either for their failure to do a good job or for their fault in having done a bad one. Moreover, these shadow governments, busily wreaking this developmental havoc, are actually being encouraged both by favorable State and Federal laws and by elements of the Federal bureaucracy which would rather not be bothered with the democratic process.

Unchecked, these cancerous shadow governments will surround and strangle every town and city in the State with a spreading web of inferior, cutthroat competitive urban development which can only draw whole urban areas down to its own ill-improved, ill-served, wasteful, and irresponsible level. Central towns and cities, denied an expanding tax base in people and property, will be doomed to a dismal future. They will be called upon to do more and more, as the urban area-and its public needs-expands, but they will have a smaller and smaller share of the fiscal resources of the whole urban area with which to do that expanding job. This will leave these towns and cities no choice but to default on their central city responsibilities. Investors and people will flee the high tax rates and low service levels into which towns and cities will be forced. They will migrate to the suburbs where, even if services are no better, at least taxes are lower. The entire process will accelerate, feeding upon itself. And, ultimately, the whole urban area will culminate not in the modern and efficient, economic, and equitable city that might have been, but in a hodgepodge of short-term and minimal improvements. These are both uneconomic and unsatisfactory and, much too soon, must be removed and replaced at tremendously high costs, in sky-high rates for low-level services, in civic disorder-once the guiding ethic becomes that of evading civic responsibility rather than meeting it head on-and, in general, in a total breakdown of the orderly process embracing all that which men have come to know as the only good way fine cities may be built.

Nor will annexation alone cure the problem or make these shortcomings right-or as right as it is possible to make them after the fact of development. Some 170 cities in Tennessee have brought some 600,000 suburbanites under their jurisdiction, using our annexation and metropolitan government laws to monumental effect in one of the most heroic efforts this country has seen made to meet the urban growth problem. Small Tennessee cities have spent millions to correct service and facility deficiencies in suburban areas. Large cities have spent hundreds of millions to the same ends. Yet, faster than the central city can ever hope to correct past mistakes, new and bigger and more costly mistakes in still further substandard development are going on apace in the fringes beyond the fringe.

This whole process amounts to a total subversion of the orderly processes of sound urban growth. If it is to be resolved in the public interest, all governmental levels involved and their associated interests must seee to it that all growth to urban densities, wherever and when it occurs, is developed to acceptable urban service and facility standards. In this way, the present backlog of deficiencies in underimprovements and service shortcomings in urban areas can constitute the whole substandard urban growth problem; and, once our local governments of general responsibility have corrected these existing errors in development, the battle against substandard urban growth will have been won. The policy which follows is designed to achieve these ends.

TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL POLICY ON PREVENTING SUBSTANDARD URBAN GROWTH

1. Distinguish "rural" from "urban"

Criteria must be developed which distinguish "rural" from “urban" growth. Urban growth, thereafter, must not be permitted where utility systems and public facilities and services are rural in character unless those utilities, services, and facilities are upgraded to urban standards.

Situation report.-Tennessee already has several such criteria. Areas within 3 miles of cities of less than 5,000 population, or within 5 miles of cities of more than 5,000 population, may be preempted by towns and cities as their own natural utility service areas in any jurisdictional contest with a utility district, for example. One suggestion, made nationally, is that a density of one house per acre is "urban" beyond argument.

This policy plank, it should be noted, eliminates the argument that the purpose of the policy is "to deny the farmer pure drinking water." Any rural system could be permitted, even encouraged, so long as it stays rural. The objection is not to the farmer's pure water. It is to the new subdivisions in his cornfields

The

once "city" water is available in even minimal quantities and pressures. farmer's alleged thirst often is a subterfuge for those who would profit from urban sprawl.

2. Favor general governments

Public policy, at every level of government, must favor local governments of general responsibility-towns, cities, counties-in the implementation of programs affecting urban growth.

