the most satisfactory results the developments should start in the upper watershed and continue downstream to completion.

This approach is basic to the philosophy of controlling water by harnessing it where the rain falls. By proceeding in this manner, the best coordinated program at the lowest cost can be obtained.

I also have here a statement that you might be interested in, although you may not be interested, which was prepared by the North. Carolina Forestry Association, entitled, "Long-Range Water Program for North Carolina." If you would like to have a copy of this in your file, that would be all right.

Mr. JONES. We will be very glad to receive it.

Mr. GRAEBER. Now if you will permit me to make a comment on some of the itemized questions here. I think there is a statement by the president of the association which covers somewhat recommendation No. 1 in a very brief manner.

In regard to recommendation No. 2, it is my opinion that the North Carolina. Forestry Association would feel that unless it is definitely known that a water resources board would accomplish something more than had been done, they would object to it, because it would appear to be just a pyramiding of agencies in Washington.

In regard to recommendation No. 3, we would have no comment. We will skip 4 and 5.

With regard to recommendation No. 6, in regard to transferring of the work of the Soil Conservation Service to the Army engineers, I believe it will be the opinion of the association that they would object to it on the ground that the engineers deal primarily with figures and concrete, but in handling the upstream water control they deal with problems of soil and land cover, and other things. It would appear it would be a question very much like this. You ask an engineer this question: In the Jones family there is a mother and a father and a baby. How many would that make? His answer would be, logically, three. But you ask a soil conservationist that question and his answer is, it might be 2 and 1 to carry.

In regard to the inland waterway, I have mentioned on numerous occasions, and it is not on this sheet, the forestry association would be opposed to tolls on the inland waterway because it is a means of transportation for a great deal of forest products from the land and from the harvest area to the plants consuming the same.

I thank you very much.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Graeber. Are there any questions?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. No questions.

Mr. JONES. I have a telegram which I would like to make a part of the record at this point, addressed to the Honorable Robert Jones, chairman of the Water Resources and Power Committee, Raleigh, N. C., which reads as follows:

Regret I cannot be at meeting today and tomorrow due to sickness. Ask opportunity that I might present several matters concerning your committee when Congress convenes in January. I appreciate your coming and hope you enjoy your stay in North Carolina.

HERBERT C. BONNER, M. C.

We are very grateful to Mr. Bonner and know, of course, of his great interest in the water problems of your great State.

Our next witness is Dr. D. J. Rose, of Goldsboro, N. C., president of the Neuse River Basin Association.

Mr. WISE. He sent word he could not be here until tomorrow. Mr. JONES. Mr. John Swain, of the Raleigh County Commissioners Association.

(No response.)

Mr. JONES. Mr. R. Flake Shaw, of the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation.

(No response.)

Mr. JONES. Is there anybody here who would like to testify on this matter who wants to volunteer? It is a part of our job. We have come down to hear you and if you have any statements you would like to make to the committee we will receive them at this time.

(No response.)

Mr. JONES. The committee will adjourn until 9 a. m. tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 3:20 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 9 a. m., the following day, Thursday, September 29, 1955.)

COMMISSION ON ORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE

BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT

(Water Resources and Power Report)
Part 2-Raleigh, N. C.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 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 adjournment, in the Board Room, State Agriculture Building, Raleigh, N. C., at 9:05 a. m., Hon. Robert E. Jones, Jr., chairman of the special subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Representatives Jones and Lipscomb.

Also present: Senator W. Kerr Scott; Representatives Harold D. Cooley, Carl T. Durham, and F. Ertel Carlyle; William C. Wise, staff director; William L. Sturdevant, staff member; and Robert Morris.

Mr. JONES. The committee will come to order.

Our first witness this morning is Mr. H. M. Nicholson.

STATEMENT OF H. M. NICHOLSON, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF MESSRS. WHITE AND DILL, COCHAIRMEN OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE LEVEL DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL RIVERS AND HARBORS CONGRESS

Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I have prepared a statement. It is not long and I would like to read it in its entirety, if I may; but if the time gets too short I will cut it down. Mr. JONES. Very well. You may proceed.

Mr. NICHOLSON. My name is H. M. Nicholson; my address is Post Office Box No. 1584, Wilmington, N. C. I am making this statement at the request of Messrs. White and Dill, both of whom are officially connected with their respective cities, which cities are bearing the brunt of recent calamitous visitations.

I might say Messrs. Dill and White are cochairmen of the North Carolina State level delegates to the National Rivers and Harbors Congress.

For causes beyond their control, neither of these gentlemen could be present today. However, their forced absence at this time should not be construed as a lack of interest on their part in this important subject which your committee has before it.

