NEVADA STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: This letter is being written in reference to S. 1629 introduced in the Senate by yourself and a number of other Senators. I have made a detailed study of this bill and I feel that it would be very acceptable to Nevada. We feel that S. 1629 would strengthen our operations in comprehensive planning for our water resources. At the present time we are carrying on a few programs that would fit into the intent of S. 1629. I have only a couple of suggestions to offer, the first one being that it might be desirable for the bill to include both the Interior and Agriculture Departments, with the administrative functions remaining with Interior. I have in mind such programs that are being carried out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture such as under section 6 of Public Law 566, which is now underway in Nevada in the Humboldt River drainage basin. We feel this program constitutes a comprehensive program under the intent of S. 1629. In your letter to Governor Sawyer of the 21st, you ask if our statement would like to be heard at the hearing set for July 10. In reply will state that it will be impossible for me to be in Washington on that date but I do want you to know we are very much impressed with the intent of this bill. Kind personal regards. HUGH A. SHAMBERGER, Director. NEW JERSEY STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Trenton. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: The material you sent me on S. 1629 was directed to the department of conservation and economic development for review by its interested agencies and particularly its division of water policy and supply. I have just returned from the Governors' conference in Hawaii to find your message concerning the hearing to be held July 10 on this bill. We are prepared to support S. 1629 and would like the opportunity to have a representative at the hearings. I am asking Mr. H. Mat Adams, acting commissioner of the department of conservation and economic development, to appear as a witness. We are assuming Mr. Adams should arrive at the New Senate Office Building at 10 a.m. on July 10. Should there be any change, please advise. Sincerely yours, JULY 3, 1961. ROBERT B. MEYNER, Governor. NEW MEXICO EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Enclosed are some comments relative to S. 1629, together with a rundown of amounts spent by various agencies on ground water surveys. Certainly Steve's statement concerning the location and proper use of ground water are of prime importance. We also have to consider in this connection the potential for saline and brackish water development and make some plans for planning in this field. The intent of the municipalities and some of our institutions of higher learning and other State institutions need careful attention. Sincerely, MEMORANDUM, JUNE 14, 1961 EDWIN L. MECHEM. To: Hon. Edwin L. Mechem, Governor of New Mexico, Santa Fe. Subject: State engineer and Interstate Stream Commission' contributions to U.S. Geological Survey cooperative programs, 39th to 50th fiscal years. (Includes funds from local agencies given to State engineer office or Interstate Stream Commission for matching with U.S. Geological Survey on projects sponsored by State engineer office or Interstate Stream Commission.) To: Hon. Edwin L. Mechem, Governor of New Mexico, Santa Fe. Subject: S. 1629, a bill to provide financial assistance to the States for comprehensive water resources planning, introduced by Senator Anderson and others. The Consideration of the subject bill invites attention to presently available Federal assistance for water resources planning. Major works for most of the surface drainage basins in New Mexico are already constructed, planned, or being actively studied in basinwide investigations financed from Federal funds. concepts involved in the planning completed and being carried out appear to be adequate at present levels of scientific achievement; advancements in such fields as weather modification, evaporation control, increased watershed yields, and more efficient irrigation practices, would probably require further compre 1 Includes amounts of State funds, from ISC, spent in Pecos River Commission-U.S. Geological Survey cooperative agreements. hensive planning but none of the existing or proposed major works seem incompatible with any reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Water resources planning and administration will continue to demand the collection of basic data related to surface water flows and quality to an extent greater than the State can afford. Matching funds are available from the U.S. Geological Survey for this work. The State has been spending as much as it possibly can, taking into account other financial commitments, in this program for several years. In the next fiscal year we will spend about $123,400 which will be matched by the U.S. Geological Survey, for the collection of basic data on surface water. Also, the Bureau of Reclamation can make investigations not included in their regular programs at the request of the State if the State pays one-half of the cost of the investigation requested. There is great need for comprehensive investigation of the ground-water resources of the State. The construction of comprehensive works for the utilization of the ground water is not generally contemplated; full development of the ground-water resources by individual enterprise is usually feasible, but comprehensive investigations are needed to permit wise individual decisions, and to make possible the administration of the ground water in the public interest. Matching funds are available from the U.S. Geological Survey for such comprehenisve investigations and the State has taken the fullest possible advantage of these funds. We will spend approximately $88,400 in cooperative ground-water investigation in the forthcoming fiscal year. The State legislature has recognized the need for comprehensive planning in which investigations of all of the resources of the State, including the water resources, are coordinated (ch. 255, Laws of 1959, as amended). The State planning office has outlined a program under which basic data related to all of our resources would be compiled, the future economy of the State would be projected, and transportation, water resources, and other needs would be estimated for future points in time. The program would culminate in the preparation of a report which would describe a general, long-term, comprehensive State development plan within the framework of existing water resource development plans. This general development plan would be submitted for consideration by the State legislature. I contemplate that further comprehensive water development planning will be essential in the preparation of the plan to be submitted to the legislature in that it will be necessary to take into consideration such items as possibilities and opportunities for the change of place and purpose of existing water uses (e.g., from agricultural to municipal and industrial usage), with due regard to the quantity and quality of available surface and ground-water resources; also it may be necessary to consider the extension of current plans to provide works for distributing water to implement development opportunities. The planning work outlined by the State planning office has been approved for