Page images
PDF
EPUB

endeavored to keep Dr. Chambers informed as to its status. Although he mentioned in his letter, incidentally, that five LSU professors testified against the project, this could hardly be construed as a "protest" against their testifying, as Mrs. Cernicek alleges.

A copy of Mr. Earle's December 21, 1972, letter to Dr. Chambers and the response he received, dated December 28, 1972, are enclosed. We have also enclosed a copy of our reply to Mrs. Cernicek's February 21, 1973, letter.

Sincerely,

NORMAN H. BERG,

Acting. KENNETH E. GRANT,

Administrator.

Dr. DOYLE CHAMBERS,

ALEXANDRIA, LA, December 21, 1972.

Director, Agricultural Experiment Station,
Baton Rouge, La.

DEAR DR. CHAMBERS: Dave Slusher discussed with me your telephone conversation with him yesterday about the study project on Cameron-Creole. It is still our hope that we can go forward with this project. Nevertheless, we can't sign an agreement until we know whether or not we are going to get the permit to do the installation of the structures and the levee which we must get from the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

As you probably read in the Baton Rouge paper today, there was a hearing in Cameron concerning this on December 20. There was strong support for the project, but there was also strong opposition. The Corps is required to keep the record open for 30 days after a public hearing for other people to submit statements. This record will be closed on January 20 after which time a decision will be made by the Corps as to whether or not they will issue the permit. I cannot judge whether this will be issued or not since there were many statements on both sides.

It is our hope, however, that your staff could go ahead and prepare the plan for making this study, and we could prepare the agreement and have it ready for signature when the Corps announces their decision. I recognize you will not be able to employ staff on this basis and time will be needed for this after the agreement is signed by you and us. At the time we originally started discussing this agreement for studying this project, we did not know a Corps' permit was required. The U.S. Corps of Engineers did not mention the requirement when they commented on the draft environmental impact statement. The Audubon Society protested our not having a Corps permit and this is what triggered the hearings and procedures now being undertaken.

We certainly want this monitoring done if we can ever clear the way to move forward with the project. But at the present time, if we enter into this agreement and don't have a project, SCS would have no basis for participating in the study. I regret that I cannot be more definite, but this seems to be a trend in our society and a way of doing business these days. I assure you that we will give you a firm answer as soon as possible, and hopefully by that time, we will have the paper work in readiness so we won't have additional delay for that purpose. I am greatly appreciative of your willingness to be of help to us and I hope that we can very soon have a decision to either move forward or know that we don't have a project.

Incidentally, five LSU professors came to the public hearing in Cameron on December 20 and testified vigorously against the project. While they did not identify themselves as speaking for LSU, in each case they did identify themselves as being on the faculty of LSU. I am sure you read this in the Baton Rouge paper this morning.

I am, nevertheless, raising the question by letter with our Washington Office that you have raised with me, and if I get any guidance that would permit me to move faster than outlined above. I shall be happy to do so.

Thank you very much for your help, and best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.

Sincerely,

J. B. EARLE, State Conservationist.

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY,
AGRICULTURE EXPERIMENT STATION,

Baton Rouge, La., December 28, 1972.

Mr. J. B. EARLE,
State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Alexandria, La.

DEAR MR. EARLE: Thank you very much for your letter of December 21 giving the status on the Cameron-Creole project. I was aware that a hearing was to be held regarding this project and I understand completely your inability to make more definite statements about the need for the research which we had discussed earlier with your organization. It is my understanding that our staff members are continuing to work on the development of a project proposal and I concur that it would be time saving if we could do as much of the paper work as necessary prior to final determination of the action to be approved or disapproved. I did read the local paper which indicated that some LSU faculty members and graduate students appeared in opposition to the project. I can only hope that the hearing officials could distinguish between what is a rational action and what is not in spite of shallow testimony. They must eventually decide the case on the basis of the probable cost benefit ratio. I am submitting a copy of your letter to Dr. H. R. Caffey and Dr. P. Y. Burns for their information. Sincerely yours,

Hon. HENRY S. REUSS,

DOYLE CHAMBERS, Director.

BATON ROUGE, LA.. March 13, 1973.

Chairman, House Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I appreciate very much your telephone call today. In response to your questions and in verification of my answers, let me summarize some of the facts. In my opinion, these facts indicate something, though possibly the things that happened may not be related to the Cameron-Creole hearing. Everything seems circumstantial.

