Page images

power marketing agencies, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Fish and Wildlife, the Bureau of Mines, Geological Survey, the National Park Service, the Office of Saline Water, the Office of Water Resources Research, and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

The listing of these difficulties is not to beg resolution of the problem of water management, but to emphasize the necessity for unity and wholeness of view in the management of our natural resources.

One further example might serve to illustrate the problem of co-ordinating the activities of various bureaus and agencies. Senator Moss and I have co-sponsored legislation which would take the management of the Flaming Gorge Recreation Area in our states out from under the management of two agencies and place it in the hands of one. As Senator Moss will testify, it was no easy task to get agreement from the two agencies, the National Park Service and the Forest Service, to agree that administration of Flaming Gorge would be more effective in the hands of one agency. Imagine it takes an Act of Congress to effectuate such an obvious solution.

As I have pointed out, everyone in government recognizes the confusing array of responsibilities, departments, bureaus, and agencies in the management of our natural resources. I would like to speak briefly of this problem in broad conceptual terms rather than belaboring long lists of government departments.

Any cursory glance at the history of the United States leads inevitably to the thought that our attitudes, indeed our very lives, have been profoundly changed by not only the uses to which we have put our natural resources, but by the way in which we view those natural resources. The distinction between use and view is an important distinction. Such a distinction is not meant to suggest that use and view are polarities. Indeed, they are closely interrelated.

Those who first came to the North American continent must have been struck by the magnificence and abundance of our natural resources—the timber, the game, the water, the very spaciousness led inevitably to the view that the cornucopia was endlessly full. Indeed, this sense of abundance was manifested in many of the landscape paintings and diaries of early settlers and travelers. So pervasive was this sense of abundance that even today when we ought to know better many Americans look upon their natural resources in terms of abundance and very seldom in terms of scarcity.

Nor was the European settler prepared, either in economic outlook or in moral outlook, to make the happy discovery of abundance. His economic concepts, his moral concepts, were based primarily on scarcity. Whether he had read Adam Smith or John Calvin, he still carried the notion that scarcity, either in natural resources or in moral salvation, was God's inevitable plan. Yet what he saw here was the very antithesis of scarcity and his view changed, as well as the use to which he put those natural resources. It was true that the British holding companies were looking for new sources of raw materials, but even they had little idea of the plentitude of the raw materials in the New World.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that for a long time in America's history most Americans had little, if any, awareness that our natural resources would, or eren could, have a limit. Thus, during the time of our national expansion, we found little attention being paid to the wholesale devastation of our landscape, of our minerals, of our water, and, sad to say, in some cases, of our human resources. But as we became more adept at recognizing the role of government in helping to solve problems, the more we saw government reflecting the complexities of the times.

The present departments of government came about because problems were recognized. This is most particularly true of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Commerce.

The Department of the Interior, established in 1849, came about as a result of the long-established recognition that we had untold acres of land which required orderly development. The settling of the West was due in no small way to the fact that the Federal Government took a direct hand in that settlement.

In 1889 we established the Department of Agriculture because we had long since become aware that the practice of mining farm lands no longer had the easy out of abandonment for new vistas. Thus, one of the chief functions of the Department of Agriculture was the pursuit of scientific farming.

During the Progressive Era, more and more Americans became aware of the irrational pillage which our natural resources were undergoing. One of the answers to such pillage was the establishment of the Department of Commerce in 1903. The effort to regulate commerce was as much an effort to save our natural resources as it was to regulate the excesses of business.

What we see reflected here in this part of history is that as problems involving the development of the United States became increasingly complex and apparent, we find the creation of departments of government reflecting those complexities and changes. Instead of growing like Topsy, we sought control and wise management. The time is once again upon us to continue that course of wisdom so amply demonstrated by our forefathers.

The pressures of a burgeoning industrial system has never meant and cannot now mean an iron law of indiscriminate exploitation of our raw materials. If we can adopt the concepts of the new economics in government for making the Federal Government operative and effective as an instrument to control inflation and deflation, then surely we can employ those concepts concerning our natural resources. That is as a catalytic agent in the wise and generative uses of our natural resources.

But this is impossible if we violate the pursuit of wholeness and a balanced total view. The alternative to such a view is a piecemeal, contentious, and at last, destructive policy. Already, the process of destruction is at hand. Witness the tragedy of the Florida Everglades, the scars of strip mining, the denuded forests, the cry for more water, to name but a few of the crises now confronting us.

Certainly conflicting and competing interests sometimes mean that we must reshift our emphasis, reorder our priorities, and, at times, control these competing interests. We must begin to change the helter-skelter approach of keeping a particular department alive to serving the public interest for generations to come.

What is so vital is the development of a pervasive and dynamic unity in our attack on the wise use of our physical environment. We cannot do this when agencies contend and attention to large purpose and the ordering of priorities is neglected by a system of vying for tax money, attention, and status. Harmony is obligatory, not only because we feel better when there are no dangling and bothersome loose ends but for the much more real reason that we will never retrieve what we have, in fact, lost and will continue to lose at a horrifyingly rapid increase in pace.

Nature is all of a piece and our approach and treatment of nature should be all of a piece. Otherwise we are forced into the folly of assaulting nature bit by bit rather than co-operating with and being a part of nature.

One of the absolute requirements of wise planning in the use of our natural resources is the recognition of the fact that if we run out of raw material for our productive machine, we will have no more productive machine. But what of man's psychic requirements? The necessity that the spirit requires something good must happen to the eye. The redwoods, the mountains, the wilderness areas, the lakes, the uninterrupted vistas, these are all our heritage as much as steel plants and highways-indeed, not only a heritage, but a necessity.

