neers have a familiarity with water-use problems that could not be acquired by any new group without years of intensive and continuous study. To supersede them now instead of seeking their cooperation would be an inefficient procedure. The following information is submitted: Senate Resolution 164 is substantially identical with a provision in the River and Harbor Act of January 21, 1927, which assigned to the Secretary of War and to the Chief of Engineers the duty of making surveys in accordance with House Document No. 308, Sixtyninth Congress, first session, with a view to the formulation of general plans for the most effective improvement of navigable streams of the United States and their tributaries for the purpose of navigation, and development of water power, the control of floods, and the needs or irrigation. (Consideration of the Colorado River was precluded.) The Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, amplifies this duty with respect to the tributaries of the Mississippi River. Pursuant to the above-mentioned congressional mandate, the Corps of Engineers has been engaged in this work for 7 years and has expended upward of $10,000,000 thereon. National planning for putting the waters of the United States to the highest beneficial use is therefore well under way, so far as assembling the basic data is concerned. It was initiated by Congress, which constituted the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers as its agent in finding the facts upon which it might act. They are required by law to report their findings to Congress, but this provision does not make it inconsistent for them to supply the information to you, so as to enable you to comply with Senate Resolution 164. The reports on a majority of these surveys have been transmitted to Congress. The remaining reports are in preparation, but sufficiently advanced to permit all necessary information to be concisely tabulated so as to set forth the elements of a comprehensive plan for the improvement of the rivers and harbors of the United States. The Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers can, within a very short time, prepare for you a comprehensive plan such as Congress has requested. The work of the Corps of Engineers in assembling these data has been, by congressional mandate, restricted to navigation, hydroelectric power, flood control, and irrigation. If it is desired to add studies on stream pollution, soil erosion, reforestation, recreation, and sociological plans, these can be superimposed upon the data already submitted without conflict. If any field work or research has been carried out by any agency of the Government on these additional factors, these data can simultaneously be submitted to Congress by you together with your own recommendations. I have been trying to make up my mind whether all elements of a program of national planning should be combined in one plan. I do not think it is necessary to do so. For example, putting an end to stream pollution seems to have little or no connection with improving the streams for navigation, flood control, power, or irrigation, because it is chiefly a matter of the construction of sewage-disposal plants, which so far has been a municipal question. 65854-84 Soil erosion, except along the banks of the streams, would appear to be more closely allied with reforestation and restoration of plant cover than with stream improvement. In some cases, however, soilerosion work will involve the construction of dams. Reforestation plays an important part in flood control and soil erosion but it may be carried on quite independently of river-improvement works. And so it goes. Each of these activities is a special problem, to be handled by a special group of experts if satisfactory results are to be obtained. Here is a place where too much coordination, or the coordination of unrelated activities, might prove harmful instead of beneficial. As above stated, voluminous data and estimates on stream developments proper have been assembled by the War Department. Obviously, the bulk and mass of this information renders it difficult of digestion by anyone not familiar with the subject matter. However, the information at hand is sufficient in scope and form, in my opinion, for acceptability as a comprehensive plan responsive to Senate Resolution 164. The plan includes the improvement of less extensive watersheds, as well as the development of predominant basins, and is thus comprehensive. A program for the comprehensive development of our seacoast harbors might well accompany the plan for the development of our interior waterways. As a result of the War Department's investigations now nearing completion, about 2,000 river projects have been found practicable, with an estimated aggregate cost of about $8,000,000,000. The relation between estimated costs and estimated benefits of these projects has been determined. Obviously, more projects have been investigated than could be undertaken and paid for in the measurable future, but the expenditure of $8,000,000,000 over a 50-year period would involve an average annual outlay of but $200,000,000. It should be well understood that the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers are not recommending the construction, nor even the adoption, at this time, of such a great number of projects. They are but presenting a plan specific in its elements and estimates, which they regard as appropriate for future selection and appropriation, looking to a final comprehensive development of the waterways of the United States for the purpose of navigation, the development of water power, the control of floods, and the needs of irrigation. So far as these activities are concerned, I respectfully suggest the following procedure: 1. The immediate preparation of a report by the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers on the investigations made during the past 7 years. 2. The adoption of a plan based on this report by Congress and the authorization for its construction without prescribing any priorities. 3. Lump sum annual appropriations of such amounts as Congress may determine. 4. The determination of priorities by a designated agency. 5. Construction of projects by the War Department, except irrigation projects which should be left in the Interior Department. This plan would be along the same lines as are now employed in the construction of Federal-aid highways. It would keep river and harbor work out of politics. It would eliminate pork-barrel legislation. It would make it possible to work according to a carefully developed plan, and it would keep the work in the hands of a closely knit, efficient, and continuing agency of the Government, namely, the Corps of Engineers of the Army, which could be required to cooperate with other agencies or departments so far as might be deemed necessary or advisable, in carrying out a program of stream pollution, soil erosion, reforestation, and other conservation activities. Respectfully submitted. GEO. H. Dern. The PRESIDENT, The White House. STATEMENT OF POLICY OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE Policies referred to in connection with signature by Secretary Wallace. To clarify the policy of Congress and to guide the negotiation of agreements for sharing responsibility and costs of water-use projects, it is suggested that legislation on this subject might well include statements of the following principles: 1. Contributions of the Federal Government, States, and municipalities to cost of projects. Clearly a part, at least, of the cost of these projects should be borne locally, and ideally the share of the Federal, State, and local governments should be reasonably proportionate to the benefits which these several jurisdictions may derive from the project. Such contributions should be secured by agreements, bonds, or assurances satisfactory to the President before Federal funds are advanced for construction of any project. To 2. Charges for the use or water facilities made possible through construction undertaken with these funds should be levied on all users in reasonable proportion to the use made of the project. that end, fees, tolls, etc., should be fixed to provide amortization of investment and operating expenses to a degree to be later prescribed by act of Congress after recommendation by the proposed operating authority. SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR The PRESIDENT, The White House. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: In signing the report of your Committee on Water Flow, I qualified my assent, because I believe that in two respects the report is inadequate. First, I feel that the Santee River Basin is one of the areas where immediate action should be recommended. Conditions in that valley present an outstanding problem of social readjustment in a farming community, and an opportunity for important developments in soil conservation, reforestation, and water power. The Santee Basin lies close to the Tennessee Valley, and presents many similar problems. To coordinate the projects in the Tennessee Valley with the needs of the Santee Basin would be definitely desirable. Second, I believe that the Government's policies concerning water use, heretofore uncoordinated and often conflicting, should henceforth be guided by the results of studies conducted under the auspices of one competent Government body. The National Planning Board is such an agency, and seems qualified both to direct the planning of projects which are actually undertaken, and to draw up a longrange program for the development of the Nation's watersheds. Respectfully, FRANCES PERKINS. A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND ORGANIZATION AND POLICIES REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEES |