Mr. LIPSCOMB. Don't you think that the local people should do something on their own initiative to bring this to the Federal Government's attention?

Mr. McLEAN. I certainly do.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. And get some facts and figures and programs going? Mr. McLEAN. Absolutely. I'm a firm believer in pushing facts and figures up from the grassroots level and calling the attention of the fathers-that-be in Washington—

Mr. LIPSCOMB. The local State governments have quite a responsibility in that regard.

Mr. McLEAN. I'll concur in that a hundred percent, and I'm condemning ourselves when I say over the years I think New Jersey might have been pushing a little harder.

Mr. JONES. I've never understood, Doctor, what was the purpose of the annual reports of INCODEL in finding criticism with TVA. Was it a political adventure?

Mr. MCLEAN. Well, if I had to put my finger on it, I would call it a reflection of a certain political kind of bias, let's say, on the part of the people who were, you might say, then dominant in matters affecting INCODEL, and I think a good many

Mr. JONES. I've heard it said many, many times-and I'm sure that you have that TVA was socialistic, and if it's socialistic, the people who believe in the philosophy of the TVA and the development of the TVA would be Socialists. I've lived down there and I've been looking around trying to catch some of those Socialists, but I'm darned if I can find them. I haven't found a single Socialist that TVA has developed in the region. As a matter of fact, it's an area where Democrats and Republicans uniformly believe that the TVA has been a great virtue to this country.

Mr. MCLEAN. Well, I wouldn't want to put the pattern of TVA on every part of the United States in every detail, but I would say it has made a tremendous contribution to America in war and in peace. Part of New Jersey, by the way is south of the Yates and Dixon Line, and I think it's fair for us to comment on the TVA. I think the Nation had the right and the duty, in a sense, to go and help develop an underdeveloped region which in turn is contributing now to the Nation.

Mr. JONES. I wonder why it is that those of us who find virtue with TVA are always charged with trying to foster a TVA in other sections of the country. How do you account for that?

Mr. McLEAN. Well, there are certain individuals and groups in our society who honestly dislike TVA, who fear it. I think perhaps some of the people on the task force of the Hoover Commission reflected a certain kind of thinking anti-, let us say, TVA. Maybe they wanted to rewrite history in the last 20 years, I don't know. I don't think that can be done, either.

I haven't analyzed the Hoover Commisison report in every detail, but I must confess I found the separate opinions of the Commissioners at the end of it much more exciting reading than I did some of the earlier portions of it. I don't want to go through the Hoover Commission report now, but I think New Jersey has

Mr. JONES. I'm just recalling some of the annual reports and wondering why it would want TVA to become involved. It might have

taken up Bonneville or the Federal development on the Rio Grande.. It didn't discuss that.

Mr. MCLEAN. Well, I believe the INCODEL thinking in part, if you look back over the years, may have reflected the fact, the sheer fact that in the eastern part of the country here, we were more highly industrialized at an earlier stage, let's say, and the great push for the entrance of the National Government naturally, I think, came from areas where they did not have the highly developed economies, and so on, and where, in fact, you wouldn't have the kind of counterpressures, let's say, opposing the development of TVA.

Mr. JONES. I don't mean to bring up this question to incite any discord, because what is past is past, but looking forward to the futureand trying to accomplish what the people of this area want, which is the control and proper utilization of the Delaware River and its tributaries

Mr. MCLEAN. That is correct.

Mr. JONES. It is time for us to march together.

Mr. McLEAN. I would hesitate to say that I speak for the people of this general region, any more than the author of whatever article it was spoke for the region, but I do feel that the people see the need more clearly now, perhaps, than they did some years ago, for harnessing the Delaware and to try to see this done on a multi-purpose basis to try to achieve several objectives at the same time.

Mr. JONES. Here is the situation: On the Republican River in Kansas in 1951 we had one of the most devastating floods to occur during the century-approximately a billion and a half dollars in damage. The Federal Government appropriated $35 million in relief alone. The issue in that area has been big dams versus little dams. Consequently, they are divided; they have not made any concerted action to get relief on that stream. It is liable to recur in that area, and I hope that we in this area don't come back again and defeat the purpose of the treatment of the river by discord and bickering on the mechanics of how it is to be done. I think the areas of agreement are so vast that we shouldn't let our fears become our masters.

