(The letter is as follows:)

[From Sports Afield, January 1946]

Mr. MICHAEL HUDOBA,

Washington 7, D. C.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, November 13, 1945.

MY DEAR MR. HUDOBA: Your letter of October 25 expresses the view that integrated programs of river-basin development should be so planned and administered as to avoid damage to fishery and wildlife resources, and to provide added benefits wherever possible. You suggest that I give assurance that such considerations will be given due weight. There can be no objection to the viewpoint that the development of river basins should not impair existing values and resources, including fish and wildlife, where it is humanly possible to avoid such impairment. It is likewise entirely in harmony with the purposes of the programs themselves to plan and administer them so as to yield supplementary benefits wherever possible. I heartily subscribe to this policy. The exact manner in which the interests of fish and wildlife recreation, and other collateral values may be safeguarded is the primary problem. The Congress is considering specific legislation intended to accomplish this objective.

I am confident that in the formulation of any future programs for the broadscale development and utilization of our inland water resources, full opportunity will be afforded the conservation agencies of the State and Federal Governments to offer recommendations and plans designed to preserve wildlife and fishery values.

Sincerely yours,

HARRY S. TRUMAN.

In this letter to Michael Hudoba, Sports Afield's Washington reporter, President Truman makes his first official pronouncement on the subject of his wildlife policies since his accession to office. The President, in this very important statement, refers to the vital question of protecting fish and game resources which are threatened by future Federal water-use programs.

Mr. ROBERTSON. The President refers in that letter to legislation pending here now in line with this particular bill.

I would like also to have your permission to insert a short editorial from Sports Afield, from the January issue.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that may be included in the record.

(The editorial referred to is as follows:)

NEW WILDLIFE BILL GUARDS STATES' RIGHTS

As realists, the inescapable fact that sportsmen and conservationists face is that fish and wildlife considerations are at best of only secondary concern in the Federal programs of land and water use. In view of this, there is urgent need for constant vigilance by conservationists to integrate fish and wildlife considerations with the primary economic uses of these projects.

Under the voluntary provisions of the Coordination Act, wildlife protection is dependent on the will of the Federal construction agencies to cooperate. In any case, however, when the primary use of water conflicts with wildlife requirements, conservation interests invariably suffer.

The amount of contemplated construction in this field in the next few years is tremendous. Congress already has approved vast flood-control, river, and harbor, irrigation, and navigation-improvement projects, and is considering extensive river basin development. Each of these programs requires numerous water impoundments, and changing of streams and rivers. The impact on fish and wildlife will be tremendous.

At present the only Federal law promoting consideration of fish and wildlife in Federal construction matters is the voluntary Coordination Act. Fish and wildlife resources truly are facing a crisis by the nature of the impending Federal programs.

Sports Afield, in a series of four articles starting last February, showed that the Coordination Act is entirely ineffective. Senator Guy Cordon and Congressman A. Willis Robertson have introduced bills in the Senate and House (S. 924 and H. R. 4403) to amend that act to make it mandatory that fish and wildlife be given reasonable consideration in Federal construction plans before work begins. In these bills it also is provided that the areas created by Federal water impoundments shall be developed as fishing and hunting areas for public

use.

Congressman Robertson's first bill, H. R. 3459, met objections from some State game commissions, which contended states' rights were not adequately protected. Mr. Robertson therefore revised the second and third sections of his bill and reintroduced it as H. R. 4503. These revisions clearly outline the rights of the States. The new bill provides that State game commissions shall administer the areas created by Federal water impoundments with respect to fish and wildlife, except migratory birds, which are under jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service. It reiterates the unquestioned Federal policy that States have authority over fish and game within their State boundaries. Senator Cordon is studying to prepare amendments of a similar nature to his bill, S. 924.