cost sharing by the Housing and Home Finance Administration. It is contemplated that the first phase of this planning work will cost approximately $410,000 and will require about 3 years. Of this amount $77,500 would be spent through the State engineer office in work on water resources; of this latter amount $27,500 would be matching funds of the U.S. Geological Survey. It is my understanding that under an act presently being considered by the Congress the HHFA would be able to advance $2 for each $1 spent by the State. I assume that the HHFA would also give financial assistance in subsequent phases of this planning work, including that portion of the work related to water resources. The State spends a considerable amount of money each year coordinating the planning activities of the various Federal agencies interested in water resources, and in reviewing and commenting on reports of these agencies concerning water development in New Mexico or in other States where the development might affect New Mexico's interests. We also spend some money each year attending meetings of the Pacific-Southwest-Interagency Committee and the Arkansas-White-Red River Interagency Committee, and participating in the activities of those committees. Financial limitations have not permitted us to participate fully in the activities of these committees. These committees are not authorized to take actions which affect our interests, and we have found that our time and money yield more when expended in direct contacts with the Federal agencies involved in work affecting New Mexico. We have attempted to keep abreast of the activities of these committees by reading their minutes and reports, and by indirect contacts. Financial assistance in activities such as those described in this paragraph would be helpful, but I doubt that such financial assistance is within the intent of S. 1629. The foregoing comments are not intended to reflect the opinion that the enactment of S. 1629 is not desirable. I believe that the provisions of S. 1629 would be of great advantage to those States which presently have little or nothing in the way of agencies responsible for water resources investigation and administration, and to States which do not have a properly constituted planning office, and, therefore, are not eligible for financial assistance from the HHFA. Furthermore, more mature consideration or future developments may reveal considerable advantages to New Mexico from the provisions of the bill. However, at this moment it does not appear that New Mexico could get much advantage from S. 1629-at least for several years. Please advise me if some further discussion of this proposed legislation would be helpful to you. Respectfully submitted. DEAR SENATOR: I appreciate having the opportnuity of commenting on S. 1629, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961, as requested in your letter of May 10, 1961. The economic growth of North Carolina, as in other areas, is dependent upon the availability of an adequate supply of water of suitable quality at the right place at the right time. Fortunately, our State has ample water to insure the continued advancement of its economy provided this vital natural resource is conserved, developed, and wisely managed. This requires the preparation of plans for comprehensive development and management of all water resources-surface and underground-of the 16 major river basins of North Carolina. The State, through its department of water resources, is actively engaged in planning its water resources development. This work is being accomplished to a large extent in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the U.S. Geological Survey. However, due to a limitation of funds, at both the Federal and State level, these plans are not progressing as rapidly as desired. The enactment of S. 1629 would make it possible for our State to recruit and train additional personnel in sufficient depth to complete our comprehensive water resources planning within the duration of the program. Its provisions appear to be broad enough to permit the State to proceed with its program for comprehensive water resources planning. I am pleased that the act states the policy of the Congress is 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. North Carolina recognizes its responsibility in this area and with the assistance of the Federal Government, as provided in S. 1629, will meet that responsibility. With best wishes always, Sincerely, TERRY SANFORD. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, NORTH DAKOTA STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I had hoped to discuss S. 1629 with you in Washington, D.C. on June 21, at which time I appeared before your Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation regarding the Garrison diversion unit. Senator Burdick who presided at the Garrison diversion unit hearing on June 21 informed us that pressure of other official business made it impossible for you to be present. Senator Burdick did conduct a most excellent hearing, which I am certain was in accordance with your procedure for hearings of this type. North Dakota is vitally interested in developing its water resources in order that it can keep astride with the developments of our Nation. Generally some area within the State is confronted with a drought period which greatly curtails production and thereby adversely affects the local economy. This year my State is confronted with a drought which has made it necessary for me to request that the entire State be classed as a disaster area. The Department of Agriculture has recognized that such condition exists in all but two counties in North Dakota. The long range planning program stated in S. 1629 suggests to me that this bill will be of much merit in planning ways of modifying the severe affects that drought is currently having on the economy of North Dakota. The growth of many of the cities within North Dakota will be curtailed unless we are able through proper planning to transport water from reliable supplies to those cities. Long range plans made by competent technicians from the State and Federal governments will be needed to accomplish this objective. A well coordinated water resources program will eliminate duplication and provide a concerted effort to meet such problems as we now have confronting us. As chairman of the Missouri River States Committee, I have become familiar with the needs of some of the other States in our basin and their needs in many ways parallel our needs. There is an urgent need for such planning in many of those States. I therefore urge that S. 1629 be enacted during the 87th Congress in order that financial assistance be made available for a comprehensive water resources program which can function at the State level. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM L. GUY, Governor. NORTH DAKOTA STATE WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Gov. William L. Guy, chairman of the North Dakota State Water Conservation Commission, has called my attention to S. 1629 in regard to the possibilities which may be afforded North Dakota in water resources planning. I have reviewed the bill and find that it is definitely compatible with the functions of the North Dakota State Water Conservation Commission and would greatly implement our ability to plan and develop our water for the best interest of our State. |