reasons for not infringing on individual rights of privacy, we think there is considerable public interest in letting the taxpayers know where their funds are being spent and who is being benefited by the Federal subsidy. SCS is certainly not precluded by law from disclosing who the beneficiaries are, and it has given us no reasons for not doing so.

We want to know why SCS elects to keep secret the project beneficiaries in its environmental impact statements and other public records. We want the corps to inform us whether it discloses all project beneficiaries in its NEPA statements, and, if not, why not.

Third, the plaintiffs in the Chicod Creek case asked SCS to produce the reports which, the court's opinion said, "contain the basic data and information pertaining to land use and crop yield obtained from the farmers" within the watershed, and "upon which the agricultural benefits *** of the project were calculated" by SCS. The court ordered SCS to produce these documents, subject to deletion of names, addresses, and income data of individuals and preliminary in camera inspection by the judge. According to Judge Larkins, the Government contended that the documents are "protected by executive privilege.' When we asked the SCS about this, SCS replied that it did not claim "executive privilege." We want to learn who did claim executive privilege on behalf of the Government. Was it the Justice Department?

In its reply, SCS also said:

SCS has a regulation not to divulge privileged and confidential information to the public. This regulation is consistent with the provisions of *** the Freedom of Information Act. Damage schedules, which are developed directly with individual farmers, contain basic data and information pertaining to land use and crop yields, scope of farm operations, and farm income. This information is considered privileged and confidential.

We want to learn how these data are obtained and whether at least some of the data could be divulged without breaking any confidences. This week we will inquire into the agencies' efforts, or lack of efforts, to provide opportunities for the public to fully participate in the consideration of channelization projects. We shall also examine into the extent to which channelization increases eutrophication, sedimentation, and accumulations of solid wastes and pesticides, and destroys valuable wetlands and wildlife habitat. We want to learn whether the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Council on Environmental Quality are vigorously pressing their objections to channelization projects that are environmentally unsound and how successful they have been in obtaining necessary changes or halting such projects.

Since our previous hearings, the SCS completed its Watersheds 108 review of projects involving channelization. Here is what the acting regional director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in Atlanta wrote in his February 20, 1973, letter to the Arkansas SCS State conservationist, about one project in Arkansas reviewed under the SCS 108 memorandum:

Nearly all of the forested lands in this watershed have been cleared since issuance of the May 1962 work plan [by the SCS] and following subsequent construction activities. The stream fishery of the watershed is low. The wildlife resource formerly was significant, including good populations of forest game species such as deer, turkey, and squirrel. Even though the work plan predicted

2,000 acres of land clearing, it also predicted that some 7,000 acres would remain in woods. Our August 28, 1962, letter correctly predicted that these lands and the woodland wildlife habitat would be cleared. Much of this woodland clearing, we feel, was due to landowner anticipation of this SCS project, and we anticipate that much of the land cleared in this delta region of Arkansas may never be suitable for farming during a wet weather cycle.

Since the previous forest wildlife resource has now been devastated in this area and the stream fishery of the watershed is low, we place this project in Group 1 (minor or no known adverse effect), according to Waterlands Memorandum 108.

We want to examine the deficiencies of the 108 review procedures. We are particularly interested in learning the extent to which these projects were reviewed by SCS, EPA, and other agencies, for their impact on water quality and other environmental concerns.

In replying to our inquiries on the extent to which SCS prepared impact statements on its projects, the SCS said that it has not "construed" NEPA "to be retroactive to actions taken" before NEPA was enacted on January 1, 1970. SCS then said:

Our Watersheds Memorandum 108 review identified projects from which adverse effects might result. These projects are being studied in consultation with fish and game agencies and modifications made, where appropriate, to eliminate or minimize adverse effects. In this way, we have complied with the intent of NEPA and the CEQ guidelines.

We want to know if this narrow interpretation by SCS of NEPA and the guidelines is shared by the CEQ. We think it is an erroneous one, particularly when we note that the corps has not construed the law so narrowly.

In the Obion and Forked Deer Rivers case, the court ruled that the corps "has not complied" with the procedural requirements of NEPA in several respects. First, the impact statement lacked adequate discussion of project alternatives such as flood plain zoning and insurance, upstream structures, or deferring channelization work until "after" migration land is acquired. Second, the impact statement failed to reflect Agriculture Department views as to the effect of channelization on land use and the State highway department views as to project maintenance costs. Third, the impact statement "deals only peremptorily with the accepted importance" of wetlands in the project area "to the Mississippi flyway, to the production of water fowl, to the water quality in these streams and to other unquantifiable values." We are concerned that there are today, over 3 years after NEPA was enacted, numerous instances where impact statements are not being prepared; or are prepared inadequately; or where the comments of the reviewing agencies are being ignored or lightly treated.

