From the Creek County Soil Conservation District: "We definitely want to see passage of the Poage bill, H. R. 8750, which will greatly improve the program that can be carried out under Public Law 566.”

From Little Deep Fork Soil and Water Conservation Association: "We are vitally interested in the passage of the Poage bill, H. R. 8750 * * *.”

From the Wewoka Creek Water & Soil Conservation Association: "We are happy to know that Congress has realized the impediments in Public Law 566, *** (and now plans to amend it as proposed in H. R. 8750."

Senator KERR. We will now hear from Senator Frank Carlson.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK CARLSON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the privilege of appearing before this subcommittee in behalf of proposed amendments to the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.

There are several bills pending before this committee proposing amendments, one of them being Senate 3243, which I introduced on February 20 of this year. As these bills deal generally with the same subject matter, I would urge the committee to use H. R. 8750, a bill that passed the House of Representatives earlier this session, in order that we might secure completed congressional action this year.

The proposed amendments are the result of 2 years experience in the field with the Hope-Aiken Water Facilities Act, which was approved in the 83d Congress.

It is my personal opinion that there can be no legislation with more far-reaching benefits than legislation that deals with the control of water run-off at its source. It is my personal opinion that the future development of our Nation, and I know definitely the State of Kansas, will be largely determined by the amount of water we can conserve and use for conservation and beneficial utilization.

Our State, as many States in the Midwest, has periods of excessive rainfall which results in floods and then we have period of subnormal rainfall which results in severe droughts and water shortages. We are now going through one of the latter periods. Lack of water for livestock, irrigation, and municipal purposes is causing grave concern in many areas.

The Hope-Aiken bill approved in the 83d Congress authorized the establishment of pilot projects for the purpose of determining the value of complete control of water runoff on watersheds. While it is true that watersheds already completed or under construction are small in area, they have proved valuable for this purpose.

We in Kansas have six of these projects. They are being constructed by the State Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Federal Government and local organizations. They have demonstrated and are demonstrating the true value of this type of work.

I enthusiastically support and urge the committee to approve legislation that will greatly expand this program.

1. One of the proposals in the pending legislation provides that local organizations shall not be required to assume any part of the construction costs of structural measures applicable to flood prevention.

This amendment is designed to substantially equalize cost sharing in the watershed protection and flood prevention program with that provided for in the flood control acts, reclamation acts and similar legislation.

Since 1938 Congress, by legislative enactment, has provided for the construction of dams and reservoirs for flood control and reclamation whose cost is completely borne by the Federal Government.

It is my contention that dams and reservoirs built under this program, which are of sufficient size to be of value for flood protection, should receive the same consideration.

Many farmers write me that in the soil and water conservation program, a number of the dams are of such size and the reservoirs are of such capacity that they are unable to finance their construction. This amendment would relieve that situation and greatly increase the benefits of the entire program, not only for flood control, but for the impounding of water that is of great value in our State.

Even if this amendment were adopted, the local organizations would still be required to acquire all lands, easements and rights-of-way and to assume the full cost of their operation and maintenance.

2. One of the amendments that I heartily endorse permits the building of dams with a capacity in excess of 5,000 acre-feet if the capacity in excess of that figure is for purposes other than flood prevention and the construction cost of such excess capacity is borne entirely by the local cooperating organizations.

This would permit municipalities and other taxing units who need to expand or replenish their water supply to cooperate in this program of control of water runoff for securing water for beneficial uses.

It is my contention that these amendments with others proposed in the pending legislation could operate without conflict with other programs for soil conservation, control of water runoff at its source, flood

control and reclamation.

3. Another amendment provides for long-term loans at the Government rate of interest to local organizations for the purpose of financing their share of the cost of these programs.

The pilot projects that we have constructed have demonstrated that the overall cost runs into rather substantial figures and the benefits are of long-range value. This, I believe, warrants the Federal Government setting up a plan of financing at low interest rates for the construction of these projects that could be amortized over a period of 10, 20 or more years.

4. Our experience with these projects has demonstrated that great delay is encountered in securing approval of small projects by Congress.

This bill provides that projects for which the Federal contribution is $25,000 and less should not be required to have congressional approval.

This amendment is important in that it would eliminate much red tape and delay in this important program.

Mr. Chairman, again I cannot express too strongly my personal interest in this legislation, and urge immediate action by the committee so that we may secure complete Congressional approval before this session of Congress adjourns.

Senator KERR. Is Congressman Lester Johnson of Wisconsin here? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Senator KERR. Come around, Congressman.

Prior to that, I want to insert in the record a statement by Senator Earle Clements in support of legislation to amend Public Law 566,

and also statements by Senator W. Kerr Scott and Senator Wallace F. Bennett.

