Page images

out of that it would be difficult, unless you had completely separated administration, to have the public health be the paramount interest. I think when we have a conflict, a potential conflict, between public health and the economic exploitation and utilization of the natural resources, it is very likely, in my opinion, that the public health would suffer and be subordinate to the economic realities of the time.

In other words, the immediate concerns would drive out the longer interests. That would be my primary concern.



On the administrative, as I have said, we must rely on the State health departments, and the Muskie bill which has passed the Senate relies a great deal on the State health departments. That is a normal administrative relationship of the Public Health Service. If you divide and break that relationship and further fragment it, by transferring that to any other department, I think it would weaken and complicate and make more complex the Federal-State relationship between those departments. Thus, I do not see that it would help one iota. I do not see how air pollution control would be advanced 1 day sooner or 1 degree faster by transferring it, and the only thing I can see is that the public health concern might be subordinated.


Senator RIBICOFF. Now, in June, the Task Force on Environmental Health and Related Problems submitted a report to Secretary Gardner seting forth 10 action goals for the Department. The first goal reads as follows:

An air quality restoration effort to initiate by 1970, in 75 interstate areas, abatement plans to reduce plant stack emissions by 90 percent and to establish national standards to reduce vehicle exhaust emissions by 90 percent from 1967 levels, through a enforcement and a technological program to provide the equipment necessary to meet the standards.

Do you think this goal can be reached?

What must be done to accomplish it, and what action is your Department taking to reach it?

Mr. COHEN. I would like Dr. Prindle, who is the Director of the Bureau of Disease Prevention and Environmental Control, to answer that question.

Dr. PRINDLE. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed these goals which were set by the so-called Linton committee. We feel that many of these are highly desirable goals, and we concur with their general principles. They were reviewed not only by us but by a number of other departments and other outside groups as to the feasibility of specifics, that is, as to the setting of, say, 90 percent as a desirable goal in

certain period of time. I think, in truth, many of these goals can be reached in the time periods that are stated.

I think there is a serious question as to the economic impact of taking such action so rapidly, as far as gaining this through a Federal operation. I believe, however, that in setting some of these specifics, this can be solved and we intend to.

You are aware that the Department has asked for increased funds and support for the air pollution program. We anticipate building a rather major activity in research and development along these lines, specifically with respect to the emissions of sulphur oxides.

In this particular case, we have launched a major activity of research and development involving industry as well as the Federal Government.

Senator RIBICOFF. Well, I have no further specific questions.

Your statement has been entered in the record as if read, and we do appreciate your coming today.

The subcommittee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., a recess was taken until 10 a.m., Friday, October 20, 1967.)





Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Abraham Ribicoff (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Ribicoff, Moss, and Hansen.

Also present: Paul Danaceau, staff director; Robert Wager, general counsel; E. F. Behrens, minority consultant; and Esther Newberg, chief clerk.

Senator RIBICOFF. The subcommittee will be in order. I have here a supplemental statement by General Cassidy which will go in the record supplementing his October 19 testimony.

(The statement referred to follows:)



A suggestion was made in the hearings on Thursday that recreation at Corps projects should be administered by the National Park Service. I would be pleased to explore fully the possibilities of such a shift in responsibilities. But such a shift is much more complicated than might be apparent from a cursory consideration of the suggestion. A great deal more than simply administration of project recreation areas is involved.

In the project formulation phase, recreation is carefully considered as a project purpose entering into all phases of development on an equal basis with each and every other purpose to be served by the project. This also carries through the design, construction and operation phases. Our planning for recreation is a cooperative activity with all concerned State, local and Federal agencies, including the National Park Service. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation makes significant contributions to this planning. The success of the Corps recreation program rests largely upon its being an integral part of multi-purpose water projects.

The Corps now administers as a part of our normal project operations about 4000 recreation areas at our projects ranging in size from 5 to over 2000 acres. Commercial operations at these areas are generally provided by concessionaires under contract to the Corps. And of course more than reservoir recreation areas is involved. Ports, harbors, waterways, locks, small boat harbors all attract recreation use. Such problems as we do have stem largely from competing demands for water use, rather than from interdepartmental coordination. Projects are operated to maximize multiple purpose benefits. Thus we take into account in scheduling reservoir releases: fish spawning, swimming, boating and fishing, wild fowl habitat conditions as well as power, navigation, flood control, water supply and irrigation. And there is of course no overlap or duplication with other agencies in our management of these facilities.

The management of our project properties, like Forest Service properties, are for multiple purpose use. Not only do we administer public recreation areas in conjunction with State and local administrations, our land areas include wildlife preserves, thousands of leased private cottage sites, scout camps and church camps and hundreds of thousands of acres in agricultural leases—75% of the proceeds from which are turned over to the states in consideration for their loss of tax revenue. Police jurisdiction at Corps facilities is the responsibility of state, county and local governments.

