Jersey, charged with the improvement of transportation facilities and the development of commerce in the port of New York district. The port of New York area embraces approximately 1,500 square miles, and has a population of 10 millions. As agent of the two States the Port of New York Authority has constructed four bridges and a tunnel across navigable waterways in the district. Pursuant to the direction of the States, among other duties we cooperate with the War Department and with the Federal Congress in the matter of urging the proper improvement of channels for water-borne commerce in New York Harbor, which is the principal port of the United States. Our interest in this legislation is mainly twofold, first, in the veto power lodged in the proposed conservation authorities over the construction and operation of bridges, tunnels, pipes, sewers, docks, piers, wharves, and so forth, under section 11 of H. R. 7392, and, second, in the merging of projects for the promotion of navigation with flood prevention, reclamation, water power, control of pollution, and so forth, in its effect on the continued orderly development of river and harbor projects in New York Harbor and connecting coastal waterways.

The Port of New York Authority does not take any position on the general objectives of the bill, namely, the development of hydroelectric power, flood control, reclamation, prevention of erosion, and so forth, on a national scale by means of regional conservation authorities. These are matters outside of our scope.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. La Roe, you are speaking of H. R. 7394? Mr. LA ROE. No, Mr. Chairman; H. R. 7392, the Rankin bill. Mr. JORDAN. No; H. R. 7863 is the new Rankin bill.

Mr. LA ROE. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. DEROUEN. H. R. 7392 was the first Rankin bill.

Mr. DONDERO. That is the provision you spoke of in H. R. 7392? Mr. LA ROE. Yes, sir; that is correct.

I should like to have it understood at the outset of my remarks that the work of the Port of New York Authority obviously is a seaboard and port-development proposition, as distinguished from an interior proposition, and we are very much concerned about the all-embracing veto powers vested in the regional conservation authorities over plans for the construction, operation and maintenance of bridges, docks, piers, and so forth, contained in section 11 of H. R. 7392.

This section is very broad and establishes another agency in addition to the present Federal departments, the Secretary of War, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Maritime Commission, who may exercise minute and detailed control over the operation of bridges, tunnels, piers and wharves. The section provides that these structures must be constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with plans which have been submitted to and approved by the regional conservation authority. This is a catch-all provision which conceivably might require the Port of New York Authority to secure approval as to the operating details of a new tunnel or bridge not only in respect to vertical and horizontal clearance for vessels but also for the frequency with which the bridge is to be painted, or how many fans are to be put in operation in the tunnel, or how many policemen are to be on duty from 5 to 6 o'clock in the afternoon. There seems no valid public interest which requires delegation of such a wide veto power into the hands of a new Federal agency and we believe that this section should be eliminated or drastically amended by the committee.

H. R. 7365 does not include any such provision, and therefore, is preferable.

Our second concern is in respect to the merging of projects for promoting navigation on the one hand with the projects for flood control, prevention of erosion, generation of power, reclamation, abatement of pollution, and so forth, on the other hand. In certain inland streams there is an interrelation between navigation and these various other uses of water which may properly call for coordination and integration in study and survey, but in the coastal waters of the United States that same situation does not exist. The so-called Rankin bill, H. R. 7392, creates corporate regional conservation authorities who have charge of the construction of dams and the operation of hydroelectric projects and would also be charged with the planning and recommendation of all manner of stream control and usage, including navigation. Now, it is navigation and harbor development that we are primarily interested in. The bill also provides that Congress may subsequently entrust to these authorities the construction and operation of projects for the promotion of navigation, and so forth. As you know, the War Department for many years has been entrusted with surveys of river and harbor projects, with reports to this committee on their advisability, and with the execution of the projects when approved by Congress. A well-recognized and satisfactory procedure has been established in which millions of dollars have been profitably spent for improvement of harbors, and, incidentally, in which millions of dollars have been saved by the Army engineers. We are not at all clear from the wording of H. R. 7392 whether or not the functions of the War Department in surveying, recommending, and executing channel projects will be repealed by the act or at least the way paved for transferring its function to the new conservation authorities.

We foresee a duplication of responsibilities, which may result in the cessation or subordination of coastal river and harbor improvement projects since the primary duty of the new conservation authorities will be construction on inland streams and waterways, in which navigation is incidental, and the other purposes paramount. At the same time the responsibilities of the War Department may be beclouded in respect to carrying out the rivers and harbors program which it has handled so successfully for many years.

