General KOISCH. We have. But we are not always able to consider it in terms of rules and regulations under which projects are recommended.

Mr. WRIGHT. Do you find that the spelling out in detail by the Congress and by the executive guidelines of specific steps and considerations upon which you must report makes you more vulnerable to minorities who might bring legal action against you to enjoin you from carrying out those functions that Congress has directed you to carry out?

General KOISCH. I think, sir, it makes more clear the basis on which we are attacked in these days. But I do not think in these times if Congress did not spell it out that it would prohibit them from doing what they are doing.

Mr. WRIGHT. You have had two or three projects which have been subjected to legal action?

General KOISCH. I believe six at this moment, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. This must be rather frustrating to an agency like the corps, as it is frustrating to the Congress, having gone in some cases for 15 or 20 years toward the careful, detailed analytical preparation of plans, and then to be stopped by court injunction.

General KOISCH. It is frustrating, and I think you will recall, sir, that when the Environmental Quality Act was passed, there was some doubt as to whether it was retroactive or not to already authorized projects, and basically those that had already been stopped were already authorized prior to the act. But, in general, the suits are pretty much the same, the failure to comply with the act, failure to comply fully with the act.

Mr. WRIGHT. Do you not regard the provision of a potable water supply and the stopping of floods that inundate homes and the provision of the capability to transport goods as being in harmony with the environment?

General KOISCH. If you are asking me, either personally or officially with the Corps of Engineers, my answer would be "Yes." There are others who do not believe that.

Mr. WRIGHT. This is the strange thing that seems to have come about in recent years. The Corps of Engineers, throughout many years, has been a conservation agency and, perhaps, the prime conservation agency of the Government.

General KOISCH. Sir, we point with pride to our past history in terms of conservation, Yosemite and Yellowstone having been under the caretakership of the corps for a long time.

We suggested the national park system as it now exists. The Mississippi flyways would not have been protected except for corps recommendations.

I think people know today we are the largest recreation agency in the United States. Recreation equals conservation and environment also. With regard to fish and wildlife, within the provisions of the 1958 act, I think we have done much to promote this.

We have created a whole new flyway for migratory fowl, for the Great Lakes, the Tombigbee, and so on. People tend to forget this, because being engineers, just about everything we do touches environment somewhere and they tend only to look at the black ones.

Mr. WRIGHT. Everything the human race does touches the environment in some sense, I suppose.

General KoISCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. Would you not conclude the stopping of floods washing away homes and businesses is an improvement in the environment? General KOISCH. I would say yes to that. Mr. Chairman, I would note that when a project is recommended, and I might note this is the role we play, we recommend, we do not decide

Mr. WRIGHT. We thought we decided. We are not so sure any more. General KOISCH. When the Secretary of Army signs the project on its way forward, he has had to make a decision in the total public interest one way or another. Today, with the Environmental Act on the books, and all the considerations that come in, he is, in effect, weighing economic benefits, social benefits, environmental benefits, and to some extent national security benefits versus the adverse aspects of any one of those characters. And when he does this, he has, in effect, in his judgment put down all of these weights. And so he has to consider all things that you have in mind here.

We have actually reached the point where rather an unusual thing happened with one of our projects. We have recommended instead of building the dam, to protect the town, to move the town.

Mr. WRIGHT. I can think of one time in California, Mr. Johnson, where the town ultimately did move.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. After two serious floods that washed it downstream; the relocation is going to stay, I think.

Mr. WRIGHT. Would you not conclude more or less as a matter of fundamental conservation and ecology that when we augment low flows downstream and thus improve the quality of water, that we enhance the environment?

General KOISCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. Would it not seem plausible to you that when we make pure water available to communities for their citizens, where it was not available previously, that we have enhanced the environment? General KOISCH. I would; yes.

Mr. WRIGHT. Would it not seem plausible to you that where we make wholesome outdoor recreational facilities available to many thousands, indeed millions of people annually, where those did not exist before, that we have improved the quality of the environment for those people?

