Mr. ROBERTS. It is a pleasure to welcome to the subcommittee this morning. Maj. Gen. John W. Morris, Director of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers, and General Morris, before I recognize you, let me recognize the gentleman from California, after which you may proceed in any way you see fit.

The gentleman from California.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as we begin these important hearings which should be the forerunner to the Water Resources Development Act of 1973, there are a number of very important points that I would like to make. First, however, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for you leadership as Chairman of the Water Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works. It has been a pleasure to work with you, and I am sure that your leadership in the weeks and months ahead will result in most important and far-reaching legislation on the conservation and utilization of our magnificent national water resources.

Mr. Chairman, in this, the "Age of the Environment," we, as a part of the Committee on Public Works, the committee which brought to the House the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which have been called the most important and the most stringent environmental legislation ever, have the opportunity and time to evaluate thoroughly the various alternatives to the provisions of the proposed new water resource legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard you state that it is important in these hearings that we listen to and have the opportunity to evaluate all the arguments and all of the various provisions which might be included. in the new Water Resources Development Act. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and I have made past statements to this effect. We must review all of the various alternatives for the use of our water resources. There is no question that this committee is charged with the responsibility of providing for flood control, navigation, water supply, power, recreation, and conservation. We must review all of the alternatives. In addition, we must recognize that in some cases even though there may be reasonable justification for flood control, water supply, and so on that there is also justification in some cases for either doing nothing or for enhancing the conservation aspects of our water resources.

It is important for us to review all of the alternatives. I am pleased we have the opportunity to do this together, because, as you stated, it is consistent with your views.

Mr. Chairman, there are three specific points that I would like to discuss which I think should be incorporated into this year's legislation. First, in the past, we have been diligent in our attempts to make sure we provide for the mitigation of any adverse impact of water resource projects on fish and wildlife. What we did in the past does not go far enough. I believe that the Corps of Engineers should be required to take positive steps in the design and construction of projects to enhance fish and wildlife resources rather than simply mitigating any loss of fish and wildlife caused by a project. I expect to introduce legislation in this regard and would hope that the final work product of the Subcommittee on Water Resources will include such a provision.

Second, we have recently discussed the idea of withholding final authorization projects until advanced engineering and design is com

plete. I am wholeheartedly in favor of this approach, and I am sure with your leadership that it will be possible for us to work together to make sure that new projects authorized in this year's legislation be authorized for advanced engineering and design only. By taking this step, we would be able to assure ourselves that we are not authorizing actual construction of ill-advised projects. Authorization for construction would only be made after there has been a thorough evaluation of the alternatives and the selection and design of the most beneficial alternative.

In the past, the committee's authorizations have sometimes been illadvised, not because the committee does not act to the best of its knowledge, but because past procedures have required a decision to be made too early and without having some of the necessary and obviously detailed information. Circumstances often change between authorization and the actual commencement of construction. There may be many years between the two. Therefore, I am sure we will be able to work together to revise our procedures and authorize only the phase I engineering and design of new projects. We will not be holding up worthwhile projects; we will simply be making more informal decisions on actual construction.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see this committee make a thorough review of yardsticks for evaluating federally financed water resource projects. We know that the National Water Commission has made a number of recommendations regarding the evaluation of such projects. I cannot agree with some of these recommendations, particularly those on discount rate, and I believe it is incumbent upon this committee to work as closely as possible with the administration to make sure that the Congress and the executive branch together work out an evaluation procedure which is mutually acceptable. This may take as much as 6 months. If it is not possible for us to work out a mutually acceptable agreement, it will be incumbent upon this committee either to provide an added breathing period precluding changes by the executive branch during which we can work further with the administration if possible to develop acceptable guidelines or to work out within the committee a broad base, new approach to the evaluation of federally financed water resource projects.

Mr. Chairman, we must pay attention to land use, economic growth, environmental controls, conservation, and coordinated planning and implementation. We must recognize that times have changed and our priorities are shifting. We as a country are becoming very concerned (and, in some cases alarmed) about the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the management of our natural resources, the protection of our fish and wildlife, the preservation of our scenic beauty including our rivers, and the growing needs for recreational opportunities.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, what the American people are telling us is that all of us who are engaged in the water and land resources planning business must strive for better balance and a realistic compromise between these concerns and the benefits in monetary values these projects will provide.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Clausen. Next, Mr. Grover.

Mr. GROVER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to say that I am pleased with and impressed by the attempts this year to make sure that all

projects and sections of this year's omnibus bill receives thorough review. There can be no question that the Committee on Public Works, and, particularly, the Subcommittee on Water Resources, has attempted to make sure that the social and environmental aspects as well as the economic impacts of each project and section are thoroughly reviewed. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your sincere and diligent attempts to make sure that all voices are heard on all projects. I also commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in the Subcommittee on Water Resources. I might also note that the combination of knowledge and leadership that this committee receives from you and Hon. Don H. Clausen, the ranking member of the Water Resources Subcommittee, will result in one of the finest omnibus bills. the Committee on Public Works has ever reported.

Mr. Chairman, in subparagraph 3 of section 208 of Public Law 91-611, the Congress provided that Federal participation in the cost of a beach erosion control project which also provided hurricane protection could be, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, not more than 70 percent of the total cost exclusive of land costs. While we believed that the intent of this language was clear, it has turned out that there has been confusion regarding the provision for 70 percent grants. Therefore, I am proposing an amendment similar to language incorporated in section 33 of the Flood Control Act of 1972 which was vetoed by the President. The language that I shall propose is intended to make the 70 percent of the Federal share mandatory rather than discretionary. The language which I shall propose would amend clause (3) of subsection (b) of the first section of the act entitled "An Act authorizing Federal Participation in the Cost of Protecting the Shores of Publicly Owned Property", approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426e (b)), to read as follows:

(3) Federal participation in the cost of a project providing a substantial degree of hurricane protection shall be 70 percent of the total cost notwithstanding any erosion control benefits that may occur as a result of the construction of the project.

