Virginia, where the standards are still under review, have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior and are thus Federally enforceable.

The Water Resources Council is presently reevaluating Federal policy with regard to the application of Section 3(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to the provision of reservoir storage and releases for flow regulation for water quality control, including the issue of cost sharing for this purpose, in response to criticisms by Committees of the Congress and a request from the Bureau of the Budget. Pending the Council's adoption of a uniform Government-wide policy on this matter, the Department of the Interior, on June 16, 1967, adopted a revised policy for application to the Department's Reclamation program. Should the uniform Government-wide policy to be promulgated by the Council require revisions of the recommendations previously furnished to the Corps with regard to the projects proposed in its Potomac River Basin Report, we will be pleased to cooperate with the Corps and submit revised recommendations at that time so that the new policy and the refinements referred to above may be properly reflected in the final design.

The tabulations of project costs show costs allocated to "water quality control— local" as being at Federal expense. Section 3(b)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides that ". . . Cost of water quality control features incorporated in any Federal reservoir or other impoundment under the provisions of this Act shall be determined and the beneficiaries identified and if the benefits are widespread or national in scope, the costs of such features shall be nonreimbursable. . ." We believe that the Corps should clearly identify its determinations regarding the incidence of these benefits, and its report should be revised to clarify the relationship of these findings to the assignment of the costs of water quality control features in the light of the reimbursability cate gories set forth in the Act.

Certain benefits and costs for each of the six reservoirs proposed are characterized as being associated with "preservation of stream environment." The text of the report does not explain the nature of this project effect. A footnote in the tables appended to the report states that the beneficial effects accrue in the stream below the D.C. area intakes. If this is a new type of benefit which does not fit into any of the benefit categories set forth in Senate Document 97, we suggest that its exact nature be identified and a rationale be set forth to support the assignment of project costs to the nonreimbursable category. If, on the other hand, the constituent parts of these benefits fit into one or more of the traditional categories of water project benefits, such as recreation (including aesthetics) or fish and wildlife enhancement, as identified in Senate Document 97, we suggest that the analysis be revised accordingly and that costs assignable to these functions be treated in accordance with applicable legislation.

The report proposes that the Chief of Engineers establish a reservoir regulation center for the Potomac Basin. Such a center should foster effective consideration of the many factors and variables which require continuous review before efficient reservoir operation can be achieved. The operation of reservoirs, however, is but one facet of a total comprehensive water management system for any given basin; the sound and efficient operation of such a total system requires that the total range of basin interest be considered, that the dimensions of water quality and water supply be fully meshed, and that functional tradeoffs withing the day-to-day operation of such a system be effected only after the fullest possible consideration of their consequences. We feel that the establishment of a management system under the proposed Potomac River Basin Compact Commission should be seriously considered by all of the agencies and entities having responsibilities in the Potomac Basin before a reservoir regulation center is established by any one agency.

From the standpoint of the Department's responsibilities with regard to fish and wildlife and recreation, we have the following comments.

Our review indicates that fish and wildlife matters have been adequately taken into account, either in the proposed report or in the documents basic to the report, i.e., the reports of the District and Division Engineers and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Outdoor recreation plans for the Sixes Bridge, Verona, Town Creek, and North Mountain reservoir projects were prepared by the National Park Service in connection with the 1963 Baltimore District Engineers' Potomac River Basin Report. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation prepared a

report on the outdoor recreation aspects of the proposed reservoir projects on Sideling Hill Creek, Town Creek, and Little Cacapon River in connection with the Recreation and Landscape Sub-Task Force studies. The outdoor recreation features of the six proposed projects have been modified by the Corps of Engineers since the earlier outdoor recreation plans were prepared. The proposed recreation and fish and wildlife developments are in general accord with the objectives of the Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plans.

The Cacapon, Shenandoah, and South Branch Potomac Rivers, recommended in the Interior Report to the President for study as potential scenic rivers, would not be affected by the proposed system of six reservoirs. The Potomac Heritage Trail, recommended in the Interior Report and authorized for study in the National Trails System Act, P.L. 90-543, would not be adversely affected by project construction.

Section 2 of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, P.L 89-72, provides that non-Federal public bodies must indicate their intent in writing, before authorization of a project, to agree to administer and cost share project land and water areas for recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement, if the benefits of the project to the purpose or purposes are to be taken into account in determining the economic benefits of the project. Such concurrence of the proposed administering agencies is not evident in the report. It is noted, however, that plans for development, operation, maintenance, and replacement of the recreation features of the reservoirs will be modified, depending on the intentions of the non-Federal interests regarding participation in the costs of the recreation features at the time of construction and subsequent thereto. It is our view that evidence that non-Federal public bodies are willing to cost share for these functions should be provided prior to project authorization to assure that benefits claimed for outdoor recreation will, in fact, materialize.

