acquire any lands in any other States on any of the other adopted projects?

Mr. SALMOND. Not with the pending appropriations; no sir. The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the pending appropriations. Mr. SALMOND. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any forestry lands or forestry work to be done on any of the other adopted projects?

Mr. SALMOND. Yes, sir; in 8 of the 11 approved areas.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you encountering any difficulties in the proposed acquisition of lands for forestry work in any of the other States?

Mr. SALMOND. No, sir. I might say, in addition to the law which has been enacted by Oklahoma, the State of California has enacted a law which will specifically permit the Federal Government to acquire lands for flood-control purposes in the two areas in which it is authorized by the 1944 act.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the type of lands that would be acquired? Are they of any actual value at present-the lands you propose to reforest? Why is it necessary for you to acquire those lands if cooperation can be worked out with the owners and local subdivisions?

Mr. SALMOND. The type of land proposed for acquisition was that which had been so badly gullied and eroded that it. appeared to be uneconomic to retain in private ownership because we felt that the cost of the measures necessary to rehabilitate it by erosion-control measures and works could not be borne by private owners because of the expense involved.

The CHAIRMAN. Take Mississippi-you referred to that StateOklahoma and California. Are there any other works to be done there except where you are doing work under the present appropriation as part of the program?

Mr. SALMOND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You heard the statement that no lands were to be acquired in any of the States during the current fiscal year?

Mr. SALMOND. During the current fiscal year; that is correct. The CHAIRMAN. The land you propose to acquire for reforestation, then, would be lands you have under consideration for the next fiscal year?

Mr. SALMOND. Correct.

The CHAIRMAN. But under the pending current appropriations, no lands are to be acquired. I think that has been the understanding with respect to the matter in Mississippi, and I assume elsewhere.

Mr. SALMOND. We have proposed to acquire lands in Mississippi under the current pending appropriation in the fiscal year 1947, but not in the present fiscal year, assuming we can clear the matter with the State.

The CHAIRMAN. Take, for instance, in Mississippi-and that area is entirely outside the area and district I personally represent-the current appropriation provides they may be acquired with the cooperation of the local taxing units.

Mr. SALMOND. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are not prepared to say that will not prevent your acquiring them?

Mr. SALMOND. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may submit any other observations or recommendations you care to submit.

The Reclamation Service has been heard with respect to the Missouri Valley project, and, as I understand, has submitted the statements they desire to submit. Is the Director of Reclamation here?

Mr. STRAUS. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I have a statement I would like to submit, and I would like to make it for the record, if I may. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have it.

Will you give your name and official position for the record?

Mr. STRAUS. Mr. Chairman, my name is Michael W. Straus; I am Commissioner of Reclamation. I would like, if it pleases the committee, to make a brief statement not for the purpose of extolling or criticising any of the number of projects before you, but for the purpose of bringing up a more general matter that will permit ourselves, and I hope the Congress, to continue this work in a way that would avoid confusion or controversy.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, we will be glad to have your statement. We have undertaken to have the statements of the Bureau of Reclamation, first, in connection with the statements of the Office of Chief of Engineers, with respect to the so-called Missouri Valley project. The representatives of your office have been in attendance, as they have advised me, during the hearings and there were no projects reported in the Central Valley of California area that were gone into by the engineers and, as I recall, your representatives stated there was no occasion for them to go into that matter; but I understood there was a request you wanted to make a statement with respect to the Red River project. Am I right or wrong about that?

Mr. STRAUS. No, sir; my statement is not in respect to the Red River.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, am I right about your representatives having stated that? I want to get straight on that.

Mr. DIXON. That statement was made yesterday, sir. I think you were out of the chamber at the time.

The CHAIRMAN. I had to go to answer a roll call of the House. I did not know whether it was made or not, and I wanted to be sure your request was complied with.

Mr. DIXON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So you have put a statement with respect to the Red River project in the record?

