programs in Missouri, the several corps districts, and the rapidly accelerating Public Law 566 program, we're short of staff and funds to adequately do our job. Provisions should be made in all federally funded water projects for sufficient transfer funds to cover the cost of State fish and wildlife agency study participation. 4. Better legal and policy losses must be found to assure that the replacement of habitat through mitigation features are included in all projects where warranted. The second requirement is that these be installed, with operation and maintenance a project expense. Fish and wildlife agencies should not be required to "buy back" resource values destroyed or damaged by federally funded projects.

5. The total Public Law 566 program, administered by the Soil Conservation Service can't logically be arbitrarily brought to a halt. Segments of the program are doing a true "conservation" job and SCS policy guidelines are changing in a way that opens the door for meaningful fish and wildlife agency study participation. We now think we have established a good cooperative interagency working relationship in planning the Public Law 566 program in Missouri. Watershed memorandum 108 has curtailed many planned channelization projects and others are less likely to be planned in the future. Perhaps the best way to assure contin-. uation of these trends would be for the Congress by resolution or in connection with the appropriation of funds to establish a definite policy or guidelines imposing strict limits on channelization in Public Law 566 projects. Another alternative is in some way to shift the responsibility for final approval of any channelization or stream alteration project to an outside agency or group completely independent of the construction agency.

6. Corps of Engineers stream channelization projects are of much greater concern to us in Missouri because of the amount of stream involved, the number of Corps of Engineers districts, and our general inability to effectively cope with the situation. Possibly the only effective way to satisfactorily achieve results would be through a congressional or Presidential directive placing final authority in an agency outside the Department of Army.

7. Channelization work by legally organized levee and drainage districts also contributes to such problem areas as clearing bottomland forests, marsh drainage, and even channel bypass or abandonment. These systems typically involve local funds; however, there may be Federal funding or technical aid too. This could be a subject for a rather interesting and thorough review. Perhaps if Federal resources are involved some redirection of the program would be in order. Typical questions that might be asked included the following:

Are Federal grant or loan funds available for such programs? Are Federal agency plans or engineering technical services utilized? Can the local district be wholly or partially reimbursed from Federal sources for work completed, if at some later date a Federal project is extended or activated in the particular area? To what extent are other Federal expenditures involved in connection with such projects-outlet works, road relocations, bridge construction?

There are rays of hope here and there for the alert fish and wildlife agency. These typically shine through because of legislative or public pressure; the personal interest of a Corps of Engineers District Engineer or a concerned-usually younger-employee on his staff; or a change in policy such as those recently showing up in the Soil Conservation Service program. Sometimes too, its just plain luck the way things work out. The nomenclature is typically water resource development or conservation-rather than what should be its true name of natural resource commitment. The trick now is to make water resource development truly a wise commitment of the resources with the base being true conservation and recognition of all values.

Your invitation to me to appear at this hearing is appreciated.

Mr. REUSS. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy.

We will now hear from Mr. Jack Crockford, assistant director, Georgia Game and Fish Commission.

STATEMENT OF JACK CROCKFORD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

GEORGIA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION

Mr. CROCKFORD. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jack Crockford, assistant director of the Georgia Game and Fish Commission. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this subcommittee to present the

views of my agency concerning a practice which has caused considerable controversy in my State-stream channelization.

I have read some of the earlier testimony presented to this subcommittee by the various national conservation agencies. These statements graphically illustrate the damage done by channelization. For this reason, I will not attempt to duplicate or elaborate on the points they have made, except in several important areas of special interest to my

agency.

I would at this time especially like to give my full endorsement to the statement and proposals made for the Wildlife Institute by Dr. Lawrence Jahn in the earlier testimony. In particular, I fully support his call and that of the other witnesses for a 2-year moratorium to be declared by Congress on all channelization projects authorized under Public Law 566 until an extensive reevaluation of these programs has been completed by the Congress with the assistance of responsible professionals in the environmental field.

Some of the earliest stream channelization projects in the Nation were constructed in Georgia. By 1969, 22 of these projects had been completed, 41 were under construction, and 103 applications were pending for additional projects. These figures have increased during the intervening period. Almost all of these include substantial amounts of channelization. Examination of completed channels in the earlier projects and our subsequent experiences in attempting to halt or modify this practice have now convinced us that major changes must be made in this program. I will illustrate these aspects with a summary from my complete statement on two of the best known of these projects, designed and financed by the Soil Conservation Service: These are the Alcovy River and Flat Creek-Cornish Creek watershed projects, which are really one project broken into halves to evade the congressional guidelines limiting their size.

Figures in the two original work plans indicate that 4,237 acres of swampland areas will be drained to create additional farmland, in conflict with Agriculture Department regulations. In addition, the reports indicate that 8,652 acres of forest land will be cleared, primarily to create pastureland, which could easily be converted to cropland. These plans say the annual benefits of this will be worth $105,000 a year. The channelization costs listed in the project reports necessary to accomplish this would cost over $3 million, which could mean that it would take almost 30 years for the benefits of drainage to match the cost.

By that time, the future recreational or educational uses of the swamplands might exceed their value to the public as drained land, either agricultural or as a subdivision. How much will it cost to ruin the Alcovy and allow drainage of its swamps? The work plan for the two projects involved prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. indicates that channelization of 80.8 miles of the Alcovy, Flat Creek, and Cornish Creek will allow the drainage of 4,326 acres of swampland at a cost of $3,494,432 in Federal tax money for construction and engineering costs.

Simple division indicates that it will cost the U.S. taxpayer $807.77 per acre to make drainage of privately owned swamplands possible. In many cases, the landowner will still have to spend approximately $300 to $400 per acre of his money or obtain up to 50-percent-of-cost aid from another Government agency, the Agricultural Stabilization

62-365 0-71-pt. 3 3

and Conservation Service, to build additional ditches and drains to the main ditch built by the Soil Conservation Service.

Thus, the total investment per acre to drain the swamps probably will cost more than $1,100 or $1,200 per acre on land which, according to the SCS, is worth an average of $300 per acre now, and which will be worth only $350 per acre for agricultural use after drainage.

We are very much disturbed to see an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposing the drainage of a large acreage of wetlands, while at the same time another Federal agency in the Interior Department is spending millions of dollars to preserve and develop wetlands for waterfowl. The wetlands in question serve as resting, roosting, and feeding places for mallard, black ducks, and wood duck, which also nest there. In fact, they are the only duck-hunting areas in Newton County. In addition to the primary species of ducks, deer and squirrels, the wetlands provide a home for the canecutter rabbits, raccoons, and fur-bearing species like mink, otter, muskrat, and beaver. They are potentially a refuge area for wild turkeys and bear.

In addition to game animals, draining of the wetlands and channelization of 80 miles of streambeds in the project areas will have a serious effect on the fish population of the affected streams. The Alcovy River below U.S. 278 is a fishing stream, primarily for bream, catfish, and chain pickerel, although there is some bass fishing as well. Backwater sloughs and pool areas that would be eliminated by channelization are the best places to fish, as well as furnishing cover and spawning areas. Their removal in a channelization project would tend to increase water temperatures, making them less desirable for fish and the aquatic organisms they feed on. Removing the stabilizing influence of the tree root systems from the streambank that will not be adequately controlled by tall fescue and white clover.

The State Game and Fish Commission is seriously concerned about the siltation that inevitably will occur in the Alcovy during the project work, which will last over a period of at least 7 years, if funds are provided on the planned schedule. This will be multiplied by what we believe to be unnecessary channelization which the stream will not recover from in the next half century.

It has been clearly established by scientific investigation in several southeastern States that channelization seriously damages stream fishing. For instance, a study of 23 channeled streams made by the State of North Carolina's Wildlife Resources Commission showed that game fish in the streams were reduced in both number and weight by 90 percent. The data also revealed that no significant return toward the natural stream population has occurred within the 40-year period following channelization. A study of a stream before and after channelization was made by the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission with similar results. Before channelization, the Tippah River had a good population of large-size game fish, averaging 240 pounds per acre. After channelization, that poundage dropped to only 5 pounds.

We feel that many aspects of small watershed projects as they exist could be used in the future for recreation; however, this concept. has not received sufficient attention in work plans. Economic figures for the loss of hunting, fishing, boating, or outdoor recreation benefits, present or future, are not considered. For this reason, we feel that more study should be given to proposals before final plans are drawn,

and a concentrated effort made to establish the fish, wildlife, recreation, and economic values of these watersheds should they be allowed to remain unchanneled and with their swamps undrained. With the experience with channelization projects which have been completed in mind, we would like to offer the following specific suggestions for modification and improvement of the present Public Law 566 and related programs:

1. The need for land-use planning on the National, State, and local levels is an obvious major need. Passage of a Federal act requiring this to be done with strong enforcement of the plan by local governments insured under the threat of a loss of Federal funds is essential. Provisions should be included in the act requiring passage of flood plain zoning and shoreline protection acts such as Wisconsin's.

