and down the river off the Kentucky shore. The way the tax was set up, without boring the committee with details, gave rise to a decision in the circuit court at Frankfort, Ky., that the tax was invalid under the Northwest Ordinance

Mr. REUSS. Thank you.

Mr. HULL. In view of the express statement that the waterways should be free of tolls, imposts, duties, and so on-whatever the exact words are.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. I would like to have the Hoover Commission show me how you could put the tolls on without destroying water traffic. But on the other hand, I would be interested in understanding you completely in your thesis that these tolls would develop regionalism and would hurt one section of the country as opposed to another if they were imposed by the Federal Government.

Mr. HULL. Mrs. Griffiths, do you want me to try to answer that now or in Cincinnati?

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Well

Mr. HULL. The reason why I say that is, it is a very important part of what we want to present to the committee there. It is enormously involved, and I do not feel I can do it in just a short time.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. That would be perfectly all right.

Mr. HULL. I had just said that I felt the failure of the Commission, not only the task force and the task group, but the Commission itself, to look at the legislative history on the St. Lawrence seaway bill, could be excused, if at all, only on the grounds of carelessness and ignorance.

In any event, it seems to me the Commission's principal argument in support of its recommendation of user charges is found to be utterly without substance or validity.

The imposition of tolls or user charges on the Ohio and other rivers of the Nation would violate the pledge of the Government to the people and no amount of logic chopping or obfuscation by the Hoover Commission or its task force can change that hard and basic fact. It would reverse a policy deeply rooted in our national life for five generations and it would gravely impair the industrial and economic system created in reliance upon the Government's repeated assurance that the rivers of the Nation shall remain forever free.

In recommending such a fundamental change in national policy, the Hoover Commission has undertaken a heavy burden of proof. It is respectfully submitted that they have failed to meet it. We urge the subcommittee to disapprove the recommendation for user charges on our inland rivers and we are confident that the Congress of the United States will reject it.

We note that the Hoover Commission report is critical of alleged excessive benefit estimates by Federal agencies for project justifications. It is our experience that the Corps of Engineers-the agency whose work is best known to us-is conservative rather than unduly liberal in its estimates of project benefits. We have had occasion, particularly in the field of navigation, to make rather intensive economic studies pertinent to proposed improvements, for which the corps also had evaluated benefits. We find their basic economic criteria to be strongly on the conservative side. Their past conservatism has been proven by actual accomplishments far beyond their predictions on such projects as the Ohio River navigation improvement.

While we are less familiar with certain aspects of flood-control operations, it seems apparent to us that the Hoover Commission has not duly recognized the vagaries of meteorological and hydrological phenomena, and the consequent necessity for dispersal of control in a system to protect an area such as the lower Mississippi. Also, it appears they have not recognized the conservative factors in the corps' estimates of reservoir effects on the lower Mississippi, wherein no claims have been made for the reduction of damages in unleveed and backwater areas by reduction of all flood crests-not just the "project" flood-nor for the substantial value to navigation and other water-use functions resulting from increased low flows contributed by the reservoir operations. The Commission also seems to be unduly critical of the evaluation of the flood-control projects on the assumption that a "project flood" will occur during the life of the project. While we are not familiar with the specific cases mentioned by the task force, it is our view as a general proposition that in a dynamic economy such as this Nation is experiencing, and has every reason to expect to continue, it is prudent to protect against those disastrous events which experience tells us can reasonably be expected to occur, so long as the overall benefits can support the overall costs. Moreover, events which happened in the Ohio Valley in 1936 and 1937, and would have happened again during Hurricane Hazel of October 1954 had it not been for reservoir control above Pitsburgh, emphasize the danger of placing too much reliance upon frequency estimates of the "500-year" and "1,000-year" variety, when our meteorological and hydrological records are so relatively brief. Realization of this fact has been brought forcibly home by the 2 disastrous events of the past 2 months in the northeastern portion of our Nation.

Suffice it to conclude then that it is our view the Corps of Engineers has erred on the side of conservatism rather than the opposite in all major aspects of evaluating project economics.

