Thank you. Mr. PELLY. I have understood now that they developed other forms of generation that could undersell or compete with projects of this nature. Mr. CLAPPER. I believe that the project includes benefits from flood control, from power generation, but a third of the benefits are allocated to industrial development. In other words, they intend to create an industrial complex near Knoxville, on this area, which would entice industries to that part of the country. We think there are a lot of questions about a $15 million allocation of benefits on this point. Mr. PELLY. If you come up with a proposed amendment to cut out all salaries to further such project, leave the biologists in. Mr. CLAPPER. Thank you, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Dow? Mr. Dow. Yes. Let me compliment you on a very good statement, Mr. Clapper. I notice that the purpose of the TVA plan is apparently flood control. Is that correct? Is that their objective here? Mr. CLAPPER. I think the Tennessee Valley Authority created back in 1933 was to go into an area for the first time and treat it as a complete watershed. In other words, power generation is very definitely a part of this overall plan. It was my privilege to serve the Tennessee Game & Fish Commission for 9 years, beginning in 1949, and I am somewhat familiar with the area concerned, and certainly no one can question many of the benefits that TVA has brought to that region. We think this particular project, though, certainly does not belong in the category of the other fine projects that this agency has handled. Mr. Dow. Do you know what is the specific purpose intended in the Tellico and the other project that you mentioned here? Mr. CLAPPER. The Tellico project has several benefits. As indicated in the hearings before the Appropriations Committee last year, these are broken down, navigation benefits $11,400,000; flood control, $10,400,000; power, $8 million; and general economic development, $15 million. This gives them a total benefit of $44,800,000. The estimated total cost of the project is $42,500,000, less the estimated recoveries from land sales of $10,900,000, which gives a net project cost of $31,600,000, and a cost-benefit ratio of 1.4 to 1. This really is the reason why we have severe questions about this project, particularly when it destroys the finest trout stream in that area. Mr. Dow. The general history of the TVA, as I recall it from the beginning, has been the impoundment of waters in the whole valley there in a series of impoundments. Mr. CLAPPER. That is right, sir. Mr. Dow. Would you say that in the course of constructing those dams and impoundments of water that they had destroyed very much in the way of fish life? Mr. CLAPPER. I would say that the benefits have overridden the losses in construction of most of those reservoirs, Mr. Dow. I think in this particular case, though, you have a cold water stream that is unique, able to support a large fishery, and it does not come in the same category as many of the other streams that TVA has already impounded. Mr. Dow. That answers the question very well. Thank you. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Clapper, the Chair is always happy to see you and hear your always enlightening and useful testimony. The Chair is grateful to you for your testimony. Mr. CLAPPER. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity of making these remarks. Mr. DINGELL. The Chair notes several statements, telegrams, and letters have been submitted. They will be inserted in the record at this point. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until the call of the Chair. (The material mentioned follows:) STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Spencer M. Smith, Jr., Secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C. We support H.R. 9492 which would delay issuance of any license or order by Federal agencies to construct water facilities until a determination has been made as to the probable effects upon fish and wildlife by the States and the Department of the Interior. This amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act we believe to be necessary despite the announcement on April 19th by the Federal Power Commission, which by its announced rule would require the effects upon fish and wildlife resources to be filed as part of the license application. This procedure has been repeated time and time again. Despite every effort to encourage a Federal agency to change its administrative practices, such change is occasioned when legislation is imminent. Usually when the administrative change is made, there is then the contention that the legislation is unnecessary. It has likewise been our experience that such an administrative ruling can be changed or modified in the future by the head of the agency. We have taken the position, and do so now, that if the agency has seen fit to revise its rules and procedures in accordance with contemplated legislation, it should have no objection to the enactment of the legislation. We also support H.R. 9492 for the important enhancement of research as to the impact of thermal pollution on fish and wildlife. Experience has indicated a variety of results and our present understanding of it needs to be increased significantly. H.R. 14414 would amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act by making it applicable to the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Power Commission, and to permittees and licensees of such Commission. The extension of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to the TVA is accomplished by H.R. 14455 which would repeal Section 9 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, thus bringing the TVA within the provisions of the Act. There appears to be no good reason for the exclusion of any of these agencies from the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The principal purpose of the Act, as indicated in its title, is to coordinate the activities of several agencies which are dealing with different resources in the hope of maximizing the social benefits from all such resources. When the development of the one means the loss of the other, it is incumbent upon all branches of the Federal Government, with these responsibilities, to minimize the depletion or reduction of any resource. Two situations exist at the present time which are persuasive in making the TVA subject to the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The Upper French Broad Watershed of North Carolina would for all practical purposes destroy trout fishing in that area. The