losses from lowering of the water table, from increased downstream flooding, siltation, the rapid spread of pollutants and insecticides.

Furthermore, the loss of areas of scientific and educational value is something that should be taken into account but is not now done.

In addition, an unrealistically low discount rate is used to justify these projects. Many of them were authorized under a 3%-percent rate, and they have yet to be installed. Were the opportunity cost of capital to be used as the discount rate-that is now between 8 to 10 percent perhaps as many as 80 to 90 percent of these projects would have an adverse ratio and could not be initiated.

Studies of a number of these projects have shown that it would be cheaper to purchase the land and use it as a wildlife refuge rather than continue with the project.

Almost double the amount in some projects is being spent per acre over and above what the land is valued at.

The magnitude of the threat posed by channelization needs to be stressed. Fewer than 300 projects have been completed, but the claim is that over 10,000 additional Public Law 566 projects are needed, and unless something is done, many of these 10,000 will involve channelization.

We fully support a moratorium for a good number of years until adequate scientific investigation can be conducted on all of the Soil Conservation Service Projects. We do not believe that the talk of mitigation which is mentioned in Watersheds Memorandum 108 will be sufficient because there is no reason to mitigate losses on projects which should not have been initiated in the first place.

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY-DR. ROBERT E. JENKINS, ECOLOGY ADVISER

In our view, the chief purpose and result of channelization and stream modification is the destruction of natural habitat resulting from the naive and arrogant assumption that a simplistic, artificial hydrological system can be imposed on the natural one without penalty.

Of all the habitats we seek to save, none are more important, in our view of the current evidence, than waters and wetlands. Life began in the water and it is still water upon which every living thing depends. At the same time, mismanagement and misunderstanding of the water resource is perhaps the outstanding feature of present day civilization's treatment of the environment. Water is at the bottom of things and, therefore, becomes particularly vulnerable to a variety of influences in the surroundings, the effects of which are eventually felt in the lakes, streams, oceans, or wet bottoms.

At time when the need to preserve the aquatic environment is becoming apparent, the intent of channelization and other stream modifying operations is frequently the elimination of natural wetlands. In their place we are offered ditched streams and artificial impoundments. Natural floodplains are no longer to be permitted their periodic floods. Natural valley communities which were exquisitely adapted to occasional inundation are drowned under permanent pools of deep water. Swamps and marshes are drained, cleared and put into crops.

Prior to September 1, 1969, nearly 59 million acres of watershed in 956 projects had been approved for alteration under Public Law 83-566 alone, and applications had been made to treat another 155 million acres in 1,860 other projects. In 1964, Hollis Williams of the Soil Conservation Service asserted at the 11th National Watershed Congress that 1 billion acres or 43 percent of the U.S. land area-needed watershed development. In the single month of March 1971 the Council on Environmental Quality received environmental impact statements from SCS for projects involving 22 dams and at least 61.9 miles of channel alteration on watersheds covering well over 200,000 acres.

It might be better if all of this were a simple matter of spoiled esthetics and insulted conservationists, but it is much grimmer than that. Whereas the colonial agriculturist could be forgiven for his belief that swamps were useless or worse, in the face of the emerging evidence to the contrary, it is not asking too much of Government environmental specialists to reassess their positions on the matter. I will not speak here of the well-known values of wet lands to fish and wildlife, their great recreation and esthetic potential, and their tremendous productivity relative to other ecosystems. These are wellknown facets of wet lands which I feel have already been considered by the promulgators of hydrological simplification and rejected as less important than the apparent shortterm economic returns to be realized by the technological "fix" which they choose to employ. However, wet lands fulfill other vital but nonobvious functions within the ecosystem which we are only beginning to understand, but which may be of much long-term significance to human welfare.

The first of these factors has actually been known for a long time, but it has been for some reason given insufficient consideration. This is the role that wet lands fill in the hydrological cycle. Swamps, marshes, and flood plains act like giant sponges, absorbing up to 16 times their own weight of water and releasing it slowly into water courses, the atmosphere, and into deep ground waters.

Far from requiring protection from floods, such areas actually act to prevent floods elsewhere by reducing waterflows to levels which can be accommodated by existing channels.

