I think they should have a priority established as we do under the Hill-Burton, where they have a proved need and a good project, and then get matching funds. But you have to encourage State participation and you have to encourage State dollars.

It seems to me we would get better results if we had the program divided into two different types: (1) an interstate program where we, the Federal Government, have a larger responsibility to coordinate and to encourage by financing; and (2), a simple matching fund program for the smaller projects that lie within a single State. Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, if the Chair

Mr. KEITH. We get more for our dollars, I believe, with that kind of a program.

Mr. DINGELL. If the chairman may interrupt, the Chair has tried to be as generous as possible with the time for all members this morning. But the Chair is compelled to observe that we have a great number of witnesses this morning, including three from California who have come to testify.

So the Chair would like to comment that we have a very short time.

Mr. KEITH. Mr. Dingell, I would be very happy to acceed to your wishes in this respect. I wanted to get this out, and I hope we get comment from other witnesses on it. It is a rather unique position for me acceding to your request, remembering some of our other experiences in other forums, but I do so, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Tupper?

Mr. TUPPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I want to commend you on your excellent statement on this subject, I think your statement should get wide distribution.

I was interested in your observation that the program would also have important benefits for other than anadromous species found principally in bays and estuaries. This might include such sedentary species as clams and mussels.

Mr. PAUTZKE. Yes.

Mr. TUPPER. Perhaps even lobsters?

Mr. PAUTZKE. Yes.

Mr. TUPPER. This work might prevent fresh water from affecting the salinity in bays.

Mr. PAUTZKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. TUPPER. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, the Chair is happy to have had you this morning to give this very helpful testimony.

If there are no further questions, gentlemen, you might stay around as we may need your assistance.

The Chair notes that we have three witnesses that have come to us from California. Mr. W. Grader, secretary of the Salmon Unlimited, Inc., of California.

Mr. HAGEN. May I interrupt a moment?

Mr. DINGELL. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Johnson, the Chair takes pleasure in welcoming you. The Chair is well aware of your work with the fish, and in this case we are happy to welcome our good friend and colleague from California, the Honorable Congressman Johnson who is here with us this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD T. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am vitally interested in this program. California is affected greatly by what has happened to our fishery.

I am pleased to appear before you in support of my bill, H.R. 3314, and those of my colleagues. We propose that the Secretary of the Interior be authorized to assist and cooperate with the States in conserving, developing, and enhancing the anadromous fishery resources of the Nation.

These bills extend, on a nationwide basis, the provisions of somewhat similar bills we introduced in the 87th Congress. These related to a development program for migratory fish in California only. I testified before your subcommittee in September 1962, on that earlier legislation.

Three members of your subcommittee, John Dingell, George Goodling, and a fellow Californian, Harlan Hagen, were made aware of the fish problems in California when they visited San Francisco, Sacramento, and other points in the State in December of that year.

Speaking for my home State of California, I want to point out that many of us have recognized the need for a strong Federal program for anadromous fish for several years.

The fact that California salmon enter national and international waters is reason enough for Federal participation. Also much past damage to these resources was the result of Federal water-use programs carried on when there were inadequate means, or desires to compensate for damage to the fishery-when such compensation was feasible.

With the threats to salmon and other migratory fish that can be foreseen in water developments now proposed by Federal and State water agencies in California, it is clear that there is strong justification for a comprehensive, statewide salmon program with Federal and State participation.

Every phase of the freshwater life of these fish should be accorded all possible improvements so as to increase the Nation's resources. Several means are available to improve these freshwater phases and to compensate for losses of spawning habitat and other detriments caused by man. All means should be used.

There are many thing that can be done to assist the migratory fish in California; namely, the king and silver salmon, steelhead trout, striped bass or rockfish, shad, and sturgeon. We will need several fish hatcheries and other artificial production works, including spawning channels.

Also, there are several major water diversions where fish screening are badly needed. These are diversions of long standing for which no legal claim can be made on the water-diverting agency.

Stream clearance work, stream bed realinement, and gravel restoration are other measures that will help to restore and enhance our fishery resources.

The officers of the California Department of Fish and Game and other people from my State who are here today are prepared to testify in favor of this legislation and to present particulars as to what needs to be done.

I also understand that similar fish problems and needs exist throughout most of the coastal States. Consequently, I am pleased to note that my colleague, Congressman Tupper, has also introduced bills on this subject.

He has reintroduced an earlier bill of his so as to include the amendments recommended by Secretary of Interior Udall in his report on this legislation. This new bill, H.R. 11160, and Interior's amendments are acceptable to me.

I want to say that we have many, many problems dealing with the anadromous fish in the State of California, and our State, I am sure is ready and willing to cooperate and I and other members of our California delegation are very much in support of this legislation. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Johnson, the committee is most grateful to you for the statement.

Are there any questions from my colleagues?

We are very happy to have had you; your statement has been most helpful and the Chair apologizes for not having been able to hear from you earlier.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is all right. I learned much from the chairman and other members of this committee here this morning.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair is now pleased to recognize Mr. John Mason, of the Federal Power Commission.

The Chair is happy to welcome you this morning, Mr. Mason.

STATEMENT OF JOHN MASON, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY FORREST R. HAUCK, BIOLOGIST, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION

Mr. MASON. Thank you, sir. I have with me this morning Mr. Forrest R. Hauck, who is a biologist and is head of our section of recreation, fisheries, and wildlife in the Bureau of Power.

My full name is John C. Mason; and I am Deputy General Counsel for the Federal Power Commission.

I realize time is short, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to be as brief as possible.

