Page images


District 6–Central Missouri :

Charles B. Everest, chairman, Greenshields & Everest, 551 Broadway,

Council Bluffs, Iowa.
Simon Korshoj, Korshoj Construction Co., Blair, Nebr.
Jack W. Leedom, Omaha National Bank, Omaha, Nebr.
James L. Parmelee, Northern Natural Gas Co., 2223 Dodge Street, Omaha,

District 7-Upper Missouri :

C. Christopherson, chairman, Yankton, S. Dak.
H. E. Jacobson, Albertson & Co., Inc., Post Office Box 507, Sioux City, Iowa.
Homer Ludwick, First National Bank, Fargo, N. Dak.
L. H. Maher, Daily Plainsman, Huron, S. Dak.
C. B. Mateer, Pierre National Bank, Pierre, S. Dak.
Gabriel S. Nelson, Wakonda, S. Dak.
Henry J. Steinberger, Donnybrook, N. Dak.
Neal Tennis, First National Bank, 5th and Pierce Streets, Sioux City, Iowa.
T. M. Whicher, 222 Francis Building, Sioux City, Iowa,

Paul Wilderson, Williges Furs, 613 Pierce Street, Sioux City, Iowa.
District 8Great Lakes, Illinois River:

John F. Schad, chairman, Peoria Barge Terminal, Inc., foot of Main Street,

Peoria, Ill.
Thomas F. Duffy, Northern Trust Co., 50 South La Salle Street, Chicago,

Abraham Feldman, Lake-River Terminals, Inc., 5005 South Harlem Avenue,

Berwyn, Ill.
Robert A. Hirshfield, Commonwealth Edison Co., 72 West Adams, Chicago,

H. G. Marsh, 400 West Madison Street, Chicago, Ill.
J. H. Price, Truax-Traer Coal Co., 111 North Wabash, Chicago, Ill.

James F. Rogan, Riverside Equipment Co., 9367 Harbor Avenue, Chicago, Ill.
District 9/Lower Ohio, Wabash River:

Joseph L. Quinn, Jr., chairman, Terre Haute Gas Corp., Terre Haute, Ind.
Mrs. C. B. Baldwin, Rural Route No. 1, Montezuma, Ind.
Dr. B. K. Barton, Wabash Valley Interstate Commission, 416 REA Building,

Terre Haute, Ind.
Alex Chamberlain, Ashland Oil & Refining Co., Post Office Box 2039, Louis-

ville, Ky.
James R. Hines, James R. Hines Corp., Post Office Box 249, Bowling Green,

Joseph I. Perrey, Indiana Flood Control & Water Resources Commission,

1330 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, Ind.
District 10—Central Ohio River Valley :

Gen. John E. Person, chairman, Ohio Valley Improvement Association, 421

West Market, Louisville, Ky.
Richard J. Anderson, Batelle Institute, Columbus, Ohio.

James T. Wakley, Kanawha Sand & Gravel Co., Parkersburg, W. Va.
District 11–Upper Ohio River Valley :

E. E. Fournace, chairman, Ohio Power Co., 201 Cleveland Avenue, Canton,

A. J. Brosius, Union Barge Line Corp., Dravo Building, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Frank P. Silliman, Hillman Transportation Co., Grant Building, Pittsburgh,

District 12-Tennessee and Cumberland River Valleys :

J. Glover Wilkins, Jr., chairman, Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway Develop

ment Authority, Post Office Box 1074, Columbus, Miss.

G. M. Dorland, Nashville Bridge Co., Nashville, Tenn.
District 13-Arkansas, White, St. Francis :

A. V. Ormond, chairman, Arkansas Basin Association, Morrilton, Ark.
C. A. Border, Arkansas Basin Development Association, 17 World Building,

Tulsa, Okla.
Lawrence S. Cannon, 930 South Seventh Street, Ponca City, Okla.
Burrell Fair, St. Francis Levee District, Post Office Box 308, West Memphis,

George A. Fox, Chetopa State Bank, Chetopa, Kans.
Charles Frierson, Mercantile Bank, Jonesboro, Ark.
Louis Gaberino, 100 East Choctaw, McAlester, Okla.

District 13—Arkansas, White, St. Francis—Continued

Carter Jeffrey, 843 East Main Street, Batesville, Ark.
Guy N. Keith, Water Development Foundation of Oklahoma, 200 Skirvin

Tower, Oklahoma City, Okla.
Frank W. Liebert, No. 9 Terminal Building, Coffeyyille, Kans.
R. A. Munroe, 110 East Sixth Street, Augusta, Kans.
Harold B. Scoggins, 114 North Main, Muskogee, Okla.
Guy B. Treat, Treat Engineering Co., 3101 Classen Boulevard, Oklahoma

City, Okla.

