Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: In connection with the committee's current consideration of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961 (S. 2246), we are pleased to transmit herewith for the record a statement by the National Society of Professional Engineers in support of the pending legislation. This statement was prepared for the society by Charles D. Curran, P.E., a member of the society's committee on Federal engineering and scientific activities. Mr. Curran has extensive experience in the field of water resources planning, as indicated by the attached biography which you may wish for your own information or to insert in the record following our statement as you deem appropriate. If the National Society of Professional Engineers may be of assistance to the committee in any way in connection with the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961, or other considerations involving professional engineering aspects, we would be pleased to be of service. Very truly yours, PAUL H. ROBBINS, P.E., STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. CURRAN, P.E., FOR THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS The Water Resources Planning Act of 1961 is pending before the Senate in the bill S. 2246 and before the House of Representatives in H.R. 8177, introduced respectively on July 14 and July 17; they are identical and conform to draft legislation transmitted by the President on July 13, 1961. Title I of the bill would establish a Water Resources Council composed of four Cabinet officers, title II would authorize the establishment of river basin water resources commissions throughout the Nation, and title III would provide for financial assistance to the States for water resources planning. Policy No. 55 of the National Society of Professional Engineers points out that the society believes that the economy and efficiency resulting from the establishment of a coordinating review board for the development of water resources would serve the Nation's best interest. It states: "The society therefore encourages consideration of legislation within the principles contained in the studies and reports of the Hoover Commission Task Force on Water Resources and Power and the Presidential Advisory Committee on Water Resources Policy, to accomplish the organizational basis and policies for the proper utilization and development of the Nation's water resources, in accordance with sound engineering principles." The Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (Second Hoover Commission), in its report to Congress, "Water Resources and Power," dated June 1955, recommended, "without going into details" the creation of a Water Resources Board. Discussion of the recommendation showed that the Commission contemplated that the Presidential Advisory Committee on Water Resources, in existence at that time, and the Interagency Committee on Water Resources, established under Presidential instructions at sub-Cabinet level to carry on the efforts of a predecessor voluntary interagency group, be transformed into a Water Resources Board. It was proposed that the Board be created from among Cabinet members, together with five public members. The Board's purposes would be to determine the broad policies for recommendation to the President and, with his approval, to the Congress, and to devise methods of coordination of plans and actions of the Federal agencies, both of the Washington level and in the field. Recommendation No. 1 of that report included the following subparagraphs: (b) "That water resources developments should be generally undertaken by drainage areas-locally and regionally." (c) "That the Federal Government should assume responsibility when participation or initiative is necessary to further or safeguard the national interest, or to accomplish broad national objectives where projects, because of size or complexity or potential multiple purposes or benefits, are beyond the means or the needs of local or private enterprise. Under other circumstances the responsibility for development should be discharged by State or local governments or by local organizations, or by private enterprise." (e) "That the Federal Government should provide advisory assistance to those local and State agencies that are undertaking water resources and power development projects." The Task Force on Water Resources and Power, in its report to the Commission, recommended that the Congress adopt the policy of encouraging the formation and development of non-Federal agencies to carry out operational functions of water resources projects. The task force also recommended that the Congress strengthen and expand the Federal Interagency Committee on Water Resources by establishing a Water Resources Board, to consist of Cabinet officers and public members, to coordinate the activities of Federal agencies, to eliminate competition and duplication, and to promote State and local responsibility. The Board would serve as the executive agency for coordinating Federal policy and activities. Its responsibilities would include promotion of decentralized planning by assisting in the formation of non-Federal planning organizations. The Presidential Advisory Committee on Water Resources Policy referred to in NSPE's statement is that Cabinet committee which made a report to the President that was transmitted to Congress on January 17, 1956. This advisory committee recommended that planning for water resources and related developments be conducted on a cooperative basis with representatives of all Federal, State, and local agencies involved. It proposed that an independent board of review be created to analyze the engineering and economic feasibility of projects, that regional or river basin water resources committees be formed with a permanent nonvoting chairman appointed by the President, and with membership composed of representatives of all Federal departments and States involved. The National Society of Professional Engineers has also adopted a policy favoring an advance planning program to provide loans to the States and their political subdivisions to enable them to provide in advance proper plans, designs, work drawings, and specifications preliminary to the construction of public works. The society has also recommended establishment of a Federal Board of Engineering Review to settle jurisdictional disputes and to eliminate overlapping of operations between the several Federal agencies engaged in engineering activities. A comparison of the society's policy and the legislation under consideration presents an opportunity to point to the message of President Theodore Roosevelt sent to Congress on February 26, 1908, with the preliminary report of the Inland Waterways Commission, wherein he said: "The various uses of waterways are now dealt with by bureaus scattered through four Federal departments. At present, therefore, it is not possible to deal with the river system as a single problem * * * Congress should provide some administrative machinery for coordinating the work of the various departments as far as it relates to waterways. Otherwise, there