COMMISSION ON ORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT (Water Resources and Power Report) WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND POWER The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m., at Pocono Manor, Mount Pocono, Pa., Hon. Robert E. Jones, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Present: Congressmen Jones, Reuss, and Lipscomb. Also present: William C. Wise, staff director, and William L. Sturdevant, Jr., staff member. Mr. JONES. The meeting will come to order. We will first introduce the members of the subcommittee. My name is Robert E. Jones, and I am a Representative of the Eighth District of Alabama. Mr. Henry Reuss is a Representative from the State of Wisconsin; Mr. Glenard Lipscomb, a Representative of the State of California. Under the rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Government Operations has the duty, among others, of studying the operation of Government activities at all levels with the view of determining its economy and efficiency and to evaluate the effects of laws enacted to reorganize the legislative and executive branches of the Government. The Speaker of the House has referred to the Committee on Government Operations a number of reports submitted by the Hoover Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. This Commission was created by an act of Congress in July of 1953 to study and to investigate the present organization and method of operation of the various Federal agencies. Its various reports under this authority were submitted to Congress during the first 6 months of this year. One of the most important, certainly the most voluminous of these reports is the Hoover Commission Report on Water Resources and Power and the accompanying report of the Hoover Commission Task Force on Water Resources and Power. This combined report takes up 5 volumes, totaling some 2,000 pages. The Special Subcommittee on Water Resources and Power meeting here today and tomorrow has been given by Chairman Dawson 1 of the full committee the single responsibility of studying and reporting on the Hoover Report on Water Resources and Power. In fulfilling this duty, the subcommittee will hold a number of hearings in various parts of the country. This is the first of such hearings. In view of the disastrous flooding in this area as a result of recent hurricanes, there is heightened interest in adequate flood-prevention measures. Flood control is of course 1 of the 4 major subjects treated in the Hoover Commission's report, the others being navigation, irrigation and reclamation, and electric power. This subcommittee is interested first of all in getting the complete and detailed study of the damage done in this area by the recent flood. 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 flood. We wish to know how the Hoover recommendations would affect plans for adequate flood protection and for the solution to this and other problems concerning water supply, navigation, stream pollution, and similar matters. The Hoover Commission and its task force on water resources and power recommended 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. The task force, whose report is also before Congress and which is quoted with approval in the Commission report, recommends certain criteria for determining the economic justification of proposed projects that are considerably more stringent than present requirements. These criteria are found on pages 104 to 110 of the task force report, volume 1. The task force's recommendation on flood control are found on pages 99, 100, and 101 of volume 1 of the task force report. They are too long to be repeated here but generally they recommend that local or State governments be responsible for flood-control projects on local and intrastate streams; that if Federal participation is necessary, it be done only on the basis of 50-percent cost sharing 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 in its recommendation No. 6 on page 71, volume 1, of the Commission's report. We expect to hear a considerable number of witnesses in the 2 days that we are here. In the interest of making it possible for all to be heard, I hope that each witness will file a written statement and summarize the written statement in his oral presentation. Now, we have a list of witnesses and I believe Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, may I ask some questions first, before we go into our hearing? Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. LIPSCOMB. That statement which you just made was the opening statement of the chairman. Mr. JONES. That is right, and it infers nothing more than a statement on the part of the chairman, and does not mean that that is the consensus of opinion of the committee. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Could you, for my benefit and possibly for the benefit of those of the people in the audience, tell me where in the Hoover Commission report it recommends a drastically reduced Federal role in the development of the Nation's water resources? Mr. JONES. Well, by the various recommendations; the very genesis of the recommendations carried in the task force report was a reexamination of all the proposed projects and the formula by which they were authorized in meeting the criteria of economic justification. Mr. LIPSCOMB. But where in the Hoover Commission report is that recommendation made? Mr. JONES. I can reach no other conclusion Mr. LIPSCOMB. But the recommendation is not made in the Hoover Commission report. Mr. JONES. That is a question that will probably be debated for a long time. We cannot resolve that question here, nor at the conclusion of any of the other hearings. Mr. LIPSCOMB. On what page does the Hoover Commission report minimize and, in some cases, cancel out Federal participation in these development projects? Mr. JONES. As I said earlier, by the very act of changing Federal responsibility in the recognized field of water resources, of defining certain projects as being local in character, and defining it by geographic boundaries as being an intrastate problem, the report would thrust upon the local people the responsibility that is now exercised by the Federal Government in water-resources development, in reclamation, in flood control, in the generation of hydroelectric power, and all phases of the water-resources problem. Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can help answer my colleague's question here, which as I understand it is where in the printed material are these recommendations which recommend a curtailment of Federal control. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Just to clarify the Mr. JONES. I will be glad to answer the questions of the gentleman of California without incurring the delay of the witnesses who are present here. Now, as to these matters of question in your mind about the statement that I have made, I would appreciate it if you would proceed to note them and, if you have any objection to them, to note your objection and then we will proceed to have this discussion take place in executive session of the committee, and if you think that there are errors committed either in the fact or in substance in the statement I have made, note those, and let us proceed rather than getting into debate. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Well, in view of the chairman's opening statement, I would like to make my position known in this particular matter. Mr. JONES. Good. That is part of the committee's function, to have an opportunity to have everybody heard, and certainly we do not want to proceed without getting the benefit of all the witnesses and yourself, Mr. Lipscomb. Mr. LIPSCOMB. To be specific, and I think you can answer this, the statements that you have made in your statement, specifically point to and speak of the recommendations in the report of the Hoover Commission's Task Force on Water Resources and Power, do they not? Mr. JONES. That is right. Mr. LIPSCOMB. And they are not contained in the Hoover Commission report; they are contained in the task-force report to the Hoover Commission; is that correct? Mr. JONES. Well, of course, by reference. The whole basis of the task-force report that was transmitted to the full Hoover Commission was a result of a series of hearings like we are holding here now, and those recommendations were not all accepted by the Commission, but certainly there were numerous references made by the Hoover Commission to the task-force report. Mr. LIPSCOMB. The Hoover Commission did not, however, embrace the recommendations-all of the recommendations of the task force? Mr. JONES. Why, no. Let me give an example. It does not say anything about the policy of the other Hoover Commission Report on Finance. What was the correct title of the task force? Mr. STURDEVANT. Lending agencies. Mr. JONES. Lending agencies. Thank you. That report makes a recommendation for increased interest rates to get the Federal Government out of the lending field. The Commission does not specifically go into that in this report, but it does adopt and give approval to the report adopted by the task force on lending agencies. Mr. LIPSCOMB. May I read into the record at this time, from page X of the Hoover Commission Report on Water Resources and Power, a paragraph which states: In making this report that is, the Hoover Commission's report on Water Resources and Power the Commission has relied on the report of the task force, investigation by the Commission's staff, and the experience of its members. It has committed itself only in respect to the recommendations it makes in this report. Mr. JONES. That is right. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Just one further thing, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry to delay you. Mr. JONES. That is quite all right. Mr. LIPSCOMB. I believe the responsibility of this subcommittee is in looking into and reporting to the full committee on the Hoover Commission Report on Water Resources and Power, as stated in the fourth paragraph of your opening statement. Other than that our responsibility goes no further than reporting to the full Government Operations Committee on the Hoover Report on Water Resources and Power, as you stated yourself. We do not have the responsibility for analyz |