RESOURCE ACTIVITIES HAVE OUTGROWN PRESENT ORGANIZATION

My advocacy of a Department of Natural Resources does not constitute severe criticism of the performance of existing departments, although it is often interpreted as doing so. Given their limitations and their overlapping of responsibility, our agencies have done a commendable job. But our needs in resource development and conservation have simply outrun our agency structure.

For example, a century ago, water management meant the construction of dams, pipelines, and sewer systems. Later, it included treating municipal water supplies to kill disease germs. Meanwhile, rivers were improved for navigation, and dams constructed for electric power production. Subsequently, there came the building of flood control works and the protection of soils and watersheds against erosion. As more waste went into rivers and lakes, sewage treatment works became more common and more sophisticated. When pollution began to close beaches and spoil the wildlife environment of rivers, lakes and estuaries, when building began to encroach on marshlands, it was seen that water management must include recreation and habitat conservation. After World War II, water management began to mean all of the above put together, and, by the 1960's, complete multipurpose use was the recognized goal.

For the future, water management must mean the reconciliation of all uses, preservation of water and related land resources, and provision of enough water for constantly expanding needs.

LONG-RANGE PLANNING COULD RESULT FROM REORGANIZATION

Were I asked to list concrete beneficial effects that might be expected from the creation of a Department of Natural Resources, I would put first the opportunity to improve long-range planning.

There exists nowhere a comprehensive plan that states our resource requirements and delineates a program for meeting them.

A first piority of the Department of Natural Resources should be the preparation of such a plan. The plan should set forth the national goals, projected alternative programs for reaching those goals, and the costs involved.

This will furnish to the President and the Congress, the facts upon which wise decisions can be made.

This, in general, is the method utilized so successfully by great industrial enterprises. It combines maximum efficiency with maximum flexibility.

SINGLE DEPARTMENT COULD IMPROVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

A second beneficial effect would be more efficient intergovernmental relations. Today, I have discussed almost exclusively the Federal responsibility in the natural resource field, but this does not mean that the role of the States, counties and cities-and of private industry-are not significant. On the contrary, there is a limit to what the Federal Government can do. President Johnson made this point when, discussing the recent drought in the Northeast, he said that although he had directed every Federal agency "to do all that can and should be done," the problem of water supply was "first of all, a great responsibility of our local governments.'

A single Department, guided by a long-range resource plan, could surely provide assistance and cooperation to our city, county, and State governments more effectively and at less cost.

What the bill will do is to enable one executive department to coordinate, at the levels of Under Secretary and Secretary, the activities of all agencies dealing with natural resources. It will enable the President, the Congress, and the executive department effectively to evaluate the Nation's resource requirements and the investment needed to meet them. It will provide the data and the management structure on which long-range planning can be based. It will enable us to consider with sufficient leadtime the raw material requirements of our industries. It will provide coordinated administration of farflung resource programs. It will make it easier for the States, counties, and cities to carry out their expanding responsibilities in the natural resource field.

Mr. Chairman, in the last few years, the Congress has participated in the establishment of a Department of Defense, a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, a Department of Transportation, and a Department of Housing and Urban Development for the specific purpose of coordinating the activities of diverse agencies. Is it not ironic that, during these years, we have refused even to consider seriously similar unity of direction in the field that concerns the natural environment of man himself?

Let me again express my appreciation to the subcommittee on the holding of these hearings. They may lead the way to significant action in an area which vitally affects our Nation's future.

OPEN-SPACE PROGRAM FOR URBAN AREAS WOULD BE INCLUDED

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, Senator Moss.

I think you and your colleagues who introduced this measure have rendered a distinct public service. It would seem to me that sometime in the near future it is inevitable that we will create a Department of Natural Resources. Whether we are ready for it now is another question. Most people in talking about conservation and natural resources think of States like yours, the wide-open spaces of Utah, and of Colorado, California, and the national parks. Yet one of the most critical questions facing the future of this country is how we develop our cities, our towns, our rural areas so the large numbers of people in this country who live in urban areas have the advantage of a full range of opportunity.

In your proposal, where would the open-space program of HUD, as well as the problems of urban development, fit in?

Senator Moss. Well, it would come under the jurisdiction of the Under Secretary for Land Management.

Open space, the acquiring of open-space lands and preserving of them would be a part of this overall planning on the uses of all land

resources.

What I envision here and what I think we must do is develop an overall plan, and as you well point out this is not just directed at the national parks and the national forests which we have been doing for some time, but it should cover the whole country. And in many ways it is more critical around our heavily populated urban areas than it is

out in States like mine who have only one or two urban areas and they are not very crowded by the standards of some that we have in the eastern part of the country.

WHAT ADVANTAGES WOULD NEW DEPARTMENT HAVE?

Senator RIBICOFF. The other day, I was out in the distinguished Senator's State, the State of Oklahoma. It was the first time I had been there. And as I flew over Oklahoma, I remember reading what Oklahoma had been like in the past: a dust bowl, where people moved out and left in large numbers. But now Oklahoma has been developed by proper land use and water resources and you can see the rebirth of a State. I have never had the privilege of being in the distinguished Senator from Tennessee's State to see what the TVA has done.

You agree that achievements were accomplished without a Department of Natural Resources.

What do you think, today, the Department of Natural Resources can do for Tennessee or Oklahoma or Connecticut that is not being done at the present time?

LONG-RANGE PLANNING COULD ELIMINATE PATCHWORK DEVELOPMENT

Senator Moss. Well, first, let me say that I would point to the TVA as one of the great landmark developments of an area that had become run down and was poverty stricken and subject to flood and all this sort of thing. And the building of the great complex of the TVA is certainly a bright chapter in resource development-harnessing the water and preserving it, and utilizing the power and the navigation that is available there.

