KFon .G136 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS JACK BROOKS, Texas CHET HOLIFIELD, California, Chairman L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina JOHN E. MOSS, California BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, Rhode Island FLOYD V. HICKS, Washington DON FUQUA, Florida JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan BILL ALEXANDER, Arkansas HAROLD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts 1971 FRANK HORTON, New York PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, JR., California HERBERT ROBACK, Staff Director WILLIAM H. COPENHAVER, Minority Professional Staff CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE HENRY S. REUSS, Wisconsin, Chairman v. 5 added mow/2 30 m 73 CONTENTS 1-388 389-1272 1273-2120 2121-2788 2789-3288 2789 Bagley, George R., vice president, National Association of Conserva- Berg, Norman A., Associate Administrator, Soil Conservation Serv- ice, U.S. Department of Agriculture; accompanied by William B. Davey, Deputy Administrator for Watersheds; Joseph W. Haas, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Watersheds; Lawrence V. Compton, Chief Biologist; Melvin M. Culp, Chief, Design Branch; Richard B. Parker, Economist; Mary Garner, Deputy Director, Forestry and Soil Conservation Division, Office fo the General USDA; and Beverly D. Turney, Jr., Office of the General Counsel, Greenfield, Dr. Stanley M., Assistant Administrator for Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency... Kelly, Brig. Gen. James L., Deputy Director of Civil Works Office, Department of the Army; accompanied by J. J. Lankhorst, Assist- Bagley, George R., vice president, National Association of Conserva- tion Districts: Information on the proportion of conservation district programs that involve channel modification work.. Berg, Norman A., Associate Administrator, Soil Conservation Serv- 2977-2978 Classification and inventory of channel work-October 1972 2915-2922 Designated State agencies for application approval of watershed Effects on wetlands if the water bank program had been continued and from channel work to be carried out in fiscal year 1974. 2935 Greenfield, Dr. Stanley M., Assistant Administrator for Research pt.5 Summary-Priority watershed project review (October 1972) 2888-2890 Reuss, Hon. Henry S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and chairman, Conservation and National Resources Thigpen, Hassell, chairman, board of commissioners, Edgecombe County, N.C.: Sundry material supplied for the record___--- 2964-2971 (Appendixes 1-9 appear in part 1 of these hearings) (Appendixes 10-13 appear in part 2 of these hearings) Part C.-The Interior Department's wetlands guidelines. Appendix 30.-Soil Conservation Service's Starkweather, N. Dak., water- Part B.-April 1971 SCS final environmental impact statement on Starkweather, N. Dak., watershed project, and letter from Council on Environmental Quality requesting revision thereof... Part C.-Comments on SCS revised environmental impact statement for Starkweather, N. Dak., watershed project—August 1972. Appendix 31.-Additional correspondence re Cameron Creole watershed Appendix 32.-Correspondence and related material re Secretary of Agri- culture's termination of Water Bank Act program-December 26, 1972. 3150 Appendix 33.-SCS watersheds memorandums re environmental impact STREAM CHANNELIZATION (Part 5) TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry S. Reuss (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Henry S. Reuss, Floyd V. Hicks, L. H. Fountain, Guy Vander Jagt, Gilbert Gude, Paul N. McCloskey, Jr., and Alan Steelman. Staff members present: Phineas Indritz, chief counsel; David B. Finnegan, assistant counsel; Frances B. Lee, assistant clerk; and J. P. Carlson, minority counsel, Committee on Government Operations. Mr. REUSS. Good morning. The Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee will be in order to resume our subcommittee hearings on the effects of federally sponsored and aided channelization programs on thousands of miles of the Nation's rivers and streams. It has been our continuing concern that Federal funds are being expended by these agencies with little attention to national policies aimed at preserving wetlands, discouraging flood plain development, and preserving and enhancing water quality. During the 92d Congress, we held extensive hearings on whether the Federal channelization agencies-namely, the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Tennessee Valley Authority-were adequately assessing the adverse environmental effects of channelization, and what these agencies were doing to minimize these effects. Our hearings disclosed that such assessment is minimal, and therefore very little is done to eliminate or minimize these effects. Thus, even where channelization is appropriate, it is often opposed by citizens who believe that the Federal agencies are promoting projects without considering them objectively. The inadequacy of environmental evaluations resulted in court injunctions in December 1972 against two Corps of Engineers projects in Arkansas-the Cache River project-and Tennessee-the Obion and Forked Deer project—and in February 1973 against an SCS proj ect in North Carolina-Chicod Creek. In the Chicod Creek case, the court set forth a bill of particulars showing that the SCS environmental impact statement: (a) "Misrepresents the adverse environmental effects of the project upon fish habitat" caused by "a massive increase in sedimentation" from the project; (b) "Ignores the effect of the project on potential eutrophication problems" in the estuary; (c) "Fails to disclose the maintenance history" of Public Law 566 projects; (d) Fails to "contain an adequate discussion of the possible adverse effects of the project upon downstream flooding"; (e) Fails to "disclose or discuss" the project's cumulative effects; (f) Fails to "fully disclose or adequately discuss alternatives of the project." The court also emphasized three other very important points: First, it concluded that construction of the Chicod project "will cause the discharge of sediment into" navigable waterways, and such discharge, without a permit, would violate the Refuse Act of 1899. We will want to learn from the administration witnesses here today what steps have been taken or are planned to enforce the Refuse Act in connection with channelization projects. We see no reason why, in the case of SCS projects, the local sponsoring organization should not be required to prevent the discharge of sediment. Second, the court found that the environmental statement in the Chicod project failed to disclose that over 17 percent of the acreage to be benefited by the project is held by one large corporation; namely, the Weyerhaeuser Co. Further examples of such nondisclosure in the case of other SCS projects are worth mentioning: 1. The March 4, 1973, issue of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported "four owners control half of the total acreage" in a Georgia SCS project. Two of these owners are the giant Brunswick Pulp and Paper Co. and Container Corp. of America. 2. According to one land owner who last December vigorously opposed the issuance by the corps of a permit to construct levees as part of the SCS's Cameron Creole project in Louisiana, three of the principal beneficiaries of that project are the Pan American Oil Co., the North American Land Co., and the Miami Land Corp. 3. The March 1972 draft report on channelization prepared by the A. D. Little Co. for CEQ states that "curiously, one of the primary beneficiaries" of the flood control features of the Crow Creek project in Alabama "is not identified." The A. D. Little draft report identified the beneficiary as the "Nashville, Chattanooga, and St. Louis Railroad," now the L. & N. Railroad. When we asked the SCS to explain why it doesn't make public the identity of these large corporate beneficiaries of Federal flood control funds, the SCS replied that it has no "obligation" to do so. This seems to be a narrow view of the public interest. Unless there are special 1 SUBCOMMITTEE NOTE. The cases referred to are: Arkansas-Environmental Defense Fund v. Froehlke, 4 ERC 1829 (December 14, 1972): North Carolina-Natural Resources Defense Council v. Grant, 5 ERC 1001 (February 5, 1973). |