We have noted earlier that the Water Resources Council is currently reevaluating Federal policy with regard to flow regulation for water quality control and that there is uncertainty as to the nature of benefits associated with "preservation of stream environment." If further analysis should result in an increase in benefits to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, construction costs allocated to these purposes could exceed the remaining reservoir costs and thus be inconsistent with Section 9 of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. Therefore, it is our view that the six reservoir projects should be recommended for authorization under special legislation which would exempt them from those provisions of the Act, P.L. 89–72.

The Geological Survey calls attention to the fact that, in the further consideration of alternative sources of water supply, ground water sources should not be disregarded. That agency has under way a study to explore more fully the role of ground water in meeting the water supply requirements of the basin.

Furthermore, full implementation of the recommendations in the report calls for several activities which the Geological Survey now has under way or would normally carry out. For example, operation of a reservoir regulation center will require a carefully considered data network to assure the flow of information needed for effective operations. In this respect, a detailed study of the travel times of the quantity of water, as distinct from travel times of the water and contained contaminants previously studied, will be required for timing releases from the several reservoirs to provide desired quantities at downstream locations. We are fully in accord with the desirability of further detailed study of the upper estuary by Federal and State agencies, with particular interest in its potential as a future source of water supply. Several Interior agencies have estuary studies under way or planned which will contribute to such a study. The Bureau of Mines reports that it does not appear that the proposed construction would affect adversely any mineral resources.

We call to your attention that the proposed “Potomac Valley Park" has been changed in name to "Potomac National River" and that this change in name should be made on page 3 of the draft report.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on your proposed report. Sincerely yours,

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior.

Senator MATHIAS, But, Mr. Secretary, let me say if you are here seeking any sense of the Congress as to what our feeling is-again, I speak for myself, not for the chairman-but I have the great sense of frustration that this thing has gone on and on and on and the Potomac is more like "Old Man River" it just keeps rolling. And this has got to stop.

When I was a boy I used to keep boats up the Potomac at Point of Rocks, and you could swim and fish. The whole river from the Fairfax Stone down to Point Lookout has just gone down the hill so fast, and the problem is multiplying so rapidly that I think you ought to take back to the Department a sense of urgency, as big a red flag as you can, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. SMITH. Let me assure you again the Department is willing and anxious to assume its proper leadership role in this problem. I will convey your message of urgency to the Secretary and to the Under Secretary.

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and gentlemen. We appreciate your being with us and the information you have provided us.

We are delighted to have with us today the chairman of the board of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the Honorable Francis B. Francois, member of the board of county commissioners of the largest county of our State, Prince Georges County.

And is Mr. Normal Jackson with you?

Mr. FRANCOIS. Yes, he is.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me invite Mr. Jackson with you at this time. Mr. Jackson is chairman of the regional advisory board of the Metropolitan Council of Governments.

STATEMENTS OF FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, VICE CHAIRMAN, PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MD., BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, AND NORMAN JACKSON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT AND CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL SANITARY ADVISORY BOARD, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jackson, we will incorporate your statement in the record in its entirety.

Mr. Francois, we can do the same with you, and let you take it from there, proceed however you wish.

(The statements follow:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORMAN E. JACKSON, CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL SANITARY ADVISORY BOARD, COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

The Current Water Shortage in the Washington Metropolitan Region

INTRODUCTION

Since 1859, when the Potomac was first tapped for a water supply for the Nation's Capital, it has served as the principal sources of water for the region. Other sources, such as the Occoquan and the Patuxent, have supplied water to

segments of the growing metropolitan area, and still do, but the Potomac over the years will continue to serve, as it has in the past, the growing needs of the Washington metropolitan region. Of the total average regional water demand in 1966 of 320 million gallons per day, 72% (230 mgd) was supplied from the Potomac. There is reason to believe that this percentage will become larger. Indeed, as other smaller resources are completely developed, growing communities will turn increasingly to the Potomac for their water supply.

A quick look at the flow characteristics of the Potomac will justify confidence in the ability of the river to supply our needs. The annual flow from the 11,560 square mile drainage area at Washington has averaged over the past 36 years 7020 mgd, or 18 times the maximum total, regional withdrawal of 388 mgd experienced thus far this year. Even the minimum annual flow of record, 3880 mgd, is twice the maximum day currently estimated for the year 2010, of approximately 1900 mgd. So the problem does not lie in the averages, rainfall or normal river flows. Where, then, does our current problem of inadequate water supply lie?

