Special Message to the Congress Following the Signing of the Rivers and Harbors Bill.

To the Congress of the United States:

I have approved H.R. 5472, an Act "Authorizing the construction, repair and 'preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, flood control and for other purposes."

This Act authorizes the construction of dams, locks, levees and other works whose estimated total cost will be more than 1.8 billion dollars. Of this amount, the present Act authorizes to be appropriated about 500 million dollars. In addition, the Act authorizes additional appropriations of about 1.2 billion dollars to carry forward the construction of works authorized in previous Acts.

The purpose and value of Acts such as this is to authorize work which needs to be done at some time in the future. The actual commencement of work in each case will depend upon when appropriations are actually made. In a few cases, such as Albeni Falls dam in northern Idaho, funds for which were included in the 1951 Budget, the work is so urgently needed that appropriations should be made in the near future. In most cases, the work authorized in this Act will be added to the present backlog of authorizations, and each project will be evaluated in the light of economic, budgetary, and other considerations in preparing and enacting each year's budget.

Most of the construction work authorized in this Act is based upon careful planning, and will be of lasting value as an investment in the development and use of our natural resources. That is the reason I have signed the Act.

In a number of particulars, however, the Act is seriously deficient. I expect to take such remedial action as is open to me, and I request further legislative action by the Congress, to meet these deficiencies.

The basic reason for the deficiencies in this Act is, I believe, that the Congress has not adjusted its procedures to the inherent requirements of Federal resource development work. The Congress is well aware that the development and use of our natural resources must be carried on in ways that consider the interrelationship between different resources--particularly, in this case, water, land, and forests. This Act, however, was prepared with a primary view to the rivers and harbors and flood control work of the Army Engineers--which is only one part of the job that needs to be done.

The failure to give proper consideration to the water resources responsibilities of other agencies, in enacting this legislation, is illustrated in several ways.

First, the Act places on the Department of the Army responsibility for "developing comprehensive, integrated plans of improvement" of the Arkansas, White and Red River Basins (which cover parts of eight States), "for navigation, flood control, domestic and municipal water supplies, reclamation and irrigation, development and utilization of hydroelectric power, conservation of soil, forest and fish and wildlife resources, and other beneficial development and utilization of water resources." Such comprehensive and integrated plans of improvement are obviously needed, not only for these river basins, but also for others. Some of the work to be done under such plans will be carried out by the Department of the Army, but other equally important phases of the work will be carried out by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and other Federal agencies. Under these circumstances, it is clearly inappropriate that those other agencies should not participate in making the plans in the first place. Furthermore, since the States, as well as the Federal Government, bare important responsibilities in resource development work, this provision is defective in not requiring full consultation and collaboration with the States in preparing the comprehensive plans.

The Act requires that the plans prepared by the Department of the Army shall be "coordinated with the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Federal Power Commission, other appropriate Federal agencies and with the States, as required by existing law." All that is required by existing law, however, is that certain Federal agencies and the States concerned be given an opportunity to comment on the plans prepared by the Department of the Army, before they are submitted to the President and the Congress. This is plainly no substitute for participation in the original preparation of the plans.

For this reason, I believe the provision originally adopted by the Senate, but omitted from the final Act, was far preferable. This would have provided that comprehensive plans for the Arkansas, White and Red River Basins be prepared by a special interdepartmental commission, under a chairman appointed by the President, and with participation by the States.

In the absence of such legislation, I shall attempt to assure concerted action and effective planning, so far as that may be accomplished under existing laws. I am therefore issuing instructions to the appropriate Federal agencies to work together in preparing comprehensive plans for these Basins, insofar as their existing authority permits, and to invite participation by the States concerned. This should remedy, to some extent, the inadequacy of the present Act. But more than this is needed. I recommend that the Congress reconsider the matter, and authorize the type of investigation and planning that would be accomplished under the provisions originally adopted by the Senate.

A second, and even worse, example of inadequate planning provided for in this Act relates to New England. The Act places responsibility on the Department of the Army to survey the "Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers and their tributaries, and such other streams" in New England "where power development appears feasible and practicable, to determine the hydroelectric potentialities, in combination with other water and resource development." This assignment of responsibility, like that in the case of the Arkansas, White and Red River Basins, obviously involves the work of other Federal agencies, and of the States, as well as that of the Department of the Army; and those other agencies and the States should participate in the planning work.

