Mr. HAGEN. This amendment you suggest, I think, is relatively inconsequential; I would assume that the Secretary would consult with the States before determining allocation of costs.

However, I see nothing which detracts from the bill by adding that amendment. It spells it out. That is about all it does.

Mr. RADOVICH. That is all.

Mr. HAGEN. What about language that is in Mr. Tupper's bill and in the bill I introduced yesterday, and which the Department of the Interior supported on this impounding? Does this rather loose language impose any problems for us, do you think?

Mr. RADOVICH. I think that the point you made yesterday on this is a good one, and that the intent of this, of course, is for dams or impoundment, but any water that is temporarily impounded for a structure or construction, I do not think is intended here.

I do not know whether this would interfere with work or not. not certain.

I am

Mr. HAGEN. In your testimony-I am no expert fisherman. Mr. Dingell is, and Mr. Goodling is, and maybe Mr. Lennon is, but I do not catch many fish myself, so I do not know too much about their characteristics, but this language relative to impoundment and approval of the Congress would not interfere with the hatcheries or screens or passage facilities, would it?

Mr. RADOVICH. I do not see how it would. No.

Mr. HAGEN. Or spawning channels or incubation channels, or control waters?

Mr. RADOVICH. I do not believe so.

Mr. HAGEN. That could be accomplished outside the requirement of that proposed amendment?

Mr. RADOVICH. I would think so.

Mr. HAGEN. Well, this bill I introduced, I amended that section slightly to provide, referring specifically to new construction for impoundment.

Mr. RADOVICH. Yes.

Mr. HAGEN. Again, I want to thank you and to tell my colleague from North Carolina that if anybody is willing to match money, I think we in California would be, although at the moment the mechan. ism is not such that they have the money.

Mr. LENNON. Can I go to one other question?

Mr. Radovich, the question of impounding waters as indicated by the amendment offered by the Department, that is a secondary step in this program. Would you not agree? That the prime thing to do is to snag and clear these streams and to make it possible for the fish to get over the present existing dams.

Is that what the first objective is?

Mr. RADOVICH. In some cases, this is true. We want to get them over the dams. In other cases, it would not do any good to get them over because the spawning area would be flooded, there are no water releases, and there would not be any place to spawn.

In these cases, we would have to do stream improvement, cleaning up the stream so sufficient water releases would be beneficial and it would help.

Mr. LENNON. Do you have a program in your State for snagging and clearing existing streams and tributaries?

Mr. RADOVICH. We do have, particularly with logging practices on the stream. There is a big problem there where at times the streams are pretty well jammed up with debris and they have to be cleaned

out.

Mr. LENNON. Doesn't California law prohibit the throwing of tree branches into the streams while logging?

Mr. RADOVICH. It is generally handled pretty well. Again, we have had to fix up streams which had been hurt before we had adequate teeth in the law.

Mr. HAGEN. Of course, you would have obsolute authority where State lands were involved. How about National Forest Service lands that border a stream, where there is logging? Do you have any authority there?

Mr. RADOVICH. I am not certain.

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. The State owns the water, the streambed, and, therefore, does have authority, and they work quite cooperatively, incidentally, with the U.S. Forest Service in these matters.

Mr. HAGEN. You could not require a contractor of the U.S. Forest Service to engage in certain logging practices; could you?

Mr. HUGHES. Not in that frame, but in effect, they do, through cooperative attitude and working with the Forest Service.

Mr. HAGEN. I would say, Mr. Lennon, most of these streams would run through national forest lands.

Mr. LENNON. Where they do, the State could make it unlawful and make it a criminal offense, as some States have done, to throw any type of refuse in any stream, not navigable, either, it could be a stream that contributed to the general resources of your State.

We have had to do that in North Carolina for the same reason you indicated.

Thank you.

Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to something. The subject of water pollution has come up.

Now, we have a water pollution control law in California which was passed, incidentally, when I was a member of the State legislature, and I was wondering if you could indicate how far the State had gone in attempting to handle this problem of water pollution in our streams in California.

Mr. RADOVICH. The State legislature that just concluded appropriate well, it actually approved a budget request of the department to build a bioassay laboratory to go into detail on studying pollution problems.

I think this is probably one of the biggest steps forward that the department has done here.

I think by and large our pollution problems are similar to many other States. They are so complex that it is difficult to actually select the individual polluter when it sometimes is a combination of a number of users of water that contribute to a situation.

We have some very difficult times handling these cases. However, the State has taken quite a strong attitude and fish and game laws are

fairly good. We do win many court cases on violations of pollution laws.

Mr. HAGEN. In other words, we have these regional water pollution control boards who are on the problem constantly, and if there is an offender; they bring an action?

Mr. RADOVICH. That is correct.

Mr. HAGEN. Thank you.

So, we do have rather a comprehensive pollution control law in California.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Radovich.

(The following material was subsequently received from Mr. Radovich for inclusion in the record:)

CALIFORNIA EXPENDITURES ON FISHERY RESOURCES

In accordance with the subcommittee's request, following is a tabulation of additional funds (other than special funds of license buyers and commercial fishermen) the State of California expends, which benefit its fisheries resources.

Wildlife conservation board: Various fish projects--

Water quality control board: Pollution control and abatement---

Department of water resources:

Fish and wildlife enhancement investigations_.
Delta fish and wildlife protection study__

State water projects fish and game investigations__
Feather River hatchery facilities----.

Total____

Estimated expenditures, 1963-64

$211, 625 975, 400

65,000 343,990

154, 163

129, 000

1,879, 178

The figures shown have been obtained from the California budget for the 1963-64 fiscal year.