need for flood control and other developments is generally supported. Plans other than those offered by the TVA could achieve the flood control objectives by using certain Soil Conservation Service impoundments and at the same time minimize the damage to trout streams. Little, if any, consultation was undertaken by the TVA with either the Bureau of Sport Fisheries or the State Wildlife Resources Commission. We find this problem to be of the precise character for which the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was initiated. A similar situation is involved on the Little Tennessee River in Tennessee regarding the Tellico Project. The justification for this project was made partly palatable by including recreation benefits but which in reality undervalued significantly the recreation resources that were being destroyed. Trout streams are fast disappearing in the country and greater efforts are needed to plan other resource uses, which will either save or restrict damage to an absolute minimum. It is our hope that the Committee will find favor with these three measures, for in so doing they will have effected important protection for fish and wildlife resources. If such protection is not increased, such resources are in serious danger. STATEMENT OF C. R. GUTERMUTH Mr. Chairman, I am C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Institute is one of the older national conservation organizations, and its program has been devoted to the improved management of natural resources in the public interest for more than fifty years. The three bills presently before the committee seek to resolve areas of difficulty wherein species of fish and wildlife, valued for either or both sport and commerical purposes, and their habitat have been harmed by the construction and operation of water control, diversion, and other works affecting the flow or quality of water. In other cases, like with the Tennessee Valley Authority and the proposed Tellico Dam and Little French Broad River projects, there is reason to believe that fish and wildlife resources and their habitat are not receiving detailed consideration other than that which employees of TVA care to focus on the projects. This is not said in criticism of TVA, because it has done many fine things. The failure of the agency to have an independent review of the impact of its projects on fish and wildlife, however, causes understandable suspicion of some of its recommendations. It is believed that there should be uniformity in the federal procedures so as to assure that projects constructed and operated under federal license or permit give necessary consideration to the effect of such projects on fish and wildlife and their habitat. Certainly, projects constructed by a public agency or by a private person, agency, or instrumentality can have equal capacity for harmful impact on fish and wildlife. My point is that it is not whether the project is constructed by a public or private agency that determines its potential harm to fish and wildlife. Rather, it is the area in which the project is constructed, and how it is constructed, operated, and maintained that determines its effect on fish and wildlife. For this reason, conservationists believe that all agencies that construct and/or issue licenses or permits for the construction and operation of water control, diversion, and other-water uses, including the licensee or permittee, should be brought under a uniform procedure. It is believed that H.R. 9492 should be the basis for the committee's consideration, Mr. Chairman, because it offers the broadest approach to the problem. H.R. 14414 would apply the provisions of the Coordination Act to the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Power Commission, and to "any public or private person, agency, or instrumentality issued a permit or a license by either of such Commissions." This latter concept is good, but the proposal rules out the TVA. We believe TVA should be included. H.R. 14455 pertains specifically to the TVA, but it omits the FPC and the AEC. To my knowledge, the AEC does not impound or divert water, but it does license facilities that obtain and return water to streams. In companion bills S. 2306 and H.R. 10701, introduced at the behest of the FPC and pending before other committees, that agency is seeking authority to license diversion facilities in or along navigable waters for cooling steam or other generating plants. It is hoped that this authority will be granted to the FPC, because thermal pollution can effect water quality adversely. 65-204-66-pt. 1- 16 It is believed that the committee should consider an amendment of Section 5 of the Coordination Act so as to list thermal pollution as one of the kinds of water pollution to receive the attention of the Secretary of the Interior. It is not now defined as a kind of water pollution under the Act. If this were done, it is believed that the Secretary then would have clear cut authority to move in those cases where projects licensed by the AEC or by the FPC, if S. 2306 or H.R. 10701 were enacted, thermally alter the aquatic environment. It also would appear advisable to require that the Secretary advise the AEC or the FPC, providing the latter is granted authority to license water diversions, whenever the operation of a licensed or permitted facility holds potential for deteriorating the aquatic environment. The Secretary has done little or no investigating of the effect of pollution on fish and wildlife under the authority of Section 5. It is believed that there may be value in authorizing the appropriation of $500,000 annually for this purpose as recommended in Section 2 of H.R. 9492. That amount may prove to be inadequate in time, but initially it will provide a focal point for budgetary consideration. This has worked to good advantage on other programs in the past. The chairman is aware that the FPC has issued a proposed rule making that would require a fish and wildlife exhibit to be filed with every application for a hydro-project license. The proposed rule specifically directs that the applicant shall consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies. FPC has set May 19 as the deadline for comments on the proposed rule, and it is receiving broad support from conservation groups. This rule probably will apply to diversion projects should FPC be granted that authority. In summary, Mr. Chairman, it is hoped that the committee, as a basic recommendation, would seek to amend the Coordination Act so as to include the TVA under the purview of that Act, and would amend Section 