CONSERVATION OF WILD LIFE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1946 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 a. m., the Honorable John W. Flannagan (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We have up this morning for consideration, H. R. 4503, to amend the act of March 10, 1934, entitled "An act to promote the conservation of wildlife, fish and game, and for other purposes.' (The bill is as follows:) [H. R. 4503, 79th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend the Act of March 10, 1934, entitled "An Act to promote the conservation of wildlife, fish and game, and for other purposes" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of March 10, 1934 (48 Stat. 401), is hereby amended to read as follows: "In order to promote effectual planning, development, maintenance, and coordination, of wildlife conservation, management, and rehabilitation in the United States, its Territories and possessions, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife Service, is authorized (a) to provide assistance to, and cooperate with, Federal, and public or private agencies and organizations in the development, protection, rearing, stocking, management, and administration of all species of wildlife, resources thereof, and their habitat, in controlling losses of the same from disease or other causes, in minimizing damages from overabundant species, in providing public shooting areas, and in carrying out other measures necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Act; and (b) to make surveys and investigations of the wildlife of the public domain, including lands and waters or interests therein acquired or controlled by any agency of the United States. "SEC. 2. Whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are impounded, diverted, or otherwise controlled for any purpose whatever by any department or agency of the United States, adequate provision consistent with the primary purposes of such impoundment, diversion, or other control shall be inade for the use thereof, together with any areas of land, or interest therein, acquired or administered in connection therewith, for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon. In accordance with general plans, covering the use of such waters and other interests for these purposes, approved jointly by the head of the department or agency exercising primary administration thereof, the Secretary of the Interior, and the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the State wherein the waters and areas lie, such waters and other interests shall be made available without cost for administration by (a) such State agency, if the management thereof for the conservation of wildlife relates to other than migratory birds; or (b) the Secretary of the Interior, if the waters and other interests have particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program. "No impoundment, diversion, or other water-control facility shall be constructed by any agency of the Federal Government, or by any public or private 1 agency under Federal permit, that does not include adequate means and measures so far as practicable, as approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the constructing or authorizing agency, to prevent loss of and damage to fish or aquatics dependent upon the waters affected by such impoundment, diversion, or other control facility. The cost of planning for and the construction of installation and maintenance of any such means and measures shall be included in and shall constitute an integral part of the costs of the project, and necessary investigations to carry out the requirements of this section shall be conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the department or agency of the Federal Government, or other public or private agency under Federal permit, authorized to construct said water impoundment, diversion, or other control facility. In the case of construction by a Federal agency, that agency is authorized and directed to transfer, out of appropriations or other funds made available for surveying, engineering, or construction to the Fish and Wildlife Service, such funds as may be necessary to conduct the required investigations. "The reports and recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior, based on surveys and investigations conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of preventing loss of and damage to fish or aquatics depending upon the waters affected by impoundments, diversions, or other control facility, shall be made an integral part of any reports submitted by any agency of the Federal Government responsible for engineering, surveys, and construction of such projects. "SEC. 3. Such areas as are made available to the Secretary of the Interior for the purposes of this Act under sections 1 and 2, or by any other law, proclamation, or Executive order, shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior under such rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon as may be adopted by him in accordance with general plans approved jointly by the Secretary of the Interior and the head of the department or agency exercising primary administration of such areas: Provided, That such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the laws for the protection of fish and game of the States in which such area is situated. 