Representatives of environmental and conservation organizations who testified during the first 2 days of our hearings were unanimous in their support for a moratorium on stream channelization projects. They are joined by countless other organizations and individuals, many of whom have communicated their concern to me.

During the May 4 hearing, I asked the witnesses whether they would agree with the witnesses we had heard the previous day that, beginning on July 1, 1971, a 1-year moratorium be placed on stream channelization projects. The following colloquy ensued:

Mr. REUSS. Yesterday the question was put to the witnesses-representatives of the Audubon Society, the Wildlife Management Institute, the National Wildlife Federation, the Izaak Walton League, and Friends of the Earth-whether it would not be in the public interest for Soil Conservation Service channelization activities to be suspended during the year starting July 1, 1971, and ending with the end of that fiscal year. There was unanimous agreement among the witnesses that such a prohibition would be in the public interest.

I am going to ask each one of you that proposition, though some of you in your testimony made it clear that you would go much further.

I will take you in the order that you testified. How about the American Forestry Association?

Mr. TOWELL. I would wholeheartedly concur in the opinion of my colleagues yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that a 1-year suspension, or even longer if necessary, to review all channelization projects would be in order. However, I would not agree with one of our colleagues today, and others perhaps, about a suspension of all Public Law 566 projects for 2 years. I think this would be bad because there are many fine recreational, wildlife conservation, soil conservation, water conservation projects going forward under Public Law 566, and I think it would be disastrous to condemn the whole program for its weaknesses.

Mr. REUSS. I put my question narrowly to try to see the measure of as much agreement as possible. And your testimony is clear tha you would favor as a minimum a 1-year bar on further channelization.

Mr. TOWELL. Yes, sir; I concur.

Mr. REUSS. Let me now turn to Mr. Barr of the Wildlife Society.

Mr. BARRY. I concur, but perhaps it woul be well to establish that date in 1973, rathe than immediately, in order to effect the ad ministrative procedures.

Mr. REUSS. You say for 2 years?

Mr. BARRY. No. To start the procedure i 1973 rather than right now. It might creat administrative complications if you starte in the fiscal year 1972, or this July.

Mr. REUSS. Well, I picked that date for several reasons. One, it is close at hand. Two, it happens to be the day after the SCS Memorandum No. 108 filing deadline, which requires a return from the State conservationists; because unless there is such a prohibition, there would be nothing to stop the

SCS from going right ahead with stream channelization as it has done for the last 15 years or so.

Mr. BARRY. But aren't there contracts ready to be let, and you might have complications in legal procedure here?

Mr. REUSS. The reference in my question was to the fiscal year 1972 budget.

Mr. BARRY. That would be starting in July. Mr. REUSs. The commitments that exist before that would presumably have to be on order.

Mr. BARRY. We concur then.

Mr. REUSS. Yes, would concur, Mr. Dickerman?

Mr. DICKERMAN. Yes. The Wilderness Society could clearly concur in the proposal you made as a minimum situation. I think our testimony would indicate we would prefer to go further.

Mr. REUSS. Dr. Jenkins.

Dr. JENKINS. What would be the nature of the review carried on during this year's moratorium?

Mr. REUSS. My question sort of leaped over that because I was trying to get a minimum position, if there is one, on which all witnesses would agreed. I would assume that during the year in which there was a moratorium, organizations such as those represented here today would be working with the Soil Conservation Service-either to make the ban permanent or to see whether there are not some channelization projects which don't present any environmental threat and which are economically sound. If so, presumably the ban would be partially lifted, but these are facts that we can't now determine.

Dr. JENKINS. Fine. We would concur. Mr. REUSS. You would concur. Mr. Johnson of the Sierra Club.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I concur.
Mr. REUSS. General Rich?
General RICH. Yes, sir.

Mr. REUSS. And finally, Mr. Strohbehn and Mr. Barlow of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Mr. STROHBEHN. We clearly concur.

Mr. BARLOW. Yes, sir. I, myself, have just recently been alerted to the full and wide problems caused by stream channelization, and I would certainly welcome this period of review to continue picking up all the information that is just coming to the fore on the devastating effects of channelization.

In fact, at the end of this period of review we very well might find ourselves in the position of asking the Soil Conservation Service to pursue flood control and to keep our streams clean by constructing swamps instead of destroying them.

