Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

CHET HOLIFIELD, California, Chairman JACK BROOKS, Texas

FRANK HORTON, New York L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina

JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama

JOHN W. WYDLER, New York JOHN E. MOSS, California

CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida

GUY VANDER JAGT, Michigan HENRY S. REUSS, Wisconsin

GILBERT GUDE, Maryland TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, JR., California WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, Pennsylvania JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama WM. J. RANDALL, Missouri

SAM STEIGER, Arizona BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York GARRY BROWN, Michigan JIM WRIGHT, Texas

CHARLES THONE, Nebraska FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, Rhode Island RICHARD W. MALLARY, Vermont JOHN C. CULVER, Iowa

STANFORD E. PARRIS, Virginia FLOYD V. HICKS, Washington

RALPH S. REGULA, Ohio DON FUQUA, Florida

ANDREW J. HINSHAW, California JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan

ALAN STEELMAN, Texas BILL ALEXANDER, Arkansas

JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington BELLA S. ABZUG, New York

ROBERT P. HANRAHAN, Illinois HAROLD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts JAMES V. STANTON, Ohio LEO J. RYAN, California

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 JOHN E. MOSS, California

GUY VANDER JAGT, Michigan DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida

GILBERT GUDE, Maryland FLOYD V. HICKS, Washington

PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, JR., California LEO J. RYAN, California

ALAN STEELMAN, Texas L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina

JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington JACK BROOKS, Texas

EX OFFICIO
CHET HOLIFIELD, California

FRANK HORTON, New York
PHINEAS INDRITZ, Chief Counsel
David B. FINNEGAN, Assistant Counsel

David H. Baris, Legal Assistant

FRANCES B. LEE, Assistant Clerk
JOSEPHINE SCHEIBER, Research Analyst

RUTH M. WALLICK, Clerk

(II)

CONTENTS

v. 5 added mou/2 30 473

Page

Part 1.

1-388

Part 2

389-1272

Part 3

1273-2120

Part 4.

2121-2788

Part 5

2789-3288

Hearings held on March 20, 1973.-

2789

Statement of-

Bagley, George R., vice president, National Association of Conserva-

tion Districts..

2972

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,

USDA..

2907

Greenfield, Dr. Stanley M., Assistant Administrator for Research
and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency --

2901
Kelly, Brig. Gen. James L., Deputy Director of Civil Works Office,

Department of the Army; accompanied by J. J. Lankhorst, Assist-
ant Counsel, Office of the Chief of Engineers.

2890
Reed, Nathaniel P., Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks, Department of the Interior..

2883
Thigpen, Hassell, chairman, board of commissioners, Edgecombe
County, N.C..

2960
Train, Russell E., Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality --- 2872
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by-

Bagley, George R., vice president, National Association of Conserva-

tion Districts: Information on the proportion of conservation district
programs that involve channel modification work...

2977-2978

Berg, Norman A., Associate Administrator, Soil Conservation Serv-

ice, U.S. Department of Agriculture:

Classification and inventory of channel work-October 1972. 2915–2922

Designated State agencies for application approval of watershed

projects-September 1971.

2914

Effects of program funding for channel work in watershed and

flood prevention operations---

2934

Effects on wetlands if the water bank program had been continued

and from channel work to be carried out in fiscal year 1974.--- 2935

Statement...

2911-2913

Greenfield, Dr. Stanley M., Assistant Administrator for Research

and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, state-

ment.

2904-2907

Kelly, Brig. Gen. James L., Deputy Director of Civil Works Office,

Department of the Army:

Authorized, active navigation projects, table...

2950

Correspondence between the Interior Department and the Corps
of Engineers regarding the Cache River project..

2896–2900
Flood plain management services program.

29542955

Navigation cost-sharing -

2951-2953

Statement.

2892–2896

Trinity River, Tex., navigation project---

2958

plis

IV

APPENDIXES

(Appendixes 1-9 appear in part 1 of these hearings)

(Appendixes 10–13 appear in part 2 of these hearings)

(Appendixes 14-20 appear in part 3 of these hearings)

(Appendixes 21–28 appear in part 4 of these hearings)

Appendix 29.—Correspondence and related material re Federal wetlands

policy.

2981

Part A.-EPA wetlands protection policy -

2981

Part B.-Correspondence with Corps of Engineers re: Corps' wetlands

regulations

2984

Part C.-The Interior Department's wetlands guidelines

2988

Appendix 30.-Soil Conservation Service's Starkweather, N. Dak., water-

shed project--

3037

Part A.-Correspondence re SCS work plan and agreement on wet-

lands acquisition.

3037

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..

3049

Part C.-Comments on SCS revised environmental impact statement

for Starkweather, N. Dak., watershed project-August 1972.. 3054

Appendix 31.- Additional correspondence re Cameron Creole watershed

project

3133

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

statements, and related correspondence.

3162

Appendix 34.– Watersheds Memorandum 108 review and classification of

watershed projects involving channelization.

3236

Part A. - Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife report on SCS Water-

sheds Memorandum 108 classifications -

3236

Part B.-Comments re public participation in Watersheds Memoran-

dum 108 review..

3270

Appendix 35.—Bureau of Outdoor Recreation pilot study re impact of

watershed projects on recreation values -

3273

Appendix 36.—Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife "Policy and Guide-

lines for the Planning and Review of Stream Channel Alteration Proj-

ects” (revised, January 18, 1972), and related correspondence.

3279

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

2790

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 SČS 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);

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

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

« PreviousContinue »