project, or an honest evaluation of the benefit-cost ratio from an engineering concept alone. Thus, Congress acts on projects with little information on the impact of the project. The procedure of authorization of major water projects in omnibus or basin wide legislation should be changed to a project-by-project basis if maximum project benefits and minimum resource losses are to be accomplished.

In October 1970, a national symposium on fish and wildlife problems related to Federal water projects was held in Washington, D.C. Representatives from Arizona and most of the other State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies had an opportunity to discuss their mutual problems concerning these projects. The consensus of those present was that full mitigation of fish and wildlife losses associated with Federal water projects is not being accomplished, due to the permissive language in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the option given the reporting agency to choose the mitigation features to be incorporated in the project design. An indepth review of possible solutions was made and recommendations were drafted which are currently being reviewed by a Federal-State task force. We understand that firm recommendations on solutions to many of these problems that we have discussed will be submitted to Congress either this year or early in 1972.

In closing, I can say that our department and commission recognize the importance of Federal water resource programs to the Nation, to regional development, to the various States, and to the people involved. Further, I would like to emphasize the importance of fish and wildlife resources as a necessary ingredient in a quality human environment. In the future, new water development programs must be designed to protect all resources and all values. Comprehensive planning with input from all natural resource agencies is essential, and protective measures must be provided to insure an acceptable, balanced program prior to project authorization.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee today, and further, to offer our support and assistance in comprehensive water resource planning, which would include consideration of those natural resources that come under our jurisdiction.

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

We will now hear from our last witness today, Mr. George Gettinger, executive director, Wabash Valley Interstate Commission.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. GETTINGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WABASH VALLEY INTERSTATE COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS AND INDIANA

Mr. GETTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that my statement be filed in its entirety, if you will, please.

Mr. REUSS. Without objection, your statement will be admitted in full.

Mr. GETTINGER. And I will try to cut this down in the interest of saving time.

Mr. REUSS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. GETTINGER. I am executive director of the Wabash Valley Interstate Commission in the States of Illinois and Indiana, which was organized for the purpose of developing the water resources of the Wabash River Basin.

In 1962 we in the Wabash River Basin-and I am talking about the Wabash Valley Association at this time-with 9,600 paid members, sat down together in Terre Haute, Ind., and agreed to a type II study under the water resource council to develop and to analyze and to build together the total advantages of full and complete water resource development, not taking in consideration any one phase, but taking in consideration the total need of water for our people, the need of flood control, the need of low flow for stream augmentation, the need of developing recreational corridors, the need of developing our part of the country so that it could be used for the people of our area.

With this in mind we have waited until the year of 1971, gentlemen, for a completion of this type II study.

Monday of this coming week I will attend the final coordination hearing. At this time we will have a finished report of the water resources of our particular area.

We feel well satisfied with this because all segments of the water resource family have sat down around the table and worked together harmoniously, and we are going to have a pretty good picture of our valley.

And we come here today to beg of you to be real cautious on what kind of restrictions you put on stream channelization. We don't want to have to go back to 1957 and 1961 and wait for another 10 years to develop a program of work for the development of the water resources of our area.

Flood damage in the Wabash River Basin has taken millions and millions and millions of dollars from our people since the beginning of time. We are in the heartland of America where fertility of our land has been a great blessing, but it also has kept us from doing the things we honestly ought to do. We have been able to take a flood loss once in a while-understand what I mean-and carry it down the road with us. But let me say to you that there are 26 counties in our area that also have an Appalachia status, and our people have left the farms and they have left the small towns. And we believe that by taking water as a resource and developing it for all of our people honestly we can give to our folks the kind of a society and the kind of a program that is so vital for a good tomorrow.

I was a part of the first application that was filed in Indiana under Public Law 566 in my county. It carries with it the number I classification, and the first application filed in Indiana, in an area where floods were the most damaging. Flood control was the No. 1 problem. With some 14 upstream structures and some channelization, we have made this a productive area. Since 1940 we have built 24,667 farm ponds in our State.

In all of the criticisms that I see and hear from the fish and wildlife people I fail to find any notation in their remarks as to the number of acres and the number of areas that have honestly been created and set aside for fish and wildlife. And today we have more game in our State than we have had since the year of 1910, and we are making progress in developing a good program for our fish and wildlife people. So I plead with you not to put regulations on us that will stop our development of our small watersheds. Don't hamstring us in development of the water resources of the Wabash River Basin. This is so meaningful to both of our States of Illinois and Indiana.

In your judgment, and good judgment that you have always used on a national level in the field of water resources, don't let yourselves forget that water belongs to everyone and there are many, many facets of it. Good channelization enters into good flood control and good management of water.

