Page images
PDF
EPUB

(c) Providing for an expanded program of applied research for water conservation. Special emphasis should be given to research on improved waste treatment methods, on ways of increasing efficiency in the agricultural use of water, on fish and wildlife needs, and on methods of system planning for the optimum development of water resources of river basins.

(d) Evaluating completed projects with a view to determining modifications to enable them more effectively to meet changing needs, to provide better guidelines for future projects, and to better determine their effect on the local, regional, and national economy.

The executive branch should be requested to review present research programs in the field of water and to develop a coordinated program of research designed to meet the foregoing objectives. This should be submitted to Congress in January 1962, so that it can be considered along with the budget estimates for the 1963 fiscal year.

4. The Federal Government should prepare biennially an assessment of the water supply-demand outlook for each of the water resource regions of the United States, as a means of informing the Congress and the public of current and prospective public action needed to meet future demands. The executive branch should be requested to submit the first such report to the Congress in January 1963.

5. The Federal Government in cooperation with the States should take the following steps to encourage efficiency in water development and use:

(a) Regulate flood plain use as a means of reducing flood damages whenever such regulation provides greater net benefits to the national economy than would be provided through other methods of preventing flood losses. Additional steps should be taken to delineate flood hazard areas so that the public will be aware of the risks involved in occupying flood plains.

(b) Study the emerging water problems of the areas in which water shortage will be most acute for 1980, with a view to finding ways that these water shortages can be dealt with in such manner as to minimize adverse effects on the economy of the area.

(c) Study the future needs for major storage reservoirs for river regulation for all purposes, and report to the Congress with specific recommendations as to steps that should be taken to preserve any necessary sites so that they will be available for use when needed at minimum cost.

(d) Provide for public hearings to be held in the vicinity of federally sponsored water resources facilities whenever such facilities are proposed for development or whenever any major change in works or policies is to be made. Prior to the hearings, the proposed change or development should be made public, and comments should be solicited from State and local agencies and from organizations and individuals affected.

The committee hopes that appropriate legislation to implement these recommendations will be introduced in the Senate and considered by the appropriate legislative committees.

Senator ANDERSON. S. 1629 deals entirely with recommendation No. 2 that the

Federal Government should stimulate more active participation by the States in planning and undertaking water developments and management activities by setting up a 10-year program of grants to the States for water resources planning.

The bill authorizes the appropriation of the minimum sum recommended by the select committee-$5 million per year for 10 yearsfor such grants to the States.

It was, and it remains, my hope, that we will be able to implement both the first and second recommendations of the select committee during the present session of Congress. The first recommendation is that

the Federal Government, in cooperation with the States, should prepare and keep up to date plans for comprehensive water resources development and management for all major river basins of the United States.

When S. 1629 was introduced, I understood that the new administration was developing a plan for the implementation of this first recom

mendation of the committee. The hearings today were set with the hope that the President's recommendations on major river basin planning would be available to us and could be considered simultaneously with S. 1629. Such recommendations are in the final stages of clearance in the executive branch. I am advised that they will be forthcoming very soon, so we will hear departmental witnesses later this month. Several States have witnesses here today and we shall proceed to get their views on the State assistance proposal.

I have here the responses to a request for their views on S. 1629 from the Governors, or subordinate officials designated by the Governors, of 26 States. Nineteen of the 26 endorse the proposal for financial assistance to States, 16 approve the bill as proposed and 3 suggest amendment. Three of the remaining seven replies are noncommittal. Four promise an expression of views later, after consultation within the States. We are receiving three or four additional letters every day.

Without objection, all of these replies from the States will be included in the hearing record.

(The material referred to is as follows:)

ALABAMA

STATE OF ALABAMA,

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

PLANNING AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
Montgomery, Ala., July 6, 1961.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Your letter to Governor Patterson concerning our State's view on S. 1629 authorizing the payment of $5 million annually to the States to undertake comprehensive water resources planning, has been turned over to this department for digest and answer.

We have read the bill and see no reason why our State cannot go on record as being in favor of this legislation. As you know, Alabama has more natural streams and rivers than any other State in the United States.

We are sorry that we will be unable to be represented at the hearing on July 10.

[blocks in formation]

MY DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Reference is made to your letter of recent date in which you enclosed for my comment a copy of your bill S. 1629. I have given this matter careful consideration because I feel that it has far-reaching implications in the area of Federal-State relationships as well as in water resource planning.

