The North Dakota State Water Conservation Commission was created during the drought of the thirties by legislative action in 1937. It has developed several much needed irrigation projects and constructed and repaired several hundred dams throughout the State for use in connection with municipal water supplies, irrigation, and recreation. The commission also cooperates with various Federal agencies, such as the Hydrographic, Ground Water, and Topographic Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Agriculture. The comprehensive plan as proposed, which includes partial financing by the Federal Government, would aid in establishing definite avenues of authority for all agencies interested in water resources. I have been a member of the Association of Western State Engineers since 1954 and I am currently serving as president of this group. Discussions with other State engineers from time to time has indicated to me that numerous other States could be benefited by the passage of S. 1629. I wish to lend my support to this bill and hope that you see fit to use the support indicated in this letter in any way which may benefit S. 1629. Sincerely yours, MILO W. HOISVEEN, Chief Engineer-State Engineer. OHIO Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, STATE OF OHIO, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: You requested in your letter of May 10, my comments on S. 1629, Water Resources Planning Act of 1961. I am highly in favor of the intent of the bill. In 1955 the Ohio General Assembly amended chapter 1521, Revised Code of Ohio by the addition of the following: "(The division of water shall) Have authority to conduct basic inventories of the water and related natural resources in each drainage basin the State; to develop a plan on a watershed basis which will recognize the variety of uses to which water may be put and the need for its retention and control." You will thus note that it is already realized in Ohio that water planning by river basins is needed to meet the needs of agriculture, industry, and the general public. It is, therefore, of great interest to me that such a program is envisioned on a national scale through coordination and assistance of the Federal Government. The water inventories which Ohio is preparing is not "comprehensive water resources planning" as proposed in S. 1629, but this program will be an indispensable tool in comprehensive planning. There are some deficiencies in our program which are in part due to insufficient appropriations and some to other inadequacies. The underground water resources require extensive drilling and geophysical surveys which have not been undertaken sufficiently under present appropriations. The delineation and volumetric determination of proposed reservoir sites has been by necessity from inadequate topographic maps. New topographic mapping of the State is rapidly being completed which will greatly facilitate this program. Some of Ohio's river basins extend into adjacent States, and until some coordination is effected as proposed in S. 1629 these basins are not completely inventoried. As an example of our program we are sending you a copy of "Water Inventory of the Maumee River Basin." Please be assured of my interest and cooperation in your efforts in obtaining comprehensive water planning. Sincerely, MICHAEL V. DI SALLE, Governor. OKLAHOMA Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS, Oklahoma City, June 1, 1961. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: This will acknowledge your letter of May 10, 1961, transmitting to this Department a copy of your bill S. 1629 together with your remarks on April 14, in the Congressional Record with reference to the bill, and also, a copy of Report No. 29 by the Select Committee on National Water Resources. I have reviewed your bill S. 1629 and feel that this legislation would implement the recommendations made by the Select Committee on National Water Resources. I believe that your bill would provide the necessary vehicle for obtaining an orderly development of the Nation's water resources and would do much to bring about the absolute necessity for full coordination of all agencies of Government in the planning and construction of water resources projects. Therefore, I want to commend you on this fine legislation and most certainly endorse the provisions and objectives of the bill. Oklahoma is fully aware that its No. 1 problem is the control, conservation, and development of it's water resources. Again, we commend you for your outstanding contribution to the Nation in it's water resources development and pledge our full cooperation and assistance. Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Reference is made to our recent correspondence on S. 1629, which you introduced to provide financial assistance to the States for comprehensive water resources planning. While it is my understanding that you have now delayed consideration of this bill in favor of S. 2246, I thought you would be interested in the views of this State and its water resources board. We recognize that there is a very serious need for additional data, investigation, and planning for water resource development. However, we do not believe that S. 1629 would be entirely satisfactory or desirable as a means of meeting this need. This feeling is based primarily on the fact that receipt of Federal financial assistance would require State confirmation to Federal administrative requirements. As you may know, I have repeatedly endorsed the need for clarification of State sovereignty over waters, and Oregon's representatives have appeared before Congressional committees to testify as to this need. In addition to State authority for administering its waters through issuance of State water rights, there is also a definite need for State independence in carrying out its own planning. Experience has shown that an active State planning agency can be an effective instrument, not only on the local level, but