CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS ON RIVERS AND HARBORS-VETO MESSAGE (S. DOC.

NO. 88)

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. YARBOROUGH in the chair) laid before the

Senate the following message from the

President of the United States, which

was read, and, with the accompanying

bill, ordered to lie on the table, and to

be printed:

To the Senate of the United States:

I return herewith, without my approval, S. 497. The bill would properly

authorize needed appropriations of over

$800 million for 14 previously authorized

river basin plans on which legal limitations on appropriations were imposed in

earlier legislation. The bill would also

authorize future appropriations for 140

new water resources development projects or project modifications estimated

to cost nearly $900 million. Many of

these are sound projects which will

make important contributions to our national wealth, but others are not justified for reasons I shall detail.

It is with real regret that I have found

It necessary for the second time in 2

years and for many of the same reasons

to disapprove omnibus legislation authorizing appropriations for rivers and

harbors and flood-control improvements.

The Congress in enacting S. 497 has

in many instances, disregarded the careful study and considered judgments of

the professional services and other

executive agencies concerned. The bill

would authorize 28 new projects or project modifications estimated to cost about

$350 million under terms which I cannot approve without destroying some of

the most important governmental policies in the field of water-resources development. The bill has other unacceptable provisions. In particular I believe that the bill is defective for the

following reasons:

1. It would authorize 14 projects, estimated to cost about $168 million, on

which the local participation provided

for in the bill does not adequately reflect

the substantial local benefits which

would result. It would also reduce the

cost sharing required for one other previously authorized project. I believe a

sound national policy requires that a

comparable measure of responsibility for

projects where there are identifiable

beneficiaries must remain at the State

and local level. I also believe, as I stated

in August of 1956 in my disapproval of

legislation similar to S. 497, that authorization of water-resource projects on the

terms provided for in the bill would result in the loss of the best test yet devised for insuring that a project is

sound-the willingness of local people to

invest their own money in a joint enterprise with the Federal Government.

2. It would authorize 4 projects estimated to cost over $27 million on which

adequate reports have not yet been submitted to the Congress under legally established procedures. It is, therefore,

not possible to determine whether their

authorization would be in the public

interest.

3. It would authorize 3 projects estimated to cost about $115 million which

the reports of the Chief of Engineers

show have no economic justification.

I cannot overstate my opposition to

this kind of waste of public funds.

4. It would authorize the reimbursement of local interests for work accomplished by them in their own behalf prior

to authorization of a Federal project, on

the grounds that the work is similar to

that undertaken elsewhere by the Federal Government. I consider it quite

inequitable to provide for this kind of

reimbursement when local communities

all over the country are investing their

money in public works projects which

are similar to many kinds of Federal

projects.

5. It would authorize a new small-boat

harbor in spite of the fact that adequate

harbors are located nearby and the likelihood that local interests cannot meet

the cost-sharing requirements recommended by the Chief of Engineers.

6. It would authorize as costs to Oahe

and Fort Randall Reservoirs five payments for damages alleged to have been

suffered from construction of those reservoirs in South Dakota. In three of

these cases the executive branch has determined that there is no legal liability

and the Congress has previously ac- cepted this determination. In one of the

other two cases there appears to be no

merit to the claim, and in the final case

it may be possible to adjust the claim

administratively.

7. It would authorize, in reservoir

projects of the Corps of Engineers and

the Bureau of Reclamation, the inclusion without reimbursement of water

storage for increasing the flow in times

of low water, even though the beneficiaries of such works may be clearly

identifiable. It would also authorize

the inclusion of municipal and industrial

water-supply storage in such projects

without providing adequate standards

for payment of an appropriate share of

the basic costs by local interests. In

addition, there has been insufficient ex- ploration of the complex legal implications of these ambiguous provisions as

affecting water rights. It is my firm

conviction that such important substantive changes affecting water-resources policy and costs should be made,

if at all, only after full, independent

consideration not related to an omnibus

authorization bill. The Secretary of

the Army has previously made suggestions for acceptable legislation on this

subject.

8. It contains a provision that, contrary to a time-honored principle, is

intended to affect the conduct of litigation now pending in a Federal court.

In addition, the bill would authorize

3 projects estimated to cost about $38

million, representing the first proposals

for a broad new Federal program of

hurricane flood protection in tidal

waters, without adequate consideration

of the level of local participation in the

cost of such a program. These three

are sound, worthwhile projects, and I

believe that the Federal Government

has a responsibility to assist State and

local communities in such a program of

local protection against floods resulting

from hurricanes. I have, therefore, requested the Secretary of the Army to

submit to me at the earliest practicable

date his recommendations for an appropriate division of responsibilities between the Federal Government and the

affected State and local governments for

such a program. I shall then be prepared to recommend to the Congress the

enactment of legislation on this subject.

The argument has been advanced

that S. 497 is needed for the stimulus to

the economy which would result from

starting the projects it would authorize. I would point out that significant

steps have already been taken to accelerate Federal constructicn activities.

Should it be found desirable to increase

these activities further, appropriations

will be recommended for projects capable of being started quickly.

At the present time there is a backlog

of public works projects estimated to

cost nearly $5 billion. With a few

minor exceptions, it would be many

months, even years in the case of larger

projects, before the necessary plans

could be completed and actual construction started on the new projects which

this bill would authorize.

I believe that the experience of the

last 3 years suggests that the authorization of water resources development

projects might better be handled by a

divided approach to the problem. Projects favorably reported on by the Chief

of Engineers, and to which the executive branch has no objection, could be

included in one bill. The authorization

of other projects, not meeting either of

the above criteria, could then be proposed in separate bills, one for each

such project. This approach would, I

believe, provide a better opportunity for

the kind of careful review by the Congress and the executive branch which

should be given to matters of such importance to the people of this Nation.

Meanwhile, I recommend that the

Congress act quickly to provide increased monetary authorizations for the

river basins where 1958 and 1959 fund

requirements for projects now under

construction will exceed present statutory limits. This can be accomplished

by enactment of legislation submitted to

the Congress in January by the Secretary of the Army.

DWIGHT D. EISENHIOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, April 15, 1958.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

message accompanying the bill will be

printed and will lie on the table.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that the remarks

I am about to make relating to the veto

message be printed in the RECORD following the message.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection it is so ordered.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I was told by the distinguished Senator

from South Carolina during my remarks

today that the President has vetoed the

rivers and harbors bill which was sent

1958 6389