It is this division that has taken charge and constructed the some $75 million worth of work that was indicated in our paper this morning. Our second division is the division of hydrography. The division furnishes information to State, Federal, and municipal and private agencies in their problems relating to Pennsylvania's natural surface water resources. The work has been carried on cooperatively with the United States Geological Survey continuously for the past 25 years, whereby the State and the Federal agencies each year halve the costs of operations.

As part of the regular work of the division, the 165 base streamflow gaging stations are maintained in 65 counties where continuous record of discharges are contained. Many of these stations are also base stations in the statewide flood-forecasting network-for example, 60 stations in the Susquehanna River stations.

In addition, 103 supplemental index stations are maintained principally to obtain low-water data in the interests of water supply.

3. The division of dams: The division of dams performs and conducts engineering operations pertaining to dams and water supplies for the Department of Forests and Waters and for the Water and Power Resources Board. For the department it prepares reconnaissance reports, estimates on design, and furnishes technical supervision for the construction of new State dams or the repair of and major additions to such dams. For the board-by the board I mean the Water and Power Resources Board-it reviews plans and specifications which accompany each application for a permit to construct a dam by private or public agencies, submits a report with recommendation, exercises general supervision over construction, and maintains records of all projects.

The division reviews and investigates all applications for water allocations to public water-supply agencies, submits reports with recommendations to the board, and maintains records of each water taking.

And fourth and last, the division of encroachments. The division of encroachment processes applications made to the Water and Power Resources Board under the act of the legislature approved June 25, 1913, concerning permits for proposed changes to be made in the course, current, or cross section of the rivers and streams in the State and for the construction of proposed water obstructions, other than dams, in, along, or across these rivers and streams. Water obstructions or encroachments, as used in the act, include any dam, wall, wing wall, wharf, embankment, projection, bridge, or similar structure, or any other obstruction whatsoever in, along, or across any stream or body of water, wholly or partly in or forming part of the boundary of the Commonwealth, excepting the tidal waters of the Delaware and its navigable tributaries. The division prepares a report upon each application and submits it, with recommendation, for the board's consideration. The division also makes final examination, upon notice of completion of construction authorized by permits from the board, in order to determine if the work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans.

Now, these are the four major activities of my water section, and I feel today that your interest is concerned with flood control. For example, in our division of flood control, we have just finished, as Mr. Pitkin told you-and this is the first time, I think, anyone has seen this

map-a flood-control plan for the Juniata Basin. This includes nine reservoirs in the Juniata Basin. I might state that this work will cost about $32 million.

It is obvious, justified as the work is, that we feel that the expenditure here of $32 million would create a saving of about $34 million if we had the same type of flood as we had in 1936. In other words, one storm of the magnitude that we had in the Juniata Basin in 1936 would pay for the entire facility. But here I feel that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is in a difficult position to construct this work. Now, it's true that this construction is all within the boundaries of Pennsylvania-this watershed, the Juniata watershed, is all in Pennsylvania. But remember that the Juniata watershed is part of the Susquehanna system, which flows through Maryland; so, again, I feel that this is not just a responsibility of Pennsylvania; I feel that Maryland or some other agency has interest in the control of the waters of the Juniata River. It's a little bit different, perhaps, than the Delaware, where we have 4 States involved, but here you would only have 2. Again, it's more than one State and if we look at the Susquehanna in its overall aspects, you've got New York to the north of us.

So I feel that our department, within the limits of the Commonwealth, is doing a good job. I would like to mention that the legislative bodies of Pennsylvania recently passed an act-it was House Bill 1742 to aid in stream-clearance work in this northeastern section of Pennsylvania, and I've asked from this fund $10 million for stream clearance and rectification work in this area.

I don't know that we can ask our people to contribute more than that, but I think this will do the emergency work that we need. It will not be the long-range plan of dam construction and this type of activity.

I would like to emphasize, while we're in this locality, what 1 channel project can do, and we have people in the room here from Honesdale and the Department did spend $210,000 there 2 years ago, and in this recent storm Honesdale suffered no real serious difficulty, no loss of life, as compared to the situation in 1942 when they lost 13 lives in Honesdale and had very serious damage. So the expenditure there of $210,000 meant a tremendous saving.