A Department of Natural Resources should be as much concerned with the psychic income from our natural resources as it would be with the material income from our natural resources.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, my remarks should be construed in no way as an attack on the Departments presently involved. Indeed, it is a plea that they be allowed to operate more vigorously and effectively. We need the talent and dedication of these departments in a new and reordered way which would allow us the wise use of natural resources. This wise use should be the result of the government's activity, not in spite of it.

Surely, when the private sector of our affairs increasingly incorporates the total systems approach, then the public sector should benefit from the same kind of approach. For, basically, a total systems approach utilizes the principle that only by conserving and unifying can we generate.

In view of all this and more, Mr. Chairman, it is my earnest hope that the Committee will quickly adopt S. 886. Thank you.

Senator RIBICOFF. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until Thursday at 10 a.m.

(Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., a recess was taken until 10 a.m., Thursday, October 19, 1967.)




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

Present: Senator Ribicoff.

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.
Our first witness is Secretary Resor.


Secretary Resor. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as Secretary of the Army I am here this morning to testify on behalf of the Department of Defense concerning S. 886.

This bill would place within the Department of the Interior programs and activities of several other Federal agencies and departments, and would redesignate the Interior Department as the Department of Natural Resources. Among activities transferred would be certain oceanographic functions of the Navy and the civil works program of the Department of the Army.



In regard to the former activity, the Department of the Navy suggests that any change in marine activities should be deferred pending completion of the report of the President's Commission on Marine Science and Engineering Resources, which was charged by the Congress in 1966 with recommending the optimum organization for the Federal Government's activities in marine affairs. Also the Navy believes that the National Oceanographic Data Center should remain under the Department of the Navy. Comdr. James E. Ayres of the Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy is present to participate in any discussion of this aspect of S. 886.

The balance of my remarks this morning go to that aspect of the bill which involves the Army's civil works program.


This bill seeks to achieve a worthwhile goal; improving coordination and planning within the executive branch, and with local and State agencies, or programs involving natural resources, in order to achieve more efficient administration and more rational management of our limited natural resources.

Certainly that is a desirable end. The question is whether one of the means suggested-removing the civil works program from the Army Corps of Engineers—would contribute to the objective sought, and even if it did, whether that contribution would be worth the sacrifice of the benefits, national security and other, inherent in the present arrangement.

When it began in 1824 the civil works program was aimed only at improving navigability of the Nation's rivers. Over the intervening 143 years many functions have been added by Congress: flood protection, the development of water power; the provision of municipal and industrial water supplies; shore protection; pollution abatement; assistance to State and local governments in managing flood plain lands; and assistance to communities stricken by floods, earthquakes, and other disasters.


There is general agreement that this program has been competently planned and carried out. The second Hoover Commission examined the civil works role of the Corps of Engineers in 1955 and concluded that the Army's civil works responsibilities should be increased. The Commission said:

The Corps of Engineers has an enviable record for safe and adequate engineering design, * * * it has demonstrated its ability to carry out very large engineering projects, and *** it has been signally free of any taint of fraud or dishonesty in the administration of the vast construction program with which it has been entrusted.


I believe there is common agreement with that judgment today. It is not a supposed lack of efficiency or competence on the part of the Corps of Engineers which prompts the suggestion that civil works responsibilities be transferred to a new department. Instead, its proponents suggest that this transfer would mean an improvement in the coordination between the civil works program and the other programs and agencies engaged in water resource planning and development.

However, there is substantial reason to doubt that the performance or coordination of a new agency entrusted with civil works responsibility would be significantly better. And in weighing any possible benefits, one must realize that removal of civil works activities from the Army will also eliminate considerable economies and incidental benefits which have accrued both to the civil works program and to the Department of Defense over the years.


The Corps of Engineers at the present time carries on two interrelated programs: One for military construction, which has aggregated $11.5 billion in the past decade, and the other for civil works, which has involved $10.7 billion in the same period. This conjunction of responsibilities permits the two programs to be run on a complementary basis, with one overhead of technical and administrative personnel rather than two. Throughout the country the military construction activities of the Corps of Engineers, including the important work it does for the Air Force and NASA, are carried out through the same district and division offices that are responsible for the civil works program. Military construction requirements would demand that a substantial part of this organization continue even if civil works responsibilities were eliminated. Yet in such a case many of the same jobs and functions which now use one set of employees and one organization would have to be duplicated. There would be no savings in personnel and administration: The effect would be the opposite, and the efficiency of administration of both programs probably would be reduced.

Another advantage would be lost in the proposed transfer. Because of the dual aspect of the present corps program, and the complementary nature of its two parts, it is possible to shift personnel quickly and smoothly between the two. In time of war the magnitude of the civil works program decreases as the military construction program grows. In time of peace the shift of personnel and funds is in the other direction as the civil works program becomes the main activity. The overall program of the corps, therefore, is at the same time flexible and stable, with advantages in efficiency and economy which would be lost if the programs were to be separated.


In addition, enactment of S. 886 in its present form could adversely affect the military capability of the Army. In part, the success of the Army Engineers in the military field may be credited to the fact that the corps has, for a period of 143 years, also been responsible for the civil works program. A trained organization in being and capable of taking immediate action has been of inestimable value in military as well as natural disaster emergencies. The 1965 report of the Army's Civil Works Study Board concluded that conduct of the civil program by the corps strengthens the Army's competence to support national objectives in wartime by sustaining a broadly based engineering organization-in-being,” and that participation in the civil works program "does much to develop in engineer officers a breadth of vision and capability to take on and discharge the mission requirements of military engineering during mobilization and combat.”


It has been argued that the corps programs and those of other agencies have at times worked at cross purposes. Yet it is not surprising that the positions of agencies charged by Congress with disparate missions will conflict at times. Nor is it necessarily regrettable that


« PreviousContinue »