upon request of the Governor of only one of the affected States. Yet, once created, the commission would be empowered to discharge its functions, including service as the "principal agency for the coordination of Federal, State, and local plans for development of water and related land resources in its region, river basin, or group of river basins" (sec. 201(b)(1)), notwithstanding the disapproval of possibly several other States in the affected area. These considerations lead, we respectfully submit, most strongly to the conclusion that creation of the commissions, determination of their general composition, definition of their functions, and the regions or river basins or group of river basins within their respective jurisdictions should be matters for Congress to decide based upon the particular situation and in close coordination with the State and other local interests affected, which would be able to present their views at appropriate hearings. The conflicts and controversies likely to arise from a grant of authority to the President to set up such commissions in accordance with uniformly applicable provisions are clearly foreshadowed by analysis of the subject bill. Existing procedure with respect to the establishment of such commissions has been productive. The Delaware Basin Commission and others have produced valuable reports. Clearly, the complexity and variety of regional situations are such as to call for exercise by Congress of its deliberative functions in accommodating conflicting interests and balancing Federal, State, and local concerns in establishing such commissions and defining their functions. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, AMERICAN PULPWOOD ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I regret that it was not possible for Mr. W. C. Hammerle, of our association, to appear as scheduled at the August 16, 1961, joint hearing of your committee and the Senate Public Works Committee on S. 2246, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961. Since the hearing, we have had an opportunity to review the statements presented by the National Lumber Manufacturers Association and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. We are in accord with the positions taken by both of these organizations on S. 2246 and wish to advise you that the American Pulpwood Association supports their positions on this legislation. If the record on the hearing has not been closed, we will appreciate it if you will include in the record on this legislation our support of the positions taken by the National Lumber Manufacturers Association and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. Sincerely yours, W. S. BROMLEY, Executive Secretary. AMERICAN WHITEWATER AFFILIATION, Re S. 2246, Water Resources Planning Act of 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: As the national organization of river crusing canoe and kayak clubs, we have an appreciable interest in optimum development and coordinated planning of water and related land resources. For far too long a time our water resources have been subject to disorganized "development" under innumerable Federal and State agencies, each organized for diverse and often conflicting purposes. Legislation which will result in a consistent, farsighted policy for each of our major watersheds and coordinate all important developments therewith is long overdue. We are heartily in favor of the objectives of S. 2246. Three observations occur to me on reading the bill: (1) Nowhere in the bill is there any reference to recreational and scientific interests, who certainly are very much concerned with whatever happens in our watersheds-not only the fast-growing clan of river cruisers but fishermen, hunters, biologists, hikers, etc., as well. At the ORRRC meeting in Jackson Hole last August Mr. Luther Gulick stressed very strongly the importance of such interests being represented at the planning stage, so that certain exceptional areas would not be irreparably lost. Members of the Water Resources Council or of the several watershed com-' missions may be oriented toward lumbering, dams, mining, or some other form of exploitation. To counterbalance the combined weight of such orientation, may I suggest that the act specify that the chairman of the Council and of the several watershed commissions shall be a representative of the public, an individual (e.g., Laurance Rockefeller) or a representative of an organization (e.g., Joseph Penfold of the Izaak Walton League) known to be concerned with recreational values. This would help protect the public interest in the watersheds against those who are concerned with economic expansion. (2) Section 405 of the bill seems to negate all the rest. If the depredations of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Engineers, especially, are not to fall under the control of the Council, it would seem to me that precious little has been accomplished by this legislation beyond setting up a fine principle and a lot of machinery. A case in point is the Missouri Valley, where the Pick-Sloan program has been a conspicuous failure. I do not believe even the international commissions should be wholly exempt: what is decided for the St. John can greatly disturb the whole of the Allagash country in Maine. I am not unware of the political complications involved, but somebody has got to rein in those two Federal agencies, and soon, before they ruin the entire countryside. This act could be the instrument thereof. It should be. (3) A minor point of phraseology: Page 6, line 8, the phrasing would be clearer if written: As described in section 202(c) of this act, or of the Council, it would read more easily as: "upon the request of the Council, or of the Governor of one or more ***" etc., but you may have reason to put the Governors first. I shall probably be commenting on this legislation in the next issue of our quarterly journal. I should be glad for any clarification you may wish to make, either for my private enlightment or for quotation, as you may indicate. Respectfully yours, D. K. BRADLEY, Chairman, Conservation Committee. STATEMENT OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE INTERSTATE CONFERENCE ON WATER PROBLEMS The Interstate Conference on Water Problems, associated with the Council of State Governments, is an organization of officials concerned with all phases of water resources administration. It includes among its participants representatives of all States and of all types of State agencies with responsibility for water resources planning, regulation, conservation, development, and utilization. As a result of the broad interest of its participants, the conference has been particularly concerned with the need for coordinated, comprehensive planning for development of water resources. Recognizing that the accomplishment of this goal requires active participation by representatives of all levels of government, the conference has urged the use of interstate-Federal compacts where appropriate and such other arrangements as may be devised to produce coordination of activities. Realizing the need for