Situation report. Such a policy plank already has been urged by the Federal Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The Tennessee Municipal League and the National League of Cities, each at its own level, is actively cooperating with counterpart county organizations to achieve this goal. However many Federal programs (notably those of the Department of Agriculture), implemented through State legislation, work through or even create for the purpose special districts, "betterment" associations, etc., whose narrow interests are such that they give no thought to a balanced and comprehensive urban development program. Their political structures are such that they are not answerable either to the local electorate or to their own ratepayers for the programs they sponsor. The "Federal policy" on Federal-city relations adopted by this conference urges enactment of S. 561 by the Congress as a first step. The State should likewise adopt legislation to clarify the present unsound allocation of local utility service area jurisdiction. The predictable results have been: A. Property owners have been misled and abused as to what constitutes real economy in urban growth. One urban Tennessee community is in the process of spending some $750 million to correct generations of urban developmental mistakes-a sum which figures out to about $7,000 per home. The ironic part of it all is that the homeowner-taxpayer, instead of saving money, pays dearly for substandard development. He pays first for inferior services, then again at higher rates to do the job right. It is far more expensive to insert urban service facilities into built-up areas than to install them adequately as development occurs.

B. A convenient vehicle has been furnished those who would evade any general responsibility in the development of urban areas, giving them a free hand to "develop" unlimited land to minimal standards and even subverting the efforts of other Federal agencies, such as the Housing and Home Finance Agency, to improve the quality of our urban areas.

C. Comprehensive and coordinated planning of the development of entire urban areas has been unduly complicated by the balkanization of jurisdictions and by the creation of stubborn or even hostile civic subidentities within given urban areas.

D. The burden of correcting developmental mistakes has fallen not on the agencies which made them, but upon the towns and cities, because they, with counties, are the only local governments of general responsibility. As such, they are the only governments answerable to the people about fringe deficiencies, and capable of handling the problems involved.

Correction of this situation will involve changes in Federal and State laws so that all urban growth facilities and services are channeled through cities and towns, or counties where necessary, and through established special districts, or through new special districts only when no other existing entity will suffice.

3. Favor general governments

All governments concerned should encourage and require that all services and facilities serving a single urban area be geared to comprehensive planning requirements for that area. Cities and counties should cooperate in securing enabling legislation permitting adequate building codes in unincorporated areas either by counties or by cities in their planning regions, to afford adequate protection to both public and private property interests.

Situation report.-Duplication of facilities sometimes occurs where jurisdictional contests are involved, resulting in actual excess and wasteful capacity. More commonly, facilities such as streets, disposal plants, water plants, etc., are underdesigned or uncoordinated because only a part of the overall problem is considered and the particular jurisdiction simply ignores the full dimensions of the need.

This policy plank may be implemented in both a positive and a negative fashion by increasing grants and making loan terms more favorable where comprehensive planning is practiced, and by the opposite where it is not. Such

:

49-722-65- 8

features already are parts of some Federal grant and loan programs. They should be a part of all. And they should be part of any complementary State programs.

4. Annex and preempt

Tennessee towns and cities must vigorously annex and improve all that suburban territory which is urban now, and they must jealously guard and protect their preemptive service rights and developmental interests in all that area which will be the "other half" of urban Tennessee by the turn of the century— when our urban population literally will have doubled.

Situation report.-Tennessee municipalities now have a considerable stockpile of tools to effect the first of these goals. They may prevent separate fringe incorporations. They may annex urban or urbanizing territory at their own volition. Additional State-shared funds are apportioned for annexed populations. They may invoke authorized regional planning powers and thereby achieve a balanced land use, regulate subdivision development, etc., within 5 miles of the city. They are protected by law against the establishment of utility districts within their urban areas and against the extension of utility district services into their urban areas.

Federal grants ranging from 50 to 90 percent of the cost of water and sewer systems are available under various programs. The Housing Act of 1965 will make grants available for fully improved suburbs, including "growth factor" capacities of facilities. Technical assistance is available from a host of Federal and State agencies, and particularly in an “urban growth analysis service" soon to be offered jointly by the municipal technical advisory service and the Tennessee State Planning Commission.

The net of it is: No city need stand idly by and see its natural growth area despoiled. Every kind of help which is needed to prevent this happening is at hand.

