Obrázky stránek

Mr. CASE. By the Tennessee Valley Authority and the States.
Mr. Day. Yes.

Mr. CASE. Do you know whether the Tennessee Valley Authority Act grants the Commission to apply to its work its own revenues without appropriation by the Congress?

Mr. Day. I do not know, but I imagine they can; but I do not know.

Mr. CASE. I am quite sure they can, if I remember correctly the testimony before the Independent Offices Subcommittee, and that they operate pretty much independently of the Fish and Wildlife Service; they have recreational programs and fishing programs and they can go ahead on it.

Mr. DAY. Yes,
Mr. Case. And they do not call on you for money or personnel?

Mr. Day. We do administer the waterfowl refuges, subject to the primary authority of the TVA to change the water levels to meet their other needs.

Mr. Cass. But there is a way that the revenues provided can be applied toward that type of operation.

Mr. Day. That is my guess.

Mr. Case. Is there any way in which the revenues of these dams here could be made available, either made available indirectly, by appropriation out of the Treasury as receipts from the project go into the Treasury?

Mr. Day. I think perhaps you were out of the room a moment, Mr. Case, when I stated that Congressman Henry Jackson of the State of Washington has discussed the introduction of legislation which would permit the use of receipts for this fish rehabilitation program.


Mr. ENGEL. I am for the conservation of wildlife, whether it means taxpayers' money, coming out of flood control, Interior appropriation, or some other appropriation; finally it all comes out of the national pocketbook; it does not matter which method is used to pull it out; it all comes out of the Treasury.

I think that the wildlife program should be placed under one agency, operated by that agency, with one appropriation to that agency and justified before a congressional committee by that agency. That is the way I feel about it. Now whether or not that affects an appropriation that has been made is another question, but here is how I think it ought to be done. I would let all the revenues come into the Treasury, and let the agency present its justification before the proper congressional committee, whether it was the TVA or anybody else. One subcommittee may turn it down and another subcommittee may grant the request, but by having one committee it will understand the problems and they can handle it much better in that manner.

Mr. Day. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that Congressman Jensen, chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations himself is quite conversant with this program; he visited the area this summer, saw some of the hatcheries, saw that they are in miserable shape; he saw the salmon coming in. That committee is quite familiar with this whole problem.

nd Wii rams and

Dom 8 Me" constructed by the Corps of Engineers?

and the This seems to have been the decision of the Bureau of the Budget

and of the Army and the Interior Department that this is a logical e Taller place to make the request as a part of the cost of the construction of its ows: the dams.

Mr. Case. It would certainly seem to be a cost that grows out of can; but the construction of the dam. However, heretofore we have not had

anything of this character come before us.
-mber com
sittee, and

Mr. CASE. Whatever the decision may be as to where it should go
I do think it is important for us to have some foundation, to see that

there is legislative authority, so that it will not, if the subcommittee Ber or perso : approves of it, that there will be no question about it standing up and

not being subject to a point of order in the House. And as to the levels tos

merits of the proposition that, of course, is something we will get into in considering the details of the project.

Now, in this coordination act, to which you referred is clearly set up that projects hereafter authorized to be constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws, and in the administration thereof, they shall explore into and make findings of the part of the costs that may be applicable to the preservation,

and propagation of fish and wildlife. the projet

Do you know if there is similar language which applies to projects Mr. Day. Yes; the same act applies to the Corps of Engineers, as well as other agencies, and in addition there is specific legislation for the Corps of Engineers, passed about 2 years ago, that provides for the creation of fish and wildlife programs under flood control.

Mr. Case. I think that is the section that I read, section 4 of the food control act. Mr. DIFFENBACH. Yes.

Mr. CASE. Are there any further questions on Mr. Day's general statement at this point.

[ocr errors]

еѕ рrоriја.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

able indir

ckson of the si f legislatice bilitation


[ocr errors]

whether it

rior appl"

put of the

sed to pla.



affects and but here Illes COR before

or anrhet bromia

Mr. Tibbott. Mr. Day, I understood you to say that the building o that so of the Grand Coulee Dam, has made it impossible for the salmon to

reach this area for spawning.
Mr. Day. That is the Grand Coulee Dam.