I am mindful of the recommendations made by the Senate Select Committee on Water Resources and of the fact that 16 Senators have joined in the introduction of this bill. However, I must say that I am doubtful about the need for this legislation and the advisability of its enactment.

For many years the State of Arizona has actively cooperated with the Federal Government in water resource planning and development. It has advanced funds for such Federal agencies as the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey. The last legislature appropriated $150,000 for the purpose of financing Bureau of Reclamation planning studies. With the U.S. Geological Survey, the State is now engaged in a joint topographical study for water

planning purposes, spending therefor $100,000 of State funds, matched by a like amount of Federal funds. Also with the U.S. Geological Survey, the State conducts a continuing jointly financed program of stream gaging and underground water measurement.

I mention these cooperative efforts by way of illustrating the pattern of Federal and State water planning cooperation now in effect in Arizona and I am informed that this general pattern prevails in a number of the Western States. I am advised that S. 1629 might be construed as requiring the States to conform to administrative procedures approved by the Secretary of the Interior. I question the desirability of such resultant uniformity.

I am convinced that the urgency of the need for water resource planning is so well understood at the State level that no added incentive is necessary. It is my opinion that the cause of Federal-State cooperation can best be served by proceeding along lines already in effect and that legislation along the lines of S. 1629 is not needed.

I appreciate this opportunity to express my views on this bill,

Sincerely,

PAUL FANNIN.

ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE, ARK., July 5, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: Enclosed is a statement which was prepared for the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs regarding S. 1629.

I believe that the passage of this bill will provide the necessary impetus to initiate sound water management planning on a State and local level.

Very truly yours,

LESLIE E. MACK

(For the Arkansas Water Resources Planning Committee).

STATEMENT PREPARED FOR THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, JULY 10, 1961

My name is Leslie E. Mack, of Fayetteville, Ark. I am a water geologist submitting this statement on behalf of the Arkansas Water Resources Planning Committee, an unofficial group of representatives from all State agencies that have a primary interest in water. This committee, active for 2 years now with the approval of the Governor, also has representatives from Federal agencies who serve in an advisory capacity.

The Arkansas Water Resources Planning Committee is in favor of S. 1629, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961, which provides for Federal assistance to States for comprehensive water resources planning.

The foundation for a comprehensive water resource plan is based on adequate data on all important aspects of the water cycle. This includes the quality and quantity of surface and ground water and their interrelationships. Not only are these data necessary but also a manner to disseminate the information quickly to those who need it and in analyzed forms useful for many purposes. Although these data are available for much of Arkansas, considerable refinement is necessary for comprehensive planning. Fortunately, much of the technical knowhow is available and the administration is operative now in Arkansas but what is lacking is the financial push. The latter need, as it is understood, is one of the objectives of this bill.

Additional tools are necessary for comprehensive water resources planning. More data for pollution abatement and more permanent monitoring stations I would be desirable. Studies for increasing municipal water supplies, particularly in the smaller towns, are necessary. Topographic mapping is urgently needed not only for water resources planning but also urban renewal, industrial development, highway programs, game and fish industry, and many others. Reservoir and lake temperature studies are important to determine the quantities of cold water available in the cold layer, the hypolimnion, for industrial cooling. Further refinements in water use studies will aid in spotting potential water conflicts. Research in all aspects of the hydrologic system, including water management itself, will increase efficient use and reuse of water.

The Arkansas Geological and Conservation Commission would be the most logical State agency to administer the program and make necessary reports to

the Secretary of the Interior. All members of the Arkansas Water Resources Planning Committee, including the Federal water agency advisers, would be involved in carrying out the total program. The valuable work already completed by the Arkansas-White-Red Basins Interagency Committee would be utilized.

Passage of this bill would lead the way toward sound water management planning which in turn would permit the knowledge thus gained to be available for local agricultural, industrial, and municipal decisions.

CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Sacramento, June 12, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

U.S. Senator,

Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CLINT: Thank you for extending to me the privilege of commenting upon S. 1629, the proposed Water Resources Planning Act of 1961. This bill authored by yourself and cosponsored by Senators Kuchel and Engle of California, appears to constitute a desirable step forward in encouraging the initiation or acceleration of water resources planning activity by the several States. The $5 million authorized for appropriations for each of the next 10 fiscal years is the minimum proposed by recommendation No. 2 of the Select Committee on National Water Resources. The amount of the particular grant which each State may receive under the program will be small. However, such grants may increase State water resources planning in many instances as occurred with respect to municipal construction of sewage treatment plants aided by Federal financial assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. California, as you know, has been engaged in water resources planning activities for a great many years. Its initiative in this field has been assisted, and implemented in part, through cooperation with various agencies of the United States. This bill offers Federal cooperation to State water resources planning activity undertaken on a comprehensive, sound and orderly basis. Experience has shown cooperation to be a desirable way to accomplish Federal, State, and local water resources development in a most effective manner. I am happy to give my support to S. 1629 or comparable legislation.

