LNITD TA-TES
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTLIRE,
AGi-41CL,LTURAL RESEARCH
SERVICE
SOIL 3-`4,-,N;;) WATE:Fi
CONSERVATION RESEARCH DIVISION TEXAS 7.1.)012
January 10, 1972
Mr. Milo W. Hoisveen,
President-Elect
National Water Resources
Association
State Office Building
900 Boulevard
Bismarck, North Dakota
58501
Dear Mr. Hoisveen:
I have your letter of
January 3, concerning
NWRA's Research Committee
on Water and Agriculture.
I will be pleased to
continue to serve as
Chairman of this committee
for 1972.
It seems that this
group made some progress
during 1971. We shall
try to make more progress
in 1972.
I need your help in
firming up representation
from each State on
this
committee for 1972.
I do not know what
you and Carl Bronri wish
to do regarding contacts
with
those people who served
on this committee last
year. Perhaps a letter
to each, indicating
that NWRA wishes them
to continue to serve
for 1972,
would be appropriate.
I am listing below,
by priority, some names
for several State Directors
to consider for appointment
to the Research Committee
for Water and
Agriculture.
New Mexico - I. J. Coury
1. Mr. Earl Alden,
of the Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range
Experiment Station,
Room 5423, New Federal
Building,
517 Gold Avenue, S.
W., Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87101.
2. Mr. Quincy Cornelius,
Water Specialist, Four
Corners Regional
Commission, Suite 328,
Petroleum Plaza Building,
3535 East
30th Street, Farmington,
New Mexico 87401.
3. Mr. Al Watson,
Hydrologist, State Engineer
Office, Santa Fe,
New Mexico 87501.
2
Kansas - Chris C. Green
1. Mr. Joel A. Wentz, Assistant State Conservationist,
Soil
Conservation Service, P. O. Box 600, Salina, Kansas
67402
2. Mr. Mel Gray, Chief, Environmental Division,
Kansas State
Board of Health, Toneka, Kansas 66612.
3. Dr. Hyde Jacobs, Director of the Kansas Water
Resources
Research Institute, Kansas State University,
Manhattan,
Kansas 66504.
Oregon - LaSelle Coles
1. Mr. Marvin
r.
Shearer, Extension Irrigation Snecialist,
200 Gilmore Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon )7331
2. Mr. Herman M. Miller, Jr., of the Vitro
Corporation,
Executive Building, Suite 914, 811 S. W. 6th Avenue,
Portland, Oregon 97204
I believe it is LaSelle Coles' intention to
determine if
Marvin Shearer can continue with this committee
work. If he
cannot, I believe it is his intent to contact
Herman Miller
or someone else. Perhaps you should contact
LaSelle regarding
this matter.
'
California - James F. Sorensen
Mr. Ralph Nissen, President of the Irrigation Districts
Association of California, Eleventh and L. Building,
Suite 305, Sacramento, California 95814
The ground work has been done on this appointment.
Perhaps
a letter confirming this would be in order.
Texas - John W. Simmons
Mr. Russell Bean, 2806 21st Street, Lubbock, Texas
79410
I had an opportunity to visit with Mr. J. W.
Buchanan regarding
another member for this committee from Texas
during the Dallas
convention, and he was quite sure that the Texas
group would
support Mr. Bean's appointment. Perhaps letters
to firm this
3
Nevada - Ivan P. Head
As indicated in my December 8, 1971, letter to Carl Bronn, I am
concerned that Dr. Bohmont, from Nevada, can contribute to our
committee's work, since we have not heard from him in some time.
Perhaps you or Mr. Head should determine directly from Dr. Bohmont
if he wants to contribute to and continue as a member of this
committee. If he cannot, I would like to determine if there is
a good man in the Bureau of Reclamation from Nevada who could
serve on the Research Committee for Water and Agriculture.
Milo, I look forward to working with you this year, and I will be in
touch with the new committee members when you folk have obtained
commitments from them for service on this important NWRA committee.
Sincerely,
J. R. Johnston, Chairman
Research Committee for Water
and Agriculture, NWRA
cc:
remo rks by Mr. ASPINALL:
REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN ASPINALL My constituent and personal friend Bob Barkley, my Colleagues in the Congress, other distinguithed head table guests, dele-gates to the convention, and friends—let inc first state my sincere thanks for being asked to be here this week and to share with you some of my thoughts on the abiding issue of how to restore some life to our National water development programs and particulany those in the West.
Two years ago at your meeting in Spokane, I noted that the water resources community was in disarray and that the only thing that would cure it. was a. massive dose of invest-ment capital. This may still be true to a large extent, but today I want to go beyond this generalized evaluation ae. I try to help you identify what you as individuals, State Associations, 'a great National Trade Associa-tion, and the water resources community in general can and must do if you are to pre-serve yourselves as factors in shaping the future.
What is this so-called water resources community? Perhaps I can best describe it as a secular trinity—of sorts—one body with three elements in the form of the Legislative, Executive, and private sectors. It is one body in the sense that it has a single public motivation; preservation of our economic welf-77117-Thro-uTgli balanced - use of water al=i1HteTi1and resources. A quesTion- may . well be asked, however, whether this is the real motivation or are we, in varying degrees, being controled and slianed by something else, like iinancial self-interestgpettv elective partisanshio, or perhogis personal e-a-o-TI feel that these factors may be shaping the atti-tude of some of us and may have in turn contributed to some degree to our present condition. If so, it is imperative that these trends be identified, acknowledged, and put aside, wherever they occur, before meaning-ful progress can be made toward restoration
of the programs
Now—let's leave this theme for the mo-ment while we look at acme of the symptoms of this sick program, keeping in mind the tendency to mistake effects for causes.
Ob-vimialy, trio symptom
is the shortage of money. To ascribe all of our difficulties to this problem, however, is to be overly simplistic and superficial in our analysis. We must go beyond and look for the real underlying cause.
Some might say, as indeed has been said, that the Indechina campaigns were taking all of our money and that purely domestic programs must await a happier time. This is, of course, specious and self-deluding; as the last few years of the Vietnam adventure have seen a steady decrease in the percentage represented by our overall defense expendi-tures; yet Water resources have not gained any from this shortfall.
Today, as everyone recognizes, it is con-venient to attribute our problems to mis-guided oppotition from so-called environ-mentalists. Once again,. this is a. symptom. In previous times, we railed against the .economic purists in the academic commu-nity, who found fault with our evaluations and our cost-sharing principles. These, too, are symptoms which we have been prone to ignore on the premise that water resources are unique in emphasizing economic studies and that Reclamation was unique among wa-ter programs in pioneering repayment.
More recently, we detect a new symptom about which we are certain to-liear moreThi the months and years to come; as it is now appaently pro: iv good politics in sone cir-cles to claim ti;e. Ilecluniation_proran). has stolen all of the water from the Indians Mid is thus, root and the (TaTi.-ire-6-1 Indian misery in the West.
Another matter which may become equally provoking is .the tendency to tinker with acreage litttlijittonf.;. Tins issue ha,; the ino--menium of seine of our other problems, but it is drawing the attention of widespread viewpoints. They range all of the way front outright repeal on one end of the scale to a point of view that would have the govern-meat cenfiscate exeesz; lands and live the , proceeds to charity. Please understand that -I am not bringing up this question with a
view to resolving it today, but in,. -rely to list it as another area where there lue; been inure talking than there has been thinking.
• ts;
Nene of these problem areas are strangers to us. We have seen them (leveler) over the years, prceccupy our concern for a while, and recede as a new one arises to capture our Immediate attention. None of them have completely gene away and cumulatively they represent a serious threat to the health -and existence of our institutions -and ac-complishment of our goals.
We don't have enough time to talk about all of these things today, but I would be remiss not to say a few words about the most acute preblem facing water resources, in-deed all resource-Lased economic develop.-mettt, at this time. I refer, of course, to the eco?egy bingo as practiced by the lunatic fringe of the environmental movement. These are over-indulged zealots to whom • balance means nothing Ind in my mind their motivation is suspect, indeed. While they are in the ascendancy at the moment there are signs that. their issue is peaking -out. This is not to say, however, that sober, sensible, well-considered attention to the environmental consequences of our actions will not be a continuing requirement for the Indefinite future.