Because budget procedures do not always specifically isolate expenditures related to fisheries resources, the above figures, in some cases, are estimates and the figures shown may not be the total amount expended.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair is happy to welcome Mr. Paul McKeehan. We are happy to have you and very grateful that you would come this far and help us in our consideration of these measures to protect anadromous fish.

STATEMENT OF PAUL MCKEEHAN, GOLDEN GATE SPORTFISHERS, ASSOCIATED SPORTSMEN OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. MCKEEHAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Paul McKeehan. I am speaking today in behalf of the Golden Gate Sportfishers, the Associated Sportsmen of California, and the California Wildlife Federation.

In order to demonstrate the wide interest in the anadromous fishery, I would like to briefly cite the composition of the organizations. The Golden Gate Sportfishers includes some 80 party-boat operators who earn their livelihood by providing salmon trolling for sports fishermen in waters of the Pacific Ocean.

The Associated Sportsmen of California, an organization of some 40-years standing, is composed of more than 100 clubs and 10,000 individual members, principally in the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta areas.

The California Wildlife Federation is a statewide organization, composed of 12 regional councils, with more than 600 clubs and 100,000 individual members, and in turn is affiliated with the National Wildlife Federation.

Undoubtedly, the sport fishing industry has developed to the point where it provides an important contribution to the economy of the Pacific coast as well as the entire Nation. As a matter of fact, many thinly populated areas depend on this as a major source of revenue. Speaking only in regard to California, I would like to cite a few examples. We have about 1.5 million licensed anglers, plus untold thousands who are exempt from license provisions. Four species of anadromous fish are of major importance: Salmon, steelhead, striped bass, and shad.

In 1952, there were 20 fishing resorts on the Sacramento River between Redding and Sacramento with a market value of $374,000.

By 1963, this same area had expanded to 34 fishing resorts with a market value of $2,519,000, nearly 7 times their earlier value. Salmon party-boats, with an average replacement value of $20,000, take an average of 75,000 fish annually.

Skiff fishermen on the bays and rivers probably take another 30,000 salmon annually. The total value of the salmon sports fishery has been estimated to be more than $15 million annually, double that of the commercial catch.

The area inside the Golden Gate and up through delta waters supports several million man-days of fishing annually. In this fishery, about 1.5 million striped bass are taken annually, with an estimated value of $20 million.

Steelhead and shad, fished principally from shore, are rather difficult to evaluate. However, when we consider the distance traveled by thousands of people for this type of fishing, it appears that it also has an annual value of several million dollars.

Obviously, it is impossible to equate the human element to dollars and cents. If the human element could be discounted, which I doubt, the sport fishermen would be better off to stay home and buy fish at the market.

It follows, then, that the sports fishermen derives a far greater value than the few fish he may bring home.

Water developments, many of which gave no consideration to the fishery resource, have taken their toll of the anadromous fishes. Water projects now under construction or contemplated pose another grave threat to the important anadromous fish resource.

In conclusion, we are of the opinion that a nationwide development and maintenance program, such as that under consideration here today, must be instigated if the sports fishery and portions of the commercial fishery are to survive and flourish.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that far more important than anything I have said heretofore is the fact that we have recognized the critical need for the principle involved in this legislation sufficient to justify our personal appearance here today.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. McKeehan, the committee is very grateful to you for your appearance.

Mr. Hagen?

Mr. HAGEN. I would like to ask one question.

Is there any special license fees charged sport fishermen for fishing for anadromous fish in California?

Mr. MCKEEHAN. Let me explain it this way, Mr. Hagen: The basic fishing license in California is $3 per years, which affords the opportunity to fish in the waters of the Pacific Ocean. When we move inland on the fresh water rivers, there is an additional license stamp of $1 for the fishes, including striped bass, black bass, shad, and so forth.

If you desire to fish for trout, it requires another stamp of $1. So. in order to fish for all of the fishes that are prevalent in California, it will require a license of $5 per annum.

Mr. HAGEN. Let me ask you another question. I know that sportsmen are a very influential organization in California because there are sportsmen all over the State.

Do you think the sportsmen might object to, say, an additional $1 or some such figure to provide the matching funds to carry out an anadromous fish program?

Mr. McKEEHAN. I cannot answer that, Mr. Hagen. I can only give my own impression of the situation.

Mr. HAGEN. What is your personal reaction, I mean?

Mr. McKEEHAN. My personal opinion is that it-let me put it this way that the licensed anglers as a whole throughout the State might object to this on this premise: That the present law which raised the license in 1957, I believe, specified that a portion of that license increase would go for the catchable trout program in California.

Now, one of the provisions of the law is simply this: That the cost of the catchable trout program must not exceed the revenue from that particular source.

In other words, the trout stamps themselves.

I am inclined to believe that the anglers as a whole, as I said before, would object to a raise in the license at this time.

That is my personal opinion.

Mr. HAGEN. Well, it is entirely possible, I do not say that it would happen, but if this legislation is passed, and we all hope it passes. there might be a specific matching fund requirement rather than the rather loose language that is in this bill with respect to matching.

I would assume that, even with this present language, California would be one of the States that would be required to match, where perhaps some of the others might not. In equity to our State, I think it might be better to have the specified requirements.

Mr. McKEEHAN. I can assure you this, Mr. Hagen; I can assure you that the sportsmen of California would seriously consider it, give it their most honest consideration, and I am expressing the sentiment as I see it at this time.

In the future, it might be possible that the sportsmen may go for a licensing increase on a particular species.

Mr. HAGEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. McKeehan, we are certainly grateful to you this morning for your very helpful testimony.

We are very grateful you would come this far to give us this help with the bill.

Mr. McKEEHAN. Thank you very much.