This is exactly the opposite of the way channelization itself performs, passing the roaring torrent downstream where it can cause further problems. Retention of the water at one place permits it to percolate downward into the aquifiers, which we are now recognizing as underground reservoirs of great value because of their comparative purity and their protection from evaporative loss. Slow release of water also maintains more continuous streamflow, reliable springs, et cetera.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, I submit that we create an intolerable situation when we allow the conversion of hundreds of once-beautiful, natural settings-the breeding grounds of fish and wildlifeto barren, silt-laden waterways in which few creatures can flourish or even survive.

[June 18, 1971]

[Pp. H 5482-5484]

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR CALLS CHANNELIZATION DEVASTATING

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. REUSS) is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I reported to the House that a dozen national environmental organizations have testified that channelization of our Nation's streams is causing severe environmental damage. On Wednesday I reported that State fish and game agencies are also gravely concerned about the detrimental environmental consequences

of stream channelization.

Both the environmental organizations and the State agencies recommended that stream channelization programs of the Department of Agriculture be halted for 1 year pending review and study of the effects of channelization and the development of alternatives to channelization.

These organizations and State agencies contend that channelization works cause increased flooding downstream from the project area, add sedimentation and pollutants to the waterways, lower the ground-water tables, and are very detrimental to fish and wildlife and to the ecology of bottomlands. They offered substantial evidence that channelization has accelerated the drainage of many thousands of acres of valuable timberlands, marshes, and important wildlife habitat.

They also contend that the Soil Conservation Service has given little attention to these adverse environmental effects. A review of 24 recent SCS environmental impact statements indicates that they may be right.

In at least one case, where 26 miles of chanelization will take place, the SCS concludes in a brief three-page statement that "no adverse effects on man's environment are anticipated." The view and comments of other agencies were not even solicited, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Council on Environmental Quality, in a letter of December 14, 1970, to the Department of Agriculture, said that it had reviewed "32 statements" of the SCS and concluded that "SCS appears to be going through the motions in their preparation."

Since then SCS has made some revisions in their procedures for preparing statements, but the SCS still gives short shrift to the environmental damages caused by the projects and to alternative approaches.

A June 1970, report by the Atlanta office of the Fish and Wildlife Service on constructed SCS projects in North Carolina concludes that its recommendations have not been followed by the SCS and the local sponsoring organization. The report also states that

In general, the practice of stream channel excavation is contrary to the stated policy of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to bring to the attention of the House the pertinent excerpts of the recent testimony of Assistant Secretary of the Interior Nathaniel P. Reed who was recently appointed to the post of Assistant Secretary by President Nixon. Mr. Reed testified with the complete backing of Secretary Morton, as follows:

TESTIMONY BY NATHANIEL P. REED

In the recent controversey concerning the channelization of the Alcovy River in Georgia, it was learned that the Soil Conservation Service under P.L. 566 has plans for alteration of nearly every watershed in Georgia. Reviewing the status of small watershed projects in the Southeastern States alone, we found that as of August 1, 1969, 1,119 applications for watershed assistance have been received covering 122,620 square miles. Of that number, 638 have been authorized for planning and 428 have been approved for installation. Estimates indicate that projects in just this one program will involve the alteration of over 25,000 miles of stream channels to obtain flood protection and drainage objectives. These alterations will adversely affect from 25,000 to 60,000 acres of stream habitat. A conservative estimate of the wooded wildlife habitat damaged or destroyed by these alterations would be about 120,000 acres and could exceed 300,000 acres.

After an inquiry with the field staff in preparation for this statement, we found these trends occurring throughout the Nation....

Stream channelization projects usually entail changing the physical shape of the stream bed and bank, regulating natural stream flow patterns, and impounding or modifying the flood plain. If the emphasis on these practices continues, the ultmiate result will be the destruction or serious degradation of valuable and irreplaceable natural resources, including stream fisheries and wildlife in many bottom lands and watercourses.

Stream channel alteration under the banner of channel Improvement for navigation, flood reduction, and agricultural drainage is undoubtedly one of the more, if not the most, destructive water development or management practices from the viewpoint of renewable natural resources. These alterations are carried out in varying degrees, with a corresponding variation in damages to stream ecology. (Italics supplied.)

Stream channel excavation which increases the width and depth and changes alignment of a natural channel is the most damaging of these practices. Following in descending order of their detrimental effects are extensive clearing and snagging with dip out, clear

ing and snagging, minor snagging, and selectively cleared stream channels and/or floodways.

