Page images
PDF
EPUB

KFon .G136

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

JACK BROOKS, Texas

CHET HOLIFIELD, California, Chairman

L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina
ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama

JOHN E. MOSS, California
DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida
HENRY S. REUSS, Wisconsin
TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts
WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, Pennsylvania
WM. J. RANDALL, Missouri

BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York
JIM WRIGHT, Texas

FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, Rhode Island
JOHN C. CULVER, Iowa

FLOYD V. HICKS, Washington

DON FUQUA, Florida

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan

BILL ALEXANDER, Arkansas
BELLA S. ABZUG, New York

HAROLD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts
JAMES V. STANTON, Ohio
LEO J. RYAN, California

1971

FRANK HORTON, New York
JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois
JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio
GUY VANDER JAGT, Michigan
GILBERT GUDE, Maryland

PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, JR., California
JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama
SAM STEIGER, Arizona
GARRY BROWN, Michigan
CHARLES THONE, Nebraska
RICHARD W. MALLARY, Vermont
STANFORD E. PARRIS, Virginia
RALPH S. REGULA, Ohio
ANDREW J. HINSHAW, California
ALAN STEELMAN, Texas
JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington
ROBERT P. HANRAHAN, Illinois

HERBERT ROBACK, Staff Director
ELMER W. HENDERSON, General Counsel
MILES Q. ROMNEY, Counsel-Administrator
J. P. CARLSON, Minority Counsel

WILLIAM H. COPENHAVER, Minority Professional Staff

CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE HENRY S. REUSS, Wisconsin, Chairman

[blocks in formation]

v. 5 added mow/2 30 m 73

CONTENTS

Page

1-388

389-1272

1273-2120

2121-2788

2789-3288

2789

2977-2978

[blocks in formation]

pt.5

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,
Tennessee-Akers v. Resor, 4 ERC 1966 (December 23, 1972); and

1972):

North Carolina-Natural Resources Defense Council v. Grant, 5 ERC 1001 (February 5, 1973).

« PreviousContinue »