The CHAIRMAN. We would be very glad to hear from them.
Mr. LATTA. First is Mr. Ralph Peters.

Will you state your name and title for the record?

STATEMENT OF RALPH W. PETERS, CONSULTANT-TREASURER, MAUMEE WATERSHED CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

Mr. PETERS. My name is Ralph W. Peters, and I am consultant and treasurer of the Maumee Watershed Conservancy District.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Peters, what is the legal situation on this? Mr. PETERS. If I may, I will put up a map that shows these three projects.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a most unusual situation to bring along an attorney when you have two eminent lawyers of the House sitting right here now, who are our colleagues. We have Mr. McCulloch sitting with us, whose legal opinions and the like we respect very highly; however, we will be glad to hear from you.

Mr. LÁTTA. He is a specialist.

Mr. PETERS. You came well prepared this morning. I am not a lawyer. By profession, I was a newspaperman. At the time the district was organized, I was publishing a daily paper in Defiance, Ohio. I was a member of the organizing committee for this district, with no remote idea of ever being connected with it in an official capacity.

The impetus behind the organization of the Maumee district was largely the troubles that have been incurred in the basin of the Little Auglaize River and the failures to solve some of the problems through repeated attempts by means of the county ditch laws of Ohio.

This is the entire watershed of the Little Auglaize, and what you have heard described as the Auglaize Watershed is this much of it. What you have heard described as the Middle Branch are these two tributaries which go through the city of Van Wert.

What you have heard as the Prairie-Hoaglin Branch are these three tributaries.

This division, of course, was for the convenience of SCS. To the Maumee district, this is one watershed, and one project.

The areas here shown in blue are those channels on which we already have had appraisals of benefits and damages and where benefits have been approved and where we are in the position to assess the local cost against the benefited property and the public corporations.

You will notice that part of the blue is the Little Auglaize. The Middle Branch is entirely in the blue. The Hoaglin Creek area, which is in your plan No. 3, is also in the blue, which means that we are in a position to proceed wtih the construction on those particular portions. These in the other colors, red, green, orange, and yellow, are four additional sections which were added to our plan under the Conservancy Act of Ohio, in order to construct new appraisals or benefits on channels added by CSC in their system.

So, we are in a legal position to proceed on the major work in each of these three plans that have been presented.

The CHAIRMAN. I come back to the question: Do we understand that only those parts that are shown in blue could be put into operation in the immediate future, even were we to authorize all three of them? Mr. PETERS. Our district is in a legal position at the moment to

begin operations on anything shown here in blue. And does embrace work in all three watersheds. This does not mean that we would start in all three watersheds. This might be 10 years.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. PETERS. But we are in a legal position to do so. We have yet to secure court approval of the benefit appraisals in the Upper Little Auglaize in Dog Creek and Prairie-Hoaglin, and Hagerman Creek, which were added to the plans. We had the blue plan before the local people filed applications for Federal court hearing and assistance under Public Law 566.

The CHAIRMAN. It would seem to me then that the Middle Branch of the Little Auglaize Watershed is the only one on which you could start complete operations at the moment; is that not correct?

Mr. PETERS. We can start operations on the main channels. This is where the major problem and where, probably, the operation should

start.

We can complete by the time construction 3 or 4 years hence reaches this point, and have these legalities cleared here.

We could operate on this portion of the SCS plan No. 1 without bringing work on this program, although if only one of of these was authorized, obviously we would try to rush this through and be able to operate in this section.

On this particular one the legalities are completed with the exception of some additional benefits to be appraised in Van Wert County, which will not delay the project.

The CHAIRMAN. What I am getting is: Would you not, actually, be in a position, if we authorized one of those projects-in fact, any one of them, for that matter-and I agree that it seems to me that the Auglaize, that is, the Little Auglaize River is the one where the work should start, where it flows into the main stream. But if we authorized that project at this time and authorized the others 1 or 2 years hence, would you not, actually, be in just as good a position as you were if they were all authorized, except to the extent that of necessity you would like to know that there is not anything to hold it up, but from the practical workings of it, you could have everything that you could do for the next 2 or 3 years?

Mr. PETERS. Our construction schedule calls for improving only about 10 miles of this main channel in the first year of construction. And as far as the Van Wert County line on this portion, about to this point [indicating] in the second year, but we had hoped, in the second year, also, to begin construction, because we are under heavy pressure from the city of Van Wert to relieve the situation that Congressman Latta described to you.

The CHAIRMAN. If you had those two projects authorized, you would. actually, be able to do everything that you intend to do, anyhow, for the next 2 years?

Mr. PETERS. Correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. WILLIAMS. May I go off the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Let us put it on the record.

If you are going to make a statement as to why we should do this, I want it in the record, because we do not want to base our action upon what you say off the record. We do not want to base our actions upon anything but those of record.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I stand corrected. I made a mistake. I will have something to say at the end.

In consulting with our staff here, I think that we want to insist that Little Auglaize, or however you pronounce it, be included in the first project, because it is the key to all of the others.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that we all agree.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Do you agree with that, Mr. Peters?
Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. From now on, within the discussion that you have outlined, Mr. Chairman, which is perfectly sound, I would add to Mr. Peters' statement that from a practical standpoint we know that the capabilities of the local people will not result in a big pyramiding of funds in any one year, because we cannot move any faster than they

can.

That is a point for consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be true. You do not know how much money you will get and what you would authorize is the next question. That is, where it came up in a committee meeting on appropriations, where they said that they had authorized $35 million last year in one lump sum, and that they would not give us enough to add these projects from Minnesota and Arizona and other places, such as Kentucky, et cetera, to this list.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Then, you and I will have to say that we will hear the facts as to the demand that will be made and we will have to give priorities to those already underway, and we will build that into our budget support, and then it is a decision for you gentlemen here in Congress to decide at what rate we shall go forward with the increase. The CHAIRMAN. It is not our decision.