Channelization or other stream alteration practices destroy the balance of space and The associated life supporting elements. effects of stream alterations on fish and wildlife is somewhat analogous to the impact of hurricane Camille on the human population along the gulf coast. After the hurricane (or after stream alteration) the space still remains; however, the elements within the space which support vigorous and thriving populations are no longer immediately available or arranged in a fashion so as to be usable. Fortunately, man has the capability and desire to rebuild his environment following such a disaster. Fish and wildlife lack this rebuilding potential; therefore, the organisms must evacuate the damaged or destroyed habitat or perish. (Italics supplied.)

Studies conducted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission evaluated the effects of channelization on fish populations in eastern North Carolina streams. These studies showed that the production of game fish species was reduced by 90 percent following channelization. They further demonstrated that this loss is a permanent loss because normal maintenance procedures preIclude the possibility of recovery of the stream's normal productivity.

A similar but unpublished sample relating to the fish population before and after channelization in Tippah River was obtained by the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission. Before channelization, a population sample was taken which revealed a total standing crop of 877 fish per acre weighing 241 pounds. Another sample obtained following channel excavation disclosed a total standing crop of 1,498 fish per acre weighing only 5 pounds. These comparative data show a 98 percent reduction in the weight of fish per acre with a 69 percent increase in the number of fish per acre. The marked increase in the number of fish may be misleading since 99 percent of these fish were minnows, shiners, and darters with a combined weight of 4.4 pounds.

Damage to fish habitat brought about by man's alteration of stream channels occurs across the United States. We have studies in Montana, Florida, Missouri, and other areas further documenting losses of 80 to 99 percent of stream productivity.

These studies provide shocking and irrefutable evidence of the severe damages to fish habitat and populations in the immediate area of channel alterations. (Italics supplied.)

Additional stream habitat degradation also occurs for some distance downstream from the altered areas. Siltation and turbidity associated with upstream channel alteration and disruption reduces light penetration in downstream waters, particularly during construction and until some reasonable degree of channel stability is achieved. This reduction in light pnetration results in reduced photosynthetic activity by aquatic plants which are important links in the food chain. These plants also provide a certain amount of dissolved oxygen which is essential to a healthy aquatic environment. As the suspended particles settle out, they blanket

large areas of productive habitat, thus seriously reducing or completely destroying the area's capability to provide the essential elements for fish survival and reproduction. To me, this phenomenon is the aquatic version of the dust bowl disaster. (Italics supplied.)

Some channels are constructed for navigation; however, the stated purpose of most channelization proposals is to increase the volume and velocity of flow for flood reduction and/or drainage. In essence, this is water disposal and not water conservation, which in turn creates instant drought in the channeled area and instant floods in downstream segments. These modifications can create problems in down tream segments which generate the need for more channel alterations.

The increase in quantity and speed of flow causes waters to carry a much higher silt load into downstream reaches. Under natural conditions, high waters spread out over the seasonally flooded bottom lands and swamps, thus greatly reducing the flow velocity, permitting the settling out of much of the silt load and reducing turbidity. These overflow bottom lands and swamps, which are highly productive of timber and wildlife, are nature's own floodwater-retarding srtuctures. They may also perform other functions, such as recharging ground water storage areas, filtering and purifying surface flows, and controlling eutrophication of downstream waters by removing and utilizing nutrients.

The specific impact of channel alterations on the quantity and quality of bottom-land wildlife and waterfowl populations has not been the subject of intensive study. However, it is clearly evident to anyone who understands the rudiments of biology that habitat disruption and destruction of the magnitude caused by stream channel alterations result in serious losses to waterfowl and other bottom-land wildlife.

Stream channelization results in a direct loss of woodland habitat through right-ofway clearing for equipment access and spoil disposal. Some mitigating of this loss occurs when wildlife plantings are placed on the modified areas.

Channel alteration accelerates the removal of surface waters from swamps and marshes and greatly reduces the frequency and duration of seasonal flooding of other wooded bottom lands. Seasonal and permanent surface water, which are essential factors in maintaining these ecological units, are greatly decreased or eliminated. Loss of this surface water will allow encroachment of undesirable underbrush, inhibit growth and reproduction of desirable vegetation, reduce aquatic and wetland habitat, eliminate swamp refuge or escape areas, and significantly reduce or eliminate waterfowl utilization. Our experience indicates that installation of flood control and drainage channels encourages and accelerates the construction of smaller private drainage projects that further reduce the quantity and quality of wooded bottom-land wildlife habitat.