'SEC. 4. The Secretary of the Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Mines, is authorized to make such investigations as he deems necessary to determine the effects of domestic sewage, mine, petroleum and industrial wastes, erosion silt, and other polluting substances on wildlife, and to make reports to the Congress concerning such investigations and of recommendations for alleviating dangerous and undesirable effects of such pollution. These investigations shall include (1) the determination of standards of water quality for the maintenance of wildlife; (2) the study of methods of abating and preventing pollution, including methods for the recovery of useful or marketable products and byproducts of wastes; and (3) the collation and distribution of data on the progress and results of such investigations for the use of Federal, State, municipal, and private agencies, individuals, organizations, or enterprises. "SEC. 5. There is authorized to be appropriated from time to time, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act and regulations made pursuant thereto, including the construction of such facilities, buildings, and other improvements necessary for economical administration of areas made available to the Secretary of the Interior under this Act, and the employment in the city of Washington and elsewhere of such persons and means as the Secretary of the Interior may deem necessary for such purposes. "SEC. 6. Disposition or sale of surplus animals and products and the grant of privileges from areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to this Act shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 383). "SEC. 7. Any person who shall violate any rule or regulation promulgated in accordance with this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. "SEC. 8. The term 'wildlife' as used herein includes birds, fishes, mammals, and all other classes of wild animals." The CHAIRMAN. This bill was introduced by Congressman Robertson of Virginia, who is with us this morning. "Mr. Robertson, we will be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF HON. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, the amendment to the Coordination Act of 1934 is designed to more fully protect the wildlife interests of the Nation in connection with future construction programs, largely in the nature of flood control and power dams. The essence of this bill is that from the inception of a project to the time that a congressional committee approves the project consideration shall be given to what is to be done to the wildlife interests when the project is undertaken. The bill, of course, admits that the primary purpose is flood control, or a power dam, or whatever the project may be. It sets out, however, that the wildlife interests are a valuable asset to the Nation, and those interests should not unnecessarily be affected or injured and retarded when, something else that may be deemed desirable is undertaken. The Western State commissioners were a little uneasy about the original language of H. R. 4503, because they felt that it did not adequately safeguard the common-law rights of the States, which, when the Federal Government was established, reserved to the States the complete title to and control over all wildlife interests. Some years ago we negotiated a treaty with Canada, and later with Mexico, with respect to migratory birds, and pursuant to the provisions of that treaty the Federal Government under its treaty rights, took control of migratory birds, and, of course, still has control of migratory birds, and the States all recognize that control, and while a few of them may prefer to have control of the migratory birds, the consensus is, that being an international as well as national problem, it is desirable for the Federal Government to control the refuge systems for migratory birds, and the shooting provisions, in order that an adequate supply may at all times be preserved. Mr. GRANGER. Did the Commonwealth of Massachusetts agree with you on that? Mr. ROBERTSON. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts agrees to this extent, that they do not object to the Federal Government having control of migratory birds, but so far as the Parker River is concerned, some of them up there would just as soon not have a refuge established on the Parker River. That, of course, has become something of a famous case, and I will frankly admit there are two sides to it. The project was originally endorsed by the game commission up there, and by a good many sportsmen. Some landowners do not want it. But that doesn't touch the fundamental proposition of control. It is purely local. They favor general control, but they just don't want this particular refuge established. Mr. ANDRESEN. Is it your idea that the Federal Government would take complete control over the jurisdiction, the issuance of licenses and the policing of the migratory birds? Mr. ROBERTSON. H. R. 4503 very specifically sets out that the Federal Government shall not do anything in the way of management that is inconsistent with the license provisions of any State, or inconsistent with the State's rights over upland game, and of the fur-bearing animals, and things of that kind. The only thing this bill does is to reserve to the Federal Government its control of the migratory birds on these impounded water areas. The area belongs to the Federal Government and the Federal Government should have the right to determine whether it should be a refuge or open to public shooting, and so forth, and the Federal Government shall continue to say when the season will open, the means you shall use to take ducks and geese, and how many you can take in a day, just as we have done ever since we have had Federal migratory bird laws. This bill doesn't go any further than existing law with respect to Federal control over migratory birds. The sole purpose of this bill is to compel the Army engineers, or whatever agency goes into an area to build a dam, or to build flood areas, to give recognition to the fact that there are a lot of people