Mr. Chairman, this language is intended to eliminate any misunderstanding on the part of the Corps of Engineers. I might note that this language which includes the term "a substantial degree of hurricane protection" does give the Corps a level of discretion. This is intentional. However, by incorporating this term in the amendment, which I shall propose, it is not intended that this discretion will be used arbitrarily to preclude grants for hurricane protection. This discretion should be used wisely.

In one small part of my district, even though we have not had any severe storms recently, just a normal succession of northeasters, there are at least eight places where the ocean is threatening to break through the sand dunes.

Mr. Chairman, homes have already been lost and many others are in precarious conditions. I understand that both the State of New York and the Corps of Engineers describe the situation as "critical".

I am sure the chairman is aware of the problems faced in protecting our shorelines. It is incumbent upon us as members of the Water Resources Subcommittee to take the steps necessary to provide the incentives to protect our beaches. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of presenting my statement.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Grover. General, we are delighted again to have you with us.

General MORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. JOHN W. MORRIS, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY BRIG. GEN. JAMES L. KELLY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS; IRWIN REISLER, CHIEF, PLANNING DIVISION; COL. RAYMOND J. EINEIGL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, CENTRAL DIVISIONS; AND LT. COL. CHARLES E. EDGAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISIONS

General MORRIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure for me to appear before you to present testimony pertaining to water resources development projects recommended by the Chief of Engineers, increases in basin monetary authorizations, the national shoreline study, and such other matters as requested by your com

mittee.

I am Maj. Gen. John W. Morris, Director of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers. I have nothing to add at this time to the statement presented by General Clarke, Chief of Engineers, at the opening session of this hearing, March 8, 1973, which provided a general overview of the Corps' civil works program.

I have with me members of my staff who will assist me in presenting data on the projects and other items you have scheduled for consideration. They are Brig. Gen. James L. Kelly, Deputy Director of Civil Works; Mr. Irwin Reisler, Chief, Planning Division; Colonel Eineigl and Lieutenant Colonel Edgar.

Since enactment of the last general omnibus legislation, the 1970 Flood Control and River and Harbor Acts, we have completed and submitted to Congress 11 reports for consideration and favorable action.

In addition, there are 17 project reports presently with the Office of the Under Secretary of the Army or Office of Management and Budget, which may reach the Congress in time for inclusion in an omnibus bill. These are the 28 reports which you have scheduled for consideration in connection with H.R. 4904, a proposed 1973 omnibus bill.

They include projects with a total estimated Federal cost of $591.9 million. The Potomac River basin projects-Sixes Bridge Dam and Verona Dam-which were previously submitted to Congress are not included in these numbers. These projects are being reformulated in response to a directive contained in the conference committee report on S. 4018, public works on rivers and harbors. The report is in the final stages of coordination and processing. Resubmission is expected prior to June 30, 1973, as directed.

It is noted that H.R. 4904 also includes a large number of legislative items which have not received full review in the executive branch and, accordingly, on which the administration's position has not been determined.

The 11 reports presently before Congress have been cleared by the executive branch and are included or recommended for inclusion in

H.R. 3966, the omnibus bill, which is supported by the President. Projects in those reports have an estimated cost of $382.3 million. That bill also includes certain legislative items and monetary authorizations for 11 river basins to cover estimated deficiencies through the end of fiscal year 1974. These monetary increases would total $409.200,000.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee, and I want to assure you that the Corps is always ready to implement programs related to water resources use and development in the national interest.

As I have mentioned, members of my staff are available to furnish you with further details regarding this program during these hearings at your request.

Mr. Chairman, you have probably been advised that I have a conflict, and I would ask that I be allowed to leave, after you have any questions for me personally, and General Kelly will continue with the hearing.

Mr. ROBERTS. General, you always do your good job for the Corps and the country, and we appreciate your coming over on short notice. And we understand you do have to leave.

Are there questions that have to be directed to General Morris? If not, General, thank you again, and we will look forward to seeing you during the hearings. And we will continue with General Kelly and all your staff and with Mr. Reisler.

General MORRIS. Thank you, very much.

Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman from California.

Mr. CLAUSEN. It may be necessary, General Morris, after we have heard more of the testimony, it may be that we would have a question that we want to direct to you, but I cannot see any reason why they could not be submitted to him in writing.

General MORRIS. I will certainly be available.

It is unfortunate that this has developed today.
Thank you, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman from California.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Off the record

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. ROBERTS. On the record.

For the record, General Kelly, would you introduce the Colonel and anyone else you want to join you at the table?

General KELLY. Yes, sir.

We will start with the projects scheduled for the North Central Division, and testifying on these projects will be Col. Raymond Eineigl.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, AT PRAIRIE DU CHIEN, WIS.

Colonel EINEIGL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns a flood plain evacuation plan at the Mississippi River community of Prairie du Chien, Wis. It is in response to two resolutions adopted on September 18, 1944, by the House Committee on Public Works and in partial response to an item in the Flood Control Act of 1965.

There are no existing flood control projects at Prairie du Chien. The city is situated along Pool No. 10 of the Federal navigation project on the Mississippi River.