Garth Whipple, 509 South Second Street, Russellville, Ark. District 14-Southeast gulf :

George L. Cleere, chairman, Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association,

Inc., Post Office Box 32, Montgomery, Ala.
Craig T. Capp, the Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp., 620 South Fourth Avenue,

Birmingham, Ala.
District 15—Texas and west gulf area :

Col. H. S. Miller, chairman, Trinity Improvement Association, 808 Trans

American Building, Fort Worth, Tex. Munger T. Ball, Sabine Towing & Transportation Co., Post Office Box 1500,

Port Arthur, Tex. District 16-Meramec Basin :

David E. Houlle, chairman, Danter Associates, 1218 Paul Brown Building,

St. Louis, Mo.
J. B. Horn, High Ridge, Mo.

Robert Johnson, Meramec Valley Council, Kitchell Building, St. Clair, Mo. District at large:

W. A. McCree, Jr., chairman, Canal Authority of the State of Florida, Post

Office Box 7891, Orlando, Fla. Randolph Hodges, director, Florida Board of Conservation, Tallahassee, Fla. Lester Moody, Augusta Chamber of Commerce, Augusta, Ga.

Robert Thomas, River-Gulf Terminal, Post Office Box E, Tampa, Fla. Mr. SAYLOR. I particularly like that. I never knew that the Corps of Army Engineers had esprit de corps. I thought that was the Marine Corps forte. I am surprised to find how far these folks who drew up this resolution have gone.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from California, Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON of California. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield to the chairman?
Mr. BURTON of California. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Corps of Army Engineers support this legislation or not?

Mr. CASSADY. I do not know, sir. I have been interested to hear their testimony, which has not yet been presented. I don't honestly know, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You don't know whether they support it wholeheartedly or with reservations?

Mr. CASSADY. I have not the slightest idea.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California, Mr. Burton, yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, if he has any more questions?

Mr. BURTON of California. Yes.
Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
On page 3, Mr. Cassady, on the next to the last paragraph:

The major objection to this legislation is the abrogation of State and local rights.

You go on to say: It is assumed that State and local contributions would still be required on certain projects, while State and local interests have virtually nothing to say concerning the development of these plans.

My question to you, sir, is where do you find this objection, which you say is the abrogation of State and local rights?

Mr. Cassady. I believe that our feeling is that this could very well happen as the result of the creation of the Federal Council, which would appear to put virtually all the control of water resources planning in the hands of a few men, and essentially the President of the United States.

Mr. SAYLOR. Let me ask you, does not the Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of HEW, and the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission and the President of the United States all presently occupy offices which are recognized by law and by statute?

Mr. CASSADY. Yes, sir; this is true. We feel that

Mr. SAYLOR. Are they not presently exercising the same jurisdiction that is basically given to them in this Resources Council ?

Mr. Cassady. Yes, sir. We feel they could continue to do this on a voluntary basis more satisfactorily than they could under this legislation.

Mr. SAYLOR. What you are then saying is that you are objecting to Congress, who is given the responsibility under the Constitution of stepping forward and reasserting itself, taking cognizance of the problems that exist and assigning those duties as the Congress sees fit.

Mr. Cassady. We believe the Congress up to this point has done an excellent job in assigning these duties and frankly, we would rather have you folks ride herd on these Federal agencies than we would to have another superagency of bureaucracy laid on top of it, sir.

Mr. SAYLOR. Very frankly, I do not think that Congress has been riding herd on it.

If my recollection is correct, this is one of the complaints the press and the general public have made to Congress, is that we have not been exercising the responsibilities which the Constitution gave to us.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Thank you very much, Mr. Cassady.

The next witness now and the last witness this morning and today is Mr. Gene P. Bond for the counsel of the New England Councii.



Mr. Bond. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to read a prepared statement into the record, and I believe it will be well within my 15-minute limitation as the statement only extends some four

to five pages.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bond, that won't give us any time to read your statement. You might just as well ask unanimous consent and have

it placed in the record and let us excuse ourselves. Can't you place this in the record and tell us in 5 minutes what you have in it?

Mr. Bond. All right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It isn't a question of "all right”; do you ask for that permission, or do you not?

Mr. BOND. Yes, I ask unanimous consent.

The CHAIRMAN. If you read the rules of this committee as you appeared here as a witness you would know that is the regular order of procedure. We don't especially like to have these statements read.

Mr. Bond. I ask unanimous consent that the statement be put in the record as read, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless there is an objection, the statement of Mr. Bond, together with–I see no reason for the press release—the statement will be placed in the record.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (The statement follows:)



Charles W. Colson, counsel for the New England Council, today released testimony to be delivered Thursday on behalf of the council before the House Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation.

In his testimony, Mr. Colson will propose an amendment to the Water Resources Planning Act of 1963. The council's proposal was described as filling a "small but significant gap" in the proposed legislation before the committee. The amendment to be offered would extend to several States working in concert the same conditions which the bill now provides for individual States.