With regard to the vital matter of water supply, we note that the Commission recognizes the tremendous and growing dimensions of this national problem. There is no doubt that demand for water will increase with every step in the growth of our population and in our scientific and industrial advancement. But we find no evidence that the Commission has considered the need for a substantial measure of Federal initiative and participation in this phase of water resources development. The Commssion seems to dismiss the problem with the remark at page 29 of its report that-

The provision of water supplies for domestic and industrial use has remained from the beginning of the Republic a responsibility of individuals, local communities and the States. The Federal Government's interest arises where the supplies relate to Federal activities, more particularly as they at times draw from Federal reservoirs or where proposed reservoirs should aid in such water supplies. As there is little direct Federal development of domestic water, it does not come within the purview of this report.

Mr. JONES. Do you think that the Commission could have brought in the Flood Control Act of 1944? You recall the 1944 Flood Control Act requires water-resource development on a cooperative basis with the States and political subdivisions.

Mr. HULL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. What I really think is, that whereas the Commission started off with a great display of concern about water-supply problems and our whole future danger in relation to that

phase of water-resource use, that they sort of labored like the mountain and brought forth a mouse. I mean, they have not really given us any assurance that they intended to or wanted anything to be done about the problem.

Mr. JONES. In other parts of the Commission's reports it makes strong recommendations for a partnership arrangement. This would have been one opportunity where the Commission could have developed it.

Mr. HULL. Indeed it could.

Mr. JONES. Where it could have developed the theme of cooperation in a partnership arrangement with the States. Because it is almost impossible to develop an industrial water supply or a municipal water supply without making some contribution to flood control or the gencration of hydroelectric power and navigation or, in the eastern part of the country, to the increased demand for irrigation.

Mr. HULL. It is becoming an increasing problem all through the middle west now.

Mr. JONES. Even in New England there is a demand for limited types of irrigation projects.

Mr. HULL. What we think is needed, Mr. Chairman, is a comprehensive program that takes all phases of the matter into account, without chopping off certain sections as if they did not belong to the family.

This statement fails to recognize that effective water resources development in the interest of long-range objectives may be beyond the means or immediate needs of local private enterprise and the States and also that measures must be taken to prevent developments of such limited scope or restricted purpose as will, in the essential service of immediate and local needs, preclude effective satisfaction of the future needs of an expanded population and economy.

In view of growing supply requirements for domestic, municipal, industrial and agricultural use, for pollution abatement and for other purposes, and in view of the demonstrated inability of our rivers fully to satisfy these requirements in their present state of improvement, the Ohio Valley Improvement Association considers a continuing program of reservoir development to be essential. We have been impressed by the value of water-supply services which have been provided incident to the Federal flood-control reservoir program and believe that legislation favorable to further coordination of these functions would be in the public interest.

While the association recognizes that provision of reservoir storage for direct and exclusively local water supply use is a local problem, it desires to emphasize the widespread incidence and general nature of the water-supply and pollution-abatement benefits which result from reservoir operation for low-flow regulation, even when such operation is primarily directed toward solution of localized problems. In consequence of this, and of the even more general public benefits which will result from satisfaction of long-range water-supply needs, the association proposes that legislation be considered to permit Federal participation in reservoir costs in relation to the widespread general water-supply benefits which they provide, and to permit the Federal Government to bear the cost of initial provisions necessary to insure the feasibility of future project expansion in the interest of long-range water-supply needs.

To assure effective and economical accomplishment of the watersupply features of the reservoir program considered essential by the association, it is proposed that the Federal interest in this program be carried out under the direction of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, in connection with his responsibility for investigation and improvement of rivers and other waterways for flood control and allied purposes.

On behalf of the Ohio Valley Improvement Association and the National Waterways Conference, I wish to express sincere appreciation for this opportunity to present our views.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Hull. It is a pleasure to have you and to have your fine prepared statement; are there any questions?

Mr. REUSS. I should like to say, Mr. Hull, that yours is a brilliant and scholarly presentation. I do not think the subcommittee has before had the advantage of the kind of historical analysis of the doctrine of free water highways that you have given us.

Mr. HULL. Thank you, Mr. Reuss.

Mr. REUSS. I am very grateful to you.

Mr. JONES. Mrs. Griffiths.

Mrs. GRIFFITHSs. It was very excellent. You have done some good research.

Mr. HULL. As a matter of fact, we have our research on this pretty well done and we are just waiting to present it to you at Cincinnati. Mr. JONES. Mr. Lipscomb.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. On page 7 of your statement in the last section in respect to the legislation that you propose you say:

*** and to permit the Federal Government to bear the cost of initial provisions necessary to insure the feasibility *

What do you mean by that?

Mr. HULL. Well, as I understand it, Mr. Lipscomb and I am certainly not an engineer-there is a problem in the design of reservoirs. You do a different kind of a job if it is supposedly limited to flood control than if it is going to be a coordinated and comprehensive project. What we are suggesting is that the water-supply features, particularly with reference to low-flow control operations, be built in, or be authorized to be so done from the beginning.

The engineers tell me they have some difficulty in actually operating the flood-control reservoirs that they have for low-flow regulation purposes. That is what that is directed to. If you whould like to have more specific information about it I will certainly be glad to get it for you but, having no engineering knowledge of my own, I hesitate to try to go into any more detail about it at this time.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Then you suggest that the Federal Government participate as to the cost of initiating this survey and study, and draw plans and specifications and all that for this particular localized project? And after this is done do you suggest that the local interests then take over the expense of building the reservoir, or perhaps do it on a matching-fund basis, or a loan?

Mr. HULL. With respect to water-supply planning, Mr. Lipscomb, my feeling would be that of course it should be on the basis of local participation. The local benefits are direct and clear cut. However, I do feel there is room and need for overall comprehensive participa

tion by the Federal Government in order that the nationwide importance of the job (a) can be recognized, and (b) that the work can be done in such a manner as to prevent the purely local phases of it from interfering with the longer range and broader objectives. That can happen.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Basically, the Hoover Commission recommendation fits in to some extent with this legislation you propose, where they say in recommendation No. 1 (e):

That the Federal Government should provide advisory assistance to those local and State agencies that are undertaking water resource and power development projects.

That is a small portion of the recommendation you are making here. Mr. HULL. Yes.

Mr. JONES. Provided, of course, that you strike out the Commission's conclusion upon municipal and industrial water supply, because under the existing law there is no authority for Federal investments of that kind.

Mr. HULL. That is right.

Mr. JONES. So you have to enlarge on the recommendation of the Hoover Commission report at that point to provide additional legislation to obtain the objective that you point out in your statement.

Mr. HULL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think one can read into the ninepoint program almost anything he wants. It is an extremely vague affair. I think we would certainly subscribe to some of its general language, and certainly to the point that Mr. Lipscomb just raised.

My purpose in this statement respecting water supply was simply to indicate that we think they were not specific enough and they did not go far enough. They did not really pursue the argument that they themselves had started or, rather, the discussion. You see, there is a lot of excellent material in the report on water supply needs and growing requirements, and the real dangers of national calamity in a failure to take proper measures.

All I am urging is that this committee will carry that argument to its logical conclusion and recommend that some proper measures be taken. Mr. LIPSCOMB. That seems to be the responsibility of this committee and the Congress.

I also compliment you on your statement.

Mr. HULL. Thank you, Mr. Lipscomb.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Hull.

Mr. Howard G. King, vice president of the Arrow Transportation Co.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD G. KING, VICE PRESIDENT, ARROW TRANSPORTATION CO., SHEFFIELD, ALA.

Mr. KING. My name is Howard G. King. I am vice president and secretary of Arrow Transportation Co., Sheffield, Ala., the oldest common carrier barge line on the Mississippi River system and the largest domiciled on the Tennessee River. I appear here in opposition to the user charge proposal of the Hoover Commission.

Mr. JONES. Howard, was that your barge going through the locks late yesterday afternoon? We went down to see one of the locks in operation and we saw one of the carriers down there. We did not get close enough to identify it.