Mr. TIBBOTT. Yes; were ladders installed to take care of that
Mr. Day. Not at Grand Coulee.
Mr. Tibbott. What is the height of the Grand Coulee Dam?
Mr. Day. Three hundred and fifty feet. It was deemed inadvisable
to attempt to get fish over the Grand Coulee Dam; it did not seem to
be possible, so that funds were not spent for it.

Funds were spent for the rehabilitation of the runs below the dam. The Bureau of Reclamation secured the appropriation for Grand Coulee and financed the construction of three hatcheries for the program for trapping, transplanting adult salmon, carrying the salmon that were trapped into new streams. The rehabilitation program was quite successiul.

will up that me!!

grossa ations hit

[ocr errors]


But the area above the dam has been completely out of the picture for spawning, ever since Grand Coulee was constructed.

Mr. TIBBOTT. What will be the difference in the height of the McNary Dam and the dam which is just above it?

Mr. Day. The McNary Dam is much lower; it will be around 85 feet.

Mr. TIBBOTT. Will ladders be placed there for fish runs?

Mr. Day. The plan and our recommendation there is to supply ladders at McNary Dam in the hope that they will permit passage of fish, but no ladder has ever yet been constructed as high as 85 feet. We are hoping that fish can get over McNary.

But if they get over MeNary we are up against the next dam, Ice Harbor, and if they get over that, then Lower Monumental Dam, and then Little Goose, and above that, Lower Granite.

We are quite certain that there are many areas below MeNary where we can transplant salmon into these streams and can get the runs coming back. By this method we hope to preserve this fish industry, or at least 50 percent of it.

We are dealing bere with a question that nobody can answer. We are just giving you our best judgment.


Mr. SCRIVNER. You are going contrary to nature in this program. Mr. Day. Not particularly.

Mr. SCRIVNER. I understood you to say in the original concept of this program it bad all of this great spawning area to the east, and you had the great spawning grounds up far into British Columbia; then these artificial dams were placed there like the Grand Coulee. Nature did not place them there, did it?

Mr. Day. No.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Man placed it there.
Mr. Day. Yes.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Then it is going contrary to nature, and by so doing you bave cut off the salmon runs that went up as far as British Columbia.

Mr. Day. I do not think in this program

Mr. SCRIVNER (interposing). Let us stay with Grand Coulee for a moment. When you put that in you cut off the runs.

Mr. Day. From Grand Coulee above.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Man-made obstructions interfered with the law of nature in this spawning and propagation of salmon.

Mr. Day. From that point on-the Grand Coulee.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Now due to the fact that the McNary Dam, which will again be a man-made obstruction, is going to stop the natural run of the salmon up as far as Grand Coulee and back to the cast to that range of mountains (indicating.

Mr. Day. Yes; or it seems this is very likely.

Mr. SCRIVNER. So all of that is a program that has gone contrary to the natural conditions that existed there, and you say that you did not know, when you interfered with the natural conditions, what the result was going to be.

Mr. Day. Except that what we are attempting to do here is necessary because of conditions that have resulted from man-made interferences in the past.

[ocr errors]


ams and can:

to presente

ody can as


tish Cours Coulee, if it was anticipated that it was to be built then it would seem ure, and hr Wasted the money which has been expended between McNary and ar as Brica!, Grand Coulee.

ly out of 1 Vr. SCRIVNER. But when you correct one man-made condition ructed another condition arises, and you have to make another man-made he heizbe é correction to correct it.

Mr. Day. No.
Mr. SCRIVNER. It seems that way to me.

Mr. Day. I would like to point out that many of the lower river fish rus

streams formerly produced salmon, they spawned in them, but there n there is have since been highways constructed along these streams, creating will permik := rock slides and obstructions so the salmon could not get over them -d as higte, and the runs disappeared.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Another man-made condition.