I would like to just point out for the record that I have been with the Commission in legal work dealing with licensing and water resource programs since 1941 and I have participated in many of the big licensing cases.

This bill involves a subject in which I have had lots of personal experience. I have been interested in it for years, and I have had many interesting experiences with some of the Department of the Interior witnesses who appeared here earlier today.

We have worked very closely over the years with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State conservation agencies.

You stated earlier, Mr. Chairman, that the Commission's report which was submitted on January 9, 1964, had been incorporated in

the record.

I would like to point out that the Commission noted that this bill, if enacted, would enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through its Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife to provide such additional fish facilities as may be deemed desirable in connection with existing and proposed projects licensed under the Federal Power Act and lo

35-230-64

cated in various States over the country. The Commission, of course, interposed no objection to the bill.

I have a rather long statement here, Mr. Chairman, which I will be glad to read, but in the interest of time, I would be glad to have it incorporated. I am at your convenience.

Mr. DINGELL. It would be quite helpful that you either read it, Mr. Mason, or you summarized from it.

Mr. MASON. I better read the statement; it is pretty difficult to summarize.

The Federal Power Commission, in accordance with the licensing provisions of the Federal Power Act and the long-established policies and procedures of the Commission in licensing matters, gives careful consideration to fish protection and the enhancement of fishery resources in reaching its decisions on hydroelectric project applications filed under that act.

The long-established general policy of Congress on the subject of non-Federal water resources development is embodied in the Federal Power Act of 1920, that came as the culmination of decades of study and experience which demonstrated the need for technically equipped machinery for licensing non-Federal water power development projects in accordance with general standards of public interest spelled out in that act, in lieu of the previous piecemeal disposition of licensing matters by ad hoc legislation.

Before issuing a license for hydroelectric development under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a) the Commission is required to find under section 10(a) of the act that in the judgment of the Commission, the project will be best adapated to a comprehensive plan of development of the water resources for power and all other beneficial public uses including, of course, the conservation, preservation, and enhancement of anadromous fish resources.

This section further empowers the Commission to require the modification of any project plans when necessary to carry out such purposes. Also, under the provisions of section 18 of the act the Commission may require the construction, maintenance, and operation of fishways by a licensee at its expense.

In order to further safeguard the interests of the United States in dealing with fish matters the following Federal Power Commission license article, agreed upon in conference between representatives of the Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, is now being included as a standard provision in hydroelectric licenses issued by the Commission:

Article. Whenever the United States shall desire, in connection with the project, to construct fish and wildlife facilities or to improve the existing fish and wildlife facilities at its own expense, the licensee shall permit the United States or its designated agency to use, free of cost, such of licensee's lands and interest in lands, reservoirs, waterways, and project works as may be reasonably required to complete such facilities or such improvements thereof. In addition, after notice and opportunity for hearing, the licensee shall modify the project operation as may be prescribed by the Commission, reasonably consistent with the primary purpose of the project, in order to permit the maintenance and operation of fish and wildlife facilities constructed or improved by the United States under the provisions of this article. This article shall not be interpreted to place any obligation on the United States to construct or improve fish and wildlife facilities or to relieve the licensee of any obligation under this license.

Recent action by the Commission on a license matter affecting the Salmon River is illustrative of Commission concern for the preservation of fish resources. Its opinion in that case, No. 418, issued February 5, 1964, involved license applications for the so-called High Mountain Sheep and Nez Perce hydroelectric power projects in Idaho, proposed by Pacific Northwest Co., project No. 2243, and by the Washington Public Power Supply System, project No. 2273, respectively. The Commission granted a license to Pacific Northwest for construction and operation of the High Mountain Sheep project on the Snake River just above the mouth of the Salmon River on the Idaho-Oregon border. At the same time, the Commission denied Washington Public Power's application for development of the Nez Perce project site on Snake River just downstream from High Mountain Sheep site and below the mouth of the Salmon River. Rehearing was denied April -30, 1964.

One of the controlling factors in the Commission's selection of the High Mountain Sheep site over the Nez Perce site for power development was its conclusion that in the present state of the art it is not possible to build facilities for passage of fish over a high dam and through a reservoir, such as Nez Perce, with any assurance that they will be effective. The Commission concluded that construction of the Nez Perce Dam, with its reservoir extending 63 miles up the Salmon River, would adversely affect fish runs on that stream which is a principal spawning area of Columbia River salmon, whereas the proposed High Mountain Sheep development on the upper Snake River would affect only the fish runs on the Snake River which are already impaired. The Commission found that the High Mountain Sheep plan had a decisive advantage over the Nez Perce plan in that it permits postponement of impoundments on the Salmon River until the fish passage problem is mastered. When this occurs, the Salmon River power potential may be developed by construction of projects at the lower canyon site near the mouth of the Salmon and at upstream sites. The recent High Mountain Sheep case is not unique. By reason of their location many of the potential hydroelectric projects of the country may be expected to affect in some manner the conservation of anadromous fish.

In such situations, therefore, the Commission must weigh the overall good, and where the balancing of any adverse effects on fish against the overall benefits to navigation, flood control, irrigation, power generation, and other purposes shows the project to be in the public interest, the water resources can be put to the most beneficial public uses rather than be wasted for most purposes, as would be the situation in the absence of such multiple-purpose development.

In cases of possible conflict between different uses of a particular water resource, decisions must be made with respect to which use or uses shall be permitted and what limitations and accommodations are necessary to assure all public benefits.

The Commission regards its authority to decide such issues in accordance with the evidence as essential to the continued effectiveness of the licensing provisions of the Federal Power Act.

I might add that by that sentence we are not implying that this bill in any way would have any effect on the Commission's authority under the Power Act.