Environmentalists claim channelization will disrupt fish and wildlife habitats, upset the ecology of a stream and prevent a restoration of the natural order. The above channel was photographed several years ago with a crane sitting upon its right bank dredging the channel with banks completely devoid of vegetation. Today, that same bank supports vegetation and the channel serves the Conetoe Creek Watershed's drainage capabilities. (Photo by Claude Starling)

Mr. REUSS. Thank you very much, Mr. Thigpen, for your excellent statement.

Mr. Bagley?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE R. BAGLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Mr. BAGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I am George Bagley of St. Joseph, La., vice president of the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD). Our association represents the 3,000 subdivisions of State government charged by State law in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands with the conservation of soil, water, and related natural resources.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on the subject of channel modification to your subcommittee. Our comments will be general in nature, for it is evident that many of the subcommittee's questions are technical and are directed to the Federal agencies involved.

Our principal concern, of course, is with the channel alterations associated with upstream watershed projects conducted under the provisions of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 566, as amended. Conservation districts are among the principal sponsors of each of the nearly 3,000 applications for assistance with such projects that have been filed with the Secretary of Agriculture, and are active participants in over 1,000 projects that have been approved for operations and 600 additional projects authorized for planning.

The questions raised in the document furnished to us as a basis for this hearing appear to imply that channel modification is without exception an undesirable, if not evil, practice. Our association's position, as I expressed it to this subcommittee in your 1971 hearing, is that channel alteration in watershed projects must be judged on the merits of the individual case, taking all considerations into account to the greatest extent possible. And I was interested just awhile ago to hear Secretary Reed agree with that point.

NACD, and our member conservation districts, however, do recognize the problems inherent in the use of channel modification for flood prevention in watershed projects. It is our position that this technique should be used only when necessary, and with appropriate safeguards for affected natural resources including water quality, fish and wildlife, natural beauty, and recreational opportunities. Conservation district programs have proceeded over the years on the basis that it is best to "hold the raindrop where it falls," both to prevent erosion, to make more efficient use of water, and to prevent downstream damages from floodwater and sediment. We continue to endorse this principle. I would like now to comment briefly on the issues raised in your background document.

NACD favors full public discussion of watershed projects and other programs with which conservation districts are concerned. Those of us who have participated in these programs over the years know how much time has been spent in encouraging interest in, and understanding of, this work. Today, with a heightened environmental consciousness on the part of the public, there is more concern about these matters. This is welcome, as is the desire to incorporate in more formal ways actual participation of the public in conservation decisions. This, indeed, is one of the purposes for the formation of conservation dis

tricts originally to provide a greater measure of continuing, responsible, local participation in resource matters.

I would like to say, however, that it has often been difficult to secure participation of those interests which are now most concerned with the matter under discussion. In some States, the participation by fish and wildlife agencies has been active, continuous, and highly effective. In others, it has not.

As an example, I would like to mention the National Watershed Congress, an annual forum in which NACD participates along with 33 other conservation, civic, environmental, farm, and business organizations. Over the past several years, the agenda has included the subject of channelization and has provided an opportunity for all sides of the issue to be heard. We have encouraged attendance by those agencies and organizations most concerned with this topic. With a few exceptions, the fish and wildlife groups have been conspicuous by their absence.

As to the assessment of the adverse effects of channel modifications, and conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NACD favors full exploration of such effects and full conformance with NEPA. Where it is determined that environmental impact statements are required, they obviously should be prepared. They should be complete and they should be completely adequate.

Some of the issues outlined in the subcommittee paper relate to questions of law and procedure involving retroactivity and interpretation of the act. The courts are now making determinations relating to these questions.

In connection with retroactivity in watershed projects approved before passage of NEPA, I would like to point out that sponsors of such projects entered into agreements with the Federal Government in good faith under the rules and procedures then in effect. They proceeded to meet their responsibilities, which include acquisition of land rights and the raising of local and State funds. In many cases, money was borrowed in anticipation of local obligations. In such situations, it appears to us a breach of faith for the Federal Government to change the rules of the game after such actions have been taken.

Actions have been taken by the Soil Conservation Service since your last hearing to respond to questions raised about channel work. We believe that the review under watershed memorandum 108 was a genuine and valuable response to these questions. We believe that the SCS has engaged in a sincere and continuous adjustment of its policies and procedures, where possible, to accommodate the concerns about channelization that have become current.

It has been said by some that our association is unswervingly in favor of channelization. This is obviously, and honestly, untrue, as any examination of the record and our actions will show. We have endeavored to act in a responsible manner; we have not engaged in lengthy public debate or incitement to action on the part of our constituency.

NACD is interested in solutions to this problem, not battles or confrontations. We deplore the all-too-frequent instances in which acrimony, misinformation, and distortion of fact have characterized the discussion of this issue.