Mr. Day. We now want to take out those man-made obstructions, Monunkand plant some fish to return to the abandoned spawning beds to

produce fish as they did years ago. reas beber) Vr. ScrivnER. I hope you are successful. One more question:

When Grand Coulee was built did you know at that time that the
McNary Dam was in contemplation?
Mr. Day. Grand Coulee?
Mr. Day. It was in the discussion stage.

I do not think it was authorized.

Mr. SCRIVNER. I did not say anything about its being authorized.

My question was when Grand Coulee was built did you have any ure in this idea that McNary Dam would later be built?

Jr. Day. I cannot answer that; I was not involved at that time.

Vír. Scrivner. If there was any idea that McNary Dam was to be to the built, so much farther down the Columbia River than the Grand

to me that instead of spending all of the money in propagation and hatcheries on streams in that area between McNary and Grand Coulee it would have been much better if you had gone ahead with the program further down stream, below McNary Dam, because with the construction of McNary Dam and stopping the fish there you have !

Mr. Day. My judgment would be that McNary was not actually
considered at that time or this other expenditure would not have
been made, but even so in the meantime the fisheries resource has been
Vr. Day. All during this period.
Mr. SCRIVNER. You have had some value returned there.
Mr. Day. And we have learned a great deal about how to handle
fish as a result of the research that has been carried on.

Mr. SCRIVNER. And you have something even down below the
McNary site, and could have learned from the propagation waste of
Mr. Day. Yes.
Mr. Tibbott. Mr. Day, this is the first time this program has been
presented to this subcommittee. Is there any other part of your
program being presented to any other subcommittee, or do we have
the entire program here?

Mr. Day. No. Of course the entire Fish and Wildlife Service,
which includes a great deal of fisheries, will be heard in the Interior
Department subcommittee headed by Congressman Jensen of Iowa.

ne original A

and Cover

Grand Count uns.

cred with


[ocr errors]

stop the name

[ocr errors]

has goik

[ocr errors]

natural com

[ocr errors]

Mr. TIBBOTT. What portion of this program are we to have?

Mr. DAY. All of this rehabilitation program; the other program, carrying funds for the operation and maintenance of fish hatcheries, and fisheries studies generally, and things of that kind, are in the regular bill. But this is a separate program.


Mr. CASE. Have you ever thought of the possibility of having this money appropriated to the Corps of Engineers and allocated to you?

Mr. Day. That is this program.
Mr. Case. Is that all of this.

Vr. Day. This is an appropriation to the Corps of Engineers to be transferred.

Mr. CASE. And you are merely defending it here for the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. CASE. That makes it a little bit different.

Vír. Day. The Corps of Engineers agreed, with the Bureau of the Budget and the Interior Department to place it here as a part of the over-all construction program.

Mr. Case. And whatever we should appropriate here would really go to the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Day. It would.

Mr. Case. As a part of the total costs of the project but they would make the allocation of that to you.

Mr. Day. That would be transferred to Fish and Wildlife from the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. CASE. Will it stand as an independent item or will it be a part of the cost of the new project?



If it is a part of the total cost of the project and is so presented then I think the question of jurisdiction becomes a little clearer, and the matter of authorization, that the Engineer Corps is authorized to use as the total cost of the project, within the limitation authorized, and what you are here doing is simply to defend it for the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers is granted authority to make arrangements with other Federal agencies to handle various parts of the program.

Mr. Day. Yes.
Mr. Case. They can do it with the Bureau of Reclamation.

Mr. Day. That is correct. As to whether it is a part of the cost of the McNary Dam I cannot answer.

Mr. CASE. Suppose you give us a little statement for the record, when you get your transcript, on that point, so we may proceed with the hearing.


TO THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Section 2 of the act of August 14, 1946 (60 Stat. 1080), requires, in connection with certain types of construction, that the Department of the Army, as well as other Federal agencies, give appropriate consideration to the preservation of such

« PředchozíPokračovat »