Mr. DIXON. We did not put the letter into the record.

The CHAIRMAN. What letter do you speak of?

Mr. DIXON. The letter from the Secretary of the Interior to the

Chief of Engineers.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you put in the record?

Mr. DIXON. An oral statement.

The CHAIRMAN. And in connection with that oral statement, you would like to put in what?

Mr. DIXON. A copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Interior to the Chief of Engineers.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that in the report submitted by the Chief of Engineers?

Mr. DIXON. It will be in the report, but I do not think the report has actually come out yet.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it will get to us about as quick as the letter; but, if you would like to include you letter in connection with it, there would be no objection.

(The matter above referred to is included in the hearings on the Red River.)

The CHAIRMAN. Now we will be glad to have your statement.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. STRAUS, COMMISSIONER OF
RECLAMATION

Mr. STRAUS. I will try to be quite brief.

I wish to commend this committee on the wise action it has taken in adopting legislation which not only permits, but prescribes coordination between the executive departments primarily concerned with the development of water resources in the West. Section I of the Flood Control' Act of 1944, and the similar section in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945, in my mind, are two of the outstanding pieces of legislation of this kind that have been enacted for the benefit of all of the people and of all of the interests in public development. In section I (a)—

(1) The Congress declared it to be its policy—

to facilitate the consideration of projects on a basis of comprehensive and coordinated development.

(2) The Congress declared it to be its policy—

to recognize the interests of the States in determining the development of the watersheds within their borders and likewise their interests and rights in water utilization and control.

(3) The Congress provided procedures to effectuate these policies in stating that—

investigations which form the basis of any such plans, proposals, or reports shall be conducted in such a manner as to give to the affected State or States during the course of the investigations, information developed by the investigations and also opportunity for consultation regarding plans and proposals, and to the extent deemed practicable by the Chief of Engineers, opportunity to cooperate in the investigations.

(4) The Congress provided further that—

if such investigations in whole or part are concerned with the use or control of water arising west of the ninety-seventh meridian, the Chief of Engineers shall give to the Secretary of the Interior, during the course of the investigations, information developed by the investigations and also opportunity for consultation regarding plans and proposals, and to the extent deemed practicable by the Chief of Engineers, opportunity to cooperate in the investigations.

(5) The Congress wisely provided for an exchange of views among the States and agencies by stipulating that—

the Chief of Engineers shall transmit a copy of his proposed report to each affected State, and, in case the plans or proposals covered by the report are concerned with the use of waters which rise in whole or in part west of the ninety-seventh meridian, to the Secretary of the Interior.

Within 90 days after receipt of a proposed report, the written views and recommendations of each affected State, and the Secretary of the Interior, may be submitted to the Chief of Engineers, who shall transmit them to the Congress with his proposed report, accompanied by such comments and recommendations as he deems appropriate.

These policies and procedures, if pursued on the basis of wholehearted cooperation among the States and Federal agencies, can do a great deal to bring about the best possible development of our resources. The Interior Department subscribes fully to the application of these laws. In order that these policies may be continued in effect without question, I recommend that the Flood Control and the Rivers and Harbors Committees of the House of Representatives, and the appropriate committee in the Senate, delete from the fourth line of the preamble to section 1 (a), the words "as herein authorized." By this deletion, the Congress will assure the continuing effectiveness of these valuable provisions.

In addition, the Congress in section 1 (b) of the same act declared it to be its policy that

The use for navigation, in connection with the operation and maintenance of such works herein authorized for construction, of waters arising in the States lying wholly or partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian shall be only such use as does not conflict with any beneficial consumptive use, present or future, in States lying wholly or partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian, of such waters for domestic, municipal, stock water, irrigation, mining,or industrial purposes.

