Senator CASE. Well, is it conceivable that any of these smaller projects would reduce the insoak of the water?

Mr. PETERSON. We think to the contrary, Senator Case.

Senator CASE. Let me ask this question: What has been the lapse of time between the time that a project has been recommended to you by a State agency and the date of its final approval under the present law?

Mr. PETERSON. May I ask Mr. Brown to respond to that question, sir?

Mr. BROWN. Well, Senator, the first of the projects were recommended by the State agencies within a matter of a month or two after passage of the Act in August 1954. They have taken a variable time to actually accomplish the planning in the field. The first projects that are now or have been before the Congress were submitted to other Federal agencies for review on October 10, 1955. The first of the first 13 projects which were approved were submitted by the Bureau of the Budget to the Congress on April 20, 1956.

Mr. PETERSON. I might say, Senator Case, that in the initial starting of this act that my own view is the steps to be taken have been much slower than they are at present. With your permission, I would like to ask Mr. Brown to advise the committee as to what the present time lapse is in the presentation of a project from the State organization and its going through the steps within the Department.

Senator KERR. That is a very good question.

Senator CASE. I would like to have that done, but I would like. to have it done with special reference to the time required by the Bureau of the Budget, Mr. Chairman. I believe in the principle of review by the Bureau of the Budget on legislation that costs money, generally speaking, but I really think that the review of the Bureau of the Budget should be primarily fiscal in character and not of an engineering or water conservation type; that is, I think the Bureau of the Budget on matters like this should be concerned with the fiscal effects. I do not believe that the Bureau of the Budget should be a second estimator or second guesser on the engineering and conservation features.

Mr. PETERSON. I would agree with that.

Senator CASE. On small projects.

Senator KERR. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Seantor KERR. Are there further questions of this witness?

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman, will we in due time get the comments of Mr. Brown with reference to the time scheduling of these applications; that of interest to the committee at this time?

Senator KERR. Well, we will get anything that any member wants. Senator HRUSKA. It was suggested by Mr. Peterson that Mr. Brown be permitted to speak to that point. Now, if it is pertinent at this point, unless it is going to be covered by someone else

Mr. PETERSON. Excuse me, that was the time that it is presently taking

Senator HRUSKA. That is correct, after the pioneering of this legislation has expired.

Mr. BROWN. Well, Senator, it appears that the average time from the initiation of the average application until it gets its final approval in the Congress would probably be on the order of 1 year; considering the time required for planning of these projects which will depend again on the size of the projects, it may run from 3 months to 6 months or longer, and the prescribed time allowed for review by other Federal agencies, which is 60 days, a 45-day period allowed for the project to lay before the Congress, we would estimate that 1 year would probably be a minimum average figure. Some will take longer.

Senator HRUSKA. Does not the planning precede the submission of the application?

Mr. BROWN. No; that follows the application. The first step is the application by the local organization referred to the State agency for approval. When it is approved and transmitted to the Department of Agriculture, that is when it is acted upon from a planning standpoint.

Senator CASE. Who does that planning?

Mr. BROWN. The technical assistance is provided by the Soil Conservation Service with the assistance of the Forest Service and by other Federal agencies where there are concerns of those agencies. Senator CASE. Well, at the local level.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir, in the watershed. It is a planning assistance to the local organization in the project area.

Senator CASE. Have you found it necessary in connection with any of the projects that are approved to exercise the authority for contracting that is permitted under that third proviso?

Mr. BROWN. No, sir. There have been no contracts let to date, and, of course, that proviso has now expired anyhow in terms of the present law. After July 1, 1956, the Department could not legally contract for any improvement.

Senator CASE. Well, if you strike out that 1956 limitation, you would still have the authority, would you not?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir, but we have not found any case thus far where the local organization does not have the authority to contract; therefore we would be prohibited in any event.

Senator HRUSKA. If that is true, however, the retention of that July 1, 1956, date would do not harm, would it?

Mr. BROWN. That is correct.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, this certainly is a most important program. I am glad the Department of Agriculture is working on it, and I am glad that it is being approached sympathetically. I hope that this committee can report this bill or a bill in such a fashion as to expedite the program and assist the Department in expediting it. Senator KERR. Well, I would certainly share the Senator's wishes. If there are no further questions of Mr. Peterson, the committee will recess until 2 o'clock, at which time Mr. Stevens, of the Department of the Interior, will be before us, and then we will hear the other witnesses through the afternoon that have been scheduled for appearance.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator KERR. Our next witness is Mr. Stevens.