General KOISCH. I would; yes.

Mr. WRIGHT. Do you have any specific thoughts or recommendations as to how the Congress might assist in shortening the timelag, consistent with good policy and sound planning?

General KOISCH. I think, sir, the one that shows up most in our reports is in the authorizing process and in terms of the funding. I see nothing else there which basically is a holdup on the part of the Congress beyond the funding thing, and, as I noted before, that is not entirely within your realm, because our own recommendations generally come out that way.

I would say we are down to the point of basically an assist in this regard. We could speed up with more manpower and more money, and then eventually reach the point where the balanced organization begins to fill up.

Basically, it is a question of funding and, perhaps, to some extent, weeding out the ones that just are not worth while following, in order to utilize the resources on those that are worth while following.

Mr. WRIGHT. What service does the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors provide that could not be provided in the Chief's office by the Chief's review?

General KOISCH. A strict answer to your question, sir, would have to be none. I would note, however, that they are a unique organization, put together by Congress, primarily to review from an engineering viewpoint; that is, to get quality engineering, and to see that we are utilizing the same standards, same good standards throughout the entire Nation with regard to the projects coming in.

They operate in a somewhat different atmosphere from the Office of the Chief, where we have to be operational and responsive day to day, whatever the problem may be. They are able, in a sense, to be more academic, to move at an evener pace, to really tear a project apart, study it well, see that the proper thing has been done.

They have authority to send it back to the man who put it together and tell him to do it properly, if in effect it was done improperly.

If we did not have the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, we would somehow have to re-create it under some other guise somewhere; and, as we see their role within the time frame you see here, they are pretty good in utilizing no more than their time limit. And that is relatively insignificant in order to get a proper review.

Mr. WRIGHT. There seems in all of this to be an abundance of concern to insure that we do not do something that should not be done. Do you sometimes get the feeling that this concern over balances, a concern we ought to have to insure that we do those things that should be done, may be carried too far?

General KOISCH. I find that difficult to answer, personally, because of the operations of the system. The governmental structure we have, the way it functions, the prerogatives of the legislative portion of the Government, are accommodated within the system that we operate with now.

I would hate to think of the benevolent dictatorship sort of thing if, at any time, the benevolence fell out. Somehow I prefer the system we have even with the inefficiencies.

Mr. WRIGHT. There seem to be people within all of bureaucracy, if that is not an invidious term, who are quite adept at saying why a thing cannot be done. Does it seem the Government might need some expediters to discover how a thing can be done?

General KOISCH. I think they already exist when the urgency comes up. If I just might comment in a philosophical manner. I think the Government is undergoing a period in which it is really seeking its own goals and priorities. As we know, the large projects particularly, things like the Arkansas River, Tennessee-Tombigbee, the upcoming Trinity, have a great impact on social well-being within our country.

We in the engineers tend to think these impacts will be good. They look to us as they will provide some answers to the large city problem you mentioned this morning, relocation of industry, opportunities to do proper land use planning, town planning, and, in general, providing something better, if you want to put that term on it, for this

population growth that is going on, for this future increase, a better style of life, if you would consider that a better style, a terrific social impact.

And, as long as we tend to be leaning in the direction of solving the social problems, that would appear to me to be a good way to do it. Granted it needs a lot of other assistance. The mechanism to do all of this with, is not yet in existence. Yet, I think congressional committees, when they deliberate on these things as to what shall have priority over another, in their judgment the social values are also considered.

Mr. WRIGHT. Can you think of anything more deleterious to environmental quality than population density as it becomes more and more congested?

General KOISCH. No, sir. Our definition of population generally equals man, and the more dense he is—in numbers, that is the worse it gets.

