Board, we can see the possible value in the creation of a Water Resources Board, but we feel that at least one of the public members of this Board should be a man thoroughly familiar with argriculture and with its dependence on an abundant supply of water. Recommendation No. 3: We do not have sufficient information and are not in a position to make a comment on that. On recommendations Nos. 4 and 5, we do not believe they apply to the purview of the Soil Conservation Service nor to the board of supervisors. Under recommendation No. 6, which has to do with the transfer of the responsibilities of 566 over to the Army engineers, we have this to say: This recommendation does violence to the very fundamental concepts of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. It ignores the relationship between land management and water management. In fact, it appears reasonable to say that headwater detention structures, while necessary, are incidental and secondary to the treatment of the land lying above them. Merely constructing dams will not do the job of water management, particularly on small watersheds. It therefore seems that this recommendation is illconsidered. Sound watershed projects, which include the construction of headwater dams, should be local projects with Federal participation, rather than Federal public works construction projects. Farmers, local people, and local organizations are enabled, through the small watershed mechanism, to join forces cooperatively with local, State, and Federal Governments to develop projects, share their costs, and work out improvements to benefit all of them. The Soil Conservation Service solicits the cooperation of all agencies and extends to them gladly all possible assistance in developing together the soundest kind of flood-control programs that can be devised for this country. Unquestionably, however, upstream detention structures must be a part of an integrated program that includes soil and water conservation measures applied on watershed lands and coordinated with the larger flood-control programs. This is in the form of a letter to Governor Hodges. I have further to insert in the committee hearings the statement that we prepared that states the objectives of the Soil Conservation Service as briefly as we can. There are three pages of it and I will turn it over to the secretary, if you wish. Mr. JONES. That describes the policy of the Soil Conservation Service districts? Mr. GARRETT. The Soil Conservation Service and its relationship to the districts and other agencies. Mr. JONES. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record immediately following the statement you made. (The document referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE The objectives of the Soil Conservation Service are soil and water conservation and management. As the Department of Agriculture's arm of action for carrying out the programs directed toward the achievement of these goals, the Soil Conservation Service is striving to protect the physical structure of all our soils from deterioration, to bring about the reconstruction of those soils which have been impaired through misuse, and to safeguard permanently the inherent productive capacity of all our agricultural land. Moreover, the Service seeks a still further accomplishment-the wise use of all water resources. With the intelligent use and protection of all of our soils and waters, we may continuously provide the food, fiber, wood, and other materials necessary for our growing population. We realize that our work has no meaning and no significance except as it is found useful and its purposes found desirable by the people who own and operate the farms of our State and Nation. In recent years it has become clearly apparent that water will become a significant limiting factor in expanding agricultural production and in the growth of our entire economy in the future. Our progress as a nation in the years ahead will depend in a large measure on our success in managing our water resources wisely. The importance of water management in the conservation of our resources cannot be overemphasized. Proper water management must begin where the rain strikes the earth, for such water either runs off, often with great destructive force, to find its way to the sea, or it is utilized for the betterment of all. Water management must start with the right land use for each kind of land; in fact, water development and management are inseparable from land management and use. The water element cannot be separated from the soil element in a successful conservation effort. Furthermore, the soil is the best available water reservoir we have. There is more water storage capacity in the ground than in all manmade reservoirs. Recently the Congress has recognized the fact that soil and water management cannot be divorced and that water management must begin where the rain or snow falls on the earth. The Congress has likewise realized that farmers are the logical ones to initiate the first steps in proper water management. The enactment of Public Law 566, the Water-Shed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, marked the confirmation of these facts by the Congress. Recommendation No. 6 by the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government ignores the very fundamental concepts on which the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act is based. The recommendation disregards the relationship between land management and water management. While it does not say that headwater detention structures are not needed in a program of watershed