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 J. P. CARLSON, Minority Counsel 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 FRANK HORTON, New York David H. Baris, Legal Assistant FRANCES B. LEE, Assistant Clerk RUTH M. WALLICK, Clerk (II) CONTENTS v. 5 added mou/2 30 473 Page 1-388 389-1272 Hearings held on March 20, 1973.- Bagley, George R., vice president, National Association of Conserva- 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, Greenfield, Dr. Stanley M., Assistant Administrator for Research 2901 Department of the Army; accompanied by J. J. Lankhorst, Assist- 2890 2883 2960 Bagley, George R., vice president, National Association of Conserva- tion Districts: Information on the proportion of conservation district 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 Effects of program funding for channel work in watershed and flood prevention operations--- Effects on wetlands if the water bank program had been continued and from channel work to be carried out in fiscal year 1974.--- 2935 Greenfield, Dr. Stanley M., Assistant Administrator for Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, state- Kelly, Brig. Gen. James L., Deputy Director of Civil Works Office, Authorized, active navigation projects, table... Correspondence between the Interior Department and the Corps 2896–2900 29542955 plis IV Reed, Nathaniel P., Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Page 2884-2888 Reuss, Hon. Henry S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and chairman, Conservation and National Resources Council on Environmental Quality - U.S. Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service). 2850 U.S. Department of the Interior... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Subcommittee staff memorandum and Federal agencies' replies: March 1973 hearings on environmental effects of stream Sundry material relative to the hearings- Thigpen, Hassell, chairman, board of commissioners, Edgecombe County, N.C.: Sundry material supplied for the record 2964-2971 (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 Part A.-EPA wetlands protection policy - Part B.-Correspondence with Corps of Engineers re: Corps' wetlands Part C.-The Interior Department's wetlands guidelines Appendix 30.-Soil Conservation Service's Starkweather, N. Dak., water- Part A.-Correspondence re SCS work plan and agreement on wet- 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.. 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 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. Appendix 34.– Watersheds Memorandum 108 review and classification of watershed projects involving channelization. Part A. - Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife report on SCS Water- sheds Memorandum 108 classifications - Part B.-Comments re public participation in Watersheds Memoran- Appendix 35.—Bureau of Outdoor Recreation pilot study re impact of watershed projects on recreation values - 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. STREAM CHANNELIZATION (Part 5) TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 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). |
0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified Write review |