It seems quite clear to me that this issue has captured the imagination of a majority of our people, and regardless of my own • sense of values, what is really important in this society is what most people think is im-portant at any given moment. Given the fact that environmental concern is hero to stay in one degree or another. accommodation to reoresen,s the most difficult challenge fac-ing water ruources. It is difficult because it fs widespread and easily understood. The average man may not really understand the high-flown rhetoric of project evaluation, interest rates, -cost-sharing, water rights and acreage limitations; but he has no trouble grasping salinity, smog, sedimentation, ero-sion, and what have you.
Perhaps more than any other factor, the way in which waits a community, working in concert, a,ditist our activities to the leceti-mate poions of otar environmental frierds will determine whether water resources will continue to make a contribution to our eco-nomic posture.
These, then, are some of the more visible '77,•r,':'n'.`" " irf timii sec merely symptoms, then what is the cause? I submit that the overriding cause is to be found in the simple fact that the majority of tile American people no longer feel that water resource programs, as we rove know them, are important to or consistent with the National interest as they are given to . understand such interest. This insight is re-flected, as our system contemplates, in the attitudes of legislators and executives, alike; and all too frequently in recent years in the findines of our courts In other words water resource development has simply lost its base of political support. It is easy, indeed, for the budgeteers to slash_progroms whose political stipp.ort is at, m:±rginal that the decision-maker doe_s-no-tThave to he concernecl_iylth political redress.
What I am trying to say is that when our citizenry begins to believe that its affairs are being managed consistently, fairly, and in keeping with the wishes of the majority, then it will reeeet its confidence in the in-stitutions that are then at hand, and the eifect that we seek will be on the visa.y to realization.
How are we to bring this about? I wish I knew for sure. There is one thing that is certain, however, we have nothing to lose by trying. For we are not going any place very fest at the present time;
Whatever we undertake to do, and I am now specifically talking about the Federal Water Reclamation program, will have to be accomplished jointly by the three ele-ments of the community that I spoke of earlier; the Legislative. the EXCCUtiVe and the public. IN,I•arover, there will ho'. e to be a -nutting a:Ade."
urn -mn inn. itud_i2,:-r,:,:•11:-,iny.Ia at, we nunS all think exciiiy.,..11,y_em v...h.;_n_is_gop-ci for the future of the Wet, leaving short-term censiderations out of the picture.
You people of the National -Water Re-sources Association actually hold the key to survival of. this program. Whether you recog-nize it or not, the Legislotive_and 1,:xonutive elements of this eciteitinn com • do little or nothing mere than Ica will hear-e t,lorq.. do. This isv ceniainry true of the ad-nen:es. which reflects most accurately the cutlook and at-titude of its constituents. This is to say that as far as general legislation is concerned, you are getting precisely what you ask for, and it will doubtless continue that way.
The Executive, on the other hand, with its money and staff resources, is situated to offer some leadership, but my instincts are that it, too, is generally mirroring the values and de-sires of its client groups. It certainly cannot be said to be innovating in terms of suggest-ing basic reforms or other desirable changes. Se, if anything is to be changed, it is in-cumbent that NINIZA take visible leadershiz. If \icily oi:ganizattbn_ls,...pot„ftp.y..styuetttredtp nermit this type of activity, then 111V mes-sage to You is to get busy and change that 2-first, _
Your Program Chairman suggested that I tell you some of the things that youcan do. . I have hinted at sonie of them already, and I will now list them in specific 'terms. First of all—you must come to the realization that the old politics of water resource au-thorizations and funding will no longer get the job done. Second. you must start talk-ing to people in terms of the basic reforms that must be taken if the program is to persevere. Third., organize your best minds to do some staff work, and seine deep think-ing about these problems. Fourth, let your administrators in government anti your rep-resentation in the Congress know that you want a good hard look taken at possible solutions to all of these issues. Fifth, make them believe that you niean businees by sup-porting things that sacrifice short-term gains for long-term benefits. An example of the latter might well be an idea about which some have been doing a little thinking; that is, a series of investigative-type hearings where a carefully selected list of witnesses representing a broad spectrum of interests are interviewed on the topic of the future role and patpre of time Poelcinolft>p urogrotn. The purpose of this hearing would be to identify what National_pur_pose_is_really sought to be achieved by the Fecin-c't rcele maiTam ',root:am in this era; after which de- ' sirable changes in mapielhenting statutes could be formulated.
There are any number of other areas of Immediate program significance where vig-orous and imaginative administrative action could be stimulated on behalf of I1CW atti-tudes and ideas for attacking the causes of program decay. The question is--will you insist that your administrators and your legislators take action or support proposals calcula.ted to improve public acceptability of water resource programs? Are you ready to pay the prices? Are you ready to face up to the fact that there is no more free or low-cost water in the West and accept a measure of pricing policy reform? Are you willing to abandon support of legisla-tion designed only to give you even a better deal than you now have? Are you willing to accept the fact that the vast majority of the Nation's population still regard your program as a pork barrel, and identify with programs formulated to maximize the total public interest? Are you ready to entertain a serious introepective inquiry into the ques-tion of whether there should still be a Fed-eral Reclamation Program and, if so, what should be its goals and objectives? If answer to theec queries is "yes", then ,we are ready to start the long road beck. On the other hand, if your response is halting or negative, then God help you, for . the Congress cannot. tIfftertWie wile4 7'‘r)
Sith se
76,
.6' )441e/1 CACIV a it i C.6";;:1•74Sigicr-cV:r elild4-ret4pef...'VAE.
/*se- ,o
,s
eset
et-
" r
-24 0
izy
fic•/r,4 001a, mew.)
re-,12,1
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, JAMES R. SMITH, AT THE NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION CONVENTION, DALLAS, TEXAS, NOVEMBER 3, 1971
"All the agencies in the Department of Interior, including the Bureau of Reclamation, are feeling the results of environmental con-cern. Without exception, the complexities involved in meeting the demands of filing environmental impact statements are evidenL. The Department has been involved in massive environmental studies to analyze the total impact of its actions."
"We are putting together environmental statements on virtually everything we do. I have told my people that we must prepare, to the point of assuming when we put together such a statement, that we are already in a court of law defending our actions."
"One of the most significant areas dealing with the environment is that of environmental law and the right of citizens to take into court Federal agency actions affecting the environment. These are so called "class actions". The National Environmental Protection Act and other laws require agencies to consider the environment in their actions. In those cases where the agencies are alleged .not to meet these requirements, citizens are initiating lawsuits -- with increasing frequency -- to obtain what they feel will be a more im-partial ruling".
"Thus, the courts have been forced into reviewing questions of law, fact and policy as decided by Federal agencies. Traditionally the courts have deferred to the agency for determinations of fact. Interpreting facts, however, is a subjective process, and an agency's "factual" conclusions involve weighing environmental values against other policies important to the agency. Thus the courts are broadening their responsibility with regard to environmental findings and are
ruling on agency decisions that tend to disregard the policies of en-vironmental laws".
"The decisions of the 50's and 60's were relatively simple com-pared to those of today. We have a host of new economic and social conditions along with strong public attitudes toward them. It be-hooves all of us, Federal and private, to re-examine our organizations and rescale them to meet changing needs".
"The Bureau now has 96 projects underway with an estimated total cost of $12.4 billion. Congress has appropriated $6.4 billion toward these projects, leaving a backlog of about $6 billion. We must ac-celerate the construction of these projects if they are to be com-pleted in timely fashion to meet the future water needs of the West... This same syndrome exists in the activities of other water-related agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers."
"In fiscal 1972 we have more new starts (new loans, new rehabilita-tion and betterment programs) and the largest budget ever presented to the Congress of the United States. We are making a determined effort to sell the Reclamation program and are being successful. But we are not satisfied. Much more needs to be done."