Unless a wildlife safeguard law is enacted, States in which new Federal areas are created by water development programs will have no jurisdiction over them at all. Moreover, a Federal agency can proceed with its development plans without regard for wildlife interests affected. This is the most important wildlife legislation affecting the country today. It requires the support of every sportsman. Your letters to Congressmen are receiving attention. A number of them have told me of your letters, and said they were glad to learn of your interest. Keep up this good work. H. R. 4503 and S. 924 must be acted on by the Congress.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I am in favor of the very thing you have stated there, but—————

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Zimmerman, I will state that I am going to adjourn further hearings until Mr. Andresen has had an opportunity to discuss the matter and write the amendment he has in mind. In the meantime, we will take it up with the Army engineers and ask if they desire to be heard. If they do, I think they should be heard. I do not see why the Army engineers should not cooperate with this program.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I think they have.

Mr. GRANGER. Why wouldn't it be better, before we take this bill to the House, where you will have the same questions raised as are in my own mind, to have evidence from the Army engineers?

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be mighty helpful in order to clear up the point.

I am adjourning the hearings subject to call.

(Whereupon at 11: 40 a. m. the committee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)

(The following was submitted for the record :)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington 25, D. C., February 13, 1946.

Hon. JOHN W. FLANNAGAN, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. FLANNAGAN: This is in further reply to your letter of June 20, 1945, requesting a report on H. R. 3315, 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." This letter also presents our views with respect to H. R. 3459 and H. R. 4503 which have been referred to your committee and which are almost identical with H. R. 3315.

Although it is understood that the principal purpose of the bill is to insure that proper attention is given to wildlife interests in connection with large water

storage or diversion projects such as are involved in flood control, navigation, reclamation and power undertakings, the language of the bill is such that it would apply to the smallest kind of a project involving water storage or diversion on all Federal lands and even possibly on private lands where Federal cooperation or assistance is involved, such as soil conservation districts. Furthermore, it is not clear from the language of the bill how far it may be interpreted to interfere with or complicate the responsibilities and authorities of Federal agencies administering lands for a combination of uses and services where, as a general rule, each use or service must be coordinated with other uses and services in a way to produce the largest net public benefit.

Most lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture are administered under the multiple use principle and the administering agencies, such as the Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service, have long had cooperative agreements and relations with the Fish and Wildlife Service under which that Service carries on research necessary as a basis for proper wildlife management on such lands and furnishes the results of such research and technical advice to the agencies responsible for wildlife management on these lands, cooperating in every appropriate way with the States. We are sure that it is not intended that H. R. 3315 should disturb the present understanding and division of functions between the Fish and Wildlife Service and agencies of this Department.

For the reasons stated above and in order to remove all doubt as to the purpose of the bill, we recommend that the following amendment, which might appear at the end of section 3, be made in H. R. 3315.

"Provided, That as to any Federal agency which has as one of its established functions the protection and management of fish and wildlife on any lands and waters under its jurisdiction, this Act shall not be construed to abrogate or abridge in any particular the authority and control of such agency over such lands and waters or the resources thereof; but any such agency shall avail itself of the advice of the Fish and Wildlife Service in respect to the technical phases of fish and wildlife protection and management."

Section 4 of H. R. 3315 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior "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." The major method for preventing pollution by erosion silt would be the control of soil erosion on tributary lands. Permanent responsibility for the control of soil erosion and for the conduct of surveys, investigations, and research for such control was placed in the Secretary of Agriculture by Public No. 46, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved April 27, 1935 (49 Stat. 163). This Department assumes, therefore, that it is not the intent of H. R. 3315 to abrogate or duplicate in another agency the responsibility or authority for soil erosion control vested in the Secretary of Agriculture by Public No. 46. In order to avoid possible misinterpretation, the committee may deem is advisable to clarify the language of the bill on this point.

With the amendment of section 3 as proposed herein and with the understanding that this bill would not affect the existing responsibility for soil erosion control and would not extend to improvements on private lands, this Department would have no objection to the enactment of H. R. 3315.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the amendment of H. R. 3315 proposed herein but that this advice should not be construed as involving any commitment as to the relationship of the various other provisions of the bill to the program of the President.