I am a nontenured professor, depending on Sea Grant for a great percentage of my funding. I took leave of absence from my job here to give testimony at the Cameron-Creole USSCS watershed hearing in Cameron on December 20. A copy of my testimony is enclosed in which I made it clear in both written and oral testimony that I was not representing LSU. (I called Colonel Hunt's office in New Orleans and found that the written testimony of this hearing was completed 2 days ago (620 pages) and copies are available from the U.S. Corps of Engineers.) During the testimony, I talked with Richard Thompson, who had earlier presented testimony. He asked me if my testimony represented LSU, and I reiterated that I was there as an individual and in no way represented LSU. No more was said at that time. After the hearing, he was talking with me in the presence of J. B. Earle and Mr. McGowan, both from the USSCS office in Alexandria. He repeatedly said that this was not the place for LSU professors to give testimony and that he was going to make trouble for me. I told him again that I testified as an individual, not as a professor. He said something to the effect that I should "not be bragging about being an LSU professor" and he repeatedly said that he was going to "make trouble for you." I reminded him that I said I was an LSU professor in order to establish expertise, and that because I was on leave of absence, he could not make trouble. His answer was "wait and see, we will." [NOTE. The testimony referred to is in the subcommittee files.]

I understand that Mr. Thompson went to President (of LSU) Woodin's office and complained about the testimony given by LSU people there. I understand that the same Mr. Thompson had complained to that office twice previously about Dr. Glasgow's testimony at various hearings on the Atchafalaya Basin. I understand further that it was suggested to Dr. Glasgow that it might be better for the university if he did not testify in hearings of controversial nature. The university is supposed to be a bastion of democratic freedom, and hearings are supposed to be a place to use that freedom. It is people like Mr. Thompson who bring pressure on university administrators in an effort to shut up people that might use this freedom.

Ms. Doris Falkenheiner, chairman of the local Sierra Club group, is sending you some information on Mr. Thompson, and some other information. The Sierra Club has taken an active interest in this case, and she told me today she would airmail you some information tomorrow.

I understand that you have a copy of the letter Mr. Earle wrote to Dr. Chambers complaining of the testimony of "five LSU professors" (he erred in the number). This, I believe, was Mr. Earle's method to try to bring pressure on LSU officials so that in the future LSU faculty members might think twice before testifying in the democratic process.

Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum sent by Dr. Van Lopik, director of the Center for Wetland Resources, to Chancellor Taylor, in which he states that "Faculty and graduate assistant participation in such activities is not encouraged because ***."-fifth line of enclosed memorandum.

I was told verbally that because of a considerable cut of the Federal Sea Grant funds to LSU, a large proportion of this cut would be to the systems analysis section, a section in which I work. It was then suggested that I begin looking for other employment after September, though it was strongly suggested that I apply for a Sea Grant Extension Service position here at LSU, something that I have done, but have not yet been interviewed.

I believe that the university has been fair and honest, and have utmost confidence in Dr. Van Lopik, and it is he who is helping me with the possible extension service position, a position that both he and I believe I could fill well. But I strongly believe that it is people outside the university who have been exerting subtle pressures; and since the university depends on State funding, it therefore may be sensitive to such pressures.

I would like to point out that the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, also opposed the granting of the permits until a preproject study for a minimum of 2 years is undertaken.

If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call on me.
Sincerely,

P.S. This was written at home after hours.

HAROLD LOESCH.

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY,

To Chancellor TAYLOR:

CENTER FOR WETLAND RESOURCES.
Baton Rouge, La., February 15, 1973.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the material-returned herewithconcerning the Calcasieu project public hearing. Faculty and graduate assistant participation in such activities is not encouraged because I believe that the time spent in making necessary preparations detracts from research they are being being paid to perform under Sea Grant sponsorship. Unless participation is specifically sanctioned or requested by a State agency or sponsor, our policy is to have the faculty member prepare required material on his own time, take annual leave to appear, and indicate that his testimony is offered as an individual citizen. The initial guideline is fairly difficult to enforce, but the latter two have been adhered to in all faculty participations in public hearings. Written statements filed by our faculty members at the Calcasieu project hearings specifically indicate that they are not representing LSU. The written statements submitted by the three students indicate that they are working on graduate degrees at LSU, but do not suggest that they are employed by LSU or are speaking for LSU. Problems, of course, arise because an oral statement made at a hearing may or may not closely follow the written submission, and extemporaneous comments are often made in an emotion-charged atmosphere. Nevertheless, I will again emphasize to our faculty and graduate assistants that this type of activity should not interfere with the conduct of funded research, should preferably be limited to the presentation of facts, and always be made as an individual citizen-not as a representative of LSU.

JACK R. VAN LOPIK.

BATON ROUGE, LA., May 24, 1973. Re Hearings held December 20, 1972, at Cameron, La., on the corps permit for the Cameron-Creole watershed project.

Hon. HENRY S. REUSS,

Chairman, House Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

(Attention David Finnegan)

DEAR SIR: This letter is a follow-up to the previous correspondence to you from Dr. Harold Loesch, 1232 Dahlia Street, Baton Rouge, La., on March 13, 1973. As you remember, the correspondence concerned the punishment threatened to be inflicted on Dr. Loesch and the other L.S.U. Marine Sciences Department personnel and graduate students by Representative Richard S. Thompson, Colfax, La.