strong State water resources planning programs, the conference has also recommended wider use of Federal grants to State and interstate agencies similar to those now made for water pollution control programs. To promote coordination at the Federal level, the conference has proposed the establishment of uniform standards, criteria, and procedures for sound economic and financial evaluation of water resources development projects to be used by all Federal agencies. The several recommendations above indicate the general interest of the Interstate Conference on Water Problems in the objectives of S. 2246. The executive committee of the conference feels strongly that careful consideration must be given to all sections of the bill. This feeling is based in large part on initial correspondence from Governors and State and interstate water resources administrators in all areas of the country. The specific comments that will be made in this statement reflect this initial correspondence and the deliberations of members of the executive committee at an extraordinary meeting held August 18-19, for the purpose of considering S. 2246. Because of the extreme importance of legislation in this area, the executive committee decided that a special procedure is justified to assure the presentation of State views as broad and comprehensive as possible. At the request of the executive committee, the Council of State Governments is preparing a questionnaire to be sent to all Governors to obtain the views of State water resources officials on all sections of S. 2246. As soon as the compilation of replies to this questionnaire can be prepared, it will be furnished to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The compilation will also be used at the next annual meeting of the conference, to be held January 15-16, 1962, which will be devoted primarily to the subject of organization and procedures for planning and coordinating water resources development among all levels of government. We assume that final policy recommendations will be evolved at this meeting. Because of the complexity and major importance of this legislation which necessitates its being considered most carefully, we are assuming further that final action will not be taken by Congress until the next session. In the interim, the executive committee of the Interstate Conference on Water Problems would like to summarize for the the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee the major points raised by the initial correspondence mentioned above. It is believed that careful committee consideration of the points raised would result in strengthening the bill. With respect to the statement of policy, concern was expressed over the apparent change from policy stated by Congress in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 and the Water Supply Act of 1958. Furthermore, the statement of policy in S. 2246 differs markedly from the policy statements of bills introduced earlier in the 87th Congress, S. 1629 and S. 1778, which we understand has been displaced by S. 2246. The earlier bills provided in part that “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in the planning for the conservation, development, and utilization of their water and related land resources ***" Concerning title I, there is general acceptance of the desirability of establishing a Federal council or board to provide coordination of water resources planning provided the council is given adequate means to accomplish the objective, and provided further that there is ample opportunity for representation of the views of interested parties. As noted above, the conference is on record as supporting the establishment of uniform standards, criteria and procedures as provided for in section 103. However, concern was expressed that the bill as written would not permit the coordination that is its apparent objective. It would appear that the statutory council would not have significantly greater authority than is now exercised by the Interagency Committee on Water Resources. Can coordination be accomplished without giving to the Council authority to review individual project plans of all Federal agencies constructing water resources projects? What is the effect of section 405, as it now stands, on the objective of coordination? Can all phases of water resources administration be coordinated if control and regulatory programs and projects are not within the purview of the council? A generally similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives-H.R. 8155-in both its policy statement and in its section assigning specific responsibilities, makes reference to control as well as conservation, development and utilization. Among additional suggestions received concerning S. 2246 was the establishment of an advisory committee on which would be represented other Federal agencies and State and interstate agencies. Several correspondents suggested as an additional responsibility of the council under section 102 that it advise the President concerning statutory changes necessary to achieve more effective coordination. Concerning title II, serious objections are voiced to the creation of a river basin water resources commission solely upon the request of the Governor of one of the affected States or the council. Similarly, it is suggested that this title be amended to protect existing agencies set up by act of Congress or an interstate compact to exercise all or some of the functions of river basin commissions as proposed in the bill. This is of particular concern to the conference in view of its stated support of interstate-Federal compacts where appropriate. If a river basin commission is to "serve as the principal agency for the coordination of Federal, State, and local plans ***" the bill should be amended to insure that the Governor have a stronger voice in the selection of a member to represent his State. Further matters that should be clarified relate to the number of Federal members, relative voting strengths of Federal and State members and responsibility for review of individual project plans. With respect to title III, there is attached the statement of Sam Thompson, first vice chairman of the conference, on S. 1629, presented to this committee. July 10, 1961.1 Views on this title will be sought in connection with the survey procedure mentioned above. The executive committee of the Interstate Conference on Water Problems commends the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs for giving consideration to this vital problem and wishes to express its gratitude for the opportunity to present these initial comments. It regrets that the limitation in time has precluded presentation of more detailed views. However, in anticipation of continued consideration of this legislation by Congress the procedures outlined earlier have been instituted to make a more detailed statement possible at a later date. (Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.) 1 Mr. Thompson's statement appears at p. 217 of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee hearings on S. 1629 published in this volume. |