The Federal Water Project Recreation Act, Public Law 89–72, established the national policy that recreation areas at Federal projects should be integrated into Statewide recreation programs and operated by State and local agencies. We are vigorously pursuing this policy and with considerable success. It would seem that little purpose would be served and considerable impediment might result if, as an interim measure, these areas were turned over to another agency for disposition. The Army is currently exploring with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation the integration of selected Corps recreation areas into the program of National Recreation Areas. The Corps not only builds these projects but also operates them in all the above-stated interests. This requires that the Corps maintain a work force at the project. This work force is concerned not only with pool regulation and the physical maintenance and operation of plant, but also is engaged in such activities as debris and mosquito control and fire protection. There is over-all efficiency in having this work' force also handle recreational management not integrated into State and local programs. And in the sense that recreation is a continually developing activity, it involves plan revision and continuing construction which is not alien to the responsibilities of the Corps at the projects concerned.

Recreation use of areas and facilities is common to a great many Federal programs. Large areas have been developed and are being administered by the agency responsible for the programs. For example, the Forest Service has developed unsual recreation potential by acquiring and managing vast areas of National Forest lands under a multiple purpose concept. Where lands adjacent to a Corps reservoir are within a National Forest, the Corps and the Forest Serr. ice work out a plan under which the Forest Service develops and administers the recreational areas. The TVA, Bureau of Land Management, Air Force, Army and Navy and others all contribute to the recreational resources of this country. The management of these resources is coordinated by the President's Council for Recreation and Natural Beauty. Thus the recreational potential of the country is a coordinated multi-agency endeavor.

We would be glad to undertake with the Park Service, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, a joint study of the administration of recreational resources. In doing so we should of course keep in mind the national policies set forth in PL 89–72.

Senator RIBICOFF. I also have a communication from Senator Baker, who has another hearing, asking me to point out that he had checked with Frank Smith in Knoxville. He is informed that the TVA does not believe that it would be affected in any way whatsoever by S. 886. This is not to say that TVA either favors or opposes the bill, but only that it does not believe that the TVA itself will be altered by it.

Is Secretary UdallSecretary UDALL. My apologies. Senator RIBICOFF. You just came in time, Mr. Secretary. Will you please come forward.

We are delighted to have you here. Your Department is the one that will be most affected. The Moss bill seeks to alter and change the Department of the Interior to the Department of Natural Resources. To date, every witness has been against you. Every witness has had a reason for not changing the name of your Department. I do not know what you feel about your own Department, but I think you should be warned that-if you feel otherwise, that you have to take on the entire Federal Establishment.

Why don't you proceed, Mr. Secretary.



Secretary Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and please accept my apologies. My intentions were good but the traffic patterns were bad this morning, if I may excuse myself.

I Senator RIBICOFF. Were they on roads supervised and controlled by the Department of the Interior?

Secretary UDALL. Well, only part of them, Senator.

Senator RIBICOFF. You know, talking about that, there is a road that I think your Department controls, as you come off Key Bridge and make your way to the Capitol. The road narrows as traffic keeps feeding into the mainstream. There is a large space that has been tamped down by automobiles. It is unsightly. It would seem to me that if you cut the flange and widened the road at the bottom of the hill, you would eliminate a very, very dangerous condition.

I often had it in my mind to write you a note, but I would hope that you would have somebody from your Department just take a look at that spot as you come off Key Bridge heading toward Washington.

Secretary Uvall. Senator, my Assistant Secretary just whispered in my ear that he has had the very same reaction and that the Park Service is already looking at the problem.

Senator RIBICOFF. It would mean cutting the sharp corner, just widening it a little bit. That is all-really a minor job. But I often come off that road, and I am amazed that there are not many more serious accidents right at that point.


Secretary UDALL. Senator, I have a prepared statement which I should like to have appear in full. I am not going to read all of it. In fact, I think it might help more to get right to the heart of the matter if I summarized the highlights of it

Senator RIBICOFF. All right.

Secretary UDALL (continuing). As well as maybe express some of my own personal feelings that I am sure will be drawn out in questioning if I do not express them myself.

Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection, your entire statement will go into the record as if read.


Secretary UDALL. I have been Secretary of the Department of the Interior for nearly 7 years now. I think that in terms of the conservation attitudes of the country and in terms of our whole approach to resource planning, this has been a very dynamic period in the history of the country. I think some of the changes and developments have been very significant. My own personal feeling is that my Department is today a department of natural resources, in fact. And I have been fascinated, Mr. Chairman, as I have gone about the world and as I have dealt with other nations to see how they organize in terms of governmental departments; Canada, Japan, Mexico, the countries of Western Europe are the ones that I am familiar with. The one thing that fascinates you when you look at the way governments

« PreviousContinue »