The problem lies in extremes-minimum daily flow of the river at Washington during the drought or dry weather seasons and maximum withdrawals that are likely to occur at or close to the same time. For instance, in September 1966, the flow of the river diminished to 388 mgd. In June that year, total withdrawals reached 381 mgd. Thus there developed in that year a scarcity that had been anticipated by the Corps of Engineers in their comprehensive study issued in February 1963. That report had restated the need for construction of the approved Bloomington Reservoir, which would have supplemented flows at Washington by some 132 mgd. But it was not yet started in 1966 and best estimates then were that it would not be on line before 1976. That condition in 1966 should have alerted all concerned for it became clear that every dry season from that time on until Bloomington or other approved dams could be brought on line, we would run the risks of water shortages-unless, of course, the "heavens" were kind to us and local rainfall would ease the demands for water so that the river could satisfy them. It also became clear that in the absence of rainfall in the summer and replenishing snow or rain in the winter over the watershed, water restrictions were inevitable until flows during the time of plenty could be stored to supplement the Potomac system in times of want. We are now in a time of want. Let us examine some of the reasons.

THE CURRENT SHORTAGE

The determining factor of the level of river flows during dry weather periods is ground water levels. If they are high, minimum dry weather flows in the streams that are fed by ground water reservoirs will hold up. If ground water levels are low, dry weather stream flows will fall and, although we may have rises due to intermittent local showers and thunderstorms over the basin, these rises are temporary and flows will continue to diminish. Ground water levels, as we come into warm weather, are entirely dependent on rain and snowfall that has occurred over the basin in the previous late fall, winter, and early spring months. If we do not have precipitation in these months then ground water levels are not usually up to normal by mid-March, and if precipitation continues below normal, we can usually look for trouble from mid-summer until mid-September. This happened in 1966 and has happened again this year. The following data are given for a quick comparison of the two years.

Resulting river flows of the two years and also for 1930, dry year of record prior to 1966, are compared on the attached chart of "Total River and Total Municipal Water." Note that flows during 1969 have been below any previous dry year for a good part of the time. Recent rains have relieved the situation for the time being. Nevertheless, we still have August and September ahead of us when lowest river flows are customarily reached. The principal message of the chart is that, except for one emergency measure which I shall describe later, we are entirely dependent on local rainfall to tide us over periods of low river flows.

The impact of the current shortage will be felt, as it was briefly in 1966, primarily through restrictions in water use. The Regional Sanitary Advisory Board, the technical advisory group in the field of sanitary engineering to the Council of Governments (COG), recommended recently, as it did in 1966, plans for member jurisdictions to implement first, voluntary conservation of water, followed by compulsory implementation if the former proved inadequate. These plans call for eliminating voluntarily certain nonessential uses such as watering of lawns, washing of automobiles, sidewalks, buildings, and the like when river flows fall to within 100 mgd of daily use. When flows fall to within 50 mgd of daily use, the above restrictions would become mandatory. These restrictions would mean dirty automobiles, brown grass and dry fountains, but the essentials would be met, and shrubs and gardens could be saved if one were energetic enough to carry water in buckets.

Should the flow of the Potomac fall to or below daily use under compulsory restrictions, one further measure could be taken-emergency pumping from the upper estuary to the Little Falls Pool where an intake to the District of Columbia system is located. This measure would benefit only D.C., Arlington, and Falls Church, Virginia. The next largest intake upstream is that of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission's Potomac Plant near Watts Branch, but it is located beyond the Little Falls impoundment. There are serious water quality problems associated with the upper estuary because of storm sewage and combined sewer overflows, as well as from sewage treatment plant effluents. For these and other reasons emergency pumping is not recommended as a permanent or key source in a comprehensive long-range plan for water supply for the region, but in an emergency until Bloomington comes on line-hopefully within the next seven years the estuary with appropriate treatment could serve for a relatively short period of time. The emergency measure was recommended in a recent study for COG by a board of engineers chaired by Dr. Abel Wolman, international authority on water resources. That board, however, did not consider the estuary a reliable solution to Washington's long-range water supply problem. The Regional Sanitary Advisory Board, therefore, in considering the current water supply shortage recommended that COG urge the Corps of Engineers, whose responsibility it would be, to undertake the emergency pumping. Efforts are now being made to get the money so that arrangements can be completed. The cost is estimated by the Corps at $1 million for a period of 60 days' operation.

In any analysis of the current shortage, one must consider the role of planning for water supply. Our existing shortage is due not to lack of planning but to the lack of implementation of what we have already planned. I have previously mentioned the Corps of Engineers' plan issued in February 1963 for development of the Potomac. This plan included Bloomington Reservoir which was scheduled to be on line in 1965. Had it been, the voluntary restrictions requested in 1966 would not have been necessary.