I concur with you that the Secretary of the Interior should be a member of the board and perhaps the chairman, but for Iowa, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Army would be among other desirable members. It has long been our view that the States should have major responsibilities and authority in drawing up and executing statewide water resources plans. It may be more acceptable to some States if the language of S. 1629 could be such as to give a less dominate position to a Federal agency or agencies. Perhaps making funds available to States for planning on a repayment basis would be helpful in this direction. For example, Federal loans made to States for water resources planning purposes might be repaid to the Federal Government on a proportional basis project by project at the time of construction. This would not eliminate cooperation with Federal agencies in comprehensive planning. I support your overall view with the understanding that S. 1629 will not lead to the creation of river basin commissions or similar administrative actions that may lessen the primary responsibilities of the States in water resources planning, development, and utilization. I appreciate the opportunity to comment upon S. 1629 and your interest in getting the clarifying material to me. Sincerely yours, NORMAN A. ERBE, Governor. KANSAS THE STATE OF KANSAS, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Your recent letter to Governor John Anderson relative to S. 1629 was referred to this office for consideration and reply. The following comments which represent the views of the Kansas Water Resources Board make reference first to the specific situation in Kansas and second to preliminary and general thoughts on the basic concept of the proposed legislation. With specific reference to Kansas, we would advise that during the past 5 years this State has been striving to develop a sound water resources planning program. This department of State government was created for that particular purpose and devotes full time to such activities. We believe that some significant progress has been made and that the effort has been most worthwhile. The limited and modest work to date has provided a useful guide to certain development needs, to the evaluation of the adequacy of our basic data programs, to the enactment of needed State legislation, to the administration of State laws, and to a better understanding of interstate and intergovernmental considerations. On the basis of this limited experience, we believe the establishment and maintenance of adequate State water resources planning programs is to be desired. The basic concept, that is Federal financial assistance in the form of grants to the States for comprehensive water resources planning, of S. 1629 is an appropriate subject to place before the Congress. It would appear that a carefully conceived program might well be an effective catalyst in securing adequate appraisal of State water needs and in effecting better coordination on problems of intergovernmental concern. Certainly the report of the Senate Select Committee indicates that State efforts in this area of interest are weak at present. Initial consideration of S. 1629 suggests there are several points about which we might subsequently wish to make specific comment but which deserve more deliberation than we have been able to give the matter to date. For this reason, we would appreciate very much being advised of any hearings that may be scheduled by your committee on this or any related legislation. Very truly yours, ROBERT L. SMITH, (The following additional statement was filed for the record, on behalf of the Kansas Water Resources Board, by Senator Andrew F. Schoeppel :) STATEMENT OF THE KANSAS WATER RESOURCES BOARD Chairman Anderson and members of the committee, the Kansas Water Resources Board is a department of State government which devotes full time to problems of water resources planning and the study of water resources policy. By State law the board is directed to: (a) compile information on the availability of water in Kansas, (b) work out a plan of water resources development for each area in the State, (c) study the laws of Kansas, other States, and the Federal Government for the purpose of determining the need for new or amendatory legislation in Kansas, and (d) make recommendations to the legislature, the Governor, other State agencies, and political subdivisions of the State concerning questions of water resources development. Current annual expenditures for this work, exclusive of basic data collection activities, approximate $150,000. The basic concept of Federal grant assistance to States for the purpose of stimulating comprehensive water resources planning at the State level of government as set forth in S. 1629 is an approximate subject to place before the Congress. The report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources indicates that State efforts in this field are most weak. A carefully conceived program might well be an effective catalyst in securing adequate appraisal of State water needs and in developing better coordination in the resolution of problems of intergovernmental concern. This last thought is important as Federal-State relations in the water resources field have been of increasing concern to many. Recognition must be given to the fact that the social and economic needs of a State in a selected water resource may not be the same as those of Federal or local units of government. This is not to imply that State interests must always prevail, but rather to point out that until those needs are adequately documented and understood, the opportunity for developing a coordinated solution satisfactory to all levels of government is most limited. It is believed that better definition of the State position through adequate State planning could assist in resolving some of the State-Federal problems now being encountered throughout the Nation. On the basis of the limited work undertaken in Kansas during the past 5 years, we believe State water resources planning represents a most worthwhile endeavor. We have found that through our planning program it has been possible to provide a useful guide to certain development needs, to evaluate the adequacy of our basic data programs, to secure the enactment of needed State legislation, to crystallize certain basic future policy questions for legislative consideration, and to obtain a better understanding of interstate and intergovernmental problems. The success or failure of a program such as envisioned in S. 1629 cannot be legislated. Success will be most dependent on the administrative policies set forth and how such policies are actually implemented. We believe the primary intent is to develop an adequate appraisal of State water problems and needs, and we feel any such legislation should provide the State agencies a good deal of leeway in formulating an approved program. S. 1629 provides that the Federal funds made available to the States can be applied to the cost of training personnel. This is an appropriate provision. One of the most difficult tasks facing States embarking on a water resources planning program is that of obtaining adequately trained personnel. S. 1629 provides that administration of the grant program shall rest with the Secretary of Interior. We are informed of a similar bill which would provide for program administration by a Federal Water Resources Board to be composed of representatives from several Federal departments. There is merit in both proposals and there are arguments against each. The diversity of problems from State to State and the present fragmentation of responsibility at both the State and Federal level indicates the need for some interdepartmental and intergovernmental coordinating mechanism. However, the placing of primary responsibility within some existing department would appear to be preferable to the creation of still another agency to handle only this portion of Federal water resources activity. In this regard, it would appear that S. 1629 might well be amended to provide for an administrative advisory board to be composed of representatives of those Federal water programs not handled by the department assigned primary responsibility. It would be equally appropriate to provide some State representation on the advisory board. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to comment on S. 1629. MARYLAND Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Annapolis, Md., May 29, 1961. Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 in which you requested my comments relative to the program incorporated in S. 1629. We have completed our review of this proposed legislation and I am indeed gratified to note that both its policy and program content are entirely consistent with the water resources development objectives of the State of Maryland. So far as Maryland is concerned, S. 1629 is particularly timely. Our State planning department is completing preparations for the initiation of a study which will inventory the State's water resources and provide projections of future needs. Such a study logically preceded the type of State program envisaged by S. 1629. Further, I now have under advisement a proposal for the reorganization of the State's water resources agencies which I believe will greatly enhance our administrative opportunities for multiple-purpose water resources planning and development on a comprehensive basis. Clearly, the State of Maryland has a vital interest in the legislation which you and your colleagues are sponsoring and I wish to go on record as strongly urging its passage. With kindest personal regards, I am, J. MILLARD TAWES, Governor. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, MASSACHUSETTS THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Boston, July 5, 1961. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Governor Volpe has referred your most recent correspondence relative to S. 1629, which would provide financial assistance to the various States for comprehensive water resources planning, to me as his legislative secretary. It would appear at this time we will not have a representative at the public hearing to be held on July 10, 1961. However, I would appreciate it if you would furnish me with further information relative to the progress of this very important bill. Governor Volpe has shown a vital interest in the conservation of our water supply and I am sure that your bill is in keeping with his program. Very truly yours, FRANCIS L. LAPPIN, MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA, St. Paul, June 5, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, The DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: This is in response to your letter of May 10. proposed program offers the stimulus of Federal aid, with the usual disadvantages inherent in these programs, in the area where Minnesota's program, as well as that of other States, appears to be weakest. In this State our activities in the administration of public waters and the enforcement of water laws are adequate. The collection of basic data on surface water and ground water is continuing at a satisfactory level, although additional information is needed. The need for comprehensive long-range planning has already been recognized, as evidenced by the publication of the "Hydrologic Atlas of Minnesota" by the division of waters in 1959. The division is also preparing studies of individual watershed units, appraising the water resources, water needs present and future, and possibilities for water development in each. An interim legislative commission has recently reported on the Minnesota River Valley and the Federal reservoirs at the headquarters of the Mississippi. The pressure of administrative functions does not, however, permit the present small staff of the division of waters to make the rapid progress which changing conditions appear to demand, in analyzing the large amount of basic data now on hand and in formulating long-range statewide and regional plans for the better management of water resources. I am sure your proposal for Federal aid to the State governments will provide impetus to water resource planning, provided the legislatures of the States see fit to make funds available for matching purposes. DEAR MR. ANDERSON: Although Mr. E. W. Rising presented a statement in behalf of the Montana Water Conservation Board at recent hearings in Washington, D.C., nevertheless, I wanted to reply to your letter of May 10 regarding proposed S. 1629. This bill has been introduced for the purpose of carrying out the second recommendation made by the Senate Select Committee on Natural Resources which is stated on page 18 of the select committee's report, Senate Report No. 29, 87th Congress. At the time that the Senate select committee was gathering data, we made a report covering the features in Montana as requested. This Montana report received very favorable comments from the chairman of the Senate select committee. Of course, our report was necessarily an overall picture of the water resources of the State and did not cover detailed planning of ultimate water uses. A program of this type would be a major undertaking. We, in Montana, realize the necessity for a detailed coordinated plan of water uses. A great deal of the water resources of both the Columbia and Missouri River Basins originate in Montana, and a large share of it flows out of the 74139-61- -12 State. We are very apprehensive here in Montana that the time will come when all of the water of these two major basins will be put to use, and we appreciate the fact that if the lower basin States should acquire water rights prior to those of Montana, we could not withhold the water from those rights for use in the State. Major developments within a basin will eventually acquire priority rights in the same order in which the projects are built regardless of State lines. Therefore, if we in Montana sit idly by and let the lower States develop these water supplies, we may find ourselves having quantities of water originating and flowing through our State for prior uses downstream. A study of this situation reveals that it could very easily happen. I think it is very essential that Montana begin planning immediately for its maximum use of the water supply running out of the State, and S. 1629, if passed by the Congress, will give Montana an opportunity to prepare overall plans to meet this contingency. The State of Montana has a water conservation board which constructs projects on about the same basis as the highway commission constructs highways. It has been operating since 1943, and has built many irrigation projects in the State and has the engineering ability and facilities to initiate and carry on such a program as proposed in S. 1629. Sincerely yours, DONALD G. NUTTER, Governor. NEBRASKA STATE OF NEBRASKA, In re S. 1629. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Dear Senator ANDERSON: The delay in replying to your letter of May 10 was occasioned by the fact that I wanted to make a thorough study of this important subject. As I understand it, the bill would provide $5 million in each year for the next 10 years to be made available to the States to carry out a water resources planning program approved by the Secretary of the Interior. A certain percentage of the cost of the program would be borne by the State with the Federal share in no case being no more than two-thirds of the cost. In determining the share for each State the population, the land area, the need for comprehensive water resources planning, and a financial need of the State is taken into account. I note that one of the requirements of the bill is that a State agency be designated as the "State agency" to administer the program and such State agency will be required to make such reports as required by the Secretary and provide necessary accounting, budgeting, and other things necessary to carry out the program. One of the primary purposes of the program shall be the coordinating of the programs of Federal, State, and local agencies having responsibilities in the water resources field. There is considerable sentiment in favor of the development of a State water resources program. I shall appreciate your keeping me informed on the progress of this bill. Sincerely yours, FRANK B. MORRISON, Governor. |