Sincerely,

EDMUND G. BROWN,
Governor of California.

COLORADO

STATE OF COLORADO,

EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS,

Denver, June 20, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I was pleased to receive your request to comment on S. 1629, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961. I was happy to note that Senator Carroll, of Colorado, has joined with you in submitting this noteworthy proposal for enactment.

I have been advised many States have been unhappy with their relations with Federal agencies in basinwide planning. Each State has a sense of being overwhelmed by the preponderance of Federal planning and representation at the various interagency meetings and smaller working committees meetings. It has seldom been possible for the States to match the Federal agencies either in planning or in representation on committees and in meetings. The proposed legislation will assist in the solution of this difficulty and should promote more harmonious relations.

In many instances the States have depended upon Federal agency planning, with the net result that the State's participation has been inadequate until the final plan is submitted for approval, amendment, or rejection.

As

In the case of amendment of a plan, the State frequently is not sufficiently informed to make constructive amendments or propose alternate plans. you know, Colorado has attempted to meet this difficulty and has had a high degree of participation both financially and in the development of plans.

There have been occasions, as in the present instance of the South Platte River Basin study, when Colorado has advanced moneys to the Bureau of Reclamation to speed up investigations. In every such case the State has had to sacrifice its own studies in order to make such funds available.

For example, we are interested in the Missouri River Basin Interagency Committee. But we have been restricted in our participation because of lack of funds, or because we have found it necessary to use our limited resources on project investigation and planning in other basins which we considered to be more pressing.

I was interested in the hearings of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources, and found the committee's report very illuminating and even startling. It is with special interest I note this proposed legislation will actually implement one of the more important recommendations of the select committee. It is one thing to talk of assistance and stimulation of participation, and it is something else to take specific steps to accomplish these desired actions.

Furthermore, I am pleased that this proposed legislation focuses the spotlight on water resource planning. This is highly desirable, and should give impetus to the individual States in furthering their own participation in such planning. It will materially assist neighboring States to work together on a more equitable basis than has been possible heretofore.

In Colorado we have been inclined to give greater financial assistance for water resources planning to the State agency responsible for water planning and development. We have not given sufficient assistance to our recreation agency to permit the development of specialists capable of devoting full time to such planning. I interpret section 6 as having such flexibility as to permit a State to include outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife in its planning "to meet the needs of*** the general public *** for all purposes."

In your analysis of the bill, you have drawn the same conclusion. Certainly it is now time to plan to meet the needs of the general public and to take into account prospective demands for all purposes served through or affected by water resource development.

I cannot share with you the hope, expressed when the bill was introduced, that all major comprehensive river basin planning will be completed within 10 years, and that at the termination of this program there will be no further need for Federal assistance. However, I do think that after 10 years of successful and fruitful participation, the individual States will fully realize the importance of investment in planning and will be in a better position to carry a greater portion of their responsibility.

We have more planning ahead of us than we have behind us. The Federal expenditures on past and current planning far exceed the amount to be appropriated in the proposed 10-year program. This proposal should not and must not be enacted on the precept that there will be no need for Federal expenditures in this field after the 10 years of operation of the program. Nor should it be enacted on the basis that the States will take over complete planning after the program has terminated.

The procedure established for the allocation of the Federal assistance can become a monumental headache for the Secretary of the Interior. As provided in section 5, he can readily determine the population ratio, the land area, and the relative need for comprehensive water resources planning. However, he is going to experience considerable difficulty in proportioning "the financial need of the respective States."

In this respect I suggest consideration be given to a provision which will require a State to show need and inability to meet this need before this factor is employed in the determination of the allotments to be made to each State. Otherwise this factor can be greatly abused and become a bone of contention between States and possibly jeopardize the entire program.

In conclusion, I urge an early hearing of this bill S. 1629 and its favorable consideration. It will accomplish much desired planning and produce better relations between the States and the Federal agencies, thus advancing by far our Nation's work in the crucial field of water resource development.

Sincerely,

STEVE.

« PreviousContinue »