"Often, in a given area, effective water resource planning cannot be carried out by any single State even with the aid of the Federal Government, but must be a product of the cooperative efforts of several States geographically linked and sharing common water resources,” Colson said.

Colson's complete testimony is attached.


Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much being afforded this opportunity to present to you and your committee the views of the New England Council on S. 1111, commonly known as the Water Resources Planning Act.

The council, through other witnesses, has appeared on many past occasions before this committee, but I should like to tell you very briefly the nature of the council and the reason for its interest in this subject. The New England Council is a nonpartisan organization, representing all aspects of the New England economy. It was established in 1925 at the request of the six New England Governors and serves today as secretariat for the New England Governors conference. In addition, the council provides a number of services to the State governments, working principally in the area of interstate cooperation. It is concerned, of course, with Federal activities and legislation as they affect the economy of our region. Made up of representatives from industry, labor, educational, and farm groups, as well as the State governments, the council is concerned solely with regional development and with the improvement of the New England economy.

For many years, the council has taken a keen interest in various efforts to encourage cooperation in water resource planning and development. We have maintained an active interest in the efforts of the New England States to effectuate the Northeastern water and related land resources compact as the mechanism through which the New England States could best coordinate State and Federal efforts in developing vital natural resources of the Northeast. To trace for a moment the history of the compact, the floods of the mid-30's resulted in the National Flood Control Act which authorized the Corps of Engineers to make extensive flood control studies of the major river basins of the northeastern United States. Flood control plans were developed and are gradually being carried out. However, floods constituted only one aspect of the overall water

and land resources problem. This fact was recognized by the Federal Government and in 1950, the so-called New England-New York interagency committee (NENYIAC) was created by Executive order of President Truman to study the whole complex of problems, such as water pollution, soil conservation, water power, and recreation. This Committee was composed of the six New England States and New York, the Federal Departments of the Interior, Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, Army, Health and Welfare, and the Federal Power Commission, with a representative of each having a single voice and vote. The result was a voluminous report which included an inventory of water and land resources, presented problems and obstacles, and drafted plans and programs to further the region's economic development. The Federal Government and the States were then faced with two problems: (1) To coordinate State and Federal programs, and (2) to review old plans and draft new ones in the light of changing conditions.

In 1956, the Governors of New England and the Interagency Committee on Water Resources of the Federal Government set up a northeastern resources committee started by NENYIAC. Due to its lack of official status, problems of financing and staffing arose. On March 2, 1959, the Governors of New England unanimously agreed to strive for the establishment of a compact agency to alleviate these problems, and enabling legislation was introduced at the State level. Four State legislatures, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, have adopted this compact.

This matter has been repeatedly considered by the Congress but to date approval has not been given to the compact for a variety of reasons including opposition, much of which has now dissipated, to the Federal-State relationship proposed and also some opposition raised by nonparticipating New England States. I should like your permission, Mr. Chairman, to insert in the record at this point because I think it would be helpful general background information to this committee, a digest prepared by the council in 1961 of the northeastern water and related land resources compact. This digest deals at length with some of the problems of New England in water resource development and I think is relevant to your consideration of S. 1111.

We subscribe, Mr. Chairman, to the principles set forth in S. 1111 although we do feel that some specific treatment is necessary for the peculiar problems which we have in our own region. New England is a small area; our States form a contiguous compact region, Generally speaking, the problems of water resources and development of one State are the problems of all our States. Our area is particularly well suited to the concept of regional planning. Moreover our natural resources are scarce and it is imperative therefore that we make the most efficient utilization of the resources we have. I should like to suggest one possible amendment to S. 1111 which we at the Council believe would be particularly significant in our region and would recognize our efforts to achieve greater cooperative planning. This amendment also, Mr. Chairman, would enable other regions to work with the Federal agency to be established under S. 1111 in the same manner that individual States may do so. We think, in short, that while this amendment has particular interest to New England, it is one which has considerable merit from a general standpoint and is fully consistent with the intent of the bill. The suggested amendment is as follows:

Be it resolved, That existing section 303 be redesignated as 'Sec. 303(a)' and following at page 20, line 19, a new subsection 'b' be added to read as follows: '(b) Any existing or proposed agreements or compacts entered into by two or more States in order to effectuate the purposes of this Act are hereby authorized.''

The purpose of this amendment is to fill in a small but significant gap in this legislation as submitted. Although S. 1111 clearly establishes the relationship between the Federal Government, through the Water Resources Council, and the river basin commissions and between the Federal Government, again through the Council, and the individual States, no specific recognition is given to the obvious fact that often, in a given area, effective water resource planning cannot be carried out by any single State even with the aid of the Federal Government, but must be a product of the cooperative efforts of several States geographically linked and sharing common water resources.

In summary, therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to provide for those instances when several States desire to work in concert under the same conditions which title III of the bill now provides for individual States.

« PreviousContinue »