Now, I feel that this is a State responsibilty-I sincerely feel that way-that these smaller jobs and smaller tasks are our responsibility. But when it comes to a project of this magnitude, the magnitude of the Delaware Basin project, the magnitude of the West Branch project of the Susquehanna River, I am sincerely of the belief that the State cannot shoulder the load financially and we need Federal help.

I would like to digress a moment and mention an item that you're going to see later here today. As a conservationist and as a forester, I'm very much impressed with the work of small watersheds. You're going to see the story of the Brandywine Valley. For 2 years a group of us-Mr. Pitkin, Mr. Ringe, Mr. Hoff, and myself-have worked to establish watersheds throughout Pennsylvania, and we've just concluded the second meeting of our group here in Stroudsburg at noon today.

Mr. JONES. Are we expecting to

Mr. GODDARD. You're going to see this.

70818-56-pt. 1- -7

Mr. JONES. I understand that they are going to present some filmslides.

Mr. GODDARD. Slides, that's correct, sir, but I merely want to emphasize this, from my personal point of view: That this is one of the finest things we can do, and we do know that this does conserve water, it does reduce rapid runoff, it does help in the control of floodsthere's no question about it. But at the same time, as ardent a supporter of conservation as I am, I want it written into the record that I know this work of itself will not prevent floods and that we have to have, also, upstream or downstream regulatory features-dams, local protection work, be they dikes or some other combination. And I just want this in the record: That these two types of activities complement one another.

Mr. LIPSCOMв. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Lipscomb.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I have a statement of yours that I was interested in, and you said at that time that you feel the work you're talking about, conservation and reforestry practices, are as necessary as dams to adequate flood control.

Mr. GODDARD. Oh, yes; I still concur on this, yes, sir; but I don't believe they'll prevent a flood. But I don't, also, agree that we should just build dams and ignore these other features. So I don't want to say I'm a little dam man or a big dam man. I mean, we get into arguments

Mr. JONES. You'll get nowhere. If you get in that argument you'd better go to Kansas or Missouri.

Mr. GODDARD. That's right, and I don't want to go out there, I lived there 12 years, but I agree with the Congressman here, this is important, sincerely so, and this is why we're interested in this work, and I don't want to see money spent in Pennsylvania for flood control and these other activities without this conservation activity.

Now, I'll be finished in a moment, but I want to emphasive that the States cannot finance large flood or multiple-purpose water regulation structures. It's impossible, financially, for them. I feel that this is a function of the Federal Government. It is to be noted that even if the States could finance these large complicated projects, the administrative and the legal difficulties are almost insurmountable at the State level. It takes leadership, I feel, from the Federal Government to get the job completed.

In conclusion, I want to reemphasize our statement in the written paper-that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania needs and is entitled to a larger Federal appropriation for water-resource control and development than it is receiving, and a significant appropriation must be included in the next Federal budget for the construction of the Bear Creek Reservoir in the headwaters of the Lehigh River. There are others but I'd put this at the top of my list. There are plans completed for this reservoir, and its construction could and must be started immediately.

I wish to thank you for letting me appear.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Goddard. Would you be kind enough to supply the committee with the legislative authority creating your department, because it's very interesting. Most of the States have such a limited participation in these types of programs.

It would, I'm sure, interest the committee to have those your State laws pertaining to the subject.

Mr. GODDARD. I'll do that. I'll give you not only the department, but also the legislative committee that heard the Water Resources and Research Board, which I served as secretary of because of my position as secretary of forests and waters.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Would you like California's, too?

Mr. GODDARD. California has a good one. I mean that sincerely. These two States are the leaders in this type of development at the State level.

Mr. JONES. The legal problems you speak of as being insurmountable certainly come into focus when you think about the various State laws. When you get into a proposition of irrigation-taken on a small stream-there has been no refinement of irrigation laws. Even in the State of Colorado, that has done a great deal of work in the field of the rights of the riparian owners, the laws are just about as varied as the colors of the rainbow. Last year I undertook to try to get a brief comparison on the compilations of the various States, and you certainly can't come up with any conclusions after you read them all. And irrigation is beginning to be of importance to us in the eastern part of the country.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Reuss?

