An increase labeled "Other public service" for $112,000 in the justifications submitted to you, is intended to remedy a situation that has caused a great deal of annoyance. The language used when the Congress authorized cooperation with States and municipalities has been so rigidly interpreted that the cost of processing data collected in the field and top costs in the Water Resources Branch's Washington office incident thereto have been charged against the Federal part of the cooperative appropriation. Such practice gave State officials the impression that the Geological Survey was "holding out" on them, and naturally led to the States asking that similar costs incurred by them be credited as a part of their contribution. The proposed changes in the language are intended to eliminate any such difficulties in the future and to regard the cooperative enterprises as embracing only field operations. So far as is known, no other arrangements for cooperation between. agencies of the Federal Government and the States include costs incurred in Washington, D. C. Such costs are required for integrating results from all the field offices and making them available to the public. Other important increases are needed to bring our worn-out equipment up to date, to take advantage of and adapt to practical use the progress made in research and development during the war, to expand slightly the net of Federal gaging stations and observation wells, to start a program to establish a quality-of-water laboratory in Salt Lake City, and to provide the information necessary for carrying out the provisions of the treaty with Mexico and of several interstate compacts. In discussing these increases more specifically in answer to your questions, I hope to present for your consideration supporting letters from the Secretary of War, the Acting Secretary of State, and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Our 220 war veterans are returning home to find the whole country much more water conscious than when they left. Forty-eight of these expert geologists, chemists, and engineers on water investigations have already reentered our ranks. Some are taking educational courses to fit themselves to assume more responsible positions than they had originally. We and they view the future of water-resources investigations as being one in which satisfying and worth-while accomplishment in the public service can be achieved. CHANGE IN LANGUAGE RELATIVE TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM WITH STATES COSTS IN COOPERATIVE Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Paulsen, you mentioned, I believe, some new language on page 203 of the bill. Will you state why the States should not pay half of the total cost for central office work? Mr. PAULSEN. As I see it, that is simply a matter of policy which naturally, your committee and the Congress must determine, but we think that the branch's overhead costs in the Washington office, meaning only the nominal administrative costs, ought not to be charged against the over-all costs in connection with the cooperation with the various States and municipalities because they, in turn, feel that as a matter of equity they should then have the same privilege of including their own overhead costs as part of the cooperation. The present inequitable arrangement has caused a great deal of annoyance and difficulty. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Has this not been the policy for 20 years, and are you not changing your policy? Mr. PAULSEN. It has been the policy ever since the principle of dollar-for-dollar cooperation with States and municipalities was approved by the Congress in 1929. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. But you propose to change it now? Dr. WRATHER. That has been a snag in our cooperative program for a long time, Mr. Johnson; the fact that the States resent the charge that is made against the cooperation for the Branch's administrative work here in Washington. They say that that work would go on anyhow as a Federal obligation, and since we have been charging in accordance with strict construction of this 50-50 cooperation, there has been an increasing tendency on the part of the States to want to allocate their costs in their own departments and charge them against the cooperative funds. Unless and until that order is changed, naturally it makes pleasant relations in some few instances somewhat strained. They resent the fact that we make the charge here in Washington against cooperative funds and are reluctant to permit the States to do likewise. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Do you not think one reason there has been that resentment built up is because you are building up quite a large office in Washington, and the States feel that it is being done at their expense? Dr. WRATHER. Our Washington office is a very small office as far as the administration of water resources is concerned. The Water Resources Branch is the most decentralized of all of the branches of the Survey, and the administrative costs here that are related to the corporation are really very low. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. How do they compare with 1939? Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Will you put them in the record? yes, sir. (The matter referred to is as follows:) In 1939 the total Washington office costs of the Water Resources Branch amounted to about $130,000 which included administrative and all other costs relating to an over-all Nation-wide water investigational program of $3,019,000. The Washington office costs relating to the cooperative program with States and municipalities ($850,000 Federal funds and $872,300 State and municipal funds) amounted to about $82,000. For the over-all proposed $5,800,000 Nation-wide water investigational program for 1947, it is estimated that the Washington office costs, including administrative, will be about $295,000. Of this amount $112,000 has been recommended to cover the Washington office costs relating to the cooperative program with States and municipalities involving $1,620,000 of gaging streams funds and essentially the same amount of State and municipal funds, or a total of $3,240,000. The estimate of $112,000 is 3.45 percent of the total estimated cooperative expenditures in the field. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. How do the figures for last year compare with what you propose for the ensuing year? Dr. WRATHER. The $112,000 item-"Other public service"-represents the proposal for next year, does it not, Mr. Paulsen? 84378-46-pt. 1-18 Mr. PAULSEN. That amount represents roughly the costs now chargeable against the funds available for cooperation with States and municipalities for administration of such work by the branch in Washington. Such administrative costs in Washington have not fluctuated greatly from year to year in the last few years. INCREASES FOR 1947 Mr. JOHNSON. Now, with reference to the items that you have briefly mentioned, and which are shown on page 70 of the justifications, they seem to total $1,027,100 in increases, which sounds rather sizable to a committee that is trying to curtail expenses of government. WATER INVESTIAGTIONS FOR OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES For instance, there is the item of "Water investigations for other Federal agencies," $480,000. What other agencies? Mr. PAULSEN. As mentioned in my earlier statement, the $480,000 item represents funds heretofore transferred to the Geological Survey by the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. It covers only a part of the amounts that those agencies propose to transfer to the Survey for continuing the work that they request of the Survey during the coming year in the amount of $480,000. Therefore, if that amount is appropriated directly to the Geological Survey, the particular work provided by such funds, which is of vital interest not only to these three agencies, but also to many other Federal and public agencies, could be continued without transfers to the Survey hereafter. There would be no duplication in cost or work. Dr. WRATHER. It is right along the lines we discussed yesterday, Mr. Johnson. By agreement with these agencies-the Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Army engineers this provides for $480,000 in our appropriation which, if not approved, would then be transferred to us by these agencies. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Will you put your finger on one of those agencies that has had a reduction in its appropriation? Dr. WRATHER. I do not know that. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Of course not. If the other agencies would actually make reductions comparable with appropriations herein requested there would be little or no objection, but we know that the other agencies go right on asking for bigger, better, and fatter appropriations. Dr. WRATHER. Mr. Paulsen, I think, has letters from these various agencies, with whom, by mutual agreement, we decided it would be better for this amount of money to appear in our appropriation. Mr. PAULSEN. This is a letter from the Secretary of War proposing that, of the amount previously transferred by the Corps of Engineers to the Geological Survey for conducting water investigations, $350,000 be appropriated directly to the Survey. As previously mentioned, a similar letter from the Bureau of Reclamation has been submitted for your consideration. Mr. NORRELL. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the clerk investigate to see if the other agencies have reduced their appropriation requests to equal the amount of this increase. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. The committee wants to be helpful. It sees no reason why this would not be a better way of doing it if the other agencies in good faith will actually reduce their appropriations by the amount you are asking for here, but it just doesn't work out that way. The committee has found that almost invariably, when appropriations were made here for the purpose of relieving other agencies of work, that the other agencies can be depended upon to forget to ask for a reduction. Dr. WRATHER. It bears on the point that Mr. Rooney was making yesterday, and it represents our conscientious effort to get the appropriation into a shape which we think is more workable. Mr. ROONEY. That is the way in which it should be done. Mr. PAULSEN. I would like to make this observation, that even though these funds are appropriated directly to the Geological Survey, I am reasonably certain that both the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation would still have considerable other work that they would desire the Survey to do which might not in the end, reduce the total amount of transfers for such water investigations because of their increasing needs. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Since you submitted a letter from the War Department, which the committee has before it, which may or may not go into the record, let me say in your defense that you have also submitted a letter from the Honorable H. W. Bashore, former Commissioner of Reclamation who, for many years, has enjoyed the respect and confidence of this committee, in which he says he concurs in this action wholeheartedly and then I have long felt that a substantially greater portion of the Survey's activities should be supported directly by the Congress through sufficient appropriations to insure continuity of adequate records. Mr. PAULSEN. I have another letter from Mr. Bashore, Mr. Chairman, which relates to the work that the Survey is doing, especially in the Colorado River, in connection with the terms of the treaty with Mexico which you may or may not want to include in part or in whole for the record. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. The committee will be glad to have the communication from Mr. Bashore, and it will decide later about whether it will be put in the record in part or in whole. Now, let me say that the clerk has not had time to examine all of the records, but he has presented to the committee the Tennessee Valley Authority estimate, and I will say that on page 300 of the bill it contains the following items: Geological Survey (topographical surveys), Department of the Interior, $65,000. Geological Survey (gaging streams), Department of the Interior, $60,000, which would clearly indicate that they expect to go right on asking for bigger and fatter appropriations for themselves. You do not have any letter from the Tennessee Valley Authority? Mr. PAULSEN. No, sir; we do not, Mr. Chairman, and I think that is one reason, perhaps, why the record is as shown. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Now, will you make a supplemental statement, if you can secure any further information, as to whether or not these other departments are cooperating in this matter. This committee does not want to appropriate twice for the same work. It is possible that this $60,000 is for other work, but it would indicate to the committee that it is the same thing. Dr. WRATHER. Shall we submit that for the record at a later date Mr. Johnson? Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Yes, that will be all right. Dr. WRATHER. Thank you. (The matter referred to is as follows:) WATER INVESTIGATIONS FOR OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES It should first be made clear that there is no duplication of work. The Geological Survey functions in very close cooperation with the Corps of Engineers of the War Department, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority in planning programs and conducting water investigations. Those bureaus transfer to the Geological Survey only such funds as are required for the performance of the work requested by them that cannot be financed by funds appropriated, or otherwise available, to the Survey. There are, therefore, no duplications between funds transferred by those agencies and funds appropriated by Congress for Survey use, and therefore no increased cost to the Government for the work requested. This situation has been clearly presented in letters already in the hands of the committee; namely, the letter of September 8, 1945, by Secretary of War Stimson to Director Smith of the Bureau of the Budget, and the letter of October 11, 1945, by Commissioner Bashore, of the Bureau of Reclamation to Director Wrather. There is no comparable letter from the Director of the Tennessee Valley Authority, but it is my definite understanding that the Authority will transfer to the Survey only funds needed for the accomplishment of the work requested by it that cannot be financed by Survey funds. More specifically, I understand that if the work requested by the Authority in 1947 is simply a continuation of the program of 1946, for which the Authority transferred $60,000, the transfer for 1947 would be in the amount of $30,000, provided the $30,000 proposed in the Survey budget is appropriated. SURPLUS PROPERTY Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Having read your statement I am still unconvinced about that matter. Now, there is another sizable item here, Surplus Property, $145,455. Will you explain the necessity for that item? Mr. PAULSEN. We certainly have great need for surplus property because our present field equipment has become badly worn out and obsolete. In order to do a good job we must get our equipment replenished. We desire, therefore, to obtain from surplus property much of the equipment needed for our field operations as an expedient means of replenishment. Dr. WRATHER. There is a break-down of that item on page 92 of the justifications indicating the types of surplus property desired: automobiles, passenger-carrying 30, at $1,000 each, $30,000; trucks, 85, at $1,125 each, $95,625; boats and outboard motors, 12, at $500 each; $6,000; and miscellaneous office equipment, $13,830. It is our desire to acquire these things through surplus property if it is at all possible to do so. Mr. KIRWAN. How many men do you have employed in the State of Ohio? Mr. PAULSEN. I would have to check the record on that, Mr. Kirwan, but my guess is about 20. Mr. KIRWAN. About 20? Mr. PAULSEN. Yes, sir. |