"There is a need for reason among all this confusion, and yours can be that voice. We can balance environmental concerns with wise development, but need to utilize our time and talents in doing so."
94
/aAA/At
INCOME 1971 TABLE A Quotas Assigned: (1) a. States $52,499. b. Rails 5,400. c. "a" + "b" 57,899. d. Uncollected;1970
(shorts exceed overs) 3,761.(2)
e. TOTAL DUE IN $61,660.
f. Hopes, misc 11,300.
g. Income, maximum $72,960.
(1) Reduced $4d0 from projection, as New Mexico cannot make $400 raise.
(2) 1970 -- Montana,$1000; Nevada, $2230; Okla, $1014; South Dakota, $720.: Overs -- $1202.50
Actual:
aa States $52,744.
bb Rails & Misc 5,900.
cc SUM $58,644.
ff Hopes, matured 11,300.
ii Interest 1,517.
gg TOTAL INPUT $71,461
dd Shorts exceed overs 3,516. (3) x. Not collected '69 & '70 5,320. y• Total unpaid quotas, 69,70,71...8,836. z. Loss in Rails, 70 & 71 5,400.
UNREALIZED $14,236
(3)
1971 -- Montana, $499; Okla.,1334; South Dakota, $1440; Texas,$598. Overs: $255
NWRA BUDGET FOR 1972 Hires Bronn -- Salary $14,000. Def.Income $ 8,400. [$22,400.] $22,400. Bunting $ 5,800.
Part-time (half on membership file;legislation)....$ 3,800.
Sub-total $32,000.
$ 910. 25. $ 425. NWRA's FICA Tax (same as 719)
District Unemployment Tax Federal Unemployment
TOTAL $33,360.
(Cost accounting shows 1971 at (33,782.)
Services
Edit. Water Life $ 4,600.
Water Life, Type-set, print (11 issues) $ 8,000. Water Life, Address, Deliver, Mail.. ... ...$ 800.
(Excludes regular help)
($13,400.)
WERXS Letters (6 issues) $ 660.
AUDIT (2, half-yearly) $ 750.
LEGAL
Maintenance and Rental-- equipment $ 1,100.
Reproduction, Other $ 800.
Telephone
Local & Answering Service $ 700.
Long Distance $ 800.
($1,500.)
Rent $ 5,280.
Postage, first class $ 900.
Press Club Dues 220.
NWRA BUDGET FOR 1972 Operations Supplies $ 1,500. Purchase of Equipment $ 700. Board Support $ 800. D.C. General Travel Bronn special $ 600. Taxi, lunches, etc $ 1,400.
($ 2,000.) President $ 1,300. Bronn $ 3,000. ($4,300.) Convention Support $ 2,000. ,Public Relations Publications $ 100. Miscellaneous employment $ 700. Misc. & Contingencies $ 920. Washington, special $ 1,000.
SUM $14,020.
The National Water Resources Association, seeking balancu in national efforts to sustain nature while supporting man, offers this view of
Chemicals, Water and People (Part I)
Chemicals in water concern us because today's civiliz6-tion funcciviliz6-tions through use of water. Chemicals "contaminatc" water -- been doing it since rain began -- to an extent that 97% of the water on earth in the year 1750 was: (1) unfit to drink; (2) unsuited to agricultural and certain other uses, and (3) the only cause of mercury in sea life. Since that contamination was nature's, ecologists accept it.
Some ecologists do not accept that civilization need add to the natural movements of chemicals into water. Com-pelling arguments for a balanced view -- not just nature's view -- about chemicals by Nobel Prize winner Borlaug, have recently been widely distributed. To complement those views, extracts from an article by another expert* follow:
DDT, HUMAN HEALTH AND
THE ENVIRONMENT
By Thomas IT. 7ukes
The propaganda against DDT has been so extensive and
suc-cessful that DDT is now widely regarded by the public as a
(Ian-gerous poison. There have been a series of newspaper cartoons,
skillfully staged television shows. and a display of bumper stickers
with skull and cross-bones, all aimed at exposing the evils of
DDT.
The National Audubon Society printed 700,000 copies of a
leaflet urging that the export of DDT be stopped. This leaflet was
distributed at about the same time a resolution requesting the
continuation of the use of DDT was passed at a meeting of thL.
WHO Regional Committee for Southeast Asia held in 1969 in
Nepal, attended by representatives of eleven tropical countries
totaling over 700 million in population—about 1000 people for
each Audubon leaflet.
Thomas H. Jukes, Professor of Medical Physics, University of California at Berkeley.
Chemicals, Water and People----2
Two other
organizations that have attacked DDT are the
National Geographic Society' and the Sierra Club. The National
Geographic Magazine advertises plush overseas tours for the
wealthy people. The magazine has beautiful photographs of wild
animals, birds, and under-dressed natives in picturesque
atti-tudes. These pictures do not show the ravages of tropical diseases
that can be controlled by DDT.
The Sierra Club, which is seeking
legal action to obtain a ban on DDT,' also features expensive
outings to remote lands, again largely for the healthy and
eco-nomically secure. The motivation of conservation organizations
is primarily to protect the landscape and its wildlife. This may
be in conflict with combatting hunger and disease in human
beings.
Why is it necessary to defend DDT? Why can't other
insecti-cides be used instead? The answer is that DDT is specifically
needed to protect millions of people in tropical countries from
death by malaria. This has repeatedly been made plain by the
World Health Organization in statements such as the following:
The
withdrawal of DDT would mean the interruption of most ma-laria programs throughout the world. . . . DDT used as a residual spray of the interior surface of houses. . . led to the idea of nationwide malaria control campaigns including the whole of the rural -areas of a country. The success of these campaigns resulted in the concept of malaria eradication which was adopted. . . for the world by the Eighth World Health Assembly in May, 1955.Since then DDT has been the main weapon in the world-wide malaria eradication program. Research has continued for the devel-opment of other methods
of
attack against malaria and for the de-velopment of alternative insecticides. To date, there is no insecticide that could effectively replace DDT which would permit the continu-ationof the
eradication programor maintain the
conquests madeso
far.
The withdrawal of DDT
will therefore
represent a regression to a malaria situation similar to that in 1945. The reestablishment of malaria endemicity would be probably attained following a period of large-scale outbreaks and epidemics which would be accompanied by high morbidity and mortality due to loss of immunity by population previously protected by eradication programs.Toxicological observation of spraymen working for a number of years in malaria eradication, and even in formulation plants, has not revealed toxic manifestations in them or in people residing in houses that have been repeatedly sprayed at six month intervals.
We therefore believe that a great harm will result from the un-qualified withdrawal of DDT. We feel that selective use of DDT is justified and warranted.'
Chemicals, Water and People----3
DDT
in ilgriculture
Insects compete with mankind for food. rflicy devour all parts
of plants—leaves, stems, fruits and seeds. A plant attacked by
insects will often die without producing seeds or fruit. The
vulner-ability of plants to attack by insects is greatly increased by
agriculture, which inevitably leads to what is called
"mono-culture"— the growing of a single crop in a large area of land,
such as a field. Obviously a group of crop plants, such as potatoes,
corn, tomatoes and alfalfa, cannot be grown as a mixture. Food
must be grown on farms using monoculture, unless and until
some other method of providing nourishment is developed.
The discovery of DDT revolutionized the con-trol of agricultural insects, it also replaced lead
Frsonate,
which is virtually indestructible and hi9hly toxic.Space does not permit an adequate discussion of the vast topic of the effects of chemicals on wildlife. Many of the conclusions are based on inferences, rather than on controlled experiments. There arise therefore ambiguities, which lead in turn to disputes. The final answer may differ from the first guess. It is thus best to
react cautiously to preliminary judgments regarding the death or
disappearance of wildlife. For example, a few winters ago robins
were unusually scarce in the coastal cities of California and DDT
was blamed widely. The robins were actually back in the
moun-tains, feeding on an unusually fine crop of berries, and the
fol-lowing winter they were in town as usual.