Now, it is my understanding that this matter has been the subject of correspondence between the chairman of this committee and the New York Merchants' Association, and a New York paper under date of July 17 contains a report of an interchange of communications between Chairman Mansfield and the Merchants' Association of New York, in which Chairman Mansfield is quoted as saying, or assuring that association that it was not the intention of those who drafted the bill to take control over navigation in New York Harbor away from the Board of Army Engineers and that the bill would not in his judgment accomplish such a result.

Thereupon the New York Merchants' Association sent to Chairman Mansfield a telegram which I would like to put in the record, which is as follows:

This will confirm our understanding of the conversation which the office of the Merchants' Association had with you today to the effect that H. R. 7365 will not transfer from the Board of Army Engineers to the Atlantic Seaboard Planning Agency control of operations in New York Harbor. Members of this association have been apprehensive that such a transfer might follow. We have taken steps

6874-37-14

to inform them of your interpretation. If it is the intention of the measure to continue the Board of Army Engineers in control of harbor operations we respectfully suggest a clarifying amendment to that effect be introduced in the bill. This suggestion carries no implication of approval or disapproval of the bill as a whole. We join very heartily in the suggestion that if that be the proper interpretation of this bill and if it is intended to leave the Army Engineers in charge of their present operations, which we most earnestly hope that you will do, that the bill be so amended so as to leave absolutely no doubt on that score.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. La Roe.

Mr. LA ROE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you please draft the suggested amendment that, in your judgment, would have the effect that you desire? Mr. LA ROE. I will be very glad to do so, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And submit it to the clerk of the committee?
Mr. LA ROE. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLDEN. Was it the intention of the chairman of this committee to divest the Board of Army Engineers of their authority over the rivers and harbors of this country?

The CHAIRMAN. I will say to the gentleman from California that I never had any design or intent of doing anything of that kind. Mr. COLDEN. I did not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. I just merely, in my conversation with the gentleman from New York, told him that, in my judgment, the bill did not apply to the port of New York. That is about the substance of it, as well as I recall.

Mr. LA ROE. Yes; but I think in saying that that the chairman was probably referring to the intent of the bill rather than the actual verbiage of it. We are worrying about the verbiage of the bill, which, without distinguishing at all between tidal waters and interior waters, puts all navigation projects, piers, wharves, docks, and so forth, under the control of this Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. To show you that it was not the intention of the bill, as I understand it, it does not apply to Alaska, or Puerto Rico, or Hawaii, where we have a large number of port projects, as you know, and by dividing the interior of the country into these zones I do not think it could be reasonably interpreted to include the harbors on the coast or on the Great Lakes. However, if it could be so construed, why, clarifying language could be included.

Mr. DONDERO. If you so interpreted the bill, then this committee better be dissolved, if all authority is to be transferred to the administrators of the districts.

Mr. LA ROE. Our rivers and harbors have been developed through this committee and through the Army engineers, and their cooperation as to the port of New York with the Port of New York Authority has been very excellent and of a very high order. We do not want to see all that wiped off the slate by a measure which seems to us to deal primarily with an interior reclamation situation.

Specifically H. R. 7392 directs the Conservation Authority in section 6 to submit plans each year for the promotion of navigation. Now, it does not say "navigation on inland streams." Will this supersede the process of congressional call upon the Army engineers to survey navigation projects and report thereon? Again, in section 7, the regional conservation authorities are directed to include in their recommendations projects for the promotion of navigation, and to classify these projects in the order of their urgency.

Mr. DONDERO. Would not that eliminate the necessity for a committee of Congress?

Mr. LA ROE. Yes; it would.

Does this mean that a conservation authority, primarily concerned with hydroelectric power, stream control, and so forth, will subordinate navigation projects on the seaboard because they are of no particular interest to the other water projects which they have in hand? Again, in section 8, provision is made for entrusting to conservation authorities the construction, operation, and so forth, of navigation projects. Does this mean that the Army engineers will be stripped of this function and that the execution of the work will be merged into the flood control, erosion control, reclamation, and so forth, program? If this is the situation, the port authority believes that it is unwise to create a set-up which is bound to interfere with the orderly carrying out of maintenance and improvement of harbor projects by the Army engineers. In this respect we believe that H. R. 7365 is again preferable, because the function of constructing and operating dams, hydroelectric projects, and so forth, is divorced from the regional planning agency and the regional planning agency becomes merely a coordinator of projects planned or undertaken by existing departments or agencies of the United States, together with those State and municipal projects to which Federal aid is to be given. This would seem to leave the responsibility clearly with the War Department for rivers and harbors projects as far as construction and execution is concerned and not to interfere with the present method of survey and report made by the Army engineers to the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House and the Commerce Committee of the Senate.