5 to include thermal pollution as one of the kinds of water pollution that may be investigated by the Secretary of the Interior. The FPC currently appears to be seeking to improve its position administratively, both through recommendation of the bills relating to the licensing of diversion structures and through the proposed rule making. Perhaps it would be best to encourage the agency to proceed in that direction, with the thought that its operation would be subject to further review by this committee in the future. STATEMENT OF ROD VANDIVERT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SCENIC HUDSON Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, these bills hit the heart of the conservation problem. Our main complaint as conservationists has been lack of due notice and lack of strength and mandated responsibilities on the part of those agencies who would protect natural resources. It has long been the need of conservationists to have proper research carried on despite deadlines which invariably favor the project of the licensee. Be it the Hudson River or any other important stream in the country, we have been unable to live within the spirit or even the letter of the law. There has been continued weakness on the part of those agencies responsible for the protection of natural resources simply because there was neither the time nor requirement for important and meaningful opinion. All too frequently opinions were created to fit deadlines rather than circumstances. .. equally frequently resources were given short shrift. The requirement of proper previous notice and important regard for the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act on the part of those agencies whose sole purpose is licensing would be an immense boon for private interests whose purpose in this case is the protection of our resources. In the name of Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference particularly, may I stress the importance of these bills. Their existence would have precluded the days and dollars which private citizens have been forced to devote to public service, a function normally reserved for government which in this case chose the expedient. Scenic Hudson and its affiliates have exhausted private resources and finances to examine points which normally goverment would have covered in a pro forma fashion, only because government was hamstrung by the time requirements and the limitations of exceedingly narrow fish and wildlife protective law. We welcome a legislative move to correct the obvious inequities of both time of due notice and limited fish and wildife authority. UPPER FRENCH BROAD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Hon. ALTON LENNON, Asheville, N.C., May 23, 1966. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LENNON: I serve as Chairman of the five-county Upper French Broad Economic Development Commission appointed by the county commissioners of Buncombe, Haywood, Henderson, Madison, and Transylvania counties. For several years, whe have represented this area in developing, with the Tennessee Valley Authority and other state agencies, a total water resources plan within the Upper French Broad. As of this date, we have a plan approved in principle by the TVA Board of Directors and subsequently approved by this Commission and the County Commissioners of all five counties. The plan also has the overwhelming support of the bulk of the population of this area. This total resources development program provides not only flood control and recreation but also, water supply and water quality control for this region. It basically consists of 12 permanent pools of some 6,000 acres and 3 dry dams designed purely for flood control. In this area we have the highest rainfall in eastern America which over the past half century has resulted not only constant flood problems during the rainy season, but at the same time the area has experienced frequent crop reductions and stream pollution problems as a result of extended dry periods. A report by the First Research Corporation of Miami indicated one of the basic needs of this resort area was for lake oriented recreation facilities. The proposed plan that we have today reflects the wishes and needs of the area as determined over the past several years by constant contact with local leaders and organization and is now backed and supported by Chambers of Commerce, civic clubs, government officials and prominent people within the five county community. For better than 20 years every effort towards a water control program in this area has been challenged by wildlife people on the grounds that certain trout streams would be affected. As recent as 1963, the people of Transylvania County voted their own local flood control program through the Soil Conservation Service; approving a local tax to build the small locallized SCS type dams. Even though the people of that conuty approved this plan it has never been put into effect and for all intents and purposes is a dead issue because of violent objections raised by wildlife interests. Being familar with the past history of these problems, this water resources development project was designed to create the greatest economic development opportunity for this area with minimum intrusions into such areas as protected forests, and fishing and game refuges. On the one hand, most local people would prefer to see water facilities in the headwaters and upstream undeveloped areas. Wildlife interests, on the other hand, would like to see large impoundments covering the developable flat lands, or dry dam only structures. The plan as it exists today reflects a modern approach between the two. It proposes to convert 11.1 miles of trout streams into lakes. These 11.1 miles represents 1⁄2 of 1% of the 1,585 miles of designated public mountain trout water and about 500 miles of streams in the wildlife management areas in Western North Carolina. (This does not take into consideration the additional hundreds of miles of native trout streams). However, the fish and wildlife interests in areas outside of the Upper French Broad are strenuously opposing this project with their quoted statements, "We can't afford to lose even an inch of trout water. . . ." The opposition being generated from such groups as the National Wildlife Federation, Sports Fishing Institute, etc., etc., has apparently prompted the introduction of a bill H.R. 14455 which in effect would place this project and all other projects of TVA under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Should this bill be given approval, and |