In this regard, a detailed survey should be made of the ecological and natural resources of the various States which should identify important wildlife areas such as swamps and river bottom lands, high value natural areas, and outdoor recreational areas such as streams and flood plains. Federal funding for this survey by competent agencies with expertise in the field will be necessary, particularly to State game and fish agencies.

2. A specific requirement, such as section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 United States Code 1653), should be enacted applying to federally assisted water resource projects prohibiting their construction in such high value scenic, recreational, or wildlife areas identified by the study when objections are made by officials concerned with these areas, regardless of whether or not they are public property, unless there is no alternative to meet national interests and unless every possible effort is made to minimize damage and losses of such values. This would put real teeth into the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) and fill any holes that might remain in the proposed Land Use Act enforcement. 3. Emphasis in federally assisted programs and direct construction activities should be taken off of flood control through the use of artificial structures and placed more on prevention through prohibition of construction in flood plains. This could be done through the land use plan enforcement, but it could be greatly accelerated through programs such as the Soil Conservation Service and the Corps of Engineers making surveys to determine where stream flood plains are and then financing the purchase of these areas as permanent floodways that could also be available to the public for wildlife and recreational purposes. In many cases, it would be cheaper to buy the areas subject. to flooding than to build the structures now being built. Thus flood damage could be halted and public benefits result.

Such action would be a great boon to underfinanced wildlife and recreational agencies trying to acquire open space so badly needed with the Nation's rapidly increasing population and loss of open land, including in or near urban areas. Nothing would be so helpful in shaping a more orderly pattern of urban development and preventing the wasteful extension of public services into areas unsuitable for urban development that are so valuable for public purposes.

4. In an era of high taxation and pressing need for funds in so many areas, an obvious move is to cut appropriations for flood control projects, especially those employing such wasteful and destructive. practices as channelization. The millions used here to destroy and

damage the environment could well be employed in the purchase of wildlife refuges, hunting and fishing areas, parks, wilderness areas, natural streams, beaches, and islands, as well as developing appropriate access facilities on them. Equally important unmet needs are for the prevention of water and air pollution, solid waste disposal and many other national problems. In the environmental age, financial emphasis should be placed on protecting the environment, not projects that destroy or damage important aspects of the environmental quality.

5. Public Law 566 could be amended to make agricultural flood control the minor portion of its purpose, emphasizing water conservation "to hold the raindrop where it falls," the original purpose, and to emphasize beneficial purposes such as creation of municipal water supplies and recreational and wildlife purposes. These are now frequently just tacked onto a flood control project that cannot otherwise be justified by the construction agency.

6. The SCS, TVA, Corps of Engineers and other flood control agencies should not do the planning of their projects, especially computing the cost benefit ratio. This should be done by an impartial planning agency, in consultation with interested agencies like wildlife commissions, natural areas councils, and Federal agencies with environmental insight such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

7. Projects should be approved by more representative groups on a local basis than at present. For instance, SCS projects in Georgia are approved by a State Soil and Water Committee composed entirely of agricultural interests. The five-member board are all supervisors of a local soil and water conservation district. Wildlife and other environmental and planning agencies should have a legal vote to give a balance to the power of this group, if not a veto.

8. The same situation exists on the national level, where the House and Senate Agriculture and Public Works Committees now apportion the appropriated funds to particular projects. This means, for example, that SCS projects are seldom disapproved on grounds of environmental destruction by these committees that are agriculturally or public works oriented. Internal committee politics rather than national needs frequently determine which projects are funded first and for how many Federal dollars that might better be spent for environmental protection.

The determination of which SCS projects get the green light should not be a congressional function, especially projects involving less than $10 million. On the other hand, large Corps of Engineers reservoir projects should be considered as separate bills by both houses, rather than lumped together in the Omnibus Rivers and Harbors bill. Smaller projects would be administratively selected for priority.

These are our major recommendations. However, there are a number of areas about the present Public Law 566 that should be examined during the proposed congressional moratorium on these projects. For reasons of space limitations in this paper, I have attached these questions as an appendix to my statement. I recommend them to the attention of the subcommittee.

(The document follows:)