(The statements of Senator Clements, Senator Bennett, and Senator Scott follow :)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR EARLE C. CLEMENTS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appear today specifically in support of S. 3023, the bill the late Senator Barkley and I introduced, but I want to say at the outset that I have no pride in authorship and I am not interested in seeing my name on any legislation finally enacted. My primary interest and objectives go to the principles involved in this legislation, for I feel that we are charting a course which the Nation ought to follow in the handling of water as a great natural resource.

Furthermore, I want to say that since the introduction of S. 3023 my further study of this subject and the problems which we seek to remedy have convinced me that five amendments to that bill are needed.

These amendments are designed primarily to guarantee: (1) That benefits from projects proposed for construction under this act will exceed the costs; (2) that there will be a satisfactory review and coordination of the program with other Federal agencies involved in related activities; and (3) that there will be retained the principle that Congress will review each project before any Federal funds are expended for construction.

Legislation on this subject has been passed by the House of Representatives in the form of H. R. 8750, which is now before this subcommittee. This measure has good points, and it should be passed if the Senate is not willing to give attention to what I consider to be some other important considerations and principles that are contained in S. 3023 as I propose to amend it.

In this connection, I would like to call attention to the fact that the Senate and House and their conferees have approved H. R. 5881, and that legislation would provide benefits to the people of 17 Western States where the Federal reclamation laws apply which would not be provided to other States under H. R. 8750. I have sought through S. 3023 and the amendments I propose to make benefits available to the people of other States comparable to those provided under H. R. 5881. I am confident that Congress desires to deal as fairly with the other 31 States as it has with the 17 Western States.

I would like to add that there are a number of reasons why I have reached the conclusion that Congress should maintain close scrutiny of the small watershed program to be carried out through the Department of Agriculture. The first is that this is a relatively new program, and firm policies for its adminisstration have not been developed. The appropriation which has been made for fiscal year 1957 will make possible the submission of only a small number of projects, and it will be no major task for congressional committees to review them. Congressional review also can mean, in my judgment, that Congress can provide much more flexibility in the consideration of benefits which may arise from these projects without the risk of administrative determinations that would push the program into areas where Congress may not feel it should go. Finally, it is my belief that Congress wants complete coordination of related programs, and needs an opportunity to determine whether the administration is providing such coordination.

Here I would like the subcommittee's permission to insert in the record the five suggested amendments to which I referred above, and hereafter in my statement address my remarks to S. 3023 as it would be changed by these amendments.

(1) On page 2, beginning with line 10, strike out down through line 14, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(2) to make such studies as may be necessary for determining the physical, financial, and economic soundness of plans for works of improvement, including a determination as to whether benefits exceed costs;".

(2) On page 2, beginning with the proviso in line 19, strike out down through line 25, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"Provided further, That the Secretary shall assume that part of the construction costs allocable to agricultural phases of the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water which is equal to the present worth of the interest that would accrue on a loan for such construction costs over a period of 50 years, whether or not a loan is made to the local organization under the provisions of

section 8 of this Act. The rate of interest shall be determined as provided in section 8 of this Act;".

(3) On page 3, beginning with line 10, strike out down through line 12, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(2) the Secretary has determined that the benefits exceed the costs and that the works of improvement are financially feasible; and".

(4) On page 3, beginning with line 16, strike out all through line 3 on page 4, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(b) Upon receipt of an application for works of improvement which (1) includes reclamation or irrigation works or which affects public or other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, or (2) includes Federal assistance for floodwater detention structures, a brief description of the application and of the proposed works of improvement shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of the Army, respectively, for his information and review. Final plans for any such works of improvement shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of the Army, respectively, for his views and recommendations at least sixty days prior to transmission of such plans to the Congress through the President. The views and recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of the Army, if received by the Secretary prior to the expiration of the above sixty-day period, shall accompany the plan transmitted by the Secretary to the Congress."

(5) On page 4, beginning with line 4, strike out down through line 13, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(c) The Secretary shall, at least sixty days (counting only days occurring during any regular or special session of the Congress) before beginning construction on or entering into any contract for the construction of works of improvement, submit to the appropriate committee of each House of the Congress the plan for such works of improvement. The Secretary may begin construction on or enter into contracts for the construction of any works of improvement before the passage of such sixty-day period, if within such period each such committee expresses approval of such works of improvement by committee resolution. If within such period either such committee expresses disapproval of such works of improvement by committee resolution, and notifies the Secretary in writing of such expression of disapproval, the Secretary shall not commence construction on or enter into any contract for the construction of such works of improvement, unless the Congress by concurrent resolution approves such works of improvement."