Mr. REUSS. No questions.

Mr. JONES. Do you have any questions?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I just wanted to thank him for clarifying about California, because Mr. Pitkin, in his statement, kind of criticized the West; and I wanted to point out that California is really paying its fair share of taxes, as I think Pennsylvania will agree with. Some of the other Western States may not, because of the lack of population. So I just wanted to clarify that in the record.

Mr. JONES. Now, Mr. Pitkin, is this the moment at which you're going to go over

Mr. PITKIN. I'd be happy to.

Mr. JONES. Fine, if you'll come up.

Mr. Pitkin, will you tell us the date of the creation of INCODEL? Mr. PITKIN. It was in 1937.

Mr. JONES. In 1937. And what authorities were given to you under your authorization? Will you describe them briefly, please?

Mr. PITKIN. Well, the commission was established by joint act of the commissions on interstate cooperation of the four States-New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. The articles of organization of the commission, INCODEL, established its field as that of a research and advisory, a planning agency, in the field of water resources. It has no administrative authority; it's entirely an advisory planning agency. It has operated on that very general statement included in our articles of organization and has operated all these years through very effective cooperative relationships with the administrative agencies in the States.

For example, we have a quality of water committee, composed of the representatives of the State health departments of the four States. Mr. JONES. Now, one of its objectives was stream pollution, the abatement of stream pollution?

Mr. PITKIN. Yes.

Mr. JONES. That is one of them.

Mr. PITKIN. And in that connection we used this quality of water committee, and although much has been said about the failure of INCODEL today, I would like to point out that in the field of stream pollution abatement we have been very successful, because we were able to

Mr. JONES. How much money has INCODEL spent on your program of stream pollution work?

Mr. PITKIN. Well, I couldn't tell you that offhand. We have, as was mentioned, a small staff, a 7-person staff, operating on a budget now of about $50,000 a year. We have, however, had special funds for special jobs-for example, the water project study that was made by Malcolm Pirnie and

Mr. JONES. How much did that cost?

Mr. PITKIN. The appropriation for that was just over $300,000; $310,000, was it?

Mr. ALLEN. No; just under $200,000.

Mr. PITKIN. No; the appropriation was $210,000-$70,000 from each of the 3 basin States, and of that amount, we spent, as Mr. Allen pointed out, just under $200,000.

Mr. JONES. Of that $200,000, what were the divisions of costs going to the study of stream pollution, flood control, and navigation?

Mr. PITKIN. Well, in that particular study that was the comprehensive engineering study for the proposed system of reservoirs to meet the multiple-purpose needs of the basin-primarily water supply. Mr. JONES. That was done in 1950?

Mr. PITKIN. Yes.

Mr. JONES. And how many dams did the scheme propose to be constructed on the Delaware and its tributaries?

Mr. PITKIN. In the initial stage of the recommendations it was proposed that a dam be built at Cannonsville, N. Y., one at Barryville, N. Y., one at Godeffroy, N. Y., one at Wallpack Bend, on the main stem between Pennsylvania and New Jersey. There is also a recommendation for supplementary dam construction later when, as, and if the water supply needs increased. That would have included another reservoir on the East Branch of the Delaware and another one on a New Jersey tributary, but those were for later-stage developments.

Mr. JONES. Was there to be any construction of dams on the main stem of the Delaware River?

Mr. PITKIN. Wallpack Bend, at Bushkill, Pa.

Mr. JONES. How much was the estimated total cost of all the dams encompassed in the engineer's report?

Mr. PITKIN. Well, the total cost of the program was roughly $565 million. However, that included a conduit from Godeffroy Reservoir down to the New York metropolitan area, as well as a shorter conduit from the Barryville Reservoir to the Godeffroy Reservoir. Mr. JONES. Where was the $560 million to come from-the States that were members of the compact?

Mr. PITKIN. It was to come from two types of sources. One was the sale of water to the municipalities interested in augmenting their supplies that would be New York City and the North Jersey metropolitan units. They would have bought water from the compactcreated interstate agency. That would have paid a major portion