Should your committee wish to discuss in greater detail the effects of the proposed legislation, we shall be glad to arrange for representatives to appear.

Sincerely,

J. B. HUTSON, Under Secretary.

CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE

MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1946

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. John W. Flannagan, Jr. (chairman), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Robertson, I understand that you gentlemen have gotten together on the language you wish to be included in the bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. You will find the language covering Mr. Andresen's proposal incorporated in H. R. 6097. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Which is in the nature of a clean bill for H. R. 4503. H. R. 6097 includes the amendments proposed by the Western Association of Game Commissioners, which we discussed at the last hearings on this measure; and it also includes the language proposed at that time by Mr. Andresen to protect the fishing interest in navigation pools. It has been examined by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they think, as the language is proposed, it supports the objectives of the bill. It merely provides that, when drawing down, a pool level shall be maintained to prevent loss and damage to fish and wildlife

resources.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand, with the change that has been made there is no conflict.

Mr. ROBERTSON. There is no conflict.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Forest Service has raised a question?

Mr. ROBERTSON. The Forest Service wrote you a letter on the 13th of February signed by Under Secretary Hutson; in that they proposed an amendment, the effect of which was that all Government agencies should have the same jurisdiction that they now have.

I discussed that amendment with Mr. Swift, of the Forest Service, and I explained that that language would confer upon the War Department all the jurisdiction it now has and would nullify the provisions of the bill and completely destroy what we were trying to do. The CHAIRMAN. Let us not bring the War Department into it now. What is the conflict as between the Wildlife Service and the Forest Service?

29

Mr. ROBERTSON. In my opinion there is no conflict at all. There is nothing in H. R. 6097, in my opinion, which gives the Fish and Wildlife Service any jurisdiction whatever over any area belonging to the Forest Service. It merely provides that if the Forest Service is engaged in a water-impounding project that it shall do what the Army engineers shall do, or what any other Government agency shall do, namely, consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service about the effect on wildlife interest, and consult with the States on the effect it has on wildlife interests, and shall take appropriate steps to protect the wildlife in connection with such impounding project. And that is all there is to it.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the position of the Forest Service?

STATEMENT OF C. M. GRANGER, ASSISTANT CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST DIVISION, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear Mr. Robertson say what he did because it squares with our understanding of the real intent of this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. If Mr. Robertson has given the correct interpretation of the bill, you have no objection; is that right?

Mr. GRANGER. Well, I would like to speak a little on that point.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. GRANGER. So far as the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service is concerned we have no question about the basic intent of the bill as we understand it, which is, to require that adequate provision be made for the safeguarding of wildlife in the installations of the larger developments in case of impounding or the diversion of water, and as we assume that it was intended to apply to such developments as are made from time to time by the War Department, the Reclamation Service, the Federal Power Commission or where there is a responsible authority in that agency which takes into account the effect of such development on wildlife, in what it does, in order to minimize any adverse effect on wildlife.

But the language of the bill itself, if read without the benefit of the clarifying statement, seems to apply to every diversion or impounding of water, however small, and it was felt it requires that wherever water is diverted or impounded for any purpose whatever on any land under the jurisdiction of any Federal agency, that the resulting water and the lands which have been acquired in connection with the project, or which are administered in connection with the water, must be made available to either the State or the War Department for administration in the interest of wildlife.

As I understand it from what Mr. Robertson has said, that is not the intention, and all we are asking is legislation that will make it perfectly clear.

The CHAIRMAN. What language do you suggest?

Mr. GRANGER. The language was suggested, language to which reference was made by Mr. Robertson, which was made in the form of a report to your committee on this legislation which was then incorporated in H. R. 3315 and reintroduced in the form of H. R. 3459 and H. R. 4503. The various bills differ a little bit in their language and now we have this new submission, which carries some other changes,