There is a movement now between the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation, Department of Reclamation, to sit down and work out a program that will be meaningful in channelization, and we have made an awful lot of progress in the last few months and years in this. Sure, there have been a lot of mistakes made, but let me say to you that our ditch law in Indiana and Illinois has done away with more natural stream channels than anything else we have ever done, and we are not going to change it. If we don't give them flood control and management of this water, they are going to keep on digging ditches under our county laws and we can't change that. We haven't changed.

So this is an awful important subject to us out our way.

Look at the whole ball of wax and keep in mind, if you will, that the word "environment" is defined as "the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions or influences." And, of course, the word "aggregate" means "a collection of particulars into a whole mass or sum, the total, the combined particulars." And if you will keep this definition in mind I am sure in your wisdom that you will give to us a total comprehensive development of water and land as a resource for the total good of all of our people and society, generally speaking.

I certainly appreciate so much this opportunity of visiung with you about this problem that is so vital in our Midwest.

We have 42 inches of rainfall per annum. Our problems are not the same as they are in Arizona. Our problems are not the same as they are in Louisiana. And our problems are slightly different than they are in the State of Michigan that joins us to the north.

This has to be thought of as a whole national problem, I agree with you, but it also has to be acclimated so that it adjusts to the local

areas.

Thank you so much for this opportunity.

(Mr. Gettinger's prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. GETTINGER, EXECUTIVE Director, WABASH VALLEY INTERSTATE COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS AND INDIANA Mr. Chairman, my name is George D. Gettinger. I am executive director of the Wabash Valley Interstate Commission of Illinois and Indiana. There are seven members from each State and one Federal Representative forming this agency for the planning, development, and promotion of water resources and related land uses in the 33,100 square miles of the Wabash Basin. Formerly, I was executive vice president of the National Rivers and Harbors Congress with headquarters in Washington and with contacts throughout the Nation on water resources development projects.

I understand that these immediate hearings are directed mainly toward the dredging, modification, and channelization of rivers and streams conducted by, or financially assisted by, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture and other Federal Agencies.

I will discuss:

1. Channel work done on rivers;

2. Channel and related work done on tributary streams under the Public Law 566 program of the Soil Conservation Service;

3. Some of the important new approaches for coordinating outdoor recreation and fish-wildlife programs of the Department of Interior with the water-soil conservation activities of the other Federal agencies;

4. A general summary to emphasize the crucial need for continued efforts to keep in mind the interlocking relationships of all natural resource and environmental programs for service to all the people.

Channel work done on rivers at once bring navigation into consideration. There are 25,000 miles of inland waterways for hauling of freight by barge in the United States. It is the function of the Corps of Engineers, at direction of the Congress, to build, protect, and improve these waterways. A dramatic example of the expanding importance of these water arteries was given only a few days ago, on May 25, when President Nixon presided at the formal start of construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway at Mobile, Ala., 100,000 people attended. This project, when completed in about 7 years, will extend 253 miles. It will connect the Tennessee River barge system-now heavily used-with the Gulf of Mexico at Mobile, thus shortening traffic lines for vast tonnages from the central regions of America to overseas or east coast destinations.

Also, this will be the first full year of operation for the 440-mile Arkansas River Navigation project from the Mississippi River to the Port of Catoosa, near Tulsa, Okla. It has been 12 years in the building. With its series of locks, dams, and big lakes, it already is credited with bringing multimillion-dollar growth for the region. Long the dream of the late Senator Robert S. Kerr and of Senator John McClellan, as well as many others, it is fitting certainly to name it the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Formal dedication was last weekend (June 4 and 5).

I point to these as ongoing illustrations of development progress in the navigation field.

On the Ohio River-one of the oldest river traffic avenues on the continentThe Corps of Engineers, by congressional authorization, is replacing the 46 docks and dams between Cairo, Ill., and Pittsburgh, Pa., with 19 larger structures creating vastly bigger pools. In addition to being a more efficient way to move heavy commodities vital to the economy, the improvement is fostering skyrocketing recreational uses for boating where new dams are completed.

To say nothing of the $32 billion of new industry located in the Ohio River Valley since 1953. Salaries and payrolls have a peculiar way of helping the social lives of our people.

Of course, the new lakes in Arkansas and Oklahoma which provide low flow that makes the navigation operation possible on the river, likewise are attracting great numbers of outdoor sportsmen and water oriented recreational groups. The recreational development is the second largest industry in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Constant attention to bank erosion and channel depths must be given. Water is a moving resource. It calls for never-ending management. The benefits to all the people in such undertakings as navigation channelization, bank protective works and the augmentation of river flows in low seasons far outweigh the costs.