protection and flood prevention, the Commission's recommendation completely ignores the importance of proper treatment of lands lying above these structures. Merely constructing dams, either in the headwaters or downstream, will not do the job of water management, particularly on small watersheds. In order to be successful, water management, especially in its initial stages, must be carried out by farmers on their own lands, working by communities and by small watersheds, and receiving such financial assistance from State and Federal sources as they are unable to provide from their own resources. Engineering, soils, agronomy, forestry, biology, and the practical problems of farming are closely interrelated as applied in watershed protection. The reduction of flood sediment damage is only one of the benefits to be derived from upstream structures. The treatment and management of the land is equally important, and we must constantly recognize that the economics of farming and of production from the land is a prime factor in attaining the objectives that all of us seek. In conserving our country's soils and preventing the flooding of agricultural land, individual farmers and local communities must play the primary role. For them to accomplish the task, however, it is imperative that they have the best possible information, guidance, and assistance. A program of soil and water conservation, teamed up with research, education, credit, and marketing aid, will provide a stronger, more prosperous agriculture and a better living for all. An effective soil and water-conservation program cannot be achieved unless it is accepted as the individual responsibility of the men who use and manage the land resources. The Soil Conservation Service, after years of operations, firmly believes that the people who own and operate the land will accept this responsibility. This fact is evidenced by the increasing numbers who have been fully informed and provided with the kind and amount of assistance needed to supplement their own knowledge and resources. Informed people, willing to act responsibly on the basis of their information, are essential in the sound working of our form of government. One of the places in which this willingness to act responsibly is evident is in soil-conservation districts. Here, soil conservation district supervisors, farmer leaders, and cooperators with the districts join together to assume locally the responsibility and the leadership in moving forward with soil and water conservation. These local units of State government, operated by the farmers themselves, are a highly effective device through which the people and their Government can team up to get the necessary job done without the Government's becoming the dominating member of the team. Soil and water conservation is a continuing activity. Our population is growing. Our economy is expanding. The pressure on our land resources is increasing. The need for managing these resources to protect and improve them is getting greater every year. The conservation job is never done. new ideas, those ideas will need to be water resources. As long as the minds of men can conceive fitted to the management of our soil and Mr. JONES. Do you have any questions, Mr. Lipscomb? Mr. LIPSCOMB. No questions. Mr. JONES. We are certainly grateful to you, Mr. Garrett. Thank you very much. You make us feel at home because, you know, Harold Cooley of this district is always working for this. Mr. GARRETT. He has done a lot of "table beating" for us. Mr. JONES. Thank you. Mr. H. M. Nicholson of Wilmington. (No response.) Mr. JONES. Mr. Stanford E. Harris of the American Waterworks Association. Mr. HARRIS. I regret to report our association did not receive information concerning this hearing until Monday of this week and therefore have not had an opportunity to take it up before our board of directors. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much. Mr. R. W. Graeber of the North Carolina Forestry Association, Inc. STATEMENT OF R. W. GRAEBER, TREASURER, NORTH CAROLINA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION Mr. GRAEBER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am R. W. Graeber, treasurer of the North Carolina Forestry Association. I would like to say the president of our organization has been in town only a couple of hours since receiving Governor Hodges' request to participate at this hearing and did not receive any information about it until then. I had not had an opportunity of going into it in detail, but he did prepare this statement and asked me to present it. The North Carolina Forestry Association, being an organization of citizens to promote the protection, development, and wise use of waters, forests, soils, and wildlife resources, is vitally interested in any water program affecting the State of North Carolina. We feel that the role of the Federal Government in water resource development is, and should be, cooperative, and every reasonable encouragement should be given for the participation by private enterprise and local and State governments in water resources development. We feel that a nationwide water policy is needed in which Federal, State, and local governments can all work in harmony and accord; and that State water laws should remain supreme with the rights, interests, and responsibilities of the cooperative agencies clearly defined and giving each its rightful voice. Our association is of the opinion that no major developments should be started on any watershed until plans for the completion of the developments of that watershed have been approved, and then for |