Now, our law department in New York has given me a memorandum which shows how far they think this goes. [Reading:]

The power vested in the authorities by this provision is in the nature of a veto power, and it extends not merely to the plans for construction but to the plans for operation and maintenance. Under this section, a conservation authority could refuse to approve proposed plans of operation, except detailed plans which met its desires, and thereby as a practical matter regulate in detail the operation of a bridge, wharf, or similar structure, including the services offered, the charges made, the wages paid, etc.

Nor is the power confined to structures of that nature. It extends to a variety of structures and improvements all of which directly affect the people of the port district. Apparently, the things which cannot be done without the approval of a Federal conservation authority will include, among others, the following:

1. The building of a culvert across a brook as an incident to the construction of a State or municipal highway. Note that the question of navigability is not involved. Tributary streams are included presumably upon the ground of flood control and/or conservation.

2. The construction of any municipal waterworks.

3. The construction of a municipal sewage-disposal system; or, for that matter, the construction or maintenance of any pipe which discharges anything whatsoever (apparently including even pure water) into a stream or brook.

4. The filling in of lands up to the approved bulkhead line established by the Secretary of War. Note that the approval of the Conservation Authority is necessary even though the Secretary of War has already approved.

5. The construction of any building or improvement "along" as distinguished from "in" or "over" a stream.

In the report of this committee-and if necessary, by clarifying amendments-we believe it should be made clear that the rivers and harbors work is to continue to be a function of the Army engineers and that the existing method of surveying and approving these projects is not to be disturbed except as the director of each regional planning agency may recommend certain priorities to be weighed

along with the recommendations of other officials charged with responsibility in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. That suggestion would also apply to flood-control work, would it not?

Mr. LA ROE. That is correct.

We should like to point, in passing, to section 8, page 17, of H. R. 7365, a section relating to the prevention of stream pollution. We are thoroughly in sympathy with the efforts to abate the pollution of navigable waterways but point out that there are many public agencies operating sewer outlets and many industries with pipes for the discharge of waste in and about New York harbor who would be seriously jeopardized should the provisions in section 8 become effective overnight. That is section 8, page 17, of H. R. 7365. No provision is made there for a reasonable time in which to finance and construct facilities necessary for the control of sewage and industrial waste, as far as the language of the act is concerned. Strenuous efforts are now being made by the municipality of New York and nearby municipalities and the Interstate Sanitation Commission (embracing New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) to improve the pollution situation. However, many of these projects will take considerable time to finance and construct and summary action by injunction as soon as the act may become effective might be disastrous. Some leeway should be given consistent with the rather staggering problem of financing and constructing pollution abatement project which is faced by public and private interests.

The CHAIRMAN. I may say, Mr. La Roe, that, so far as I know, no member of the committee wants to embrace a provision of that kind in the bill.

Mr. LA ROE. That was our thought.

The CHAIRMAN. You take the Vinson bill, which we recently reported by unanimous action of the committee, and it only provides for agreement or encouragement of agreements between States, industries, and municipalities, you know.

Mr. LA ROE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And provides for loans. I have conferred with a number of persons in regard to this who were largely interested in the promotion of this bill, and so far as I know none of them are insisting upon this provision.

Mr. LA ROE. Thank you, sir. I was wondering whether it would be feasible, knowing, as I think I do, the main objective of this bill with respect to flood control, soil erosion, and conservation, to exempt the tidal waters of the United States. That would leave the Army Engineers free――

Mr. DONDERO. Why not exempt all navigable waters used for navigation?

Mr. LA ROE. That might be dangerous. The Tennessee River is a navigable stream.

The CHAIRMAN. You have to be careful how you put a provision of that kind in. You take Philadelphia, our second largest port, and it is not on tidal water. It is up on a river.

Mr. LA ROE. That is a debatable question. They sometimes claim they are on tidal water.

The CHAIRMAN. Take Savannah, Ga.; Houston, Tex.; Sacramento, Calif.; and Portland, Oreg.; they are all away up on inland waters.