That is a list of the priorities. This section of the laws like section 1 (a), represents a policy which is vital to the interests of all of the States and of all of the people in the West, and to the entire Nation. I feel sure that it was the understanding of almost everyone, that in adopting section 1 (b), the Congress had given the executive agencies and the States, a permanent and far reaching policy of major importance. Close examination of section 1 (b) discloses, however, that this section may only have applied literally to works authorized for construction in the 1944 Flood Control Act, and the 1945 River and Harbor Act. In the interest of the best development of the West, I urge most strongly that you take action to amend section 1 (b) by inserting, after the word "herein" in the second line, the words "or hereafter" so that this fundamental provision of both acts will have continuing value to the Nation.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have that recommendation and, in that connection, without intending to interrupt any further recommendations you wish to submit to us, is there a comparable provision in existing law that proposed projects by the Bureau of Reclamation are to be submitted to the Corps of Engineers for their comments before they are authorized?

Mr. STRAUS. There is an exactly comparable section and I have that set forth right here.

The CHAIRMAN. You have that section?

Mr. STRAUS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. STRAUS. Section 1 (c) of each of these acts provides, and correctly, that

The Secretary of the Interior, in making investigations of and reports on works for irrigation and purposes incidental thereto shall, in relation to the affected State or States, and to the Secretary of War, be subject to the same provisions regarding investigations, plans, proposals, and reports prescribed in paragraph (a) for the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War.

The Department of the Interior subscribes fully to this policy. The CHAIRMAN. Does that cover the projects subsequently authorized or previously authorized by both Departments?

Mr. STRAUS. I think that, inasmuch as the paragraph that might be interpreted to be confined to the 1944 and 1945 acts only, this paragraph also would refer only to those acts. We endorse it as a continuing basic policy binding on both agencies.

You can well appreciate that the enunciation of policies so fundamental to cooperation as these, would not produce immediate and uniform results. These policies necessitated a considerable change in relationships among the executive agencies, and, in some cases, with the States. It is to be expected that there would be better application of these policies in some areas than in others. I would be. foolish indeed if I were to endeavor to convince you that the enunciation of these principles alone would be sufficient to achieve all of the desired results. We, in the Department of the Interior, believe firmly in the objectives of the law, and we are striving diligently to put these congressional policies into effect. I am happy to report that in many areas, and to an increasing degree, effective cooperation is developing among the executive agencies and the States. For example, through these provisions of the law, coordination was made possible in the plans for development of the Heart River in North Dakota. A high degree of technical coordination has taken place in the Pacific Northwest, and in the Central Valley of California. Coordination on technical matters is progressing in the Missouri Basin, and on the Red River above the Denison Dam it is quite satisfactory. Evidences of the desire of the executive agencies to work in harmony and in full cooperation with the States are numerous. It has always been the policy for the Department of the Interior to work on this basis, for, as you are aware, a large proportion of the costs of our projects are reimbursable by the local interests. It is therefore not only important but essential that we work in very close collaboration with the local interests as well as with the Federal agencies.

One of the forward steps that has been taken has been the establishment of the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee, composed of representatives of the Department of the Interior, the Corps of Engineers, the Federal Power Commission, and the Department of Agriculture. To date, this Committee has created two field working committees, one known as the Missouri Basis Inter-Agency Committee, and the other which is very recent, as the Columbia Basin InterAgency Committee. The same agencies are represented on these field Committees as are represented on the Federal Committee, and State representatives participate directly in their work. Through the activities of these committees, we hope to achieve a greater degree of cooperation while project plans are in their formulative stage.

Following the clearly expressed desire of Congress in the 1944 and 1945 Acts, I want to point out that, in connection with the projects on which you have just completed taking testimony, the Department of the Interior has had an opportunity to consider whether or not the full natural-resource development will be obtained.

The CHAIRMAN. That you have not had an opportunity?

Mr. STRAUS. That we have had an opportunity-on the projects that have come up to date at this hearing before your committee.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, submitted since the Act of 1944?

Mr. STRAUS. Yes. This has been no small task, as the Congress has vested the Department of the Interior with large responsibilities not