I think we are kidding ourselves if we do not admit that stream channelization has had a devastating effect upon our nation's waterways. We could spend all day detailing the endless miles of streams slated for additional modification by one agency or another. But that will not solve an admittedly seri

ous problem. What is needed is a complete rethink and redirection by the men who are designing and constructing the projects. [Italic supplied.]

Is it possible to protect and enhance our environment while still providing needed flood protection?

While the demand increases for wild and scenic rivers, for fishing, hunting, swimming, and open space, and environmental quality, our supply is rapidly decreasing. The philosophy to date has been that as people move into and develop the river flood plains they demand flood protection, water for domestic and agricultural uses, and navigation to import and export the goods of our consumeroriented economy and have sacrificed our rivers and streams to accommodate these apparent demands.

Even though we spend millions of dollars each year for ditching, dams and diking of our rivers and streams, the flood damage throughout the Nation continues to rise. Perhaps our philosophy has been misdirected. We have some Federal agencies charged wtih doing a job which involves environmental destruction and others charged to protect the environment, in continuous conflict. A redirection would involve a land use philosophy which by necessity would include flood plain delineation. After the flood plain has been defined, then flood plain zoning practices must be implemented which allow land uses compatible with periodic flood cycles; such land uses in the flood plain would involve fish and wildlife production, open space pasture, parking lots, recreation areas, and other demands for space which can withstand temporary flooding. This redirection of land use practices would not only aid in saving fish and wildlife and environmental quality but should also reduce insurance losses and other losses during flood periods. We realize this will not eliminate the damage but it would reduce the economic losses to our society.

The Department of the Interior definitely feels that there are ways that the environmental quality of the Nation can be protected while still providing needed flood protection. The following suggestions would aid in this endeavor:

1. Allow land owners to reduce their taxable acreage by the amount of land they have in wetland areas as long as it remains in its natural condition. This could include flood plain hydric hammocks and marshes. The fish and wildlife resource values of these areas must be approved by a State or Federal environmental agency prior to their acceptance. Furthermore, a land owner commitment that these lands will remain in their natural condition for at least a 10-year period of time would be necessary.

2. Encourage Congress to pass legislation establishing a green belt of vegetation which must be left along rivers and streams to protect the river ecosystem from erosion, as well as sustaining fish, wildlife, and environmental quality.

3. Zone flood plains so that whatever use is made of the land it should be able to withstand temporary flooding. There are certain land uses which can serve our society and still be compatible with occasional flooding.

4. A complete revision of Public Law 566 to incorporate purchase of lands for fish, wildlife, public access, recreation, environmental

quality, and other needs of our modern society.

These recommendations alone, however, will not suffice. Existing uses and commitments in the flood plain zones necessitate some continued project works.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 was a meaningful step towards weeding out the truly environmentally destructive proposals. It has, however, one serious flaw. The act is basically reflective in nature and not designed to function as an effective early warning system for society's decisionmakers. Project review is not accomplished until such time as the proposed project design has been, for all practical purposes, decided upon. Our experience to date has been that it is extremely difficult to effect project revision when the project has arrived at the Council on Environmental Quality for final review.

Proper input into the project design from its inception by qualified, knowledgeable professional in the environmental field is essential. Under existing procedures Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife functions only in an advisory capacity to the other agencies authorized to design and construct stream channelization projects. These agencies are under no compulsion to integrate our recommendations into the project design nor are our objections overriding under existing procedures.

What is clearly called for is a reallocation of agency priorities. The Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency should be given a much stronger and more meaningful voice in the development of project design.

It is time that the Congress gave the environmental agencies the leadership role in determining project design. Make us a leader rather than a frustrated follower. A large portion of the morale problem within my Department is the result of rarely being listened to when we offer relevant recommendations to other agencies on this prob- ' lem. It is discouraging for our biologists and field personnel to stand by helplessly and watch the wetlands resource succumb to the dredge bit or dragline bucket with little or no regard for the natural system.

And now to the third question I posed in my opening remarks . . . Should some sort of moratorium be placed on stream channelization activities at the present time?