House Document No. 208, 84th Congress, 1st session, under the title of "Water Resources and Power" is indeed packed with powerful implications. It is difficult to visualize the infiinite scope of the undertakings comprehended within the seemingly simple terms of recommendation No. 1, pages 36 and 37, paragraphs (a) to (i) of the report. For convenience the said paragraphs are quoted as follows:

(a) That water resources should be developed to assure their optimum use and their maximum contribution to the national economic growth, strength, and general welfare.

(b) That water-resources development should be generally undertaken by drainage areas-locally and regionally.

(c) That the Federal Government should assume responsibility when participation or initiative is necessary to further or safeguard the national interest or to accomplish broad national objectives, 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. Under other circumstances the responsibility for development should be discharged by State or local governments or by local organizations or by private enterprise.

(d) That in participating in water resources and power development, the Federal Government without waiving its constitutional rights should take account of the rights and laws of the separate States concerning appropriation, use, control, and development of waters within their boundaries.

(e) That the Federal Government should provide advisory assistance to those local and State agencies that are undertaking water-resource and power-development projects.

(f) That before Congress authorizes or appropriates funds for Federal participation in any water-resource project, it should have substantial evidence that the project is economically justified and financially feasible, and that such project is essential to national interest.

(g) That one Federal agency should be made responsible for collecting and reviewing the adequacy of hydrologic data.

(h) That all Federal agencies administering revenue-producing water-resource and power projects should pay all cash revenues to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, and receive an annual appropriation for cash-operating expenditures.

(i) That regulation of rates for sale of electrical energy by all Federal agencies be vested in the Federal Power Commission.

The Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government and its task force spent a great deal of time and study on the very broad, important, and timely subject of water resources before condensing their proposals into the foregoing brief policypoint recommendations.

Without the benefit of no more than a somewhat superficial consideration of the report in its entirety and in view of the separate statements by some members of the Commission, we are persuaded that any approach toward translating these policy points into legislation should proceed under the watchword "caution." This comment stems from the general knowledge that the various States are just now beginning to provide the means whereby the water resources within their respective boundaries may best be utilized, distributed, or stored or under the compact provisions of the Federal Constitution whether two or more States could best proceed to protect a water development extending beyond the boundaries of a single State. The development of atomic energy for private power production and distribution, we believe, should also be considered in any legislation to limit the objectives for which multiple-purpose dams have heretofore been construced, if thereby substantial economies could be obtained.

The terms "national defense" and "conserve" or "conservation" are conspicuous by their absence from these policy-point recommendations. Recommendation No. 2, page 39, of the report, would provide for the creation of a Water Resources Board to be located in the Executive Office of the President. It is our view that a Water Resources Board, if created, should not be subject wholly to the executive branch, but rather it should be an agency of the Congress with independent bipartisan status.

Recommendation No. 3, page 39, proposes a staff of engineers within the Bureau of the Budget to evaluate the merits of water-development projects presented for appropriations. This recommendation, if effectuated and carried to its logical conclusion, would bring into the Bureau of the Budget professional personnel in all lines of endeavor from all of the executive branch departments-Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Interior, Health, Education, and Welfare, and many others from the other branches of our Government.

Recommendation No. 7, page 83, that all projects declared obsolete or unsound by the Chief of Engineers be removed from congressional authorizations, appears to be a matter of procedure, the course of which should by all means provide for notice to all persons of record in the original actions which preceded the authorization that consideration is being given to a recission or vacation of the outstanding authorization in whole or in part, as the case may be, and that upon request therefor a public hearing be held. All other persons who may have acquired an interest since the authorization of a project and the public generally should be given advance notice of intention to rescind. A hearing should be afforded, whether as a privilege or as a right. It might well be the latter since easements and grantsin-fee are sometimes involved in these matters.

Recommendation No. 8, page 85, of the report, according to its precise terms, would give the Interstate Commerce Commission discretionary authority to fix user charges and the level therof on inland waterways except for smaller pleasure craft.

The immediately preceding text in the report (pp. 84, 85) upon which this recommendation seems to rest is faulty and fragmentary in some respects.

The Commission's unexplained discrimination as between smaller and larger pleasure craft would doubtless result in eliminating or reducing the operation of the so-called larger category over the inland waterways and force such craft into the coastal lanes of the open sea. In any event, the imposition of a toll would seriously retard the development along our coast of an important industry. It would deprive many persons of gainful employment and many others would be deprived of desirable recreation facilities.

Quoted from page 84 is this sentence:

Also, there has developed a traffic on large pleasure craft mostly on inland canals for the benefit of a minor number of persons.

In our opinion the word "minor" does not properly describe the number of persons involved and to support our opinion on this point we tender for information of the committee a statement identified as appendix A.

Abstract from section XII, pages 7, 8, and 9 of a Report on Survey of North Carolina Inland Ports and Waterways by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall, & Mac