FEDERAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES, 1947

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1948

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE

DEPARTMENTS, SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator A. Willis Robertson (acting chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Robertson (presiding), Ferguson, and Thye.

Senator ROBERTSON. The committee will be in order. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Wesley R. Nelson, Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.

STATEMENT OF WESLEY R. NELSON, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Wesley R. Nelson. I am I am Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.

The primary responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation is the development of water supplies for irrigation in the 17 Western States, in which arid and semiarid lands with insufficient rainfall to support cultivated agriculture comprise more than one-third of the total land area of our country. In the investigations and planning of all river development projects, however, and in the design, construction, and operation of all of those projects that are found to be feasible and are approved for construction, full recognition and thorough consideration is given to all multiple-purpose uses. In this connection, the Bureau remains fully cognizant of its opportunities and responsibilities for the conservation of fish and wildlife arising in conjunction with its program for projects involving all uses of water.

Other purposes served include the generation of hydroelectric power, provision of municipal and domestic water supplies, flood control, navigation improvements, stream pollution abatement, prevention of retardation of salt water intrusions, and development of recreational areas. Some of the related land matters which we must consider have to do with soil conservation, reforestation of devastated forest areas, revegetation of grazing lands, and protection of important archeological sites.

The values of all of these uses must be assessed and weighted according to the conditions in each individual case, to enable making a final determination of the benefits, or losses, that can be accredited to each of the items listed. It is possible that in some cases a project

111

may be approved in spite of some figured damages to fish and wildlife, because of the overwhelming benefits to be derived from other phases. This is unusual, however, since it is the experience of the Bureau that in general through the construction and in the operation of our projects, original existing facilities for fish and wildlife conservation are not only maintained, but new facilities are created.

During the year 1947, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation continued and intensified their close cooperation in the planning of individual projects and comprehensive basin developments. Considerable progress has been made in implementing this cooperation through application of the terms of Public Law 732, Seventy-ninth Congress, which was approved August 14, 1946. Outstanding examples of this spirit of cooperative endeavor and of the resulting clear delineation of interest are found in the Columbia River Basin, the Rogue River Basin, the Central Valley (California) Basin, and in the Missouri River Basin.

The studies of the Fish and Wildlife Service in these and other basins are scheduled to be continued over a period of several years, and to continue to be financed partly by investigation funds furnished by the Bureau of Reclamation. The purpose of the studies is to determine the effects of potential reclamation developments on fish and wildlife resources, to formulate recommendations to safeguard these resources, and to evaluate the benefits that will result from fish and wildlife conservation features of the potential developments.

Twenty reports have been prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service on authorized units of Missouri Basin project. In cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, and no less than 12 on other proposed projects. The recommendations and evaluations of benefits contained therein have assisted the Bureau immeasurably in preparing those projects for construction. Practically all of our project planning and river basin reports now contain discussions of the fish and wildlife aspects of the proposed projects, with recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service. By this means, that is, by including statements from other affected agencies, we are assured that our reports are truly comprehensive in scope and that a fair, unbiased picture of the aims, benefits, and limitations of the project is presented.

In operation of our existing projects, as well as in the planning of new projects, close cooperation has continued between the Bureau, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State fish and game commissions, in our efforts not only to protect existing fish and wildlife habitats but also to develop additional benefits wherever it is possible to do so consistently with the primary purposes for which the projects were constructed and must be operated.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has continued supervision over approximately 30 national bird and wildlife refuges located on reclamation projects in 12 States. At some of the project reservoirs, such as at Lake Havasu behind Parker Dam on the lower Colorado River, the Service is also planning an extensive recreational development. At all of the reservoirs, even the smallest and most remote, there is some boating and fishing activity.

Many times, in connection with activities pursued by the Bureau for one or more reasons, fish and wildlife benefit greatly for still other reasons. The Bureau is vitally concerned, for instance, with control of watershed erosion in all of the river basins of the West; first, to

preserve valuable topsoil; second, to stabilize run-off, reducing flash floods and increasing low-water flows; and third, to control or reduce silting of reservoirs. By effecting these results, we would also be restoring the streams of the West to their primitive clear-water condition, which would be of exceptional benefit to fish and wildlife conservation.

In construction of new projects, the Bureau will continue to provide such structures and devices as fish ladders and fish screening for protection of aquatic life. In this connection, arrangements were made during the past year by the Chief Engineer of the Bureau at Denver, to install an experimental electric fish screen as soon as an opportunity for it occurs so that, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, studies and experiments can be conducted to learn more about the efficiency of this type of installation. If the biological effectiveness of the most recently developed electric screens can be demonstrated satisfactorily, the Bureau of Reclamation will be able to provide effective fish protection in the future at a much lower cost than has been possible in the past.

I should like to elaborate just a little concerning the act of August 14, 1946, under the terms of which provision is made for allocation to the preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife of an a propriate part of the estimated cost of Federal reclamation projects thereafter authorized. The amounts so allocated are by that statute made nonreimbursable, that is to say, neither the water nor the power users on the project will be called upon to pay any part of those costs. In our judgment the act of August 14, 1946, constitutes an extremely valuable addition to the laws under which the Bureau of Reclamation operates. It provides that in the case of projects considered for authorization following its effective date there will be full investigation of possible effects on fish and wildlife of the works proposed to be constructed; that there will be consultation with States and Federal bodies and with individuals and groups interested in the preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife in such proposed projects, and that wherever practicable, ways and means will be found not merely to preserve desirable conditions, but that full consideration will be given also to possibilities for improving conditions previously existing.