HOW. TO ALARM THE PUBLIC A STUDY IN "ECO-TACTICS"
A syndicated newspaper article has described the history and
activities of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), asserting
that the EDF "has swiftly become the public defender of the
environmental movement." The article stated that
The turning point came when Cameron decided to spend about
$5,000 of the organization's total remaining assets of $23,000 on an advertisement in the New York Times on Sunday, March 29, head-lined 'Is Mother's Milk Fit for Human Consumption?' It referred to
the amounts of
DDT in
the human body.The ad appealed for members, starting at $10 for a basic member-ship. It produced $7,000, a profit, and the EDI,' turned to a direct mail campaign and now has 10,000 members, a stable financial base and a chance at major foundation support'''.
This is a most interesting revelation. The EDF
appealed to the
public on the basis of the DDT content of human milk. As a
means of arousing alarm concerning DDT, the EDF and the
National Audubon Society have both stated that DDT causes
cancer. The implication that DDT in breast milk may cause
cancer in babies is superlatively sensational copy. The following
lurid passage is from an article by Ed Chaney, Information
Director, National Wildlife Federation:
Chemicals, Water and People----4
$.•
A five-day-old human being lies asleep in the other room. His name is Eric. His tiny, wiggly, red body contains DDT passed on to him from his mother's placenta. And every time he sucks the swollen breasts, he gets more DDT than is allowed in cow's milk at the super-market. Be objective? Forget it. Objective is for fence posts. How can you be objective in the face of a global insanity that is DDT? In the face of abdicated responsibility by the men the public pays to protect its interests. Are the anarchists right? Are ashes the only fertile seed bed for growing new responsiveness to the public interest? Picture a swarm of angry citizens bathed in the light of flames engulfing the Agriculture Dcpartment.13 .69
It is distressin El. that an official of a large organization should
dis-card objectivity
andpropose anarchy in its stead.
It may be concluded from the preceding discussion that the
DDT
level in human milk is about twice as high as the tolerance
allowed for cows' milk by the FDA. That bald conclusion,
how-ever, requires explanation: it must be explained in terms of its
underlying premises and toxicological implications. The use of the
unqualified conclusion to create public alarm is a scientifically
irresponsible act.
The DDT
content of human milk has also been scrutinized by
the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural
Organization of the U.N. They set a permissible rate of intake of
0.01 mg. of DDT per kilo of body weight for breast-fed infants.
The DDT
intake of breast-fed babies in the United States may be
higher than this; estimates range from
0.014and 0.02 mg/kilo/
day at birth,
The "permissible rate" set by the WHO-FAO, according to
the chairman of the meeting that established the value, is highly
conservative, and he points out that
it
offers a safety factor of about 25 compared with what workers in aDDT manufacturing plant have tolerated for 19 years without any detectable clinical effect
Chcniicak, Wa tt. 1 and Pcopic
-A trace of DD
1
re-ported in a dead bird or fish often triggers a chain reaction of
publicity and incrimination. On the other side of the ideological
fence, the farmers and entomologists give considerable weight to
the fact that, in order to be able to eat and to protect themselves
against major diseases, human beings must vigorously wage war
on noxious insects. Chemical pesticides are essential in this
fight. The release of pesticides into the environment, and the
presence of traces of pesticides in our food, are inevitable if the
human race is to maintain its present numbers and control of
disease. It is obvious, or course, that the use of pesticides must
be kept down to the minimum level commensurate with adequate
crop production and disease control.
Food is never pure. In the 1930's, contamination of food by
pests was a major problem; for example, canned vegetables were
spot-checked for pieces of insects. Today much testing is done for
pesticide residues. With rare exceptions, the amounts found are
well below the tolerances, which in themselves are far below the
toxic levels. Pesticide residues in foods are not a public health
problem. The absence of such residues could be brought about by
stopping the use of pesticides. This would create a real problem—
food shortages.
Many of the charges that DDT de- stro-ys wildlife are based on
inference. Often the charges have been based on 'tests that
ap-peared to detect traces of DDT or other pesticides, and no
con-sideration was given to the quantitative aspects of the results.
Sometimes the effect of non-pesticide factors disregarded or
ignored. An example is the occurrence of large numbers of dead
fish in the lower Mississippi River. This was blamed, with great
fanfare, on pesticide contamination of the water. Subsequently
the deaths were attributed to bacteria, Aeromonas liquefaciens,
and to a lack of oxygen resulting from run-off of flooded fields.
The decline of the crab catch in the vicinity of San Francisco
in 1969 was blamed on DDT.
A scare article and banner headline
appeared on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle
stating that the decline resulted from the toxic effects of
DDT."
The story warned the public that crab meat might he
con-taminated. Strangely enough, the crab fishery further north on
the California coast reported record catches for three seasons, and
the most recent one was 14 million pounds (making one wonder
whether the species will be "fished out"). In November, 1970,
another San Francisco newspaper headlined: "What Happened to
Our Crabs? Pollution r"
The article stated:
The dumping of millions of gallons of highly poisonous wastes off the
Farallones is probably rs qponsible for the drastic slump in the San
Francisco crab fishery.
Chemicals, Water and People- ---6
DDT was found in the livers of dead sea lions on the coast of California in the late summer of 1970, and , as usual, the
news-papers swung into action to condemn the insecticide. In Novem-ber, a memorandum was issued by Dr. Richard Hubbard of the
Marine Mammal Study Center, Fremont, California, describing the findings of a team that had diagnosed the deaths as being due to leptospirosis. The diagnosis was based on sy ,mptomatology,
post-mortem findings, identification of Leptospira pomona, blood antigen tests and c..'pidemiology. He commented that "there is no correlation between mercury and DDT levels, and sick animals." But, by November, who was interested? Certainly not the EDF. Leptospira is "part of the environment."
An
examination of scientific literature which antedates the
extensive use of DDT
is instructive. It reveals that even in such
earlier years the survival of the eagle was deemed a critical issue.
For example, in 1921 an article entitled "Threatened Extinction
of the Bald Eagle" appeared in Ecology. In 1943, F. Thone stated
in Science News Letter: "When the timber was cleared, it was
inevitable that the eagles had to go. Moreover, the cities grew and
befouled the
riverswith sewage and industrial wastes. The
once teeming fish population vanished."
The Territory of Alaska paid a bounty of 25 cents per claw for
115,000 bald eagles assassinated between 1917 and 1952.
The rapid decline of the peregrine in the eastern United States
took place prior to the introduction of organic pesticides," and
seems to have been caused by harassment." The peregrine
popu-lation in the eastern United States is estimated as having been
something less than 275 breeding pairs in 1940. In contrast, thc
peregrine population in Northern Canada and Alaska is reported
to be thriving and was estimated by Fyfe (1969) as about 7,500
breeding
pairs.E
To produce a concentration of 1 ppb of DDT
in the 300 million
cubic miles of sea water in the oceans would take 9,000 years if
the total annual production of DDT,
300 million pounds, were
dispersed in the oceans each year and there was no breakdown.
If the half-life of DDT
in sea water is one thousand years or less,
this concentration would never be reached.
The absurdity of these figures illustrates the need for
quan-titative examination of allegations, but is not intended as a
sug-gestion that it is safe or desirable to use the ocean as a sink for
pollutants.