Mr. WRIGHT. Are not many of the projects of the Corps of Engineers, particularly those concerning navigation, a good countermeasure to this, in that they create opportunities for the creation of organisms of employment in the sparsely populated areas where those opportunities theretofore did not exist?

General KOISCH. We think so, sir. I think in the past this has been proven, and even what is beginning to happen in the Arkansas which shows it once again, and we are hoping someone puts a mechanism together to control the Arkansas in the sense of doing it properly.

Mr. WRIGHT. Would this not seem to you to be a plausible consideration in evaluating the environmental impact of a navigation program?

General KOISCH. I would say, very definitely, sir. But, currently, we do not have the mechanism for incorporating it.

Mr. WRIGHT. In other words, if we can create countermagnets throughout the country to make it possible for people to live productively elsewhere than in urban centers, would this not in itself be a remarkable enhancement for environmental quality for many millions of Americans?

General KOISCH. We believe that.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to go back and make another observation of the construction end of this thing that might tie into some of this stuff. I have watched out there, and you people have, too-we will take California, for example-we have had the Federal projects authorized and started. We have had State projects authorized and started. We have had local government projects, and we have had local and private enterprise together.

In all of these, in the construction end of it, they started off and completed their multipurpose projects. Now, our projects out there of the corps and the Bureau are large, we think, and they are multipurpose, but nothing can be accomplished until you get them in place as far as benefits.

Now, in the local and private, where the financing is much different, either general obligation or the other type of bond in there, they always put in the contract-the contract is a prime contract, a penalty and a benefit as far as the contractor is concerned. He is given time limit in there, and he must bid on the job and take into consideration

the length of construction period. Maybe it might be 4 years, and he goes ahead and builds them. The State has the same thing. Revenue bonds are used in local and private.

I watched four projects out there, and we dammed four rivers, or will have, I hope, when we get the two Federal ones out of the way and get them in place. The privates are done, and the State is done, as far as their projects are concerned. Their construction period is much shorter because they let a prime contract, and they move in and they are built, and they are in operation, and they are cleaned up, and they look much better. But we are torn apart; it looks like 10 or 15 years on these projects with present methods of funding, after you get into construction. Not one thing has been completed as far as benefits on this type of facility.

We see these others in place now, but we have not quite got off the ground; and there is not one thing that has been completed on the two big ones that I am talking about. But the State has completed theirs. The local government, and local government and private enterprise, they are all in place.

Most of these have accrued benefits that will make a substantial benefit in repayment to the Federal Government on federally-constructed projects of a multi-purpose nature.

I think that that is where a lot of our opposition is coming from. Now, I fully realize that you people get a certain amount of money to go across the Nation, to go across the 17 Western States, and we piecemeal this out. But, the other type of operation, I think, is much more satisfactory for everybody concerned. I know you people would like to get back into that way of doing business.

General KoISCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. But, seemingly, they accepted the risk, the contractors that built on those jobs, granted there are some negotiations that can take place under certain conditions, but for the most part, they are put under penalty.

There is a time limit, and there is a bonus paid if they complete it on time to put the projects in place where there is power. Out there, there is power, as well as the other benefits.

To my way of looking at it, there is just some breakdown here in the funding of these projects once you start a multipurpose project. Would you agree with some of that? You are the expert. I am just a lay person. But I have watched these others develop.

General KOISCH. We agree with you wholeheartedly.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am talking about a couple of billion dollars of construction. The State has completed a billion dollars worth.

General KOISCH. I think, sir, you will recognize that in some projects there just has to be a long lead time, like the tremendous generators which take 5 years to procure, and this sort of thing, places where the volume of earth fill required is such that with the optimum amount of machinery on it, it just takes this long to move so many truckloads of dirt.

However, in other cases, we are finding ourselves in a position where we have so many projects, and if you carry on the policy that none of them shall stop, then you have to spread this slice of the Federal budget. We have many things that must be done. It is available then for what we call the construction general account and has to be spread over all of the going projects in order not to stop any.