Mr. REUSS. It is interesting that there is unanimous agreement today on this proposition, as there was yesterday; and between today and yesterday we have a very wide spectrum of the greater conservation organizations of the Nation. Your agreement with the proposition I put gentlemen, means, I take it, that you would not be satisfied with the operation of SCS Memorandum No. 108 over the next year. While it represents some forward motion, it apparently is your opinion that stream channelization would still continue under that operation, and you feel that, at least for the interim year, it should not continue. Is that a fair statement?

(All replied in unison affirmatively.)

Mr. REUSS. I'm particularly interested in the enthusiastic "yes" answer to my question given by the Natural Resources Defense Council, because you gentlemen-especially Mr. Barlow-showed more sympathy perhaps toward Memorandum No. 108 than some of the other witnesses have. But even you, sympathetic as you are, say that the boom should be lowered as of July 1, for at least a year.

Mr. BARLOW. Yes, at least.

Mr. STROHBEHN. Yes.

Mr. BARLOW. At no point in Memorandum No. 108 is there any indication that a specific channelization project is going to be shelved as a result of the review. This review process is simply paper shuffling in many cases.

Mr. REUSS. In general, you get the feeling that Memorandum No. 108 says "if the conservationists are being difficult, because we are bulldozing trees a hundred feet from the stream, just bulldoze 50 feet from the stream and see if we can't get them off our back." Would that be the general feeling?

Mr. BARLOW. Yes. But Memorandum No. 108 does give us an opening to pursue this further. For instance, it has come to our attention that the Soil Conservation Service is not requiring the State conservationists and the sponsoring soil conservation districts to submit 102 statements of any projects that were approved prior to the passage of NEPA-the National Environmental Policy Act. And since 108 clearly indicates that channelization is causing a lot of problems, we feel that there are grounds to go to the Soil Conservation Service and say, "where are the 102 statements on these projects?"

Mr. REUSS. I would just comment that it amazes me that the Soil Conservation Service which as I have said in days gone by has been one of my favorites-is so careless of its reputation that it has allowed a situation to come about where in the clearest and most forthright way all the great outdoors and conservation organizations which have testified before us yesterday and today are unanimous in their condemnation. I don't know where SCS has been.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I included in the RECORD, in my remarks on stream channelization, excepts from letters we have received from State and international agencies. I now include, at this point in the RECORD, excerpts from the statements of environmentalists and conservationists who testified before the Conservation Subcommittee at its May 3 and May 4 hearings:

THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION-MAJ, GEN. MAXWELL E. RICH, RETIRED, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Some of these [channelization] projects have enhanced the quality of our environment by conserving soil, water and wetlands, and therefore the maintenance of suitable habitat for viable fish and wildlife resources.

Too often, however, these federally subsidized programs have subverted the wise and basic principles of conservation and

have, in the opinion of many competent biologists, done irreparable harm to soil and water and wildlife resources. Included in this category, we believe, are the extensive wetland drainage projects which, in a puzzling paradox, add agricultural land acreage as agricultural lands are being removed from food production by other Federal programs. Meanwhile, these wetlands, valuable as wildlife habitat and a means of diverting rain from surface water runoff to much needed underground water supplies, are lost.

Case histories of dredging, drainage and channelization are legion and each such history has in common with others the conversion of living streams to silted ditches. Fish and other wildlife populations are decimated and radically changed by species. A 1964 study by Bayless and Smith in North Carolina found a 90-percent reduction of aquatic life after stream channelization. The results of this study are substantiated over and over again by separate studies conducted by independent and respected scientists in such diverse States as Ohio, Colorado, Washington, Nebraska, Montana and many others. An interesting study on the Tippah River in Mississippi concluded only last year showed the streams produced a standing crop per acre of fish before channelization of 887 fish weighing a total 240.7 pounds. Four years later the same stream produced 2,498 fish per acre totaling only 4.8 pounds in weight, a reduction of 98 percent in weight, an increase of 68 percent in numbers. The second sample is 99 percent minnows, shiners and darters-species of no food or recreational

value.

It may appear strange that our association which has a basic interest in sport shooting and hunting should show so much concern over the reduction of aquatic life. And I hasten to point out that our interest in the environment is not limited but rather is a matter of entire concern. Terrestrial animal population is equally damaged by channelization, and it is more difficult to make the same precise evaluation of this reduction as is noted in studies of aquatic animals. However, the serious decline of terrestrial species, dependent on the edge environment of stream banks is immediately obvious.

Texas reports a 90-percent reduction of their 4.5 million white wing dove population as the result of clearing riparian lands along the Rio Grande River by a Federal agency as part of a reclamation project.