Cities now know how to prevent the growth mistakes made in the pastmistakes which have required all the urban renewal projects, the slum clearance projects, the emergency public works projects, the street widening and improvement programs, and so on, which almost no city has been spared. If cities fail once again to avoid these growth errors during the next 35 years, when Tennessee's urban population will increase from the present 2 million to more than 4 million, the corrective cost will be absolutely intolerable. The inevitable result will be the degradation and decay of our urban way of life.

Cities, therefore, must oppose with vigor and dedication any move toward substandard urban development within their urban orbits.

5. Public understanding

Cities, towns, and counties, their State and National organizations, and all affiliated interests with a vital concern for the cause of sound urban growth must diligently pursue every avenue of approach to a general public understanding of the urban growth problem and to the reflection of this understanding in public policy at every level of government. We thoroughly endorse and commend the objectives of the Joint Task Force on Substandard Urban Development of the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties. These two organizations representing the local governments of general responsibility have adopted policy defining and condemning urban growth to less than adequate urban service standards.

Joint action at the local national levels is needed to implement this policy. Situation report.-Substandard urban growth is the biggest threat facing our towns and cities. Sound urban growth represents our greatest opportunity to achieve decent cities-cities which are built right, right from the start.

Which of these results will actually obtain-fine Tennessee cities in the year 2000 or a State full of "slurbs," a term already coined to designate suburban slums? The answer depends entirely on how well the public at large, as well as local, State, and National governing bodies and administrative officials, is brought to a level of understanding of the problem which will assure development in the public interest. Primary responsibility for the cultivation of that understanding rests with the officials directly concerned-the democratically chosen, democratically responsible leaders of our towns and cities.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB K. JAVITS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to present my views before this committee as a cosponsor of S. 1766. I also speak as a Senator from a State that truly has a critical and immediate need for assistance in the financing of rural community water systems.

Nearly 800 rural New York communities with populations of 100 people or over are without water systems. They can be found by traveling only a few miles off the superhighways into the back country.

The shortage of rural water systems is tragic enough, but the suffering of many New York State farmers and rural residents is further compounded by the continued critical severe drought which began 3 years ago in the eastern section of the Nation.

The public press daily cites examples of New York farmers and rural residents who have difficulty obtaining water and are still obtaining it from shallow wells-many of which are contaminated-or are forced to carry water great distances for their use.

New York State residents have shown so much interest in the need for adequate rural water facilities that there is now special legislation being considered by the 1965 State legislature to streamline State water laws. This legislation, for example, will make it possible for the Farmers Home Administration to make loans to rural water districts as well as small villages for financing community water systems.

I am especially pleased to note that S. 1766 would increase the size of the communities eligible for loans to include those up to 5,000 population.

I am also delighted that the bill provides for grants, when needed, and that the amount of loans and grants available to any one community is being set at the realistic figure of $4 million. The bill will substantially increase the loan program which is now faced with a backlog of applications.

Because desirabe water sources and good reservoir sites are becoming more difficult to find, it is necessary for two to three towns and villages or in some cases for several water districts to join forces to fully and most efficiently develop good water sources and properly distribute this water.

Increasing the financing ceiling to $4 million will be vital to New York's rural water development program since, in many cases, larger, more adequately funded groups can develop water supplies most efficiently.

The provision for grants in S. 1766 will make water systems possible in some financially pressed communities which otherwise could not afford this improvement.

This Nation has begun efforts on all-out war on poverty, on crime, and on removing social injustices. Many unsolved problems, however, still remain. For the urban and rural areas throughout the Northeast and in other sections of the country, one such problem is the growing crisis over curtailed water supplies which is now reaching emergency dimensions. The danger area ranges from southwestern Maine into Virginia.

New York's rural areas have for the past 3 years suffered from parched crops and destroyed pasturage. As Federal officials have recently stated, the most widespread problem from the drought will be dried up supplies for farms and country residents who depend on shallow wells. For the past 2 years New York, as the second largest producer of fluid milk, has felt the the squeeze of blighted pasturage and resulting increased production costs of milk. Dairymen from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania last year sought drought relief on a number of occasions from the Department of Agriculture. In New York, four counties were designated eligible by the Department of Agriculture for Farmers Home Administration emergency loans. Twenty-two counties were authorized eligible for livestock grazing and hay harvesting on lands diverted from production and farmers in 27 New York counties were declared eligible by the Department for purchases of surplus feed at below the market price.

