operation 6 months; but I think it is an impressive record, and we will be happy to supply it for the record.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Very well. I would like to have it put in the record.

Mr. JONES. Without objection, that will be received and printed in the record.

(The information follows:)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C.

We promised to supply for the records, figures indicating the response of industry and municipalities to the Research and Development Grants Programs of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.

Detailed information on these new grant programs is provided in the following tabulations.

DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF APPLICANT AS OF APR. 25, 1967

Sec, 6(a) (2) and 6(D) research and development grant applications received as

Mr. SCHWENGEL. That is all I have.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Denney.

Mr. DENNEY. No, nothing.

Mr. JONES. I looked over my list this morning, and there was a news release issued by the Department of the Interior. I read it rather hurriedly, but the gist of it was they thought by depositing coarse limestone in these abandoned mines, you might arrest the acid condition of the mines.

Would you like to tell us about that?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the techniques that I think has to be further explored. We have been pursuing a number of methods of mine sealing aimed at keeping the waters in or the air

out

Mr. JONES. Let me talk a little bit about this mine sealing business. We started that in WPA days.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Right.

Mr. JONES. We went all over this country trying to seal mines and spent millions and millions of dollars. They proved very, very unsuccessful. When we capped the mines at one place, the water pressure would break it out in another. So, consequently, it was abandoned as not being economic; it was not successful.

We even went to salt springs in the salt strata springs area of the midpart of the continent and we started there and that was unsuccessful. We have tried and tried and tried, in an expensive operation going around sealing mines.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I say I am not in disagreement with what you have said. I think the mine sealing program of the 1930's

was not a success.

However, I think there is an argument that that can be made that it was not the program itself that was a failure, but that because this "make work," WPA-type project, was followed by a war when we did not follow through and maintain the seals, that this lack of following through might have been the reason for the failure rather than the initial effort.

What we have really been trying to do in the last 2 or 3 years is to answer this question: Was it because mine sealing itself is impractical, and that is why the program failed a generation ago, or was the failure to be largely explained by the lack of maintenance and supervision and followthrough?

We do not know the answer, but we are trying to prove this point. Mr. JONES. The testimony that I received from Government operations-traveling all over the country, I have taken testimony-was that when there was a sealing of the mine and there was a failure, the vicinity where the water was discharged was even more polluted.

So the results generally were that we increased the acid contents, rather than make a total arrest or contain the water in the area.

Mr. QUIGLEY. As long as you contained it, you were fine; but when it broke out, you were admittedly in worse shape than before.

Mr. JONES. I do not know of a single specialist that said they thought it had succeeded in any degree.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I do not know that I qualify as one, but I think we feel we have a responsibility to try and get this issue resolved one way or

81-844-67—18

the other on a factual basis. This has been the thrust of some of our limited projects.

Another effort we have been making, Mr. Chairman, is to keep the water out of the mines in the first place, and this is attempted by changing the contour of the earth so that the water will flow away from the breaks in the surface. But more and more I think there is a growing recognition that maybe the answer is not in trying to keep the water out or trying to keep the water in, but to try to develop techniques of treatment of entire creeks and streams in the coal regions in the Appalachia area. And certainly one of the techniques that has to be developed and explored further is the massive lime treatment. Mr. JONES. It is going to be pretty difficult to keep subterranean waterflow from polluting. I do not know how you are going to keep a mine and tunnel in this country dry.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Realistically, I do not think we can. Perhaps a combination

Mr. JONES. It is not the water that flows in immediately, but the water that stays there and is flushed out by rainfall.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I think if we can bring the problem down to size by keeping as much water out as possible, keeping as much water in as possible, and treating what comes out through a variety of ways, we just might be able and I underscore "might"-might be able to resolve this type of problem.

Mr. JONES. Has it been your observation that the reason we have not gone into mine drainage is that it was the most difficult of all problems? We had to establish a priority of use of our money to gain the greatest benefit in the shortest period of time, so we had to approach the problem, as varied as it was, in those areas where we would make known accomplishments.

Mr. QUIGLEY. We had to do first things first in the municipal waste problems and other industrial waste problems.

Mr. JONES. Is there any indication coarse limestone in these mines would be of some benefit?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I do not think there is any question, Mr. Chairman; it has worked on a limited scale. I think the question we have to determine is whether it will work on a massive scale and what the costs and what the practical application of it would be.

Mr. JONES. One thing about it, if it does work, we would not have any problem of transportation in Appalachia because the limestone would be right there.

Mr. WALDIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If you have covered the areas that I asked you about prior to my coming here, just please tell me and I will read the record.

I am curious as to why the Senate amendment. dealt with title III administration rather than title II, and particularly title II, “Mining Area Restoration.”