Many of these federally sponsored projects lay claim to providing additional man-days of recreation on the water impoundments and reservoirs thus created. However, we hear no claims being made as to the quality of this new recreation. Nor do we hear much about increased siltation rates of water impoundments because of channelization of upstream tributaries.

We suspect that frequently the deciding factor on channelization, reclamation, and so-called flood control projects is an economic one. The implication of increased short-time prosperity brought about by the expenditure of substantial sums of money by the Federal Government for local construction overrides the long range loss suffered from a degraded environment.

THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY-MR. CHARLES H. CALLISON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

The channelization emphasis in the Public Law 566 program has to be changed * These damages are in the lowering of water tables, the elimination of flood plains as natural reservoirs and recharge basins for aquifers, the elimination of wildlife cover and of stabilizing vegetation along the streambanks, an increase in water temperature and turbidity, elimination of desirable sport fisheries, and decimation of a whole host of stream-related wildlife. In short, the conversion of beautiful streams that are rich in natural life into sterile and unsightly ditches. And all for the benefit, really, of a relative handful of riparian landowners who, at the cost of disproportionate public investment, gain more acres of cleared and tillable land.

Two years ago the Game and Fish Commission of the State of Georgia made a careful analysis of SCS plans for the extensive channelization of the Alcovey River and its tributaries, Flat Creek and Cornish Creek. Using the Soil Conservation Service's own figures, the commission found that channeling 80.9 miles of these streams would make possible the drainage of 4,327 acres of privately owned swampland at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of $3,494,432, or at the average cost of $807.77 per acre. The value of the land before drainage was estimated at $300 per acre, and after drainage it would be worth, the SCS said, $350 per acre.

The economics of most such projects, we fear, are equally fantastic-not counting the generally unmeasured but substantial costs in environmental damage.

LOUIS S. CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION We were, like the Audubon Society, one of the original supporters of the small watershed program and the Watershed Congress which each year continues efforts to promote this concept.

We still believe there is merit and public value in the original concept of the watershed program-that of controlling floods by holding water where it falls, especially in the upper reaches: But we honestly and sincerely feel many of the so-called channel improvement projects which are being pursued under the guise of flood control in reality are measures designed to speed water off the land or to allow adjacent farmowners to reclaim wetlands for increasing agricultural production, and we don't believe it's consistent, Mr. Chairman, for one arm of the same department to increase agricultural production at the same time when another program within the same department is endeavoring to pay subsidies to keep lands out of production.

Now, I would like to make one additional expression. We would express the hope that the subcommittee will join us in reaching the decision that these drainage and channelization projects as currently pursued are contradictory, conflicting, wasteful, and harmful, and not in the overall public benefit.

Further, we hope and trust that the subcommittee will recommend administrative changes and, if necessary, additional legislation which will correct the ills and deficiencies which these hearings are bringing

out.

AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION-MR. WILLIAM E. TOWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT As a native Missourian, I witnessed almost complete disappearance of what we called our delta hardwoods down in southeast Missouri from land drainage and clearing as a result of drainage and channelization At one time there was a tremendous hardwood forest industry in that se-tion of our State, but as a result of this drainage and the clearing that resulted from it this almost completely disappeared.

The same thing is true in other States. In Arkansas, for example, since 1960, 1.2 million acres of delta forest have been cleared, and they calculate this at the rate of 150,000 acres per year. In Arkansas only about 2 million acres of the delta forest remain,

In Mississippi we have some figures, too, which show that 1 acre out of every three in the delta region has been cleared. And I think, as I already mentioned, that this clearing is a direct result of drainage and stream channelization. Once the land is cleared, it, of course, goes immediately into agriculture crops, which I am afraid is the real incentive behind the project.

I quote also from a U.S. Forest Service report in Louisiana:

"It appears that the brunt of agricultural expansion in the delta is being borne by the better hardwood sites and that forests are being increasingly restricted to areas that flooding, poor drainage, and soil conditions render unsuitable for farming. The delta has long been noted for the quality and quantity of timber yielded by its heterogenous forests. These forests are generally regarded as the most productive hardwood lands of any size in the entire South or perhaps the Nation. The decade-by-decade attrition of hardwood acreage in the delta has caused widespread local concern over the long-range future of the region's wood-processing industry."

This same thing happens not just in Arkansas and Mississippi and Louisiana, but in most of the Eastern and Southern States where you have delta forests, where you have flood plains, and lowlands, where drainage is generally desired to achieve agricultural productions... when forests are gone, generally the wildlife goes right along with it.

