STATEMENT OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE ON H. R. 4503

The Izaak Walton League of America has long advocated the vital need for coordinating legislation which would require such agencies as the Army Engineer Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation and any valley authority agencies that might be set up to give full consideration to, broad public aquatic values as an integral part of their proposals, their engineering, and their construction plans. To this end, we have advocated that comprehensive biological surveys on a par with and, at the same time as the engineering surveys, be made an integral part of the report to Congress so that Congress may have before it a full and complete balance sheet of all values existing and potential as a basis for intelligent decisions as to the desirability or undesirability of the different projects.

We have consistently demonstrated our willingness to support any legislation designed to achieve this important end. Accordingly, we supported the earlier Cordon and Gerlach bills. When we did so we realized they were not perfect but, even more, we realized the vital necessity of having some legislation to curb the roughshod tactics of the Army Engineer Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation in ignoring public aquatic values while going blindly ahead with their engineering proposals on the narrow and selfish viewpoint of financial benefit to a few special interests.

Since the original Cordon and Gerlach bills, there have several rewrites of this basic idea by Congressman Robertson, the latest embodied in the current H. R. 4503. We have supported them all, and we support H. R. 4503, for we feel that the basic idea embodied in all of them for protecting public aquatic values against blind engineering projects by the Army Engineer Corps and Bureau of Reclamation and any other dam-building agencies is the all-important matter, while the minor details over jurisdiction of wildlife injected as objections by some of the State wildlife agencies are designed to cover imaginary rather than real dangers. The important thing is to get some bill embodying this basic principle passed before we have further needless destruction of America's aquatic resources because of complete lack of vitally needed curbs on dam-building programs that ignore public aquatic values.

We are familiar with the latest minor amendments to H. R. 4503 agreed upon by a group of western State fish and game commissioners and the Fish and Wildlife Service. These amendments are all right with us, but they are unimportant compared to the necessity for getting the basic theme of the bill enacted into law, which we consider the most vitally important conservation measure now before Congress. Our viewpoint is further amplified in the attached telegram and editorial.

KENNETH A. REID, Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.

[Telegram]

JANUARY 29, 1946.

Mr. ALBERT M. CAY, Care of R. S. Zimmerman, Salt Lake City, Utah: The real issue and the most vital one before Congress is to curb the blind engineering projects of the known enemies of sound conservation, namely, the Engineer Corps and Reclamation. Squabbles over minor differences in wildlife jurisdiction have already wasted months of valuable time while the two enemies continue unchecked. The need for curbing the Federal dam builders in real; that for curbing Federal wildlife jurisdiction potential and largely imaginary. Let's concentrate the attack on the real enemy and get the job done. KENNETH A. REID,

Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of America,

[Reprinted from the August 1945 issued of Field and Stream]

LET'S PULL TOGETHER

AN EDITORIAL

Water is the abused and neglected orphan of the whole natural-resource family. We have reasonably good land management in the public interest; great strides have been made in game and fish management-but the one conspicuous missing link in our growing conservation program is the utter lack of any rational

coordinated program for protection, or even consideration of broad public values inherent in natural waters.

The congressional hopper is overflowing with bills to authorize great dams and diversions from one end of the country to the other. There has been keen competition between the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to build the most and biggest dams, and now there is a third competitor-the valley authority plan.

But the pattern of all the bills, whatever the administrative agency, is the same. On the false premise that a river as God made it is of no value and its water going to waste unless "improved" by the engineers, the bills call for the maximum possible development of hydro power, irrigation, navigation, and flood control. A few make gestures to fishing and aquatic resources, but always with the qualification, “provided these uses do not interfere with the primary purposes of the development." Unfortunately, protection or development of public aquatic values is never one of the primary purposes. Fishing is welcome to whatever may be left after the special-interest demands of power, irrigation, and navigation have been served-and after maximum development of these, there is little left.

To meet this need Senator Guy Cordon, as announced in June Field and Stream, has introduced S. 924. The companion House bill is H. R. 3315 by Gerlach. Its major provision requires comprehensive biological surveys by the Fish and Wildlife Service on a par with and at the same time as the engineering surveys, with appropriations for such surveys included in the cost of the project, and reports of such surveys an integral part of the report to Congress as the basis for approval or rejection of the project. Such consideration of all values in the survey and planning stages has long been advocated by the Izaak Walton League and other conservation organizations.

The bill is not perfect; none of them is. While we heartily approve of biological surveys by the Fish and Wildlife Service, we believe the base should be broadened to include at least the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service. Objection has also been raised by State fish and game departments to the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the Fish and Wildlife Service, contending that State agencies should be included. We agree; and if space permitted, could add one or two other constructive suggestions.

But while advocating additions, deletions, or changes in details, we must not permit these considerations to blind us to the vital importance of the central basic theme-recognition of and consideration for the biology of water. That is vital to you as a fisherman at this time when the rivers of America are imminently threatened with conversion into a series of fluctuating slack water pools by impoundage, or dry beds by diversion. It would indeed be tragic if squabbles over details or mechanics of operation should divide and alienate support for the governmental recognition of public acquatic values so long overdue.

History will be written in the fate of S. 924 and H. R. 3315. Enactment will protect thousands of miles of fine fishing rivers from needless destruction with- ` out preventing any valid or needed developments. Their fate is in your hands, but you must make your wishes known to your Senators and Congressmen. And while you are about it, tell them you also want the Mundt-Myers clean streams bill enacted-H. R. 519 and S. 535. The Mundt-Myers bills to save America's waters from the polluters, and the Cordon-Gerlach bills to save them from unnecessary destruction by the dam builders, constitute the most important basic conservation legislation ever presented to Congress.

KENNETH A. REID,

Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of America. Mr. ROBERTSON. Dr. Gabrielson, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, is sick today and could not come. The only other witness I would like you to hear today is Mr. Albert Day, assistant director, who will present the amendments agreed to by the western commissioners.

STATEMENT OF ALBERT M. DAY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Mr. DAY. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, my name is Albert M. Day, Assistant Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. We, of the Fish and Wildlife Service, consider this proposed legislation introduced by Congressman Robertson as one of the most important conservation bills that are up at the present time, for this reason: The fish and game departments and the Federal conservationists are worrying about a greater supply of fish and game, looking toward making these water impoundments that are going to be made, if they are going to be made anyhow, as a means of supplying new sources of sport.

After the last war there was an immediate increase of approximately 20 percent in hunting and fishing, and that has gone up and up, until at the present time there are about 812 million people who buy hunting licenses, and about the same number who buy fishing licenses, to say nothing of those who do not. So there are probably some 20,000,000 people in this country, or 1 out of every 7, that participates in this outdoor recreation, and more and more there is difficulty in finding places where they can hunt and where they can fish.

If these impoundments are going to be made for other purposes, for other primary purposes, it is the feeling of the people in the conservation world that they should also yield as much as possible toward supplying this hunting and fishing, this type of outdoor recreation. In their present role the Reclamation Service is charged with providing impoundments with reclamation as their primary purpose. They cannot recognize fish and wildlife needs except very incidentally.

The same illustration goes for the Army engineers. Their primary purposes are flood control and navigation, and they are ordered under the law to consider those things.

The bill now proposes it is a strengthening of the old Coordinating Act-to insist that the construction agencies, any construction agency, before it impounds waters, consider these fish and wildlife values. It sets up a formula how that shall be done. They shall consult the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the fish and game departments, through an amendment I wish to present for the western association, and if changes can be made not inconsistent with the primary purpose, those changes shall be made. In many instances that can be done at a slight additional cost, or no additional cost, if it can be included in the plans from the ground up. For instance, there are many areas of shallow waters, shallow bays, with a little side dike, where there is fresh water coming in, that could be held at an established water level and provide excellent waterfowl feeding and places for the fish to breed. That wouldn't be pulled down as a reservoir would be pulled down for other purposes. There are many things that can be done at a slight additional cost that will furnish additional recreational opportunities. That is all the bill proposes to do.

Mr. GRANGER. I understand you to say that this is purely recreational, the service that you are rendering.

Mr. DAY. It is largely recreational. I would class hunting and fishing as recreational. There is probably $200,000,000 spent each year for hunting and fishing and recreation equipment. We class it as recreational.