A powerful and prosperous Nation such as ours should not allow the enemy of drought to win even limited battles. It is up to the Federal Government in conjunction with State and local authorities to wage an all-out war on drought and to win it.

It is my sincere belief that S. 1766 will prove an important and necessary expansion of vital programs throughout the State of New York and across the Nation in building a stronger and more viable rural economy.

[Excerpt from the Congressional Record, Senate, June 15, 1965]

WAR ON DROUGHT ADDED FEDERAL HELP NEEDED

Mr. JAVITS. Madam President, this Nation has begun efforts on all-out war on poverty, on crime, and on removing social injustices. Many unsolved problems, however, still remain. For the urban and rural areas throughout the northeast and in other sections of the country, one such problem is the growing crisis over curtailed water supplies which is now reaching emergency dimensions. The danger area ranges from southwestern Maine into Virginia. Three days ago, Governor Hughes, of New Jersey, declared a state of emergency in four northern counties in that State whose water supplies had reached new lows. Six days ago, an Interior Department official declared that the current northeast drought, especially in southeastern New York and northern New Jersey, had surpassed both in severity and duration the previous drought record in these areas during 1929 to 1932.

New York State, as has many other areas, has suffered substantially from drought conditions. New York City's reservoirs, which hold approximately 476.5 billion gallons, are at substantially lower levels than at the same time last year. They are 54.9 percent full, down to 261.7 billion gallons. Tighter regulations to restrict the use of water are being put into effect and city dwellers have been urged by Water Commissioner D'Angelo to reduce their water use by one-third. New York's rural areas have for the past 3 years suffered from parched crops and destroyed pasturage. As Federal officials have recently stated, the most widespread problem from the drought will be dried up supplies for farms and country residents who depend on shallow wells. For the past 2 years New York, as the second largest producer of fluid milk, has felt the squeeze of blighted pasturage and resulting increased production costs of milk. Dairymen from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania last year sought drought relief on a number of occasions from the Department of Agriculture. In New York, four counties were designated eligible by the Department of Agriculture for Farmers Home Administration emergency loans. Twenty-two counties were authorized eligible for livestock grazing and hay harvesting on lands diverted from production, and farmers in 27 New York counties were declared eligible by the Department for purchases of surplus feed at below-the-market price.

A powerful and prosperous nation such as ours should not allow the enemy of drought to win even limited battles. It is up to the Federal Government, in conjunction with State and local authorities, to wage an all-out war on drought and to win it. Some improved weapons for Federal use against drought in rural areas have been provided under the rural water project loan program of the Farmers Home Administration Act of 1961. Under this program, between January 1, 1961, and December 1964, the FHA made or insured more than $72 million in loans to finance work in 37 States.

On February 4, when the President's farm message was submitted to the Senate, I stated on the floor that I believed expanded authority for Federal aid for drought relief was urgently needed and that it was regrettable that the message did not include reference to improved programs in this area. This view was also contained in the minority views of the recent report of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress.

Vital new weapons have recently been proposed by legislation introduced on April 13 by the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont [Mr. Aiken], together with 93 Senators, of whom I am happy to be one, to expand the direct and insured loan program by the Secretary of Agriculture to public and nonprofit agencies for development of rural water systems and to make grants for facilities for distribution of water in these areas. The bill expands the eligibility of rural communities to cities and towns having a population in excess of 5,000 inhabitants. The increase from $200 to $450 million for the insured loan program for rural water systems is vitally necessary in view of the present $80 million backlog under this program. This legislation (S. 1766) is directed at overcoming one of the greatest handicaps to rural development-the shortage of water for thousands of communities for industrial and residential growth. It is important legislation and its prompt passage would contribute substantially to solving critical problems of drought in many rural areas. So is S. 24, now pending on the Senate Calendar, legislation to expand and accelerate the saline water conversion program of the Department of the Interior.

Additional vigorous efforts are needed to solve problems of drought in both urban and rural areas by providing development of new supplies of water and