My suggestion would be that we have $100 million. I thought it would be moving, or ought to be moving, at about that rate of $100 million a year. That was my suggestion, but the Appropriations Committee did not agree with me.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not know whether this ought to be on record

or not.

May I go off the record?

The CHAIRMAN. You may go off the record.

(Discussion was had outside the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.

We appreciate your statement.

Mr. Gathings will take over since I have to leave for the Rules Committee.

Mr. GATHINGS (presiding). Mr. Latta is recognized.

May I say also that Congressman McCulloch is here. I know that he is a pretty busy man these days, with the President, submitting a new bill yesterday.

If he can make a better statement than you have made this morning, his appearance would be superb.

Mr. LATTA. Yes, I think he can.

Mr. GATHINGS. I do not know whether he can, but I think that he might.

We shall be glad to hear from you now, Mr. McCulloch.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I did not hear that conversation.

Mr. LATTA. It was complimentary.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. McCULLOCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. McCULLOCH. I want to compliment Mr. Poage and Mr. Gathings, too.

It is a pleasure to come before this committee. You have done so much over the years in a very difficult field.

My congressional district is affected much by the proposal as is my neighbor's district, Mr. Latta.

I should like to say this: That while Ohio is recognized as one of the two or three of the greatest industrial States of the Union, it ranks among the first 10 among agricultural production, too.

You know, if there is an accordian-like concentration here it is because we have a lot of catching up to do. In all of the 19 years that I have been in the Congress, as I recall, this is the first time that I have been before the committee on such a project.

I think that this committee has very wisely in the past, where there was some catching up to do, approved one or two or three or four or five, or more, projects in a single session of Congress.

So, I hope that this committee will take all of those things into consideration, in addition to the technical information that Mr. Weld and your very able members from the Department have given you, and that which Mr. Latta has stated, and authorize the projects that have been brought before you.

I would like to stay longer, but I suppose that I can stay no longer than the time Mr. Latta leaves, following him out of the room, because the Judiciary Committee has some important matters before the Rules Committee almost immediately.

Mr. DOLE. I just wonder if it is possible to approve two of these projects and, if so, which ones would those be?

Mr. LATTA. My answer to that is "Yes." As I understand, the Middle Branch and the Little Auglaize River watershed. Is that correct? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOLE. I want to point out that I am inclined to agree with the gentlemen from Ohio, Mr. McCulloch and Mr. Latta. In the last session we approved six or seven in one congressional district. Perhaps we should go back and summarize what has been done since the program was started. How much has been spent in each district, and so on and so forth. That might have been a good rule, if it had been started 10 years ago, but not now. Because one State or one area happens to have three projects at one time does not mean that they should be delayed. I find it difficult to follow that. I believe in being objective and equitable, and if you had had a great number of projects, that might be another thing, but I understand you have never had one. This fact must be considered in making any determination, in applying any rules. In the past we have delayed one from one year to another. There was one in California, and another in a district in New York. But last year, as a final action, we approved all of the projects pending.

It has also been pointed out that we are faced with this problem this year. We have 16 projects before the committee. These may be the last ones that we will have for quite a while, before we square away with the Budget Bureau to determine who has jurisdiction. I think this is another matter to be considered and perhaps we should act favorably so far as your projects are concerned.

I would conclude as you gentlemen know, that our chairman is a man of tremendous knowledge about all of these projects. He is very fair, as are the other members of the subcommittee. I do not think that an application of a hard-and-fast rule would be or should be based on previous history.

Mr. LATTA. If I may speak to that briefly?

I need not tell the older members of the committee-and I am talking in terms of seniority-that I never support anything that I do not think is needed and necessary and in the best interests of the country. I am conservative by nature even on matters in my own congressional district. I did not ask for these projects, but to be very frank and to put it right on the record, they were not conceived out of my doing. They came forward on their own merits, and, as I indicated earlier, I was surprised to learn that all three projects were here. I did not pressure anybody. They just came through on their own. merits. I think this is the way these projects should go forward.

Secondly, let me say that these have been approved by the Bureau of the Budget. This does not mean that the Department is going to have to spend the money, even though the matters are authorized. If these projects are authorized today or tomorrow, or whenever the committee acts, it doesn't mean that this money is going to be spent the next year, or within the next 2 years, or even within the next 3 years.

I agree with Congressman Dole, that we do have this matter of conflict with the executive branch of the Government on the constitutionality of Public Law 566. So far as I personally am concerned, I think that the committee is absolutely right in its position in this matter, and I intend to support the committee as much as I possibly can in going forward with these projects. I think that it is right so far as jurisdiction is concerned, for the Agriculture Committee, to pass on these projects. I shall abide by this position whether you agree with one, two, three or none of these projects here today.

Mr. GATHINGS. Thank you, Mr. Latta.

Are there any further questions?

Mr. LATTA. We have two other people who came here for this hearing on these projects.

Mr. DOLE. I want to ask another question.

The mere fact that this committee might take favorable action on all three projects does not earmark an actual number of dollars, does it, for these projects?

You will still stretch out the projects to accomplish what the Chairman has in mind, even though they are approved: can you not do that?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. And I would like to emphasize that point again. The biggest deterrent or holdup in going forward on small watershed projects today is the inability of the local people to provide the land easements and rights-of-way.

Now, this program is conceived in a concept that it is good government for the local people to do that. There are not many other construction projects that meet that requirement. This would be a great asset to the determination of local people to go into court and to do other things that are necessary and to put up the funds to get that big hurdle out of the way.

That is one point that I want to make.

I am speaking to your point in the affirmative again: We might authorize funds for only one structure in a cluster of 26, or a part of a