Chemicals, Water and ----7People
We may certainly expect an increase in dialogue between scientists and lawyers as the number of legal questions in-volving the environment 'grows apace. Such dialogue, how-ever, when it occurs in the tightly structured settings of the courtroom, may have unfortunate consequences. If a scient-ist is asked, for an example, whether a pesticide is poisonous, he will say "Yes;" at the same time, however, he may r4:2;oiri
-ment its use at an appropriate level as a proper response to human needs. A skillful attorney can effectively exploit such an apparent contradiction, following which the scientist will probably withdraw into his shell. In the 1969 Wisconsin hear -ing on DDT, such incidents repeatedly too'k place dur-ing exam-inations by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) attorney, Victor J. Yannacone, Jr. An EDF spokesman, C.F. Wuster, expressed
much satisfaction with Mr. Yannacone's efforts:
Yannacone's fiery and uncompromising onslaught on DDT in
Wisconsin was evidently undertaken for the purposes of
ad-vocacy, for on September 27, 1970, he said,
incomparatively
moderate tones:
Any
law simplistically banningthe use, sale, manufacture or
dis-tribution of DDT in your state, county, city or even the United States, without at the same time establishing an ecologically so-phisticated pesticide regulation program, is a bad law. It won't satisfy anyone very long and will permanently polarize agriculture and conservation to such an extent that common problems can no longer be considered in rational discourse."This anecdote serves to illustrate an essential
difference
between the advocate and the scientist. The advocate
seeks a
prompt and unequivocal decision on a particular issue. The
scientist, however, simply cannot expect such results; he thus
strives to obtain facts which enable him to ascend the
spiral
staircase of knowledge. With each step of his ascent, he obtains
a wider and superior view of his subject matter, and, although
he
never reaches the top, he should on his way up help his fellow
men by telling them what he sees.
HVIOn
7MJ
rAESCUELES
USW OH
The Honorable Earl L. Butz The Secretary of Agriculture Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
LORIN W. MARKHAM, President (Washington) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President (North Dakota) J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President (Arizona)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING
I. J. COURY, Treasurer (New Mexico)
JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (California)
CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
January 19, 1972
At the Press Club last week, you spoke of chemicals and agriculture -- and the need for realism in relating the two to an environment of quality.
That subject is realistically, and beautifully, portrayed in a "fancy Dan" show scheduled on Capitol Hill the first day of February. Working with Senator Burdick and Congressman Biz Johnson, this Association and Stauffer Chemical selected early Febru-ary for the showing because the water quality bill is a hot item on the Hill. And that bill would establish an objective of restoring the rivers of the Nation to their original "in-tegrity", to seek the pristine condition. . . as if agriculture has not enough problems!
. . the enclosed release by Stauffer indicates that Miracle on the Land fosters balance in the ecological binge being forced upon us. To me, the Miracle shows that the best ecological future rests upon science and technology -- used intelligently within the eco-systems.
Senator Burdick has invited each member of the Senate to see the show. Congress-man Johnson is doing the same for the House. But getting members to attend requires more effort. Perhaps your Department would aid in this?
. . the time is Tuesday, February 1, at ten a. m.
. the place is the New Senate Office Building, Room G-308. . . the impact is from multi-projector, color, wide-screen
electronic synchronization -- and a new musical score. . . the emphasis is on man, nature, agriculture, and chemicals. . . the duration, about 30 minutes -- including introduction.
Also, the seating capacity - more than 450 persons - assures room for members of your Department whom you could release for the purpose. Since the show is acclaimed by audiences ranging from college students to the Chicago Board of Trade, I would expect that you people would wish to see it. And this is the first viewing in Washington, D. C. !
DIRECTORS J. A. Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho
Chris C. Green, Kans. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont.
Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Ivan P. Head, Nev.
I. J. Coury, N.M.
Thank you sir
--- ----7.4--7-2*-".>,'''Th,,,...---Zr:-e'-'---A—v--,---•--.... 7:7--->
CarTII. Bronn \ Executive Director
Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Al A. Schock, S. D. John W. Simmons, Tex.
Ed Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Joe W. Jarvis,
REM,
KinDRIAL
R7E2 RESUMES
assirdvingal
LORIN W. MARKHAM, President (Washington) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President (North Dakota) J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President (Arizona)
I. J. COURY, Treasurer (New Mexico)
JAMES F. SORENSEN, Fast President (California)
CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
January 14, 1972
To: NWRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1L, An Addition To The Directors' Meeting -- Tuesday, February 1, in the Auditorium (Room No. G-308) of the New Senate Office Building at 10:00 A.M.:
This Association -- under the sponsorship of Senator Quentin N. Burdick, and with the co-operation of Stauffer Chemical Company -- is presenting:
"Miracle On The Land".
Miracle On The Land is an audio-visual show to re-late ecology, agriculture and people. The show reminds people that they and agriculture are part of today's eco-logy -- the "system of the house". Within this system that now comprises our house, man's intelligence uses chemicals to free him from the hoe, avoid the devastation from plagues of insects, and also to free vast areas of land for the struc-tures that are a part of civilization. Chemicals are one of the means whereby millions of Americans live better now than did the kings of yester-year.
Our showing of Miracle On The Land on Capitol Hill now is Limely; the Congres is considering wholly new ap-proaches toward pristine waters, and new Federal policies to guide the uses of both land and water. For Members of Congress and staff, the investment of half an hour to see Miracle On The Land would be, I believe, worthwhile. More-over, the wide-screen panorama, multi-lens projection, and a new and moving musical score are entertaining. I hope that you will invite your Congressional delegations to attend. There is plenty of room -- 450 people can be seated. Also,
DIRECTORS J. A. Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert 1. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosh°lt, Idaho
Chris C. Green, Kans. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont.
Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Ivan P. Head, Nev.
I. J. Coury, N.M.
..continued..
Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSae Coles, Ore. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D. John W. Simmons, Tex.
Ed Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Oliver A. Thomas,
Board - - -2
we are tentatively scheduling a coffee bar before Senator Burdick gets the show underway. Please remember that the screening begins promptly at 10:00 A.M. Feb.1 (G-308)
Senator Burdick is issuing a general letter of in-vitation. However, letters by Board members to their Con-gressional delegations, with special emphasis to members on Public Works, Interior and Insular Affairs, Agriculture and Appropriations Committees, will be necessary to gain a reasonable benefit from this showing. For those of you who can arrive before close of business on Monday, January 31, follow-up telephone calls to the Hill will help.
I am also inviting the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, together with staff of the National Water Com-mission and the Water Resources Council (and, of course, EPA) to join us. And -- the Board will not hold an evening Congressional reception this year.
2. More About the Directors' Meeting:
You have received a copy of the letter to Commissioner Armstrong with the list of items which he will probably dis-cuss. You know from the copy of a letter to Jim Sorensen, that personnel from OMB meet with the Board on Wednesday, Feb-ruary 2, at 10:00 A.M. Immediately following that meeting (at about 10:30 A.M.) Dan Dreyfus and Jim Casey of the Senate and the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committees will meet with the Board. They will answer questions and also give you their general ideas of where the Reclamation program seems to be headed (not be-headed). This could run until noon
no specific arrangements have been made for luncheon.
If the Members of the Board would like a similar meet-ing with Kenneth Bousquet and Gene Wilhelm on the Appropria-tions Committee at about 11:00 A.M. on Thursday, please drop me an informal note as soon as possible.
This year we are not arranging any formal luncheons or dinners. The approach is that each of you will be free to arrange lunches with whomever you need to see most in the D.C. area. On Thursday afternoon, those of you who have met with Members of Congress can brief the Directors on infolmation of concern to us: Also, see subsequent paragraph on NWRA posi-tions.
3. NWRA Positions:
At the Washington Hotel there will be a packet for each of you. You may wish to hand selected items from this packet to Members of Congress with whom you meet.
Board - - -3
Attached is a proposed view of the principles and procedures issued by the Water Resources Council. This paper has two purposes:
(1) ..to serve as a beginning point toward an NWRA position to be stated at the pub-lic hearing by WRC on March 20 and 21 of this year;
(2) ..to aid you in highlighting aspects of the proposed principles which you may want to discuss with people on Capitol Hill.
Comments on these criteria that could be furnished me before the Board meeting would be distributed to all of you as a supplement to the views expressed in the paper.
Your packets will also contain short write-ups on prospective water quality and land use legislation. Each of these topics has been discussed in earlier WERXS and Board letters.