We are also concerned that the 1970 Water Bank Act programwhich provides to farmers financial incentives to conserve surface waters, preserve waterfowl habitat, improve water quality, and reduce stream sedimentation-was terminated in December by the President, and over $11 million in appropriated funds were impounded, with no consideration of the need to protect our fast dwindling wetlands. The SCS told us that "funds available through revenue sharing can be used" to meet the water bank program needs.

[NOTE. See correspondence regarding termination of waterbank program, app. 32, p. 3150.]

Mr. REUSS. On the other hand, we commend EPA's Administrator Ruckelshaus for issuing on March 14, 1973, a very forceful policy

statement designed to protect our Nation's wetlands in connection with EPA's examination of individual dredge and fill projects and construction activities which affect these wetlands. Mr. Ruckelshaus said:

Wetlands represent an ecosystem of unique and major importance to the citizens of this Nation and, as a result they require extraordinary protection. We agree. This is a refreshing step in the right direction. We trust that EPA's actions will implement its promises, and without objection EPA's March 14 press release and policy statement will be included in the record.

[NOTE.-EPA's February 14, 1973, policy statement on wetlands protection and press release of March 14, 1973, relating thereto, and related correspondence, are printed in app. 29 (part A) to this record. The policy statement was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 1973 (38 F.R. 10834).]

Mr. REUSS. But the situation is still uncertain down at the corps, which is the principal agency with statutory authority and responsibility to prevent the destruction of wetlands. Although the corps has stated to us several times during the past 18 months that it is actively working to issue new regulations to protect our Nation's wetlands, the Office of Management and Budget has put them on ice and vigorously worked to weaken them.

For example, the January 1972 draft of the corps wetlands regulations stated that a permit for work in wetland areas "will ordinarily not be granted" where the purpose is (a) "not dependent on waterfront access," or (b) "can be satisfied by the use of existing facilities." In our letter of January 29, 1973, to the Secretary of the Army, Congressman Vander Jagt and I noted that this provision "was mysteriously omitted" from the August 1972 draft regulations provided to us by the Army Secretary's Office. It has not been restored in the corps' latest version which was transmitted to OMB on March 1, 1973. Undoubtedly, they will undergo further weakening surgery by that superagency before they are made public.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also has failed thus far to make public its wetland guidelines which were circulated last summer to its regional offices. On January 22, 1973, the Fish and Wildlife Service informed us that these guidelines "will receive departmental approval in the near future" and will be issued as "departmental policy within the next 60 days." This Friday, the 60 days will have run out.

I trust that the corps and Interior witnesses will tell us today, or will have their superiors--the Secretary of the Army and the Under Secretary of the Interior-advise us on Thursday, either orally or in writing, when both documents will finally be made public.

[NOTE. The subcommittee's correspondence with the corps concerning its draft regulations is printed in app. 29 (part B) of this record. The corps' wetlands policy is set forth in its proposed regulations of May 10, 1973, regarding permit applications (38 F.R. 12217).]

The Interior Department's draft of its proposed wetlands guidelines is printed in app. 29 (part C) of this record.]

Mr. REUSS. We enclosed with our letter of invitation to the Federal

agencies our subcommittee's summary of "Issues and Matters for Discussion" at these hearings. That summary and the responses of each agency will be printed at this point in the record.

[The material follows:]

PART A

ISSUES AND MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AT HEARINGS OF HOUSE CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ("STREAM CHANNELIZATION"-MARCH 20 AND 22, 1973)

A. GENERAL

The Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations held hearings during the 92d Congress on the effects of channelization of the Nation's rivers and streams conducted by, or financially aided by, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Soil Conservation Service.

The subcommittee's previous hearings disclosed that the agencies were not adequately assessing the adverse environmental effects of stream channelization and were doing even less to eliminate or minimize them. Widespread dissatisfaction still abounds concerning these deficiencies. Underlying these deficiencies is a substantial ambivalence within these Federal agencies concerning the purposes and values to be attained in their channelization projects On the one hand, many of the agency officials assert that preservation of the environment is their "primary concern" and that they will carry out the declared national policy of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to "promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment." On the other hand, they proceed to emphasize the need to "balance" economic and social objectives against environmental values, and while jiggling the project here and there to eliminate some adverse effects, they make little effort to adopt less adverse alternatives.

B. SIGNIFICANT INTERVENING EVENTS

Since our last hearings, a number of significant events have occurred affecting the channelization issue. Some of these are:

(a) In August 1971, the SCS completed its review, under Watersheds Memorandum 108, of small watersheds projects involving stream channel work. (Stream channelization hearings, part 4, p. 2703.)