STATEMENT OF THEODORE STEVENS, ACTING LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY DAN MCCARTHY, CHIEF, PROGRAMS AND COORDINATION BRANCH, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, my name is Theodore Stevens. I am the acting legislative counsel for the Department of Interior. Mr. Dan McCarty is also with me. He is the Chief of the Programs and Coordination Branch of the Bureau of Reclamation. We do not have a prepared statement. Our Department was not asked to report upon this bill, although on June 19, Assistant Secretary Aandahl did report on the Ellender bill, S 3727. That bill has been agreed to by the Bureau of the Budget, the Public Works Coordinator, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Interior, and the Department of Defense. And so far as the Department of Interior is concerned, that is the bill which we are in favor of.

As to any position on H. R. 8750, unfortunately we have not formulated an official departmental position on that bill.

I am here to urge that the provisions of S. 3727 be adopted, and that is the bill that we are interested in.

If you have any specific question concerning reclamation, Mr. McCarty, he is here to answer those.

Senator KERR. Any questions, Senator?

Senator HRUSKA. Well, Mr. Chairman, this morning we heard testimony from General Itschner in which he commented upon S. 3737. He made some suggestions-and I am wondering if it would be in order that Mr. Stevens or his companion here be given opportunity to comment on those suggestions in a statement which they could insert in the record at this point at a later time.

Senator KERR. I think that would be very appropriate. Do you have any remarks that you care to make about it now?

Mr. STEVENS. I picked up those suggested amendments just as we left, Senator. We would appreciate the opportunity to do so, and we would be pleased to do so. We have no comments as such concerning the bill. These proposed amendments are new to us and we would like a chance to review them.

Senator KERR. And then give it to us at your early convience. Mr. STEVENS. Very well. Mr. Chairman, do you have some date to suggest?

Senator KERR. Well, we would be glad to have them tomorrow, but that is a holiday.

Mr. STEVENS. Very well. I will try to have them Thursday, sir. Senator KERR. But Monday would be in plenty of time, or Tuesday if it would be of some help to you. I said at your earliest convenience, and I thought that would let you have enough leeway. I think it would also be appropriate for the Department of Agriculture to comment on the suggestions made by General Itschner.

Mr. STEVENS. Thank you.

(The material referred to above is as follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C., July 9, 1956.

Hon. ROBERT S. KERR,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Flood Control and Rivers and Harbors,

Committee on Public Works, United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR KERR: In response to your request during the hearings on July 3, 1956, on H. R. 8750, a bill to amend the watershed protection and flood prevention act, we are providing the following comments on the four amendments to this bill suggested by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army:

1. The first amendment suggested by the Chief of Engineers would add a proviso "that not more than 50 per centum of the total capacity of the structures shall be for purposes other than flood prevention." The Corps' argument for this amendment is that it would "retain the policy that the watershed program are designed primarily for flood damage reduction."

We consider that this is a misinterpretation of expressed congressional intent in enactment of Public Law 566. Flood prevention is 1 of the 2 coordinate and coequal purposes of works of improvement installed under the provisions of the act, the second of which is "the agricultural phases of the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water." H. R. 8750 and all other proposed bills to amend Public Law 566 would broaden this second purpose to include not only agricultural but also nonagricultural phases of the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water.

The amendment suggested by the Chief of Engineers would have the effect of placing an arbitrary restriction on the allocation of capacity in any structure. The capacity needed in any structure for flood prevention is totally unrelated to the amount needed for any other purpose, such as municipal water supply or irrigation. Under the proposed amendment if the amount of flood prevention storage needed were 1,000 acre-feet, the allowable maximum for municipal water supply at that site would be 1,000 acre-feet. If the capacity needed for flood prevention were 5,000 acre-feet, then 5,000 acre-feet of municipal water supply storage could be provided. This restriction would obviously prevent the utilization of a given reservoir site in accordance with the particular needs for different kinds of storage at that particular site.

The Department has no objection to placing an overall ceiling, such as 25,000 acre-feet, on the total capacity that may be developed at a single site nor to a ceiling on flood-prevention capacity to some lesser figure, such as 5,000 acre-feet. It does strenuously object, however, to requiring that capacity for one purpose should be related to or limited by the capacity for another purpose.