Now, I am against channelization generally. I think it has been overused and abused to the detriment of forests, to the detriment of fish and wildlife. I think it should be eliminated eventually as a small watershed project because of its misuse and because of the detrimental effects it has on conservation and environmental matters. * * * THE WILDERNESS

SOCIETY-MR. ERNEST M. DICKERMAN, DIRECTOR, FIELD SERVICES, EASTERN REGION

The Wilderness Society would like to stress one major thought: The place to keep the water is in the soil. That is where the water is most fruitful. To undertake to run it off as rapidly as possible is to lose its prime benefit in terms of productivity, whether of

domestic cattle, wildlife, cultivated crops, timber, fish, or other forms of plant and animal life upon which man is dependent. To be beneficial the water needs to stay in the land. A meandering stream or river, along the banks and bottoms of which innumerable forms of plantlife grow, does this best. Likewise, a swamp or marsh is the most efficient and effective form of water reservoir, automatically expanding or contracting as the circumstances require, absorbing the surplus waters in time of flood, releasing the surplus waters gradually after the flood has subsided. And all the while as the swamp or marsh automatically performs this reservoir function, it is constantly productive in terms of growing suitable types of timber, of sustaining bird, fish, and other animal life ranging from the conspicuously visible to the microscopic in size, of providing one more of the varied forms of natural habitat necessary for a balanced ecology on this planet.

Because we as a society have become so accustomed to judging practically everything by the number of dollars which it will add to man's annual income, we have persisted in the error of closing our eyes to the longterm needs of life itself. We have closed our eyes to the fact that man, too, must live in harmony with nature and must adapt his needs and actions to conform to the balance of nature if he is to have a continuing existence-most especially so if he is to have a full and satisfying life.

These channelization projects, which would drain the water off the land and accelerate its movement to the sea are in most cases of benefit only to the individual property owners who stand to make a quick monetary gain from some short term use not previously possible. A former piece of swampland, drained and filled, may then be subdivided and the land sold at a handsome dollar profit by the original private owner-with the new homeowners probably plagued with drainage problems from then on. Or the drained swamp may initially and for some years grow cash crops previously not possible; but the odds are that the character of the soil will not sustain indefinitely intensive cultivation and in time it will have to be abandoned. With the stream or river ditched and straightened by dragline or bulldozer, almost certainly the local water table will be lowered, reducing the fruitfulness of the adjacent lands. Most certainly fish life will be destroyed indefinitely, for the barren stream bed will contain no nourishment, the swifter flowing waters will retard the growth of new plantlife and the sustaining of needed microscopic life, and the frequent deposition of silt cut by the faster flowing water from the bare stream banks will periodically suffocate new plant life bold enough to try again.

bottom lands which would be permanently inundated. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, with its section 102 statements requiring that all adverse environmental effects be taken into account, represents positive action on the part of the Government to see that in our environmental projects the entire range of related factors is fully considered. But with thousands and thousands of separate channelization projects programmed all over the United States, we cannot hope for adequate protection of the public interest if each one has to be reviewed and fought individually when the true problem lies in the basic error of the general policy of river channelization.

This destructive policy has gone on because the channelization projects happen one by one in a diversity of localities around the country, making it difficult to show them as a national danger. The Subcommittee on Conservation and Natural Resources is to be most heartily commended for focusing public attention at the national level on this problem.

THE SIERRA CLUB-MR. A. STEVE JOHNSON

"Channel improvement" as used by the SCS can mean a wide variety of operations, ranging from simple removal of snags and debris from the streambed, to drastic excavation and straightening of miles of stream channel, with complete removal of vegetation from banks. Quite often, however, the latter extreme is the dominant one. For example, in my home State of Georgia, the 72 SCS projects authorized as of December 1970, include 318 miles of excavation, plus 264 miles of clearing and snagging.

Similar activities by other Government agencies-notably the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority are much in evidence in the Southeast. For example, TVA's plan for development of the French Broad River Watershed in North Carolina includes 74 miles of channel improvement, of which 58 miles is excavation. Channelization activities of the Corps of Engineers during the past 40 years have affected every major stream in the delta region of Louisiana; hardwood forests in this area are being cleared at the rate of 110,000 acres per year, and at this rate will be depleted by 1991. Proposed development of the Atchafalaya Basin in Louisiana by the corps is expected to detrimentally affect 1,300 square miles of outstanding wildlife habitat.