*
Enclosed also is an abstract of a paper on "Chem-icals, Water and People". This abstract highlights at-titudes of some of the non-profit public associations who wage unceasing battle against works of the Bureau and the Corps. Those same organizations working together in Wash-ington propose to attack any feature of the new principles by the Water Resources Council that would aid public under-standing of the functions of the Bureau and the Corps. You may find use on Capitol Hill for some of the information in the article "Chemicals, Water and People".
Being mailed today under separate cover are the
Minutes of the Board Meeting in Dallas, the Business Ses-sion and the Resolutions for 1971.
Not reproduced as of late Friday afternoon:will be mailed with year end financial "IN-GO, OUT-GO" re-port the beginning of next week.
(Note: with Ken Grant, just heard Secretary Butz address the press. The last part of his speech was directed to the need to re-mind people of the importance of chemicals to agriculture)
... CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES SENATE
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS NSOB 3106 EXTENSION 4971 Democrats
Henry M. Jackson, (Wash.), Chairman
Clinton P. Anderson, (N. Mex.) Alan Bible, (Nev.) Frank Church, (Idaho) Frank E. Moss, (Utah) Quentin N. Burdick,
(N. Dak.) George McGovern,
(S. Dak.) Lee Metcalf, (Mont.) Mike Gravel, (Alaska)
Staff Director, Jerry T. Verkler Republicans
Gordon Allott, (Colo.) Len B. Jordan, (Idaho) Paul J. Fannin, (Ariz.) Clifford P. Hansen,
(Wyo.)
Mark 0. Hatfield, (Oreg.) Ted Stevens, (Alaska) Henry Bellmon, (Okla.)
AGRICULTURE St FORESTRY OSOB 324 EXTENSION 2035 Democrats
Herman E. Talmadge, (Ga.), Chairman
Allen J. Ellender, (La.) James 0. Eastland, (Miss.) B. Everett Jordan, (N.C.) George McGovern, (S. Dak.) James B. Allen, (Ala.) Hubert H. Humphrey, (Minn.) Lawton Chiles, (Ha.)
Chief Clerk, Cotys M. Mouser Republicans
Jack R. Miller, (Iowa) George D. Aiken, (Vt.) Milton R. Young,
(N. Dak.) Carl T. Curtis, (Nebr.) Robert J. Dole, (Kans.) Henry Bellmon, (Okla.)
APPROPRIATIONS NSOB 1235 EXTENSION 3471 Democrats
Allen J. Ellender, (La.) Chairman
John L. McClellan, (Ark.) Warren G. Magnuson,
(Wash.)
John C. Stennis, (Miss.) John 0. Pastore, (R.I.) Alan Bible, (Nev.) Robert C. Byrd, (W. Va.) Gale W. McGee, (Wyo.) Mike Mansfield, (Mont.) William Proxmire, (Wis.) Joseph M. Montoya, (N. Mex.) Daniel K. Inouye,
(Hawaii)
Ernest F. Hollings, (S.C.)
Chief Clerk, Thomas J. Scott Republicans
Milton R. Young, (N. Dak.) Karl E. Mundt, (S. Dak.) Margaret Chase Smith,
(Maine)
Roman L. Hruska, (Neb.) Gordon Allott, (Colo.) Norris Cotton, (N.H.) Clifford P. Case, (N.J.) Hiram L. Fong, (Hawaii) J. Caleb Boggs, (Del.) Charles H. Percy, (Ill.) Edward W. Brooke, (Mass.)
PURI, IC WORKS NSOB 4202 EXTENSION 6176 Democrats Jennings Randolph, (W. Va.), Chairman Edmund S. Muskie, (Maine) B. Everett Jordan, Birch Bayh, (Ind.) Joseph M. Montoya,
(N. Mex.)
Thomas F. Eagleton, (Mo.) Mike Gravel, (Alaska) John V. Tunney, (Calif.) Lloyd Bentsen, (Tex.)
Staff Director, Richard B. Royce Republicans
John Sherman Cooper, (Ky.)
J. Caleb Boggs, (Del.) Howard H. Baker, Jr.,
(Tenn.)
Robert J. Dole, (Kans.) J. Glenn Beall, Jr., (Md.) James L. Buckley, (N.Y.) Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.,
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES HOUSE
*in
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS LHOB 1324 EXTENSION 2761 Democrats
Wayne N. Aspinall, (Colo.), Chairman James A. Haley, (Fla.) Ed Edmondson, (Okla.) Walter S. Baring, (Nev.) Roy A. Taylor, (N.C.) Harold T. Johnson,
(Calif.)
Morris K. Udall, (Ariz.) Phillip Burton, (Calif.) Thomas S. Foley, (Wash.) Robert W. Kastenmeier,
(Wis.)
James G. O'Hara, (Mich.) William F. Ryan, (N.Y.) Patsy T. Mink, (Hawaii) James Kee, (W. Va.) Lloyd Meeds, (Wash.) Abraham Kazen, (Tex.) Bill D. Burlison, (Mo.) Robert G. Stephens, Jr.,
(Ga.)
Joseph P. Vigorito, (Pa.) John Melcher, (Mont.) Teno Roncalio (Wyo.) N.J. Begich, (Alaska) James Abourezk,
(S. Dak.)
Jorge Luis Cordova-Diaz, (Puerto Rico)
Staff Director, Sidney L. McFarland Republicans John P. Saylor, (Pa.) Craig Hosmer, (Calif.) Joe Skubitz, (Kans.) John Kyl, (Iowa) Sam Steiger, (Ariz.) James A. McClure, (Idaho) Don H. Clausen, (Calif.) Philip E. Ruppe, (Mich.) John N. (Happy) Camp,
(Okla.)
Manuel Lujan, (N. Mex.) Sherman P. Lloyd, (Utah) John Dellenback, (Oreg.) Keith G. Sebelius,
(Kans.) James D. McKevitt,
(Colo.)
John H. Terry, (N.Y.)
AGRICULTURE LHOB 1301 EXTENSION 2171 Democrats W. R. Poage, (Tex.), Chairman John L. McMillan, (S.C.) Thomas G. Abernethy, (Miss.)
Watkins M. Abbitt, (Va.) Frank A. Stubblefield,
(Ky.)
Graham Purcell, (Tex.) Thomas S. Foley, (Wash.) Eligio de la Garza,
(Tex.)
Joseph P. Vigorito, (Pa.) Walter B. Jones, (N.C.) B. F. Sisk, (Calif.) Bill Alexander, (Ark.) Bill D. Burlison, (Mo.) John R. Rarick, (La.) Ed Jones, (Tenn.) John Me!cher, (Mont.) John G. Dow, (N.Y.) Dawson Mathis, (Ga.) Bob Bergland, (Minn.) Arthur A. Link, (N. Dak.) Frank E. Denhohn, (S. Dak.)
Clerk, Christine
Republicans Page Belcher, (Okla.) Charles M. Teague,
(Calif.)
William C. Wampler, (Va.) George A. Goodling, (Pa.) Clarence E. Miller, (Ohio) Robert B. Mathias,
(Calif.)
Wiley Mayne, (Iowa) John Zwach, (Minn.) Robert D. Price, (Tex.) Keith G. Sebelius, (Kans.) Wilmer D. Mizel, (N.C.) Paul Findley, (Ill.) John Kyl, (Iowa)
J. Kenneth Robinson, (Va.)
S. Gallagher
APPROPRIATIONS CAP H-218 EXTENSION 2771 Democrats
George H. Mahon, (Tex.), Chairman
Jamie L. Whitten, (Miss.) George W. Andrews, (Ala.) John J. Rooney, (N.Y.) Robert L. F. Sikes,
(Fla.)
Otto E. Passman, (La.) Joe L. Evins, (Tenn.) Edward P. Boland, (Mass.) William H. Natcher, (Ky.) Daniel J. Flood, (Pa.) Tom Steed, (Okla.) George E. Shipley, (Ill.) John M. Slack, Jr.,
(W. Va.)
John J. Flynt, Jr., (Ga.) Neal Smith, (Iowa) Robert N. Giaimo, (Conn.) Julia Butler Hansen,
(Wash.)