Mr. McLEAN. I should add, Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned earlier the problems of engineering and politics, and they are both entwined in, I think, most of these projects and programs. You may have seen-I just read this this morning, driving up here-an article in the Public Administration Review about Florida's experience, written by a couple of gentlemen down there, on local participation in solving the water problem. They point out that a history of 75 years of piecemeal, so-called local approach to the problem had resulted in complete failure, and not until the Federal Government entered the picture did you get something

Mr. JONES. Was this written by Carl Gee?

Mr. McLEAN. This is written, I think, by a couple of fellows in theuniversity-Harvard, H-a-r-v-a-r-d, and Bruce Mason. I don't know the gentlemen, but the pitch they had, actually, in the article is to the effect that a long span of time on local, piecemeal, uncoordinated effort resulted really in virtually nothing in the way of accomplishment, and not until the Army engineers came in and the Federal Government took a role-it didn't involve everything, mind you; and, as you put it before, you still had to have that matter of some local par-

ticipation and the matter of getting facts and figures out from the people and pushing them forward and you have to win local support; you have to get local approval so that you get an administrative process that involves public opinion and so on in it--but they are, apparently, achieving much more in the way of results than they had

years ago.

Mr. JONES. As an example, the Bedford project, which was approved by the Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1950, authorized a Federal cost of construction of $8,284,000. Through the fiscal year 1953 there had been appropriated $57,000, in the fiscal year of 1954 $20,000, and the balance to complete was $8,270,000. With the increased costs and the piecemeal procedure which is being adopted by the Corps of Engineers, and the policy of the Congress, it means that the increases are being accelerated the cost is being acceleratedbecause we're delaying that project. The sum total is that we're spending millions of dollars on projects and planning and not getting any construction work done. I think that is true all through these projects.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress we know that if the proponents and opponents of projects in the localities pro and con don't come to some meeting ground and compromise, the Congress can't ram these projects down their throats, so to speak.

Mr. JONES. The point I'm making is that this piecemeal proposal, as you commented on the article by the two gentlemen from the University of Florida, is rather characteristic of the prosecution of work at the Federal level.

Mr. McLEAN. That is right.

Mr. JONES. For instance, the time elapsing from the date a project is authorized until the first appropriation is 9 years. The backlog of work on flood control alone is in excess of $12 billion. So we are not approaching the problem uniformly nor are we approaching it expeditiously, because there is no engineer who can construct economically and have it stretch out over the period of years involved in piecemeal construction.

You go ahead.

Mr. LIPSCOMв. Can I talk to him about INCODEL?

Mr. Chairman, you don't mean to indicate that you would stop critics of TVA any more than you would stop proponents of public power?

Mr. JONES. No, no.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. They're bound to have criticisms on either side. Mr. JONES. I do rather resent, though, being cognominated a Socialist because I am a proponent of the work being done by the Tennessee Valley Authority; because I'm no more a Socialist than Carroll Reece, the Republican Member from Tennessee, who is a proponent of TVA, and if I'm a Socialist, then, of course, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were Socialists.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I think if you'll continue to tell your story, you'll get your point across, but, after all, we're still a growing country and have a difference of opinion.

Now, is INCODEL a State organization?

Mr. McLEAN. It is an interstate organization.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Interstate organization, paid for

Mr. MCLEAN. Paid for by the respective States, maintaining, I be-lieve, a rather small staff, Jim, isn't it?

Mr. ALLEN. Staff of seven.

Mr. McLEAN. Staff of seven. Mr. Allen is the executive director of INCODEL.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I believe Mayor Clark testified there is another committee being formed to go into this Delaware River Basin problem. Mr. McLEAN. I didn't hear all of that, but was he concerned with the matter of a committee that would include public representatives from the States involved, appointed by the governors and requesting foundation support for a private study?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Are you a member of that new organization?

This has

Mr. McLEAN. I am not a member, but Governor Meyner has appointed a person. I believe it has not yet been announced. been in the works for quite a long time.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Now, with all the research-and I believe INCODEL. has been in existence since 1933

Mr. MCLEAN. 1935 or 1937.

Mr. ALLEN. 1937.