As to channel and related work done on tributary streams under Public Law 566 of 1954 (the so-called Small Watershed Act), it is my sincere judgment that this program has been one of the historically valuable decisions of the Congress. Administered by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, the gains have been many. I speak from personal experience. I took part in preparing the first application in Indiana for a small watershed program. The first several years of the SCS watershed efforts were marked by slow going because of the complexities of getting local, State, and Federal interests coordinated. But things have been picking up. In my hometown we have a delightful recreational lake and park as a part of the SCS small watershed project. Yes, channel clearances are made, because a stream dying of slow strangulation from sediment and debris is not a pretty sight. Neither does it carry off excessive water. A choked stream allows floodwaters to spread over flatlands, that creates flood losses not only to homes and business property but to crops and the general destroying of the land area involved creating erosion in these areas that costs the country millions of dollars each and every year.

I have seen critical accounts in national outdoor recreation publications attacking channelization of tributary streams as harmful to fish life. I have yet to see any account by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the advantages they have obtained for the small lakes and ponds that have been created in the upper reaches now provided under every Public Law 566 project. In the State of Indiana alone, we have 24,767 ponds that have been built under the ASC and SCS supervision. Each of these ponds provide habitat not only for fish but all kinds of wildlife, plus water for livestock and low flow augmentation.

There are vast numbers of other areas where the SCS Public Law 566 works are appreciated as enhancing the entire environment. Go west from Oklahoma City to Clinton and Elk City and ask the landowners, the merchants, the people who pay the taxes, how the small watershed jobs have come along. While the Southwest this year is suffering from drought-as severe as that of the 1930's in large areas— that region does not have the Dust Bowl conditions of that earlier period. The small watershed program is the reason.

Much improvement has been made in Federal-State actions since the late great Dr. Hugh Bennett set out from North Carolina preaching the doctrine: "Stop soil erosion or we will lose our top soil and lose our productive power to supply foods and fibers for a fast growing Nation." The battle cry of those days became: "Hold the rain drops where they fall." Dr. Bennett's forceful appeals resulted in creating the Soil Conservation Service.

But, by 1954 and enactment of Public Law 566 (the Hope-Aiken Act), the SCS leaders themselves were recognizing that we need water as much as soil. Gradually the names of the soil conservation districts across the Nation were changed to soil and water conservation districts for working with all the Federal and State agencies. In very extensive parts of the United States, soils simply refuse to absorb water. Rainfall runs off fast. Streams are dry for weeks and months. I appeal to you as Members of the Congress to consider the fact of nature and to recognize the necessity for channelization as a part of the entire program of water management-especially if such channelization is tied to design of lakes upstream. Releases of water from these lakes, in many cases, provide real benefits in yearround flows into the new channels.

My contacts with Corps of Engineers and with expert SCS staff men encourage me to say that these agencies are adopting rules which assure careful attention to protection of the environment for all uses.

As to some of the new approaches for coordinating outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife programs with soil-water activities of other departments, I wish to point out that you Members of Congress are familiar with them-and have had a hand in bringing about this better level of cooperation. This phase of resources management, in fact, is a part of the entire environmental improvement drive we are making across America. The Corps of Engineers has issued a publication for guidance of its officers and staff, in which environmental factors are stressed in planning for any project. The SCS has similar guides. The Reclamation Bureau of the Department of Interior, operating for construction purposes in the 17 Western States, is interested in the large recreational developments of that region.

As one instance of cooperation in a way never before experienced, agencies of the Federal Government-together with the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois and the Wabash Valley Interstate Commission-are just now completing a type II comprehensive survey of water and land use requirements in the Wabash River Basin to the year 2020. The report also sets out proposals for meeting these needs. In preparation of the document which soon will be submitted to the Federal Water Resources Council, every consideration was given to all users. Outdoor recreation officials played an important role in this survey. Power requirements, pollution control, water supply, farm and city relationships, changing land use patterns, and related segments were scanned for a comprehensive-a truly comprehensive-result.

As to the need for keeping in mind the interlocking relationship of all natural resource and environmental programs, I would like to say that the word "environment" appears too often cut from its proper meaning. It is not the property of any one group of conservationists or ecology experts. It is not owned by the farmer or the city resident who likes to fish in the lakes created also for flood control, low-flow augmentation of streams, or water supply.

The word "environment" is defined as "the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences." And, of course, the word "aggregate" is "a collection of particulars into a whole mass or sum-the total, the combined particulars." I feel certain that your committee, Mr. Chairman, will keep the particulars in focus so that you will treat our problems for the most beneficial services for every segment of our tremendous Nation. Thank you so very much for giving me this opportunity to appear at your hearing.

Mr. REUSS. Thank you, Mr. Gettinger.

I am going to ask each of the witnesses, in the order in which they have testified, whether they agree with the recommendation which has been repeatedly made to this subcommittee that there ought to