What was the purpose of the Senate amending 302(b) which seems to have nothing to do with the objective of the amendment?

Mr. FINNEGAN. I cannot speak for what the Senate did, what their purpose was.

The thrust of the amendment is to give the Appalachian Regional Commission authority to do a study in 302(b) on acid mine problems in the region.

Mr. WALDIE. It seems to have no relevance to the section they amended.

Mr. FINNEGAN. Well, except insofar as this is the authority, this is their section under which they have grant money. Money is granted to them for doing certain work in the region.

Mr. WALDIE. But the other thing that disturbs me is that the proper section for it, which would be "Mining Area Restoration," has adopted the manner for conducting the studies that you are advocating in your amendment; that the primary body for responsibility of the studies in mining area restoration be the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. FINNEGAN. That is right.

Mr. WALDIE. Cooperating with the Commission. The Senate reversed, the procedure but utilized the section. I just simply do not understand why they did that unless there is something behind that proposal that has not been made clear.

Mr. FINNEGAN. I would only think that the reason is they felt the Commission should do the study and this was the appropriate section, draftsmanshipwise, to put it in.

I think that our amendment puts it back into the Secretary of the Interior's hands. As we have suggested, ideally, from a draftsman's point of view, it would be better to put it in title II, but

Mr. WALDIE. What section do you amend? I cannot tell from amendment; what section of the existing act?

your

Mr. FINNEGAN. It would be section 302. Mr. WALDIE. Why did you amend that section? Mr. FINNEGAN. Only because the Senate-passed bill-we are speaking to the Senate-passed bill, and that is the way they handled it. Mr. WALDIE. Would not your language more properly be to delete the Senate, language and insert your language in title II, section

205?

Mr. FINNEGAN. Yes. That could be done; no problem at all. Either way would be ideally all right.

Mr. WALDIE. I may have missed this testimony, too. I am curious as to what possible reason was advanced for the Senate's determination to reverse the manner in which these studies would be conducted? Can you tell me that?

Mr. FINNEGAN. No, sir; I cannot.

Mr. WALDIE. All right, I have no further questions.

Mr. JONES. Just one more question. Do you make administrative charges to Appalachia in the examination of their projects? The proposal submitted to you, the Secretary of the Interior, does the Interior make a charge?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Speaking for the Water Pollution Control Administration, we do not.

Mr. CORGAN. No.

Mr. LUCE. The consensus around the table, Mr. Chairman, is that we do not.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

The Honorable John A. Baker, Assistant Secretary for Rural Development and Conservation, Department of Agriculture; Hollis Williams, Soil Conservation Service; Fred Ritchie, Director, Conservation Service; E. M. Bacon, Forest Service; Phil Weaver, Rural Community

Development Service; and Howard Campbell, Office of the General Counsel.

Mr. Baker.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. BAKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; HOLLIS WILLIAMS, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE; FRED RITCHIE, DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION SERVICE; E. M. BACON, FOREST SERVICE; PHIL WEAVER, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR OF RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICE; AND HOWARD CAMPBELL, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. BAKER, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Campbell could not be present. He had to be in the other committee meeting in the House. He is not here with us this morning.

Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say the Honorable Phil Weaver, a former Congressman from my district, is here, and I welcome him to appear before this committee. He has been a great help to me as a new Congressman.

Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. JONES. I was just noticing our former colleague.

Mr. BAKER, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity, as a representative of the Department of Agriculture, to testify on H.R. 4446, a bill to revise and extend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 and related bills.

It is a pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to appear here with the distinguished chairman in charge of this hearing this morning, knowing of the great work he has done over the years for rural America and for farm people and rural people, as have other members of the committee. It is a pleasure to discuss the part that our great Department has had in the success of the Appalachian regional development program to this stage, which ties in closely with our concept of “Agriculture 2000.” especially our aims and hopes for two of the key segments of "Agrieulture 2000; Resources in Action" and "Communities of Tomorrow."

Mr. Joss Mr. Baker, suppose you tell us a little bit about “Agrienture 2000" We get so many of these programs, we cannot keep up with them: so tell us about this one.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, this is an exercise that the Department of Agrickare has underway, Department-wide, as the Secretary has apprised in and about as you did earlier this morning-that as we rale pada kinal problems for the immediate future or set trends in vam for Ager ren me nis comprehensive picture of mim is going that seminare is going, what dend of world we are forming for mer 90001 given the trends and odies up your day as the de

ing in my fatis antes inSSY WEes in action ***pegurin 11kware meaning fyn, fors kither quality of cion Kn Chains in a mar 2007 Wat do we need to be that kind of world in the year 20007 * era panning effort paymning efort to