2. The second proposed amendment does not appear to be inconsistent with policy of this Department. Under Public Law 566 and our proposed amendments thereto, all works of improvement must be constructed by local organizations, regardless of purpose or maximum size permitted. This Department is opposed to a Federal contribution to the construction cost of capacity for municipal and industrial water supply. A cash contribution to the cost allocated to not more than 5,000 acre-feet of capacity for flood prevention is provided for in the present act and would be continued under the proposed amendment.

To achieve the purposes of Public Law 566, reservoirs must be planned as a part of the total watershed development. The Department is opposed to providing any financial assistance to local organization for any reservoirs unless these are integral parts of a watershed plan for works of improvement. If this amendment is considered by the committee, it is suggested that the word "planned" in the fourth line of the amendment be deleted in order to avoid the possible interpretation that the Federal Government would participate in a reservoir to be planned as a separate and distinct unit and not a part of a watershed plan by a local organization.

3. We do not consider that the third amendment adds substantially to the other amendments already under consideration by the committee. If it is to be considered, however, there needs to be a more explicit definition of what Federal laws shall be taken into account.

4. This Department is opposed to the fourth proposed amendment by the Corps of Engineers. One of the primary purposes of Public Law 566 is to provide needed and otherwise unavailable technical assistance to local organizations in developing integrated plans for land treatment measures and associated struc

tural measures on small watersheds. The entire concept and purpose of "watershed protection" authorized by the act is to bring together in one program the beneficial effects of a combination of land treatment measures and small structural measures. One group of measures is directly dependent upon the other and the total program must be planned and designed as a single unit. In this respect Public Law 566 and the proposed amendments thereto are distinctly different from the provisions of the small reclamation projects bill, H. R. 5881, which contemplates Federal loans to local organizations for development or rehabilitation and betterment of individual structural facilities such as storage reservoirs, diversions, canals, etc., without regard to related land treatment needs on the one hand or coordination with downstream works of improvement on the other hand. As the representative of the Chief of Engineers has pointed out in his testimony and in the view of the Secretary of Agriculture, there is a need for coordination of the planned improvements on small watersheds with those planned by major construction agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation. Adequate river basin coordination would be impossible to achieve if the local organizations were made solely responsible for engineering, planning, design, and supervision of construction of structural measures in small watersheds.

Federal technical aid in planning, design, and construction is foremost in importance to local organizations in developing and carrying out watershed plans under the intent of Public Law 566. In succeeding order of importance are the need for Federal financial assistance in sharing the cost of improvements and in granting long-term credit at low rates of interest to enable the local organizations to carry out their share of the job. In general, it would be much more feasible for local organizations to assume responsibility for engineering and construction on local protection works of the type carried out by the Corps of Engineers than to assume responsibility for the planning and engineering work required to achieve proper coordination of upstream watershed protection with major river developments such as downstream reservoirs.

This proposed amendment would thwart the objectives that have been so strongly stressed by the Chief of Engineers, namely, that of achieving proper and adequate coordination of watershed plans with major river developments. We appreciate the opportunity afforded to this Department to comment on the amendments proposed by the Chief of Engineers, and would be glad to work with your committee in further consideration of the amendments needed to make Public Law 566 more effective in aiding local organizations to plan and carry out watershed protection and flood prevention projects.

Sincerely yours,

TRUE D. MORSE, Acting Secretary.

Hon. ROBERT S. KERR,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington 25, D. C., July 16, 1956.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Flood Control and Rivers and Harbors, Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR KERR: At the hearings before your subcommittee on S. 3127, H. R. 8750, and related bills, representatives of this Department were handed a typewritten document prepared by the Corps of Engineers entitled "Suggested Amendments to Public Law 566" and asked to supply for the record our comments thereon.

As you have been advised, our report of June 19, to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry recommended that S. 3727 be enacted without amendment. If H. R. 8750 is to be taken up, it is our further recommendation that it be not enacted unless it is amended to conform to S. 3727. S. 3727 would amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act so as to enlarge the permissible scope of the Department of Agriculture's operations under that act without unduly complicating or duplicating the work of this Department in the water resources field and without setting up an enlarged program under the act on standards varying substantially from those under which the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers operate.

Our general comment on the Army's draft of amendments is, therefore, that we are not in a position to support them without clearance with the other Departments involved, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Public Works Coordinator.