One of the greatest problems facing our Nation today in the field of natural resources concerns our use and treatment of water. There are many evidences of it. I would mention here the increased public interest in a pure water supply, which has culminated in the passage of a more comprehensive Water Pollution Control Act by both Houses, and which has just been approved in conference; the widespread interest in making more effective the small watershed program; the passage by both Houses of an improved small reclamation projects bill; an increased concern on the part of the public in such problems as the lowering of the water table; an increasing alarm because of seasonal shortages of water in many areas of the country; and the ever growing consumption and demands placed upon our present water supply. In my judgment, much of our future economic prosperity and security will in large part depend upon how well we manage and utilize our water resources.

When Public Law 566 was adopted, it was adapted to meet one phase of the interest in water. It was adapted to satisfy the public interest in the need for a proper utilization and retardation of water on our smaller streams in the small watersheds in the interest of agriculture. By so limiting this proчram to the agricultural phases of the development of our water resources, we are actually preventing an opportunity to provide solutions to many water problems not directly connected with agriculture and a full utilization of this resource. We are compounding these other water problems by deferring them to some future program when it would be much more costly to modify projects already constructed. S. 3023 would remove the restriction that works of improvement be limited to agricultural phases only of the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water, and thus prevent costly omissions in the utilization of the water resources in our small watersheds.

In my many contacts with potential small watershed projects, and in discussing water resources development in the small watersheds, it has become apparent to me that what was intended under Public Law 566 as an equitable cost-sharing formula actually would permit an administrative practice of allocating costs on projects which has little uniformity, and which gives a priority of construction

to those projects in areas where the local organization is in the best financial position to bid for a project by offering to contribute a sizable share of the cost. On the other hand, in areas where the economic justification for the project would be even greater, because of the local organization's inability to outbid others in offering a financial contribution to the total cost, action could be indefinitely deferred. The construction of a project should be based upon the economic justification for it--not solely on the financial ability of a community to bid for it.

S. 3023 would adopt a uniform formula for all small watershed projects insofar as the local organization's share of the total cost is concerned, and would permit Government loans for the local organization's share of the cost. At the same time, it brings the cost-sharing formula in line with other comparable water resources development programs. Specifically, S. 3023 would require the Federal Government to assume all the cost for flood-prevention structures, exclusive of land acquisition and rights of way. This is consist in principle to other Federal flood-control projects, such as local flood protection for towns and cities, large flood-control reservoirs, and flood-prevention features in structures under the small reclamation projects bill (H. R. 5881).

Aside from the flood-control features of any project, S. 3023 would provide for Federal cost sharing of approximately 50 percent of the cost of the agricultural phases of the project. This would be accomplished by making the Federal Government's contribution to the agricultural phases of an impoundment equal to the present worth of the interest on a 50-year loan on the local interests' share of the cost. Again, this principle finds a precedent in, and is comparable to, the action taken by both Houses on the small projects bill designed for small reclamation projects (H. R. 5881); for under that act loans for agricultural reclamation are interest free.

The cost of storage capacity in water-retaining structures for purposes other than flood control and the agricultural phases of the use of water, would be borne on an equitable basis between the Federal Government and the local organization. That is to say, that where the additional cost would provide benefits identified as being solely local, the additional cost would be primarily a local responsibility. Where the benefits were widespread and the beneficiaries could not be identified, the Secretary would be justified in determining that that portion of the cost was primarily a Federal responsibility.

Public Law 566 limits watershed development to watersheds not containing more than 250,000 acres. In addition, it imposes a restriction on the size of any reservoir of 5,000 acre-feet. Public Law 566 is designed to cope with problems and to develop the resources of our small watersheds. It is a small watershed program, and as such should not develop into a prograr for developing largescale projects such as those carried on by the United States Corps of Engineers or the Department of the Interior on our major streams and tributaries. These agencies, because of the effectiveness with which they have pursued major water problems and because of the great amount of experience gained in this field, should be the sole agencies to prosecute water resources development on our major streams and tributaries. However, at best the 5,000 acre-feet restriction on the size of reservoirs is an arbitrary restriction, and might seriously prevent the proper development of a small watershed, especially if other water needs are to be taken care of as proposed by S. 3023, S. 3023 would retain the limitation of 250,000 acres as the size of any small watershed project, and in my judgment this assures that the program will be limited to the small streams. This would substantially eliminate the program's overlapping or duplication of, the func tions of other water resources agencies.

Public Law 566 requires transmission of the final plans for any project which includes Federal assistance for floodwater detention structures to the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of the Army, respectively, for his views or recommendations at least 60 days prior to transmission of the plan to Congress. S. 3023 with the amendments recommended today, in addition to requiring submission of any final plans to these agencies would require the Secretary of Agriculture to transmit on receipt of the application a brief description of the application and of the proposed works of improvement to these agencies. This, in my judgment, is essential if we are to obtain the benefit of coordinated thinking of the Federal agencies charged with the responsibility of water resources development. This requirement will make possible the elimination of many problems concerning project conflicts before the plans have reached their final stage.