The act of August 14, 1946, does not, however, go as far as we believe the law should go to protect and improve the conditions for fish and wildlife in connection with Federal reclamation projects, for it deals only with projects authorized after the effective date. In connection with projects authorized and constructed prior to that time, there should also be provision for nonreimbursable expenditures for fish and wildlife conservation, as provided in the Rockwell bill, H. R. 2873, as originally reported out by the Public Lands Committee of the House, and, with respect to this one section, as it was finally passed by the House. Such authorization would relieve the water users from this present burden and remove their reluctant opposition toward maximum development of all multiple uses. We believe this would have a highly beneficial effect in regard to the Nation's fish and wildlife resources in areas where reclamation projects are now operating. It would be of significant help in enabling us to make suitable investment for the protection and propagation of fish and wildlife in connection with the operation and maintenance of such facilities.

That concludes my statement, Senator.

Senator ROBERTSON. I am glad to hear your statement approving the Coordinating Act of August 1946. I was the author of the bill, and naturally am pleased to hear you endorse it. I thought it should go further than it did, but there was considerable opposition and it was not an easy task to get it passed as it was. I am glad to hear your statement, Mr. Nelson, that you think it should go further. Are you familiar with the bill that was recently reported by the Senate Agriculture Committee to authorize a study of the desirability of draining an additional 60,000,000 acres of marshland?

Mr. NELSON. No, Senator, I am not.

Senator ROBERTSON. Have you any questions, Senator Thye? Senator THYE. Yes. I should like to ask Mr. Nelson what plans are there for the Paint Rock project, insofar as your Department is concerned?

Mr. NELSON. Public hearings were held in the area, on February 2 and 4 of this year. We have not yet received a report from the regional director. However, we do not have any plans to proceed with the construction of that particular unit of the Missouri Basin plan, and shall not do so until we have made further surveys of possible reservoir sites for the project.

Senator THYE. What plans do you have for reservoir construction in the Paint Rock area?

Mr. NELSON. Lake Solitude is the reservoir that was proposed to be used for the Paint Rock project. We do not propose to build any access roads or anything of that nature. We would not build a road into that area until it was definitely determined to start construction at Lake Solitude.

Senator THYE. But at the present time you have no plans for the year 1948, insofar as that project is concerned?

Mr. NELSON. We have no plans for construction in this year. Senator THYE. And you have not arrived at an opinion that the so-called Lake Solitude is the best reservoir supply for the Paint Rock project? You have not arrived at that conclusion, have you?

Mr. NELSON. Not definitely. The Lake Solitude Reservoir has been found, on the basis of studies up to the present time, to be the most economical storage site. However, in view of the opposition that has been expressed to its construction by the conservation interests we believe that we should look elsewhere, and if necessary spend additional money rather than disturb that primitive area.

Senator THYE. I know that there is great concern about the possibility of establishing that project at that location, not only by the local people but by the conservation and recreational groups the Nation over, and for that reason I know that Senator Robertson, who is very much interested in these matters, and likewise persons who reside in that particular area, are greatly concerned as to whether the project should be established in that locality. You say there will be no action taken in 1948?

Mr. NELSON. There will be no construction, merely planning and surveys in that particular area.

Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot remain with you here through the hearing, but another committee is calling me because they do not have a quorum, and I think I had better go and establish a quorum there and I will come back later.

Senator ROBERTSON. The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Ferguson, is now with us, and he will take the chair.

(Senator Ferguson took the chair.)

Mr. NELSON. In your previous reference to the bill for the draining of 60,000,000 acres of land, Senator Robertson, were you referring to H. R. 3538, which is a bill calling for the investigation of potential drainage projects, or is it a specific proposal for the drainage of certain lands?

Senator ROBERTSON. The bill to authorize a particular project might be one which is included in the general drainage projects.

Mr. NELSON. If it is H. R. 3538, I am acquainted with it. I thought perhaps there was another proposal relating specifically to some definite drainage project.

Senator ROBERTSON. Did your Bureau sponsor that legislation? Mr. NELSON. The bill was introduced by Congressman Redden and the bill was drafted in Reclamation at his specific request.

Senator ROBERTSON. Among the essential factors that are to be studied in connection with reclamation projects now is the effect on wildlife of those projects, so you think that wildlife should be included?

Mr. NELSON. Very definitely.

Senator ROBERTSON. Would you object to so notifying the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, telling him that when the bill reaches the floor for action I shall offer an amendment to insert just those three words-two words "wildlife interests" among the interests to be considered when the study is made?

Mr. NELSON. I think that would be desirable.

Senator ROBERTSON. I would be very glad if you would tell the chairman that the bill was prepared in your office, and that it was really an oversight on your part that wildlife was not included and that you endorse the proposal to have wildlife considered in all future provisions for water impoundment, either for flood control, reclamation or power purposes.

The

Mr. NELSON. In other words, you would think it appropriate for us to make that statement to the chairman of the committee? bill has been reported out by the committee.

Senator ROBERTSON. In reference to what has occurred here this morning, I wrote him about it, and he wrote me that he was interested in it, but in some way the bill was reported out without the amendment. I feel sure that the chairman would have to objection to accepting the amendment when offered from the floor, and in view of the fact that your Bureau drafted the bill I think it would be very helpful if you would tell him that you would be glad to see the wildlife interest included with the other interests to be studied if we are going to drain 60,000,000 acres.

Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir; I think that can be done.

Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Nelson, were you present at the hearings before the committee on that bill

Mr. NELSON. No, sir; I came to Washington last September. I did not appear before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and so far as I am aware, no extensive hearings were held. Certainly none of our people were present.

Senator FERGUSON. I was just wondering whether you had any knowledge as to how the wildlife happened to be omitted?