Representative Thompson testified at the hearing as the Chairman of the Louisiana State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. He testified in favor of the project and in favor of granting the permit application by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

Yesterday Representative Thompson kept his promise of retribution. He is a member of the House Appropriations Committee of the Louisiana Legislature which is presently in fiscal session. (Our legislature holds regular sessions on even-numbered years and fiscal sessions on odd-numbered years.) Representative Conway LeBleu of Cameron, La., also is a member of that committee. Yesterday the committee considered an amendment to the general appropriations bill to provide for $350,000 as the State's matching funds for the L.S.U. Sea Grant program. The State's share is one-third in order to obtain the two-thirds Federal funds.

Through their combined efforts, Representatives Thompson and LeBleu were able to persuade the committee to disapprove the Sea Grant appropriations measure. Although nothing was said before the full committee about the real reason for opposing the measure, Representative Thompson was quite open about his motivation to those who spoke in favor of the appropriation. Representative LeBleu was silent, at least to those persons, Ann Cole and March Hershman. However, Representative LeBleu is a delegate to the Louisiana Constitutional Convention, as is Mr. Thompson, and both were appointed to the Committee on Natural Resources and Environment. At the hearings sponsored by the Constitutional Convention Committee. Representative LeBleu was openly hostile to Mike Osborne, Chairman of the Executive Committee of Delta Chapter, Sierra Club, who also had presented an oral statement at Cameron, La., in opposition to the permit application.

It has been estimated that the Appropriations Committee will present its recommendations to the House of Representatives late today, or early tomorrow, or next week at the latest. The session is scheduled to end on June 14, 1973. A motion will be made from the floor to amend the committee's recommended general appropriations bill (or some similar tactic) to provide for the matching State funds. We are now trying to influence as many representatives from the urban areas as we can to act favorably on the measure when it is brought up for consideration.

I understand that your subcommittee will be holding hearings in Florida in the near future. I urge that these hearings be expanded to include an investigation of the under-handed tactics of the Louisiana Soil Conservation Service and its State affiliates. The constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech is being trounced and spat upon in the name of a federally-funded program which is, in effect, the same as welfare assistance. However, in my estimation welfare assistance has a more compelling reason or need for its existence.

Please feel free to call on me for further information should you feel it necessary.

Sincerely yours,

DORIS FALKENHEINER.

APPENDIX 32.-CORRESPONDENCE AND RELATED MATERIAL RE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE'S TERMINATION OF WATER BANK ACT PROGRAM-DECEMBER 26, 1972

Mr. Toм BARLOW,

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.

ST. PAUL, MINN., March 21, 1972.

DEAR MR. BARLOW: We in the Midwest are concerned by a recent proposal by the administration to merge the Water Bank Act with rural revenue sharing in 1973. The rural revenue-sharing program is planning to distribute “no strings attached" money to the States, which means the water bank appropriation funds could be used for purposes other than wetland protection. As an example it could be used by the North Dakota State water commissioner who funds drainage, channelization, and dam projects.

The Water Bank Act evoked wide bipartisan support from Congress, farm organizations, farmers, and wildlife conservationists. To me such widespread support attests to good legislation and to merge this bill would be against this unanimous support.

Can you keep me advised as to the progress of this merger so that we may convey our feelings to our Congressman. Sincerely,

ALFRED E. PEASE.

Hon. EARL L. BUTZ,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE,
Washington, D.C., February 1, 1973.

Secretary of Agriculture,

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: On December 26, 1972, you announced that the 2-yearold Water Bank Act program was "being terminated," and that funds appro priated for fiscal year 1973 to carry out the program were being impounded. At the same time you announced that the 36-year-old rural environmental assist ance program was also being terminated. In explaining this action, you identified these programs as of "low priority"; namely, "those that are outmoded, have substantially accomplished their objectives, have objectives that are no longer relevant, or those that can be reduced or eliminated without serious economic consequences." You also said that the Water Bank Act program was “unnecessary."

This action was taken just 2 months after your Department announced on October 27, 1972, that 62 counties in 15 States "will participate in the 1973 water bank program” which is aimed at helping preserve waterfowl habitat in areas where it is rapidly disappearing.

Your announcement of December 26 did not mention that in September 1969 Agriculture Department officials, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, recommended enactment of this legislation (hearings, fish and wildlife legislation, pt. 1, p. 81).

Most importantly, your announcement did not mention the environmental consequences of this termination which amounts to an executive branch repeal of two acts of Congress. Indeed, we understand that your Department failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852; Public Law 91-190) which requires every agency to prepare an environmental impact statement before undertaking a major Federal action significantly af fecting the quality of the human environment.

« PreviousContinue »