But, nevertheless, it was a piecemeal thing, that is, the needs were so great in the Tennessee Valley that we just picked that out nationally and said "Here, we will go in and build." And this was fine, there was nothing wrong with that. But there are probably many other, maybe not quite so urget TVA's, potential TVA's that ought to be studied and put into a master plan before we can determine how we are going to utilize all of our resources, providing for our ever expanding needs. You see, our demands for water and our demands for forest products, and our demands for minerals constantly rise so that has to be part of the picture.

We have to provide for our needs.

At the same time, we want to preserve from ugliness and preserve from destruction the resources that this country has.

So, I would say that if we had this Department and it embarked on this long-range plan, it would be looking at Connecticut and saying, "Well, now"-and it would not be just confined to Connecticut, but in this area of the country-these are the resources, this is what we need to do, projecting this development a long time into the future the same for Oklahoma, and the same for Utah, the same for all parts of the country.

We have kind of just a patchwork now, and, as I say, each in its own case has been all right, like the TVA was fine when it came along, but we have just moved on to the point where we can no longer afford, it seems to me, to work with just patchwork authority and no centralized planning.

ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING OF TVA WOULD BE TRANSFERRED

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a questionSenator RIBICOFF. Please.

Senator BAKER (continuing). That Senator Moss, I am sure, can respond to.

Now, do I understand from the Senator that the combined functions of flood control, navigation, agriculture, forestry, and so on, that make up the cohesive effort of the Tennessee Valley Authority to develop a region in a coherent sort of way would be transferred, by this plan, out of the Tennessee Valley Authority and to this new Department?

Senator Moss. Yes; it would be integrated into the Department for administrative functions and planning direction. I do not think that necessarily there would be a great deal of changes as to how it is operated within the day-to-day, bread-and-butter operation except that it would fit into the overall plan.

Now, the TVA has a certain boundary now. Its jurisdiction stops there; whereas, a long-range plan might indicate maybe the boundaries should change a little. There may be areas of study that could make it more beneficial to both TVA areas and the adjoining areas.

REGIONAL COMMISSIONS WILL NOT BE ABANDONED

Senator BAKER. May I ask this further question, Mr. Chairman, just to make sure I fully understand the import of S. 886 with respect to regional development?

TVA, obviously, is an effort to develop in a fairly intensive way a particular region, in this case defined by the natural boundaries of the valley of a river, the Tennessee River

Senator Moss. Yes.

Senator BAKER (continuing). Quite apart from State lines or county lines or other geopolitical lines.

If this bill were to become law, would the regional development concept, carried forward in the Appalachia Regional Commission and the Four Corners Regional Commission and the other various regional development commissions which have grown out of the so-called Appalachia legislation, be abrogated or transferred to a function of this Department under the scope of your proposal?

Senator Moss. No; there is not any proposal to transfer the regional commissions or the functions of the regional commissions into the Department. It would be expected that they would coordinate their planning and effort with the Department, of course, because naturally resources is one of the big elements of getting development in these areas that are underdeveloped in our country. But this does not envisage in any way transferring any of the jurisdiction to the Department. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to unnecessarily belabor my following of these questions

Senator RIBICOFF. Go ahead.

Senator BAKER (continuing). But I am really quite distressed at the prospect of the function or planning functions of the TVA being altered or changed in any respect. And while I do not want to prejudge the merits of S. 886, I must say that I would react quite unfavorably to that aspect of such a proposal at this time.

COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES AT STATE LEVEL

Senator RIBICOFF. How do the activities of various State and local agencies affect the proposed Department?

Just 2 days ago, the State of New Jersey proposed that all water resources activities of the State of New Jersey be in one agency. If this tendency for States to coordinate their natural resources functions themselves were expanded, would this support or reduce the need for a new Department?

What impact would it have?

Senator Moss. Well, of course, I do not know that it would influence it one way or the other, but it certainly would be beneficial to the State, whether the State had a single agency or had multiple agencies, to have a place to go and talk about their problem vis-a-vis the Federal Government.

Now, we have had some other classic examples of States being required, or subdivisions of the State, to shop around, as it were, among the agencies to find out where the thing fits in.

I recall a statement that was made concerning the pollution on the Hudson River and why they did not get it cleaned up, and the release was to the effect that there were not only about six or several Federal agencies with the responsibilities of various kinds in there, but the State of New York had about, oh, 12 or 15 agencies with varying degrees of responsibility and there was no place you could pin it down say that this was the plan to clean up the Hudson River and to cure the pollution there.

to

POSSIBLE RESISTANCE TO SINGLE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT

Senator RIBICOFF. Now, the statement of our respected colleague from Tennessee-and it is obvious he feels strongly-brings to mind this. Frank Smith, a former Congressman from Mississippi and now a Director of the TVA, made an interesting observation in his book, "The Politics of Conservation," which I think is appropriate. Let me quote Mr. Smith:

National planning and national action are the only answers to most of the problems ahead. Ideally, the old concept of one single department of conservation and resource development, responsible for all federal planning and action in the field, might still work if it could be achieved by waving a magic wand. It simply cannot be achieved, however, without a bloody, bone-shattering fight, which would leave the landscape so scarred that the conservation cause would be lots in the critical years immediately ahead.

I do not know if our distinguished colleague read this book.
Senator BAKER. I have not.

Senator RIBICOFF. Would you want to comment on Frank Smith's statement?

Senator Moss. Well, first of all, let me say that I have no illusions that there will not be a great deal of resistance to rearranging the functions of natural resources into a department. The history of this proposal would indicate it goes clear back to Harold Ickes. It was proposed by him, and, of course, the Hoover Commission proposed it. It has come up various times and never been accomplished because of certain departments or agencies which functions would be taken into the department resisting it, thinking they could function better outside the department.