There are a few points that I think should be brought out in this bill, and one is that after an impoundment is created there is an area that is particularly suited to waterfowl that may be set aside as a waterfowl refuge, if it is approved by the head of the constructing agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the head of the State game department. Any areas to be administered will be by joint approval of a three-man board. The Interior Secretary is responsible only insofar as migratory waterfowl. If it pertains to fish or other species, that wouldn't apply.

The Western Association objected to this bill because they thought it went too far in giving the Secretary of Interior authority over resident species, and for that reason they requested that on page 1, in line 6, the word "management" be stricken; that on line 10, page 1, the word "State" be inserted immediately after "Federal," bringing the States into the picture; that on page 2, line 2, "management and administration" be stricken, again taking the Secretary out of any thought of participating in management.

The other amendment that they recommend is a new section, which reads os follows:

The CHAIRMAN. Where does that come in?

Mr. Day. It is suggested as section 2, on page 2, line 11, a new section:

SEC. 2. Whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are authorized to be impounded, diverted, or otherwise controlled for any purpose whatever by any department or agency of the United States, such department or agency first shall consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the State wherein the impoundment, diversion, or other control facility is to be constructed with a view to preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources, and the reports and recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior and of the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the State, based on surveys and investigations conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service and by the said head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the State, for the purpose of determining the possible damage to wildlife resources and of the means and measures that should be adopted to prevent loss of and damage to wildlife resources, shall be made an integral part of any report submitted by any agency of the Federal Government responsible for engineering surveys and construction of such projects.

That, as Mr. Robertson explained, provides that the State reports, and the Fish and Wildlife reports shall be included in the report which will go eventually to the Congress.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Has this bill been submitted to the Corps of Army Engineers, which are charged with this duty primarily? Mr. DAY. It has been discussed with some of them informally. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Do they agree to it? Do you know their attitude? Mr. DAY. I discussed it with some of the local people, and the Army engineers would be glad to write in fish and wildlife benefits and values where they can, because it makes an added incentive for the Army engineers in Congress. They would like to recognize and

would like to obtain the support of the very element that is now quarreling with them on some of these occasions, if they can write in additional values. The Army engineers that I have discussed it with are sincerely interested in trying to do that, but their authority under existing law is primarily for other things. I think the Army engineers can be expected to support this, or at least not to fight it. That is my guess; I don't know.

Mr. GRANGER. As to fixing the days for shooting migratory birds, who does that, the States or Fish and Wildlife Service?

Mr. DAY. The President sets the regulations based upon recommendation of the Secretary of Interior. It is set only after full discussion with the State game departments. We hold meetings throughout the season, immediately prior to setting the regulations and get their advice, but the responsibility rests with the President to issue those regulations.

Mr. GRANGER. There has been no great controversy on that matter? Mr. DAY. Oh, there is always local controversy, but nothing major. It is an annual affair.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to put off a reading of the bill until Mr. Andresen has an opportunity to get together with the Department officials and see if they can agree on the wording of an amendment along the lines he has suggested.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I think the Army engineers ought to be given a chance to express their views.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Day, have you taken this up with the Army engineers?

Mr. DAY. Not formally. I might say, however, in instances, this is directly in line with work that is going on. At the present time in the Missouri River Basin the Congress has authorized the Fish and Wildlife Service to expend some $252,000 to do this very thing. The Army engineers and the Reclamation Service are submitting all their original plans from the beginning to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which has crews of biologists and personnel who are out working on this right now in the Missouri River Basin, and the plans of those biologists are being cleared through the Secretary's office, with the Army engineers and Reclamation, and they are becoming a part of that plan.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. That was written into that bill, was it not?
Mr. DAY. Not in the flood-control bill.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I think you are wrong about that.

Mr. DAY. Not from a preliminary standpoint.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I would like to call the committee's attention to the fact that this bill was cleared by the Bureau of the Budget, who does not clear a bill that affects any department in the Government without getting an expression from them to see if they have any objection to it. I am sure that the Director of the Budget, before he gave clearance to this bill, consulted with the Army engineers. And the bill is also in line with the policy and the program announced by the President in a letter that he wrote November 13, 1945, to the Washington correspondent of Sports Afield. I would like unanimous consent to include that letter in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it may be included.