Joseph P. Addabbo, (N.Y.) John J. McFall, (Calif.) W. R. Hull, Jr., (Mo.) Edward J. Patten, (N.J.) Clarence D. Long, (Md.) Sidney R. Yates, (Ill.) Bob Casey, (Tex.) David Pryor, (Ark.) Frank E. Evans, (Colo.) David R. Obey, (Wis.) Edward R. Roybal, (Calif.) William D. Hathaway, (Me.) Nick Galifianakis, (N.C.) Louis Stokes, (Ohio) J. Edward Roush, (Ind.) K. Gunn McKay, (Utah)
Clerk, Paul M. Wilson Republicans
Frank T. Bow, (Ohio) Charles Raper Jonas,
(N.C.)
Elford A. Cederberg, (Mich.)
John J. Rhodes, (Ariz.) William E. Minshall, (Ohio) Robert H. Michel, (Ill.) Silvio 0. Conte, (Mass.) Glenn R. Davis, (Wis.) Howard W. Robison,
(N.Y.)
Garner E. Shriver, (Kans.) Joseph M. McDade, (Pa.) Mark Andrews, (N. Dak.) Louis C. Wyman, (N.H.) Burt L. Talcott, (Calif.) Charlotte T. Reid, (Ill.) Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
(Mich.)
Wendell Wyatt, (Oreg.) Jack Edwards, (Ala.) Del Clawson, (Calif.) William J. Scherle,
(Iowa)
Robert C. McEwen, (N.Y.) John T. Myers, (Ind.)
PUBLIC WORKS RHOB 2165 EXTENSION 4472 Democrats
john A. Blatnik, (Minn.) Chairman
Robert E. Jones, (Ala.) John C. Kluczynski,
(Ill.)
Jim Wright, (Tex.) Kenneth J. Gray, (Ill.) Frank M. Clark, (Pa.) Ed Edmondson, (Okla.) Harold T. Johnson, (Calif.) W. J. Bryan Dorn, (S.C.) David N. Henderson, (N.C.)
Ray Roberts, (Tex.) James Kee, (W. Va.) James J. Howard, (N.J.) Glenn M. Anderson, (Calif.) Patrick T. Caffrey, (La.) Robert A. Roe, (N.J.) George W. Collins, (Ill.) Teno Roncalio, (Wyo.) N. J. Begich, (Alaska) Mike McCormack, (Wash.) Charles B. Rangel, (N.Y.) James V. Stanton, (Ohio) Bella S. Abzug, (N.Y.)
Counsel, Richard
Republicans
William H. Harsha, (Ohio) James R. Grover, Jr.,
(N.Y.)
James C. Cleveland, (N.H.) Don H. Clausen, (Calif.) Fred Schvvengel, (Iowa) M. G. (Gene) Synder, (Ky.) Roger H. Zion, (Ind.) Jack H. McDonald, (Mich.) John Paul Hammerschmidt,
(Ark.)
Clarence E. Miller, (Ohio) Wilmer Mizell, (N.C.) John H. Terry, (N.Y.) Charles Thone, (Neb.) La Mar Baker, (Tenn.)
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL DIVISION
Stauffer
Stauffer Chemical Company
Post Office Box 10 / Dayton, New Jersey 08810 / Phone (609) 655-0400
Miracle on the Land
THE INTELLIGENCE OF MAN IS A CREATION OF NATURE AND IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF ECOLOGY. MAN'S EFFSCT ON HIS ENVIRONMENT, GOOD OR BAD,IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THE SCHEME OF ECOLOGY.
THIS IS THE THEME OF A NEW THREE-SCREEN PRESENTATION OF STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY. ENTITLED "MIRACLE ON THE LAND", THE STAUFFER PRESENTATION SKETCHES THE PROFOUND PROGRESS OF AGRICULTURE DURING THE PAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. IT NOTES THAT THIS PROGRESS IS DUE, IN NO SMALL MEASURE, TO THE USE OF A NEW GENERATION OF FARM CHEMICALS.
EVER SINCE THE IDEA OF PLANTING A SEED TO GROW FOOD FIRST OCCURED TO PRIMITIVE MAN, FARMERS HAVE BEEN BATTLING THE ADVERSE FORCES OF NATURE. THE ADVENT OF PESTICIDES, FOR THE FIRST TIME., GAVE MAN AN ADVANTAGE
IN HIS ENDLESS WAR AGAINST WEEDS AND BUGS WHICH HAVE DESTROYED HIS FOOD CROPS; FOR THE FIRST TIME INSECTICIDES GAVE HIM AN EDGE IN BATTLING THE INSECT-BORNE DISEASES THAT HAD DESTROYED OR BLIGHTED THE LIVES AND HOPES OF MILL4ONS. EMPLOYED TO SAVE LIVES, THESE CHEMICALS ENABLED MEN TO LIVE
IN DIGNITY AND TO TRIUMPH OVER THE CONSTANT SPECTRE OF STARVATION.
MAN LIVES BETTER TODAY THAN EVER BEFORE. ONCE MOST OF A MAN'S TIME, EFFORT AND ENERGY WAS EXPENDED IN GATHERING THE DAY'S SUPPLY OF FOOD. DURING THE 1860'S, ONE AMERICAN FARMER PRODUCED ENOUGH TO FEED
HIMSELF AND THREE OTHER PEOPLE. TODAY HE FEEDS MORE THAN FORTY-FIVE OTHERS WITH A FAR GREATER VARIETY AND BETTER QUALITY FOOD AND FIBER. MODERN
SOCIETY EXISTS BECAUSE MEN HAVE THE TIME TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES AND TO SPECIALIZE. THEY ARE FREED FROM THE NECESSITY OF DOING THEIR OWN HUNTING AND GROWING OF FOOD, THEY HAVE TIME TO DEVELOP THE GOOD LIFE. THIS IS THE DEBT THAT SOCIETY OWES THE MAN IN AGRICULTURE.
AFFLUENCE AND INCREASING POPULATIONS HAVE CREATED VAST NEW PROBLEMS. - THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT SALVATION LIES IN TURNING BACK, IN STOPPiNG MANY OF THOSE. THINGS WHICH CHARACTERIZE OUR CIVILIZATION. "MIRACLE ON THE LAND" POINTS UP THE FACT THAT THE SOLUTION, AND REAL HOPE FOR THE FUTURE, IS NOT DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN STANDAR OF LIVING BUT FOR MAN TO RECOGNIZE HIS INTELLIGENT SELF-INTEREST IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO APPLY HIS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ACCORDINGLY. THE PRESENTATION RELATES HOW STAUFFER RESEARCH CONSTANTLY SEEKS NEW AND BETTER COMPOUNDS FOR AGRICULTURE AND HOW THE STAUFFER ORGANIZATION CARRIES THE FRUITS OF THIS RESEARCH INTO THE FIELD TO THE FARMER.
THE STORY OF "MIRACLE ON THE LAND" IS TOLD ON THREE SCREENS SET SIDE BY SIDE FOR A SUPER WIDE-SCREEN EFFECT; PANORAMAS COVER ALL THREE SCREENS AND ALTERNATE WITH SINGLE VIEWS. THERE ARE OVER 400 SLIDES IN THREE PROJECTORS, ALL CONTROLLED BY AN ELECTRONIC PROGRAMMER. THE ORIGINAL MUSIC SCORE, SOUND EFFECTS AND NARRATION AUGMENT THE VISUAL PRESENTATION.
SEE IT. HEAR IT. ENJOY IT . . AND LEARN THE PROMISE OF AGRICULTURE TO OUR CIVILIZATION.
Some views of the National Water Resources Association about:
PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS PROPOSED BY THE WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL FOR WATER AND LAND PLANNING
1. "All Relevant Effects"
All relevant effects are to be displayed for each planning
alternative;these include effects on "social factors", as well as re-sults related to the planning objectives.
...NWRA endorses the "all effects" principle because Federal-State actions about water and land do effect the results sought by other Federal programs.
...Therefore, all relevant effects -- social included--must be considered in order to relate water and land planning to other social programs funded by govern-ment.