Mr. McLEAN. 1937, excuse me.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Is this new organization going to use the data and the background that INCODEL has obtained throughout the years: and evaluate it?

Mr. McLEAN. Oh, by all means, and on the point the chairman mentioned earlier, where you have politics and engineering, I would say INCODEL and not through anyone's fault in particular-has politically not had as good a record-politically in terms of achievement-but I would think there ought to be a great deal of value in the engineering data collected and brought forth by INCODEL.

Now, granted, if New York City is pushing ahead, as it is, with its Cannonsville project, there would have to be modifications of the INCODEL plan, at best. We could no longer use it just the way it

was.

Mr. JONES. That project is to be completed this year.

Mr. MCLEAN. I'm not sure of the time.

Mr. ALLEN. That hasn't been started yet. They're just preparing construction plans.

Mr. MCLEAN. But in any event, in answer to you, I would certainly feel the engineering data would be of great value to any outfit coming in that might start the task of collecting data, reappraising, and so on. Mr. LIPSCOMB. And when you get this data together, you could come to Congress and if we should adopt recommendation 1, section (c), vou may qualify for Federal aid under recommendation 1, section (c)?

Mr. MCLEAN. Well, at the risk of-I haven't thought this one through clearly myself, because I don't know yet how fast this proposed group would operate. I would hope that the Federal Government would not just sit idly by, waiting for the private group to complete its study also. I mean, I'd like to see the Federal agencies, whether it is the Army engineers or whatever, really concerned with the very continuing reappraisal of the Delaware system.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I'm thinking that the local groups have to get some initiative here. If they do have a program they desire to put through, they've got to do some selling on the thing to get it put through, such as the upper Colorado River Basin people has been doing.

Mr. McLEAN. Yes. But again, in the accumulation of the data and the refinement of a program, you're going to have to have Federal engineers also. It's a weaving in and out process and you don't come through with the final, full-blown project at the local level and say to Congress, "Look, buy this." At the same time, I'm sure Congress would want the judgment of the Army engineers, and in fact they or some Federal body could very well assist, help guide, and all of that. It seems to me the Federal Government doesn't just sit idly bythat there is a dynamic kind of leadership that only the Federal Government can give in these things, and it's not a question of passively waiting. This is a national matter as well as local.

Mr. JONES. As I understand you, Doctor, you're saying this—and correct me if I am wrong.

If INCODEL, in the discussions of the various States involved, failed to come to some conclusion on the memorandum of understanding on the engineering scope of the project, you advocate that the Federal Government assume its responsibility and proceed with a plan. If there is disagreement by the members of the participat

ing

Mr. McLEAN. I would say the Federal Government ought to join right now with the States involved, in an effort to work out a cooperative plan, and you might weave into any ultimate solution the work

Mr. JONES. Has the Corps of Engineers been reluctant or derelict? Mr. McLEAN. Well, I'm sure-I understand they're working now on the Delaware problem.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Have they been invited to participate in this?

Mr. MCLEAN. I don't know about this new project, frankly, because I've been in on the talk stage in it, but actually the group, to my knowledge, wasn't quite ready for public announcement as yet. I mean the general thinking surely can be announced, but in terms of a working body I don't believe it has been fully organized.

Mr. JONES. You'll hear from the Corps of Engineers?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Has your Governor and your legislature set up any new water-project policy, or are they going into this matter, too, on the State level? Is there any action as far as your State government is concerned?

Mr. MCLEAN. At the moment, right in the legislature this week, is one proposal that the legislature is considering. This merely meets part of the water-supply problem for the State or it may meet it. It would put it on a referendum in the fall, and that, in a sense, is the so-called Chimney Rock proposal, coupled with granting funds to the State to look at the entire State in terms of water supply. But this would not really tap the Delaware or solve the Delaware problem in terms, now, of supply, floods, etc., the various purposes and benefits from the Delaware.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Has your State government or legislature set up any program or appropriated funds to develop a 20-, 40-, 60-year waterresources program within your own State?

Mr. McLEAN. We have at work now a legislative study commission on water that hopes to complete a report by December 15, and this is an attempt to develop a comprehensive survey of the water problem of the State, taking into account the Delaware, but I don't know that it will be comprehensive in terms of looking at the Delaware in terms