will not only be delay, but the people as a whole will fail to get from our streams the benefits to which they are justly entitled." The Inland Waterways Commission itself, in its report to the President, recommended: "*** that the President of the United States be authorized to appoint and organize a commission to bring into coordination the Corps of Engineers of the Army, the Bureau of Soils, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Corporations, the Reclamation Service, and other branches of the public service insofar as their work relates to inland waterways, and to consider and coordinate all matters of irrigation, swamp and overflow land reclamation, clarification and purification of streams, prevention of soil waste, utilization of water power, preservation and extension of forests, regulation of flows and control of floods. * **" In 1926 Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover proposed in a public address that a commission be established in each important river basin on which each of the States concerned, each of the major Federal agencies involved, and representatives of the private development agencies be included to coordinate development. The river basin commission envisioned would not be an administrative body. In 1949 in its report to Congress, the first Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch urged a similar river basin setup. The Water Resources Policy Commission, established by President Truman in 1950, urged the formulation of plans on a river basin basis. Most recently the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources has this year recommended that the Federal Government, in cooperation with the States, prepare and keep up-to-date plans for comprehensive water development and management of all major river basins of the United States. That committee also recommended that the Federal Government stimulate more active participation by the States in planning and undertaking water development and management activities. There is no need to review every one of the reports made by commissions to Congress, by commissions to the President, by committees of Congress, or by common interest groups of members of a single profession, of conservationists, of water users, or of any other category of citizens united in a common cause. An examination of all of these studies and recommendations would show that all were generally agreed that more effective coordination was necessary, that stronger participation by the State and local governments was desirable, and that all water resources developments should be planned with full appreciation of their relationship and impact to all parts of the pertinent river basis. Such an examination would also show that for over half a century, while every student has been aware of the major problems and needs, each group has had its own thoughts on just what kind of organization might best accomplish the objective, and what means might be developed to stimulate participation of all levels of government. It we continue to emphasize the difference in approach and insist upon pride of authorship, we can continue to gather more reports for our libraries which will only support what we already know. Insistence that our differences shall prevail can only do the whole people a disservice and jeopardize the national economy by failing to foster sound management and control of our water resources. An effort to provide a single bill that would correct all of the conditions in our water resource development machinery that could stand improvement is too great a task to attempt at one time. But it is time for those who sincerely believe in improving the present machinery to work together to correct the major deficiencies and then later take care of the lesser problems, one or two at a time. There appear to be five principal problems today. First, there is still the need to improve coordination of the Federal agencies with one another. This should be accomplished without establishing a new agency to report to the President or a new agency outside of the departments regularly responsible for water resource development. The Water Resources Council proposed in the pending Water Resources Planning Act of 1961 is just such an agency. Second, means should be developed to improve coordination between the Federal agencies and the agencies of the States and local governments. A third is to assure that planning uses the river basin as a natural unit. These two objectives can be fostered by the establishment of river basin commissions such as is proposed in the legislation. These river basin commissions should be established wherever two or more Federal agencies have responsibilities for planning the water resources of the stream. While State and local government entities should participate in the planning and deliberations of such river basin commissions, improvement in Federal interagency coordination should not be allowed to languish through the failure to establish such a commission, because representatives of other levels of government do not wish to participate. Such river basin commissions should not be temporary and should not be left to orbit too freely without any coordination and supervision from the permanent and continuing agencies of the Federal Establishment responsible for water resource development. The proposed legislation would take care of these contingencies. Fourth, many States do not today have agencies established with necessary authority under State law, sufficiently financed, with adequate staff and with public confidence, to carry on the proper responsibility of the State in planning the development of its rivers. Encouragement of the establishment of proper planning programs will take more than example, more than exhortation, more than invitation to the States to have representatives sit on river basin commissions. The States must assume planning responsibilities and must establish minimum staffs with personnel qualified equally as well as those in the Federal Establishment. This will be possible only if funds are available to the States for such work and if the planning agencies are able to compete with the Federal agencies in recruiting personnel. The program provided in title III of the proposed legislation would move in this direction. Administration of the title should, however, be carried out in a manner to assure that it stimulates a State program and does not just establish a Federal program within a State agency; that is, there should be assurance of adequate financial participation by each of the States. A fifth urgent problem needing solution is that of measuring the relative merit of projects with one another; to assist in this, a uniform procedure of economic evaluation should be adopted for use by all Federal agencies and the present practice of each agency using its own procedure discontinued. Such procedures should include realistic depreciation periods for structures and improvements comparable to those recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. Preferably, such procedures should not be written into law, but