2. Three Measures
Three measures of results are to be used: dollars, other quan-tities, and also qualities. No single measure is to be given dominant weight.
...NWRA endorses this because -- like beauty -- that which is best exists in the minds of the beholders. And, for government, market-place dollars should not govern either evaluation or formulation; that which belongs primarily to the market-place is also the pri-mary function of private enterprise.
3. Efficient Scheduling and a National Program
Scheduling is to be aimed to achieve objectives efficiently. Also, "long range priorities for water and land resource activities are to be established by the Council". Further, a multi-year budget
-2-is to be allocated among geographic areas.
...NWRA endorses all of this. As of now, the part-ners of the Federal agencies in planning have been left out of the partnership determinations as to when to start construction, and how rapidly to pro-ceed. That practice has hurt local governments, communities, industries and individuals who took seriously the joint planning.
4. Specific Purposes
Non-Federal entities are to be consulted in selecting "speci-fic components of objectives" in plan formulation. And in that selec-tion economic, environmental, and social condiselec-tions all will be ex-amined. Moreover, they will be examined with and without the plan for water and land use.
...NWRA endorses this because: to achieve quality of life in geographic areas requires different practices in land and water management. Second, the projected future of some areas -- in the ab-sence of Federal actions about land and water --may be a decay adverse to the national interest. Thus, arresting decay may be, in itself, a nation-al purpose of great vnation-alue.
5. When Effective:
Projects submitted to the 92nd Congress for authorization prior to President Nixon's approval of the principles would not be subject to these principles.
...NWRA notes that projects which have been recom-mended by the States at the time President Nixon
-3-approves the principles represent investments of massive amounts of professional services, and considerable amounts of money. Further, each of those projects will have had an environmental im-pact statement carefully reviewed. Therefore, NWRA proposes that all projects recommended by the States at the time of Mr. Nixon's approval of the principles be sent to the Congress under the pro-cedures now obtaining.
6. Employment, Income Changes, and Market Values
a. Dollar values of market-place effects are to be forecast on the basis that the general level of prices will hold over project life.
...NWRA finds this premise weak. History and most economic forecasters agree that prices rise, long-range. Further, in a free market, prices for resources of fixed supply -- con-fronted by both expanding population and per capita needs -- must rise.
b. Actions which stimulate employment are held to have value only where local problems exist, and are chron-ic.
...NWRA finds this principle in conflict with the practice of the Administration and the current Congress. Actions by both have foregone revenues -- in amount larger in a few years than Federal
-4-water development over decades -- to stimu-late employment without regard for areas. ...Further, NWRA holds that to stimulate
employ-ment where land is less densely used (regard-less of an employment figure that may not represent the outward migration of youth) may have effects enhancing the quality of life which is a prime target of Federal planning. In fact, the Water Resources Council, itself, so held in its first assessment. And since that assessment, laws have been passed pro-viding two new policies to strengthen land and water actions for: (1) creating new com-munities and (2) revitalizing rural areas.
c. The procedures value favorably the broadening of re-gional economic bases, enhanced stability, and creat-ing larger income. However, the procedures seem to require reductions of values so induced because of possible shifts of benefits (to the region from else-where).
...NWRA is concerned lest values so induced be, in turn, nullified by assumptions, rather than assurances, of shifts of activities. For ex-ample, one could nullify an increase in dairy production resulting in Wyoming from assumptions about a decrease in production in Wisconsin.
WO;
-5-7. The Value of Money
Money -- both as a cost and as a result -- is to be given a value of 7 percent.
...NWRA notes that economists have long debated the "opportunity" concepts and other theories about costing the Federal uses of money. There-fore, we elect not to review to the Council
those long arguments against its interest rate proposal.
...We do offer a short and cogent argument: the cost of money for use in Federal water and land activities is no different from the cost of money applied to other Federal activities! That is, the cost of Federal funds in a $300 million dollar waste treatment facility (or one costing only $300,000) is no different from the cost of Federal dollars in a dam. Besides, the dam may:
(a) store water which goes through the treat-ment plant.
(b) carry the treated effluent downstream for further uses.
(c) make up for consumptive uses, and di-lute contaminants for which the cost of removal is exorbitant.
(d) improve the quality of water by storing it in reservoirs, and regulating it in streams.
-6-(e) save the municipality and the collec-tion and treatment facilities from obliteration by flood.
(f) provide beneficaries of the treatment facilityA other amenities -- like a lake and a dependable river for recreational purposes.
(g) enhance the propagation of fish and wild-life.
(h) gain a degree of dependability about water
Obviously, to
and land denied to us by nature. the
value^results under one water and land program through "opportunity" concepts which are not applied to dependent Fed-eral programs is to confound the Congress, and to confuse even the Office of Management and Budget.
NITOCK
F[TIE2 2ESIMES
ASSOCETOOK
To:
LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURT, Treasurer (Washington) (New Mexico)
MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (North Dakota) (California)
J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. C.)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
NWRA Board of Directors
January 13, 1972
Subject: STATIONERY REQUIREMENTS FOR 1972
Attached to this paper you will find a simulated sample of stationery for 1972 with all proposed changes marked in ink. Please confirm these changes with me, mark any others I may have overlooked, and return the copy to this office as soon as possible.
Also, in the space indicated on the same copy, please indicate how much stationery you will need, how many envelopes, and whether or not you would like to have second sheets with the NWRA letterhead embossed.
Again -- PLEASE RETURN COPY WITH CHANGES MARKED AND STATIONERY AMOUNTS RE-QUESTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!
Thank you very much.
DIRECTORS J. A. Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho
Chris C. Green, Kans. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont.
Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Ivan P. Head, Nev.
I. J. Coury, N.M.
Sincerely,
Sally G. Bunting
Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D. John W. Simmons, Tex.
Ed Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Oliver A. Thomas,
pQ z
/,/ "r a
A.97/
(eo/e)
€othi/ ,f1/w7 0400
0)
i2071/4 eg400)
e.,da7q efr/100
0
69/75"
ei,v7uvo- 104,7 (.5-00)
4.3
00
0-..e.R
ea" ez(j
r_z41. 0?-14:-)
2700fiox
J-047 (46-00)
- • /( c.,,e)/e_7-4xes
ene )7-4 7
41Z
Ce."--,-e/7/ 5 1-)1 t.c2.11 _ /9€9// 575"
'bcidee)/ cl" /7/2 e/ ,-c e /? /. e e /2,207?.t
06/
7-c_70
77/
- - 12
_9
A17:-Trcof
7; .1.fiirc
k e(r:
- z91
e,7f7 e r IV
re/WI pi
'-140
('5-;?_. s())
Sti,
/o/it'S
C"
4eee-04er/elverss/
le
s
ekeita
eltikch.
XaD/r-AV/
cat043-64,prie/
/7
te7
/a ca/t4ilides Aotistweist)
4frt3 d/11.
ee
(9 C/rride7;fmk/4?
4y1
ic
A
I el ifrithi
2-3 m
ey,/
fee
s ,t7/
67
00
1
/ L9
0
60
0
700
/
eoO
I
5-
0
A.7 2
5-(5-41.S)
droo)
375-td'
44412'/- /-72C6
b )
.fttalliinomoo900
/2,
5.04
py
)Pr,
2-,u c '7/
°flew 7/0
2 22 Aviv s5.41",/my
ar.5
e1.•Cvr'ren/ Es
1
/
0 577
<90,0
(Lo)
ahrsd h
ro
a o
eko‘s ot.),:wc-,Eoche .74 /4.47
.144 very /i9") 4/1/
eie
roc/act/04s,,
(ith klaiiichinortie5
mkr).
•;_. 2AOC 494
XONS
AkaSi
€44 ela, es
0
4- iliti/one-- /4101/.4 ,srest,i0,‘
)
Oder- "fic as gs- cc ui-6-496:44c
o-co)
4
ffs il6/99vec,44,curf
4neiciPeozs,-
)
/60o /4700