in those areas, and maybe in other sections, that are vitally interested in the fishing, in the hunting, in the purity of the streams, and in many things that come under the general purpose of coordinating the Federal activity. This bill goes further than the original Coordination Act, which was merely permissive. The original act said that when some Government agency starts on an impounding project they might give consideration. This bill requires them to give consideration. And it also is to be amended, I hope, in accordance with the agreement reached between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the western game commissioners, in Utah last month, so that the States shall have the right to submit to the Army engineers their views on what is involved. Mr. GRANGER. Do you mean that every dam or flood-control project that will be built would automatically become a game refuge? Mr. ROBERTSON. Oh, no; the chances are very few of them would. But if you had a project that dammed up, let us say, five or six thousand acres, or fifty thousand acres, it may be that somewhere in that impounded area that belonged to the Federal Government the Fish and Wildlife Service would think, in the interest of conservation and the maintenance of an adequate supply, it might be desirable for a refuge to be located there. The purpose of this bill is to require the Army engineers, because they are the ones that do most of the building, to make a part of their records what is going to happen to your wildlife interests. Then the Board of Army Engineers, which must act first before a project is approved, will have that information before them, and then if they say, "We will go ahead," they must indicate in their report what steps they are going to take. Will they have fish ladders, for instance, or not; will they draw down these pools or not draw them down? We have recently had an illustration of that, as Mr. Andresen so well knows, in the upper Mississippi River refuge. We spent millions of dollars on that refuge, and it is involved in the deepening of the channel of the Mississippi River. We have pools there to maintain the water flow. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Robertson, the legislation would require the Army engineers to make certain findings in their report? Mr. ROBERTSON. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose they do make certain findings that the Fish and Wildlife Administration does not agree with. How would that controversy be settled? Mr. ROBERTSON. By the congressional committee that had to approve the project. And this bill will say that whatever is done or recommended for wildlife must be consistent with the primary purpose of what the project is to be for. We don't expect the Government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and just give primary consideration to fish and game. The CHAIRMAN. Let me get this straight: the Army engineers have made certain recommendations, have made certain determinations which would be set out in their report. Mr. ROBERTSON. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. The Fish and Wildlife Administration does not agree with that Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then the issue would be brought before a congressional committee? Mr. ROBERTSON. That is right. We have an illustration of that in the proposal to build a series of dams on the Potomac River where the Fish and Wildlife Service submitted to the district engineer their views on what was going to happen to the wildlife that would be very costly and offset a lot of the advantages that were contemplated from the erection of those dams. The health interests came in and said, "You are going to build a dam with a draw-down of 90 feet, and that would leave thousands of acres of mud flats exposed at low water. That is a menace to health." That became a part of the record that went up to the Board of Engineers. The district engineer, centering his attention on the primary purpose, which I think was largely the building of power dams, said that the result from the primary purpose would more than offset the loss that would happen to health and to the fish, game, and recreation. But when the matter came to the Board of Engineers, they turned the project down, and one of the reasons that they turned it down was that they gave consideration— not to the loss of pleasure opportunities for people, but to the loss of dollars and cents to the fish interests and other interests, the monetary loss. Suppose the Board of Engineers had agreed with the district engineer, then the issue would have come to Congress for final decision. But you would have a record to go on, and that is what this bill does. In a moment I am going to ask that the Assistant Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service explain the amendments that he agreed on with the western game commissioners. In the meantime, I received this telegram from Mr. James O. Beck, of the Game Department of Idaho. It is dated the 12th, and reads: Albert Day has consented to present views of Western Association at committee hearing. They have all agreed, and the western commissioners were the only ones that had taken issue with the original language. Practically all the others, the eastern commissioners, and the central commissioners, had written me--I sent a copy of the bill to everybody with an explanation. I got the proposed amendments from the western game commissioners and analyzed them, and sent a statement of that analysis to the game commissioners of all the States, and they were all satisfied except the western commissioners, and they arranged for this conference at Salt Lake City, and at that conference they agreed on 85725-46-ser. i- -2 |