could, as suggested in the President's transmittal message, be an early assignment to the Water Resources Council. The adopted policy of the National Society of Professional Engineers "encourages consideration of legislation within the principles" as stated in several recent studies. The society's policy is not rigid as to detail. The pending Water Resources Planning Act of 1961, S. 2246 and H.R. 8177, clearly comes within the policy objectives of the society. The National Society of Professional Engineers, therefore, urges and endorses enactment of the legislation. STATEMENT OF BERNARD F. HILLENBRAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AssoCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS We appreciate this opportunity to comment on S. 2246, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961. The National Association of County Officials strongly supports this legislation which provides planning bodies and financial assistance for the development of coordinated planning for the Nation's water and related land resources. We specifically endorse the establishment of water resources commissions to represent individual river basins, as well as the provisions providing financial assistance for developing comprehensive water resources plans. Since one of the major purposes of the legislation is to foster better Federal, State, and local relationships, we believe that the composition of the Water Resources Council, provided for in title I, should be expanded to include individual representatives of the State, county, and municipal levels of government. While we recognize that this Council would be primarily a policy review body for the plans developed by the river basin commissions and that final implementation would be left with the Congress, we feel that the views of the local levels of government should be represented on such a Council. This proposal would not disturb the voting balance of this Council, nor is this our intention, since the Federal departments would still constitute a majority of its membership. What we, at the county level of government, seek is the opportunity to share in these final deliberations. This participation would, we are certain, remove many of the misunderstandings that might develop by clarifying, during their inception, the issues involved. In addition, participation in the developmental stages of proposed water and related land resource legislation will provide the basis for close cooperation between the several levels of government when seeking proposed legislation to implement the recommendations of the river basin commissions. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. HULL, CHAIRMAN OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE OHIO VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. My name is William J. Hull. I reside in Washington, D.C. I am chairman of the legislative committee of the Ohio Valley Improvement Association, Inc. This association, organized in 1895, is a nonprofit corporation of the State of Ohio, dedicated to the development and more effective use of water resources in the Ohio River Basin, including, particularly, improvement of navigation facilities, domestic and industrial water supply, and flood control. Its membership includes industries such as coal, oil, steel, chemicals and power, as well as chambers of commerce, shippers, banks, river operators, merchants, civic groups, and individual citizens who support its work and program. We welcome this opportunity to present our comments concerning S. 2246. We are in full accord with the objectives of the bill to provide for the optimum development of the Nation's natural resources through coordinated planning. We support, also, the conception of a council or similar national authority to perform functions of the type outlined in sections 102 and 103 of the bill. The Interagency Committee on Water Resources has made significant contributions toward the development of plans, procedures, and standards in this field and we believe that it is appropriate for such a coordinating agency to be given statutory standing and authority. We respectfully suggest, however, that the members of such a council or agency should not be of Cabinet rank. Cabinet officers will have neither the time nor the expertise to carry out these duties effectively. They would necessarily delegate their authority with consequent delays and confusion. The functions involved are, in large measure, technical. The Council could not act in any event without approval of the President and, for the most part, its functions are to recommend, not to act. Broad policy judgment must be supplied by the President who would, of course, be free to consult members of his Cabinet and other policy advisers. A more appropriate makeup for the Council or other coordinating agency would be such officers of the Government as the Chief of Engineers, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife, the Chief of the Forest Service, the Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service, and the Surgeon General, rather than their respective superiors of Cabinet rank. It is our further recommendation that the creation of river basin commissions and the definition of their areas of responsibility and the scope of their authority and functions be reserved to the Congress of the United States. The bill attempts to provide a uniform definition of the authority and responsibilities of such commissions. Such uniform definition may well be inappropriate in particular situations, failing to meet the specific needs of a particular region or to reflect local interests. It fails, we believe, to give due weight to the predominantly local nature of certain phases of water resource development. Similarly, the bill attempts to predetermine the composition of the river basin commissions as to types of members. In this connection, it is noteworthy that the Chairman is to be chosen in the discretion of the President and that the President is to appoint one member from each Federal department or agency determined by him to have a substantial interest in the work of the commission (sec. 202 (b)); while only one member is to be appointed from each affected State (sec. 202(c)). Thus, the commissions might be weighted heavily with representatives of Federal interests. Indeed, while the State representatives are to be appointed on nomination of the State Governor, the President may make the appointment without such nomination if it is not forthcoming from the Governor within 60 days after the President's request. These arrangements might, of course, be modified by changes in the bill, giving more adequate recognition to State interests. But, we firmly believe, any uniform formula of representation on the commissions will give rise to serious problems and that congressional determination of committee composition in the light of the facts of particular cases would prove a far more satisfactory technique. In this connection, also, we invite attention to the potential difficulties involved in the provision of section 201(a) permitting the appointment of a commission |