In answering this question I must first tell you quite frankly that it has been the observation of the majority of our personnel that those agencies engaged in stream channelization activities are still largely paying nothing more than lip service to earnest environmental protection. We have yet to detect any substantive departure from the practices of yesteryear by these aegncies, and I believe the record will clearly support these conclusions.

In view of our continuing problems in this vital area, it is my belief that the following items should be given careful consideration as means to further protect these rapidly vanishing wetland systems:

1. A complete review of all river and stream channelization projects should be initiated by the Council on Environmental Quality

62-365 O 71 pt. 3 - 52

working in cooperation with the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. This review should be directed to the possible need for project redesign or project deauthorization. If the supporting agencies fail to take this review seriously and if nothing more than lip service is paid to redesigning these projects then I would welcome the opportunity to reappear before this Committee to discuss the imposition of a complete moratorium on all such projects until these reviews and necessary project revisions have been completed.

Mr. Speaker, the foregoing comments of Mr. Reed dramatically demonstrate that channelization often has severe adverse environmental effects. During the subsequent colloquy, I asked Mr. Reed to tell us whether or not he supported the recommendations of the dozen environmental organizations and others that the moratorium which SCS has imposed earlier this year be continued through fiscal year 1972. Our colloquy follows:

Mr. REUSS. At our hearings last month, at which 12 of the major environmental organizations of the country were present, they all without exception agreed that in view of the environmental damage caused by the stream channelization projects of the Soll Conservation Service, that the current selfimposed moratorium on continued channelization work of the Soil Conservation Service should be continued throughout the next fiscal year, starting on July 1, in the appropriations act, which of course would permit it to be revived under supplemental appropriations legislation at such time as the environmental procedural questions had been worked out so that we are no longer in this lip service situation that we have been in. Would you agree with the positions of those organizations?

Mr. REED. I was unaware of their stand, sir.

Yes, I would support that. Unless real consideration is given, with a fresh start on estimation of many of the environmental projects-not many, all of these projects-I think it is inconceivable, with all the interest in the Congress and in the United States as a whole, we would go ahead under the same old ballgame as we have been doing all these years. We know what the track record is. The bear tracks all come right back and ⚫ are easily followed. And yet we do not seem to be able to attract anybody's attention at the planning agencies before they initiate these projects.

[June 21, 1971]

[Pp. H 5570-5571]

A MORATORIUM ON NEW STREAM CHANNELIZATION

The SPEAKER. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. REUSS) is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, last week I brought to the attention of the House

that national environmental organizations, State fish and game agencies, and the Department of the Interior, which has responsibilities for the protection of our fish and wildlife resources, are all gravely concerned that channelization is destroying America's streams and wetlands and seriously polluting the Nation's waterways.

These groups have made a strong argument that all stream channelization projects should be halted to enable indepth study and review of the environmental effects of channelization. They have recommended that none of the nearly $45 million which the Department of Agriculture plans to spend for stream channelization works in fiscal 1972 be used for that purpose.

When the House considers the Agriculture Department's appropriations bill, H.R. 9270, this coming Wednesday, June 23, an amendment will be offered to prevent the use of funds for new stream channelization projects during fiscal year 1972. The amendment would affect about $20 million of the $45 million. Thus, the amendment would achieve the objective desired by so many of the critics of stream channelization-a temporary moratorium on new channelization works of the Department of Agriculture. This moratorium will provide needed time for the States to review the environmental effects and to insure that each project is in the public interest. It would insure that the 20,000 more miles of streams the Department of Agricultue plans to channelize would not be done without this moratorium by review and reevaluation.

The amendment does, though, fall short of what the environmentalists would have desired. It will not affect channelization in any project any part of which is now in the project construction stage. The Soil Conservation Service has explained this term in its budget request before the Subcommittee on Appropriations-part 3, page 511, 1972as follows:

The project construction stage begins with the execution of the first project agreement or contract for construction of works of improvement.

We are not attempting to upset arrangements in projects which are already underway.

The moratorium will be just a continuation of the one recently self-imposed by the Department of Agriculture in its Watershed Memorandum 108. Under it, the Department is making a categorization of all its outstanding projects, on the basis of their environmental impact. By July 1, 1971, the results of the initial categorization of projects under this newly instituted environmental review will be available to the Department's pol