Lapas attēli

and construction of public works projects will be advanced in subsequent years.


Those sitting at the committee table remember the Korean war, the suddenness of its start, overnight we were in it. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was the one that sprung into action over night, ready, experienced, trained, developed, their fine personnel immediately attacking the vast problems that accompanied getting ready for that war. I mean physically getting ready, both in America and in South Korea.

CONSTRUCTION OF NORTH AFRICAN BASES We were here when we had these big bases, say, in North Africa, just to illustrate—the tremendous problem of construction we ran into there. We ran into special problems. I remember we had a pipesmoking colonel here named Wilson. They finally sent him over there and he helped work out these problems. Later, he was Chief of Engineers.

VIETNAM WAR Of course, we were here when the war in Vietnam was expanded. It was the engineers again, with all of their experience. And I am not here to praise any individual, but they were the ones who sprang into action immediately and were on the spot here and over there, with all of their training, experience, that was absolutely wonderful—it had to be that way or we would have floundered much longer in this goal we have undertaken. I mean it takes time at best. Remember the tremendous logistics problem and their work was that which found

So I express my views rather strongly. They are well known. In great deference to the President of the United States, I do not believe in the final analysis he should follow this recommendation.

I yield to the Senator.

the way.


Senator Young. I would like to join in the sentiment expressed by the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee. The Corps of Engineers has done an excellent job over the years. They have done it far better than any other agency of the Federal Government could possibly do. They have the experience and the personnel to do a good job.

For example, Operation Foresight is a program that has been of tremendous help in lessening the damage as a result of floods. I do not know of any other agency of the Government that could handle the program as efficiently and effectively as the Corps of Engineers could.

OPPOSITION TO REORGANIZATION PLAN I would certainly be opposed to this reorganization plan, Mr. Chairman. I would even go further, I would be very much opposed to the Department of Agriculture coming into this. I would not have it.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you for that forceful statement, indeed. Senator Smith, I have not had a chance to discuss this with you. You are a long-time member of this Subcommittee on Appropriations, and a long-time valuable member of the Armed Services Committee. I do not know whether you want to express yourself now on this matter, but if you do, I recognize you now.

Senator Smith. Well, Mr. Chairman, I concur with all that you have said, and all that my distinguished minority leader on this committee, Senator Young, has said. We all have the same feeling about the Corps of Engineers.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you very much.

Senator Pastore, we are just getting started here. I have made an opening statement which included remarks about some recommendations before the President to transfer the civil functions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and so forth.

NEWPORT, R.I., FLOOD Senator PASTORE. I hope that we never do that. I think we will be losing contact, direct contact with one of the best agencies within our Government.

I want to say at this juncture I had personal experience with the general only a short while ago, where we had a horrible situation in Newport, where there was a flood which affected 400 homes and the city authorities were desperate as to what they could do about it. They did not have the equipment. I called up the general and he was very, very cooperative. He searched the law and I think he found reason for doing it and I think he is happy that he found the solution and I am happier that he did.


My only regret is, gentlemen, that I cannot stay here, because I have to chair some hearings before the Joint Committee of Atomic Energy, as I have already expressed to Mr. Stennis. But I repeat, it will be a sorrowful day when we remove the autonomy of this corps, which I think is essential to the well-being of our country.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator, for a very fine and splendid statement.


The validity of this argument can best be illustrated by the following quotes:

Gen. Robert J. L. Pinson, Chief of Engineers, French Army, 1948:

The word, "miracle," has often been used when reporting the exploits of the American Corps of Engineers during the last war In fact, there has been no miracle, there has never been any miracle, there has never been any miracle in this matter, there has been only the logical result of peacetime engineer organization, unique in the world, which participates actively. in the development and execution of great public works of national interest.

Maj. Gen. C. S. Steele, Engineer-in-Chief, Royal Australian Engineers :

Prior to this war (World War II), very few of the R.A.E. officers in the permanent military forces had had any but minor engineering experience. Most of the officers were engaged in administrative duties which provided little opportunity for engineer training, either technically or in the organization of engineer works. During the War, several of the more senior staff corps R.A.E. officers were employed for most of the time in non-engineering staff appointments. It is essential, both in peace and war, that R.A.E. officers of the permanent military forces be given all facilities to make themselves first-class engineers. It would be of great value to the nation if the Corps of R.A.E. were constituted similarly to the Corps of U.S. Engineers, and executed major national works in peacetime. Not only would the officers acquire engineering experience in major works, but in time of war there would be much less strain on civilian engineer resources.

We have put you gentlemen and all of our forces really on the spot here. I want to say with emphasis, you know how sincere our words are here. We know how much they are deserved.

OPPOSITION OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LAIRD I just called up Secretary Laird 60 days ago and talked to him about the prospect of this transfer. He is totally opposed to it. Secretary Laird sent a strong statement about it last year and he reiterated the same statement.

All right, General, you may proceed.
General CLARKE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

First, let me thank you for your kind remarks about this organization. I hope we can continue to merit the same expressions from the committee in the future.

With your permission, I would like to go through my statement and I hope the members

Senator STENNIS. We will concentrate on it with you. Please proceed.

General CLARKE. —feel free to interrupt at any time with any questions.