At this point, on behalf of our association, I would like to make the five following observations and recommendations-to this subcommittee and to all who are concerned about not only channel modification but the future of land and water conservation work in this country:

Point 1. Extremism in the debate over the validity of channel alterations is a disservice to the faculty of reason and to the cause of conservation. Those who defend channels because of emotional commitment, vested interest, or unwillingness to explore alternatives are in error. Equally in error are those who are convinced that channelization is an absolute evil and can never be used as an instrument of public policy.

In our view, debate must center somewhere between the extremes of these views and be concerned with the definition of those cases where channel modification is the only alternative available and with the delineation of the safeguards that must be provided.

Point 2. There is an imperative need for more information, more objectivity, and more attention to the facts. Unfortunately, the wildest statements are often given the greatest credence. The "experts" called upon by the various actors in the controversy produce widely varying assessments of the problem. Surely, we can expect more from the ethics of the professionals concerned.

Studies that conflict with settled opinions are often dismissed or their motives impugned. For example, the Soil Conservation Service recently completed an inventory of their channel work which indicates that the proportion affecting natural, perennially flowing streams is much smaller than has been claimed by many. The study also shows that much of the channelization occurs on streams that have been previously modified.

Here are some facts to deal with, facts which correct rather large distortions that have appeared in the debate. Our view is that instead of reacting to this inventory critically, all concerned should concentrate on the problem that it identifies and give first priority to examination of the work proposed for natural, perennial streams.

Comparably, it is clear that many opponents of channelization have been privately critical of the draft report prepared by the A. D. Little Co. for the Council on Environmental Quality. Many oxen were gored by that draft report, and, indeed, it would be remarkable if that were not the case. But petulant responses to what appears to have been an honest attempt to provide an objective analysis of a complicated matter, simply because it doesn't agree with one's preconceptions, do not get us any farther down the road.

Point 3. We need to work positively, and cooperatively, to find alternatives where they exist to channel modification in watershed projects. There are many constraints in operation here: Limitations of the Federal law, the statutory emphasis on flood control as a basis of projects, inadequate funding of State and Federal agencies with review responsibilities, seemingly insurmountable physical and climatic factors in some cases, Federal requirements for economic justification, and the like.

NACD favors utilization of flood plain zoning, floodproofing, and other nonstructural methods to achieve flood prevention where these are practical. We, and the conservation districts over the country that we represent, want watershed projects to be environmental enhance

ment projects of the broadest possible kind-projects that improve the quality of all natural resources: Soil, water, fish, wildlife, forests, and natural beauty.

In fact, we believe that the time is coming soon for the Congress to consider further amendments to Public Law 566 that would place more equal emphasis on all desirable water conservation and development purposes and continue the transformation of this immensely successful program into a truly comprehensive multiple-purpose water program for upstream America.

To return directly to the matter at hand, we find much to support in the proposal made by the Wildlife Management Institute in the paper, "Placing Channel Modification in Perspective." It is a rational, objective statement which recognizes that channel modifications may be necessary in some circumstances. It states that guidelines to identify those critical situations must be spelled out. It calls for use, where possible, of alternative solutions compatible with sound biological and ecological principles. Although it is lacking in the delineation of incentives and inducements to achieve desirable goals, it is a good starting point for a productive dialog that can lead to a reasonable solution. to the dilemma.

Point 4. Our association deplores the carelessness that has led some of the more extreme opponents of channelization to distort the proportions of this segment of the overall soil and water conservation program and thus to damage the entire program's reputation. Apparently, unfamiliar with the accomplishments and the current programs of soil and water conservation districts, and their many cooperating Federal and State agencies, they have exaggerated the significance of channel improvements in the total program.

Only a small proportion of funds and personnel is involved in channel aspects of this one program-the watershed program. And the watershed program is only one part of the overall program being carried out through and with the cooperation of conservation districts. Something like 95 percent of the Nation's soil and water conservation program has nothing to do with channel alterations. Yet the emotional, misguided, and uninformed statements that have been made could lead the public to believe that districts and the SCS do nothing these days but tear up rivers and streams.

What districts and the SCS are doing mostly these days is what they have been doing since our origins-only they are doing it better, and in spite of some serious budgetary constraints. They are making soil surveys; conducting resource inventories; planning conservation measures for farms and ranches; installing every effective kind of conservation practice on the land; planting trees and wildlife shrubs; helping towns and cities plan wisely for growth; conducting sediment control programs; creating new jobs through resource development in rural areas; reclaiming strip-mined areas; stabilizing the soil resources of the Great Plains; building watershed reservoirs for flood prevention, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, and community water supply; improving woodlands; helping with soil and water conservation work on public lands; and so forth.

Point 5. Channelization, the watershed program, soil and water conservation work, and environmental action must be viewed in a wide. perspective. The conservation farmer, for example, is one of the best