In this case, moreover, the Act does not specify the several other purposes, aside from the development of power, which should be considered in order to prepare proper resource development plans.

And yet soil, forest, and fisheries conservation and management, stream pollution abatement, improved domestic and municipal water supplies, recreational development, and other resource problems, are all highly important to the future growth of the northeastern States--New York as well as the New England States--and should be studied together.

Furthermore, the geographical area to be surveyed is not wisely chosen, even from the single viewpoint of power development. It has been understood for years by the New England States and by New York State that some of the power from the St. Lawrence project would be used in New England. It may well be that some of the power sites to be developed in New England should he interconnected with the St. Lawrence or other northeastern power sites in the interest of more power at lower cost for the whole region. But the present Act does not even require that this possibility be investigated.

This piecemeal approach is obviously inadequate. I strongly urge the Congress to authorize full-scale investigation of multiplepurpose resource development, with appropriate participation by all the Federal agencies and the States concerned, such as would be accomplished by the New York-New England Resources Survey Commission I have previously recommended.

In the meantime, although I consider it an inadequate remedy, I shall issue instructions to the appropriate Federal agencies to work together and with the States in preparing as much of a combined resource development plan for this area as existing law will permit.

A third serious defect in this Act concerns the Pacific Northwest.

Nearly three years ago, I directed the Departments of the Army and the Interior to prepare a joint plan for their further work in the Columbia River Basin. They did so, and, among other things, recommended an integrated schedule of projects to he constructed, and a "basin account" to permit unified physical and financial operation of the several Federal projects to be constructed in the Basin.

Instead of authorizing this series of projects and the basin account, the present Act merely authorized those projects which were included in the joint plan for construction by the Army Department. It omits all the projects which were jointly recommended for construction by the Interior Department-- some of which should be constructed earlier than a number of Army projects which are authorized in this Act. The present Act also omits the basin account, without which the various Federal projects to be constructed in the Columbia River Basin cannot be combined in a sensible and practical operating system.

I urge that the Congress reconsider this matter at the earliest opportunity, and authorize the missing pieces of the Army-Interior Columbia Basin plan. As I have said a number of times, the Army-Interior joint plan is no substitute for the truly comprehensive resource development which would be made possible by the establishment of a Columbia Valley Administration, but the joint plan would be clearly superior to the partial and inadequate authorizations contained in this Act.

Aside from the defects I have already noted, there are two other points on which I wish to comment.

One provision in the Act might be construed to vest in the Department of the Army exclusive jurisdiction over the development and improvement of rivers and other water resources in Alaska. Alaska should not be denied the services of other Federal agencies which would normally contribute to the preparation of plans for the development of its resources. Whether this provision will in fact have such a result is unclear at the present time; if necessary, I shall recommend remedial legislation at a later date.

I also wish to make it clear that I consider that certain projects authorized in this Act, with a total estimated cost of about 89 million dollars, do not justify the expenditure of Federal funds. The Congress was informed that, in the view of the Executive Branch of the Government, after careful consideration, these projects were not warranted. Moreover, a few projects have been authorized for construction in this Act, at an estimated total cost of about 12 million dollars, even though the Congress has not received project reports from the Executive Branch. I consider this to be unwise, and in direct conflict with a provision of this very Act which declares it to be the policy of the Congress that "No project or any modification not authorized, of a project for flood control or rivers and harbors, shall be authorized by the Congress unless a report for such project or modification has been previously submitted by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, in conformity with existing laws."

I urge the Congress in the future to avoid authorizing projects which have not been thoroughly considered or which do not meet sound standards for river development work. We can ordinarily afford to consider new authorizations for such development without haste, since there are already authorized, without this Act, river and harbor projects which will take eighteen years to complete, and flood control projects which will take eight years to complete, at the level of Federal expenditures recommended in the 1951 Budget.

Finally, I urge the Congress to develop more satisfactory procedures for considering and authorizing basin-wide development programs. We are a long way still, both in the Executive and Legislative Branches, from the kind of comprehensive planning and action that is required if we are to conserve, develop and use our natural resources so that they will be increasingly useful as the years go by. We need to make sure that each legislative authorization, and each administrative action, takes us toward--and not away from--this goal.

HARRY S. TRUMAN