Senator STENNIS. Let us give you a chance to read a good part of it anyway


General CLARKE. It is my pleasure to come before you again to present the Corps of Engineers Civil Works budget request for fiscal

year 1972,

Before I get into the specifics of that request, however, I would like to take a few minutes of your time to discuss the climate under which we investigate, analyze, and plan for the further development of our water and associated land resources. We, like most of you in the Congress, find a heightened awareness for the protection of man's environment. This situation makes our planning process much more difficult when we consider all the other complexities facing us. It is not a situation we deplore. We consider it an opportunity to proceed more broadly and farsightedly with the development of our resources to serve the essential needs which must be met now and in the near future.

Many people and institutions might not believe it to be true, but the Corps is composed of individual human beings who see and feel the effects of the degradation of their own environment and are anxious to do something about it in a positive way. We in the Corps have the opportunity to see that our planning gives appropriate weight to preserving and enhancing the environmental values, some of which are very difficult or impossible to evaluate in the conventional economic terms usually associated with project evaluation.

Of course, not all of our project's have contributed to the environment, but a look at our completed projects will show that for a long time we have been contributing significantly to the improvement of man's environment. A controlled river system not only saves structures and their contents from destruction and eliminates the human misery and despair associated with digging out and cleaning up after a flood subsides; it prevents the erosion of stream banks, which destroys land for productive purposes and degrades the stream's value for recreation, fishing and water supply.

As further evidence of the positive contributions which we already have made to improving the environment, we can point to the improved water supplies available in and downstream from our reservoirs, and to the pollution-free power source they provide.

We are not complacent in our attitude toward the need for improvement in our planning process to bring about a wiser use of the Nation's water resources in harmony with the broader interests of mankind. We are proceeding toward that goal as rapidly as we can, consistent with development of the knowledge and expertise required, and with the intelligent conversion of that knowledge into specific guidance for our planners.

ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES Let me outline briefly for you the general objectives of the environmental guidelines which I have recently issued to Corps field offices in connection with the further development of our civil works program. They are: (1) to preserve unique and important ecological, esthetic, and cultural values of our national heritage; (2) to conserve and use wisely the natural resources of our Nation for the benefit of present and future generations; (3) to enhance, maintain, and restore the natural and manmade environment in terms of its productivity, variety, spaciousness, beauty, and other measures of quality; and (4) to create new opportunities for the American people to use and enjoy their environment.

I intend to see that these objectives are pursued by every element in the Corps from the initial conception of possible improvement plans through the planning and construction stages and into the operation and maintenance stages. Skeptics could say this is talk for effect only—but it is not. We are dedicating ourselves to meeting the needs and aspirations of the American people in providing for their material and economic requirements, while effectively preserving or enhancing the environmental elements that improve the quality of American living.

We intend that the decisions of the Congress, as embodied in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, be an integral part of all planning development and regulatory concepts. This will take a continuing concerted effort, and the exercise of mutual patience and understanding in effecting a timely and harmonious balance between urgent developmental needs and the desire to preserve and conserve those qualities of living which much of the public have shown they want to protect. I am personally convinced that we can strike that balance in most of our endeavors. It will cost the American people more money to achieve this balanced type of development; it will take more time to plan the individual projects that are essential to our rapidly increasing population; and it also will take imagination and innovation in developing the concepts that guide the future water resource development of the Nation.


This budget request includes a proposal which I consider to be the missing link in our ability to do total water resources planning. It is one of the considerations I have in mind when I speak of innovative concepts to guide the future development of our water resources.

We propose to reorient the thrust of six survey areas to develop comprehensively alternative systems of wastewater management control. I am not referring to fragmented solutions, but to alternative means of wastewater management for entire regions, river basins, or metropolitan areas using such modern technologies as are available.

One possibility of considerable promise is the piping of sewage effluent to storage and aeration lagoons in uninhabited areas and using the effluent to spray-irrigate a geologically acceptable land site where it would promote agricultural and forestry production and from where it would filter through the ground to the aquifer to replenish the water supply.

I am convinced such innovative approaches must be thoroughly looked into if we are to prevent the further rapid deterioration of our lakes and streams. The broader application of conventional waste treatment measures required to meet newly prescribed State and Federal standards of water quality will help, but they will not be enough to prevent the continued degradation of our waters.

Advanced waste treatment measures aimed at elimination of the more difficult contaminants that now flow virtually unaffected into our streams simply nullify the contaminants, rather than put them to productive use. The investment of $6.2 billion in the construction of sewage treatment plants from 1956 through 1970, has not resulted in significant overall improvement of water quality. I do not believe that we can afford to ignore any possible alternative.

Our proposal is to provide the planning framework, subject to the guidance of the Environmental Protection Agency on questions of priority and overall Federal water quality objectives. State and local agencies would be full partners in this planning effort. I believe the potential for effective alternative choices to the expenditure of huge sums for conventional waste treatment works lends a special urgency to these surveys.

I ask the approval of this committee to proceed now to get these reoriented wastewater management studies underway. Some adjustment of available funds will be necessary and we will work with your staff in effecting these adjustments.


To bring you up to date on the earthquake situation in Los Angeles, the Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, responded immediately to a request from the Los Angeles City Fire Emergency Center for assistance in saving lives at the collapsed buildings of the Veterans' Administration hospital in Sylmar.

Under the emergency authority of Public Law 99 the Corps immediately hired contractors to supply pumps to expedite the evacuation of the water storage in the lower Van Norman reservoir to avert a possible flood disaster in the residential area below the damaged McQuade Dam.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »