vice and every financial and administrative means for the conservation and furnishing of water, because without water you cannot have industry, or even life.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You are certainly not advocating that the Federal Government should make all of the investment in the water supply business, are you?

Mr. BINGHAM. I think it should be carefully analyzed to see if water supplies and water uses and resources have not become a Federal and national instead of a local responsibility.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Do you believe that the communities and States should look into the feasibility of investing their own money in projects either on the complete basis or on a matching basis?

Mr. BINGHAM. Congressman, I just cannot conceive of how this socalled local agency contribution is going to work in many cases, because you just cannot corral and get in one financial and administrative arrangement all of the different and independent local governments and State governments which are involved in many water resource development projects for the full development of certain river basins.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Is it not possible that your water conservation commission or what is the name of your new commission?

Mr. BINGHAM. The water resources commission, I believe it is. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Is it not possible that they will make such a study and perhaps come up with drafts of laws that your legislature would pass which would bring these units together?

Mr. BINGHAM. I hardly think so because a good share of the units involved, for example, in the development of the Cumberland or the Tennessee, are in Alabama, or Mississippi, or the State of Kentucky. I do not think it is feasible to do that. I admit when you have a large State or a large city that has a problem and it can solve it individually, that the matter can be undertaken. However, when so many agencies of government are involved and so many private interests are involved it has proven very difficult to get the kind of coordinated approach that would permit of full development. You can get partial development. You can get development of the most profitable aspects of water resources either by private enterprise or local governments, but I am talking about full development of the water resources of a river basin like the Cumberland River, where whatever we put on the river will substantially have to do the job for the next 100 years.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Did you give any thought or consideration to recommendation No. 2, which creates a water resources board? You have mentioned in your testimony about working with so many Federal agencies, and so many agencies involved in water resources. Do you have any comments to make on the water resources board proposed in

recommendation 2?

Mr. BINGHAM. Apparently when the water resources board becomes the water policy committee, or the water policy review board in the Bureau of the Budget-I understand there are 2-the 2 together, one of which would be a kind of policy and supervisory agency and the other a budget arm, it seems to me we will have a very highly centralized executive control of water development in this country. I do not think a mere board as they propose, with as small a staff as they propose, can run from 25 and perhaps as many as 40 agencies with policies in the water resources field. I think if you are

going to try to centralize water resource development that the only feasible administrative means of doing it would be to create a Water Resource Department of the Federal Government.

I certainly do not recommend that, but nothing less than that will be any more than interference at any intervening level between these agencies and the Congress and the Chief Executive.

Mr. JONES. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Yes.

Mr. JONES. The first Hoover Commission made a recommendation along those lines, did it not?

Mr. BINGHAM. Congressman, this one tried to make it look innocuous. When you talk about a small staff it looks like it is not going to do much. But I think this Water Reseources Board is a loaded device to enforce a policy of no Federal resource activity, so it seems to me. With a small staff they can certainly do that. It does not take many people to say "No," but it takes quite a few to figure out what ought to be done, and figure out how to say "Yes" intelligently. Mr. LIPSCOMB. What makes you refer to the small staff?

Mr. BINGHAM. My recollection is they indicated there would be a small staff involved, in the task force report. Of course, the Commission said without detail, we recommend it, but the task force, if I recollect, discussed it in terms of a small staff.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I am concerned principally with the recommendations in the Hoover Commission report.

Mr. BINGHAM. The Commission said without detail we recommend it.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. One further question. In your statement on page 9 you say, "I ask you to repudiate the unfair railroad lobby-Hoover Commission proposal for navigation tolls on the inland waterways." I assume that you know that President Roosevelt in 1940 recommended tolls on the waterways; in 1951 and 1953, President Truman recommended such charges; and, of course, President Eisenhower has also recommended such charges.

Therefore, does it not look as though it is rather a bipartisan proposal?

Mr. BINGHAM. Well, I reckon I was not too familiar. I think President Roosevelt and President Truman and President Eisenhower and the Hoover Commission have all made a horrible mistake, as they are claimed by many people to have been mostly mistaken. About half of the country thinks they were all wrong most of the time. But I think they made a mistake in charging water tolls.

It looks like a convenient and justifiable thing, but I will say this

Mr. JONES. You agree with George Washington then, and not with Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Hoover and Mr. Eisenhower.

Mr. BINGHAM. And Mr. Truman.

Mr. JONES. And Mr. Truman.

Mr. BINGHAM. Free waterways. The people in the interior of America, Congressman, have long dreamed and hoped that oceans might lap their shores. However, they are remote from these great, free ocean waterways.

I might say we have kept the oceans free at some cost to ourselves in blood and treasure through wars, but we do have free oceans and they do not cost you anything. We feel the mere accident of location

in the interior should not penalize us from having the free use of our waterways such as they are, even if it requires some investment to make their use economical and satisfactory.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. In my question to you I was not indicating to you I was a proponent or an opponent of toll charges.

Mr. BINGHAM. I do not know their history.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. That is not what the committee is trying to find out. But I did want to point out to you the recommendation is not a new one and it has been in existence for some time, going back to 1940, or at least so the records I have before me indicate.

Mr. REUSS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I yield.

Mr. REUSS. On this point do you yourself have knowledge of these earlier recommendations made in 1940, 1951, and 1953?

Mr. BINGHAM. I do not have specific or detailed knowledge of these earlier proposals on tolls.

Mr. REUSS. Then you do not know whether they were the same as the present Hoover Commission recommendations?

Mr. BINGHAM. No, sir. I do not.

Mr. REUSS. You do know, however, if they were made they were disregarded and were never carried out?

Mr. BINGHAM. I was just going to express the hope that this present Congress and the next one will be just as fine and intelligent about the thing as those others have been during the last 15 years. That is the only comment I have.

Mr. JONES. Are there any further questions?

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. I would like to tell the witness how much I have enjoyed his testimony.

Mr. BINGHAM. Thank you.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. And I hope when this committee comes to Detroit you will come up and testify for us.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Bingham, you talked about municipal and industrial water supply. You know, of course, under existing law it is not considered an element of economic feasibility or justification for the approval of a project to include the benefits derived from municipal water supply. You refer to the practice of the Corps of Engineers in making calculations and estimations of the benefits to be derived, to project to some future date the amount of travel that will be borne on the river to be developed. That becomes an economic factor in justification even though it is anticipating the benefits some years ahead. What you are saying to this committee is that we should take into consideration the potential usefulness of making municipal and industrial water storage available for future benefits to those who live within the area sought to be developed through multipurpose projects.

Mr. BINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JONES. Is that what you say?

Mr. BINGHAM. Yes, sir. And, Congressman, it can be done. It is not difficult, because we can forecast pretty accurately the future water use on an overall basis in this country. If you provide the water for industrial and domestic purposes, of course the factories and people will gravitate to those available supplies; so it is a matter that can be forecast and calculated.

Mr. JONES. You are of the opinion it should be included?

Mr. BINGHAM. Including recreation.

Mr. JONES. You are of the opinion it should be included in the economic justifications for authorizing projects by the many agencies that are charged with that responsibility?

Mr. BINGHAM. I definitely think so. I think that the exclusion of those factors will result in just one thing-underdevelopment of the water resources of this country, specifically storage capacity for industrial and domestic water supply; and I think it would be a very tragic result for the country in the long run.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Would you also include in that the cost of transporting that water from the storage facility into the areas where the water is to be used?

Mr. BINGHAM. I do not think so. However, I am not familiar with the devices and the methods used in irrigation areas. But I would say that that certainly can be assumed to be a local responsibility.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. That is what I wanted to find out. In other words, the local government should be responsible for getting the water from the storage facilities into the areas that are in need of that water?

Mr. BINGHAM. I would certainly say from my own experience, which does not include irrigation, it would indicate that for municipal and industrial water supplies, the local agencies have that definite responsibility, because they are supplying their own uses in either an industry or a community.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Mrs. Griffiths.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Do you mean that you would have them make the capital outlay even if it were $500 million?

Mr. BINGHAM. I just want to explain my thinking on getting the water from the storage reservoir to the consumer. It is building a pipeline. That is my knowledge of the situation. As far as I understand the matter, that is a local responsibility.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. You have the same agencies of Government that you have just mentioned. You have just as many of them involved in building the pipeline as you would have at any other point. It would be just as costly in many instances as the building of the storage would. In some places it is going to be the only problem. The pipeline is the only real problem.

Mr. BINGHAM. Let me say this: I do not have knowledge of the problem in arid areas of the country. I do not have knowledge of that where you transport water hundreds of miles in order to make a Central Valley bloom into a Garden of Eden, for example. I am not familiar with that and I do not understand that problem.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. But if everybody is going to be treated alike then for some people you would have to arrange it so that the money is available for the pipeline.

Mr. BINGHAM. I would say that in effect you may get to the point where the Federal Government is going to have to build one of those Colorado Rivers, and maybe that is what you are talking about.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. No; I am thinking specifically of an industrial area, where as many as 50 to 60 communities are involved.

Mr. BINGHAM. Yes. I would say this: I think if we need another Colorado River in this country and have to put it into the form of a pipe, then I am willing to say the Federal Government ought to under

take it, because I do not think anybody else can hardly build those kinds of rivers any more.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You can still keep under consideration selling bonds by the State and local governments to finance it and pay it back over a period of 50 or 60 or 90 years, can you not?

Mr. BINGHAM. Well, finance what? For example, a huge pipeline to serve several million people in a metropolitan industrial area?

Mr. LIPSBOMB. For example, you could pipe it from the original storage to another storage place which will serve 5 or 10 different communities, and pipe it into another storage place which will serve 5 or 10 more, and work it down all the way in that manner.

Mr. BINGHAM. All I can say about it is, you have to deal with those matters, it seems to me, partly in basic concepts. Personally I do not believe in discrimination. I do not believe in favoring one area or one class of citizen against other.

But the other thing is, you have to be practical. You have to have some governmental means of accomplishing a governmental purpose. When you start dealing with a lot of local agencies of government-I do not think there was anybody either on the task force or the Commission who seemed to be prepared to give any consideration to the problems of local government. But you just cannot concoct governmental agencies out of a bunch of counties and cities and States overnight. We do not have many interstate compacts, for example. They look simple and they are simple compared with the type of local agency setup that might develop among a lot of local governments; but there have been very few interstate compacts in the history of this country, and even fewer of those have been successful.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Bingham. Are there any other questions?

(No response.)

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BINGHAM. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness will be the Honorable Jim Nance McCord, Tennessee Commissioner of Conservation.

It is always good to see you, Governor.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM NANCE MCCORD, TENNESSEE COMMISSIONER OF CONSERVATION, AND FORMER GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE

Mr. McCORD. And to see you, sir.

I am very honored to come before this distinguished committee this morning. I know my time is limited and I appreciate your consideration in hearing me now so that I may get through in order to catch a plane. You just want me to make a statement about the conditions that exist here in Tennessee relative to our water resources. We have some very able men who are going to follow, but as chairman of a committee that was created by the last General Assembly of Tennessee under Act 149, we created a commission to study water resources and water uses, and to report to the Governor by July 1, 1956. We have employed the Public Administrative Service of Chicago to make these studies. They report to our committee by July 1 of next year and we in turn report to the Governor by September, with