(b) In April 1972, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife substantially criticized the SCS's review, findings, and conclusions set forth in the SCS report of its Watersheds Memorandum 108 review.

(c) In November 1971, a coalition of environmental groups initiated a major test case against the SCS involving 66 miles of proposed stream channelization in the Chicod Creek watershed project in North Carolina, and on February 5, 1973, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina enjoined SCS from further work on this project (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Grant, civil No. 754).

(d) The Interior Department, on January 18, 1972, issued its "Policy and Guidelines for the Planning and Review of Stream Channel Alteration Projects." (e) On April 6, 1972, the SCS revised its criteria for preparing environmental impact statements on small watershed projects, but implied at least that impact statements would not be required for projects that are placed in group 1 by SCS under its Watersheds Memorandum 108 review and are scheduled for installation with fiscal year 1973 funds.

(f) A. D. Little, Inc., completed a study, requested by the Council on Environmental Quality, on the effects of channelization and issued a draft report. (The final report is scheduled to be completed and available in limited quantity on March 31.)

(g) The Agriculture Department. on December 26, 1972, terminated the Water Bank Act program, despite the fact that the environmental impact statement filed by the Department on May 1, 1972, on initiating the program, concluded that it will help "reduce the loss of wetlands" and "result in preserving habitat" for wildlife, "reduce water runoff, and maintain or build water table levels." (No impact statement was filed when the program was terminated, although the Court of Appeals decision in National Helium Corp. v. Morton, 3 ERC 1129, requires one.)

(h) On December 14, 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided, in connection with the Cache River-Bayou DeView channelization project, that the Corps of Engineers' final impact statement of December 1970 was "vague, too general and too conclusionary," and remanded the case to the district court to require the Corps to submit a "revised" statement and to review the Corps' decision to proceed with the project. The court said that Federal courts "have an obligation to review substantive agency decisions on the merits to determine if they are in accord with NEPA." This review includes "determining whether the agency reached its decision after a full, good faith consideration of environmental factors made" under NEPA standards and "whether the actual balance of costs and benefits struck by the agency according to these standards was arbitrary or clearly gave insufficient weight to environmental factors". (EDF v. Froehlke, civil No. 72-1427, 4 ERC 1829.) The court retained jurisdiction in order to review the "revised" statement if the plaintiff requested such review.

(i) On December 23, 1972, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee issued its decision concerning the Corps' channelization of the Obion and Forked Deer Rivers in Tennessee. Without reaching the substantive issue of whether the Corps' decision to proceed with the project was "a correct one" under NEPA, the court ruled that the Corps "has not complied" with the procedural requirements of NEPA in several respects, as follows: First, the impact statement lacked adequate discussion of project alternatives such as flood plain planning and zoning, flood plain insurance, upstream structures, or deferring channelization work until "after" mitigation land is acquired; second, the impact statement failed to reflect the views of the Agriculture Department as to the effect of channelization on land use and the views of the State highway department as to projects maintenance costs; third, the impact statement "deals only peremptorily with the accepted importance" of wetlands in the project area "to the Mississippi flyway, to the production of water fowl, to the water quality in these streams and to other unquantifiable values." The court ordered the Corps to prepare a revised statement in this case, also. (Akers v. Resor, Civ. No. C-70-349, 4 ERC 1966).

(j) The General Accounting Office issued a report (B-170186) concerning the adequacy of environmental impact statements.

(k) Public awareness of the serious environmental problems created by channelization programs has significantly increased.

C. ISSUES

Witnesses at the hearings on March 20 and 22 should testify on the following issues and matters, relating to the Soil Conservation Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers and Tennessee Valley Authority:

I. General

1. The extent to which each agency provides opportunity for effective public participation at all stages of development of projects involving channelization and the adequacy of the procedure utilized to insure that such participation is, in fact, effective.

2. The actions taken by each agency since the subcommittee's June 1971 hearings to provide a better assessment of the adverse effects of channelization and to eliminate or minimize those effects and the adequacy of those actions.

3. Recommendations on what further actions the agencies could or should take to improve their assessment of these effects and to eliminate or minimize them. 4. Whether there has been a significant reduction of channelization by each agency since the subcommittee's 1971 hearings.

5. The extent to which water quality problems, such as eutrophication, increases in sedimentation, or pesticide accumulations occur or are aggravated by channelization, and the adequacy of actions taken by these agencies to cope with these problems.

6. Whether adequate provisions are made by these agencies for solid waste collection and disposal generated by the project.

II. Compliance with laws and policies

The environmental impact statement procedure prescribed by the National Environmental Policy Act may be breaking down. The courts and the GAO have found numerous instances where statements are not being prepared; or are prepared inadequately; or the comments of reviewing agencies are being ignored.