in

Although environmental impact statements are now required on all SCS small watershed projects, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, such statements appear to be little more than a formality, are poorly researched or documented, and show a gross ignorance of ecological principles on the part of the SCS. For example, in the statement on the headwaters of the Chattooga River Georgia Coosa drainage section II, headed "Adverse Environmental Effects" contains only the one blunt statement: "No adverse effects on man's environment are anticipated." (The project contains seven floodwater retarding structures and about 26 miles of "channel improvement.") The statement on the North Oconee River project in Georgia states: "The 24 miles of channel improvement are not

WILDLIFE SOCIETY-MR. EDWIN M. BARRY, ON BEHALF OF DR. FRED G. EVENDEN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

I would like to say that from my experience the Middle Atlantic States and those to the south of us, who have experienced severe damage to wildlife through drainage of swamps and marshes and relocation of existing streams and rivers, are of one mind in the demand that future Federal agencies not rest their case on mitigating measures but that all projects show documentary approval and that all resource values are thoroughly considered and replacement in kind of fish and wildlife habitat is effected.

We might point out that in the little State of Maryland there are about 300,000 acres of wetlands. We are losing more than 2,000 acres a year.

THE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE DR. LAURENCE R. JAHN, VICE PRESIDENT Increased flows have undesirable impacts all along stream channels. And this, I emphasize, is an important relationship. They alter the stability of the channel itself wherever the peak flow moves. The added volume of water gradually enlarges the channel through erosion. The results are unstable and poorly vegetated banks, scoured or muddy channel beds, and unusual debris accumulations. All of these results degrade & stream and its associated flood plains. Biological productivity declines. Preferred species of fish decrease, and if conditions are particularly severe the species composition may change drastically with the desired species becoming rare or being eliminated. Esthetic values are degraded. Of course, some of this happens in undisturbed streams, but the results are neither as abrupt nor as disastrous as in areas downstream from channeled portions of streams.

8. That a moratorium be established immediately on construction of channels and other drainage measures in watershed projects. As of July 1970, construction was in progress on 728 small watershed projects and planning was underway on 368 projects in the United States. Additional watershid projects are being proposed continuously. Established projects have been evaluated and planned without benefit of adequate ecological, hydrological, and benefit-cost considerations. Alternatives for channel construction and drainage should be incorporated into all approved and proposed projects.

THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA-MR. TED PANKOWSKI CONVERSATION ASSOCIATE

It is suggested, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of flood prevention, channelization is actually causing higher and greater flood levels than occurred before the channelization took place.

In north Missouri, for example, a rough estimate is that more than 400 miles of river have been completely channelized, 600 miles of river partially destroyed with more than '00 miles scheduled for straightening and lamming. The Satilla River in Georgia that hould be studied for "scenic river" designaion is, according to our affiliates there, a arget for recreational navigation, a concept onjured up by some Corps personnel.

A similar situation existed with respect to lans to convert the Maumee River from Toedo, Ohio, to Fort Wayne, Ind., into a comercial barge canal eventually linking up ith the Ohio River. ...

The public has been made well aware of le more notorious instances of environental damage caused by these works-the covy River in Georgia where the Soil and ater Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture advised us 2 weeks ago no environmental impact statement as required by EPA has yet been prepared.

And in New Jersey we learn that the Department of Agriculture may be contributing to their destruction. This is done through a Federal assistance program to salt hay farmers, who are encouraged to dike off lands over which the tide flows and to drain it for increased hay production.

The particular irony here is that this encourages the breeding of mosquitoes so that the department can then offer further assistance for pesticide application.

THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCILMR. EDWARD L. STROHBEHN, JR.

The seriousness of the environmental destruction problem posed by the watershed protection program is apparent from its magnitude: as of June 30, 1970, planning assistance had been authorized for 1,561 watersheds, of which 273 projects had been completed; a backlog of 1,300 applications for assistance had accumulated at that time and 8,904 of the 19,195 watersheds in the Nation that could qualify for Public Law 566 assistance were reported as needing attention. By April 1, 1971, SCS had completed another 27 projects.

And the Soil Conservation Service has permitted itself to pursue an environmentally destructive course of agricultural land development when its statute clearly commands it to undertake an environmentally responsible multipurpose program. Here, however, under existing authority, other Federal agencies that are seeking to protect the environment can undertake responsible decisionmaking roles regarding the watershed protection projects.

Unless remedial action is taken now, one of the most precious parts of our environment will be lost forever. We would be wise to remember Justice Holmes' admonition: "a river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure." So is a stream.

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH-MR. BRENT
BLACK WELDER

No account is taken in the cost-benefit analysis of significant costs. There is a great deal of mention of benefits but no enumerations of such significant losses as losses of fishing, hunting, esthetic beauty, recreational opportunities, loss of forest products,