in guiding and influencing regional and Federal agencies. We clearly recognize the need for additional coordination at the Federal level, such as we are attempting to implement in this State. While I have not studied S. 2246, I would hope that this bill contains features that will permit maintenance of an independent State position. We would be pleased to support this type legislation. Sincerely, MARK O. HATFIELD, Governor. PENNSYLVANIA Harrisburg, Pa., July 7, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Pennsylvania is very interested in S. 1629; however, I will be unable to express our views on this important legislation, Monday, July 10. You should receive in several days the views of this commonwealth on the bill. I view water resource planning as one of the vital essentials for future economic development in Pennsylvania as well as the rest of the Nation. DAVID L. LAWRENCE, Governor. RHODE ISLAND STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I appreciate very much the receipt of your letter of May 10, 1961, forwarding a copy of S. 1629, a bill to provide financial assistance to the States for comprehensive water resources planning. As you may know, an act of the Rhode Island State Legislature in 1955 established a permanent board to deal with water resources planning; the board is named the "State Water Resources Coordinating Board." Since its establishment, the board has accomplished a substantial amount of future planning of water resources. At the present time, the State legislature is considering a bill sponsored by the board providing for the acquisition of future water supply reservoir sites. In short, it is felt that water resources planning in Rhode Island has been proceeding for some years at a reasonable level of adequacy. The financial aid provided in S. 1629 would permit the expansion of the State's water resources planning program. Perhaps the need for this expansion may be greater in other States where the water resource problems are much more critical than in Rhode Island, a well-watered area. I regret that my lack of familiarity with countrywide needs in this matter do not permit me to adopt a strong position either in support of or in opposition to S. 1629. Yours very truly, JOHN A. NOTTE, Jr., Governor. SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Pierre, July 7, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Your letters of May 10 and June 21, 1961, request my views on S. 1629 authorizing the payment of $5 million annually to the States to undertake comprehensive water resources planning. Due to pressure of internal State business, a representative from South Dakota will not appear at your committee hearings on July 10, 1961. However, the following comments express the views of my water resources staff concerning the provisions of S. 1629. The objective of S. 1629, apparently, is preparation of a "master" water resources development plan for each of the States within which plan coordination of the interests of all Federal and State agencies may be incorporated. This, in effect, is the objective of South Dakota State government and its subdivisions. The language of this bill provides for Federal matching funds; not more than 66% percent nor less than 33% percent of the estimated cost of the water re sources planning work to be done by the State. The cost of the planning work, to which these percentages apply, is to be determined by the Secretary of the Interior based upon such records and information from the designated State agency as the Secretary may require. However, should the record or information workload offset the advantages of the additional funds, the State is not bound to participate in the program. S. 1629 does not correct the problem of coordinating the separate plans of various Federal agencies, working in the same area with the same water resources, which we have experienced in South Dakota, although the additional technical help may lessen this problem. Without minimizing the coordination efforts of these Federal agencies, each of their separate plans are essentially single-purpose project developments with inclusion of miscellaneous other purposes only to the extent that such other purposes can be achieved by the singlepurpose project facilities. These plans are not the "master" multiple-purpose comprehensive plan to serve all of the anticipated water resource needs in an area nor are these plans available for local sponsorship consideration at the same time. Getting these separate Federal plans worked into the best overall plan for the area, as determined by the willingness of the people to organize taxing power special improvement districts, and accept the sponsorship obligations, is a big planning job in itself. This phase of planning work is the sphere that the South Dakota water resources agency concerns itself in the field of comprehensive multiple-purpose water resources development. As stated, the additional Federal funds which would be available under provisions of S. 1629 would add additional technical personnel and may help solve some of these coordination problems associated with proposed Federal projects. Better still would be Federal grants with authority in reasonable degree for State government insistence that one "master" coordinated, multiple-purpose, single plan be developed among all Federal and State agencies having an interest in the same area and in the same water resource. It is suggested that an additional sub-subsection (5) be added to section 5 providing for a factor governing allotments to a State based upon the amount of Federal appropriations for water resources development work in such States. Money needs by the States are reflected in part by such Federal activities. I hope that these comments are helpful. Sincerely, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Reference is made to your letter of May 10, 1961, to Governor Almond requesting his comments and recommendations concerning S. 1629. As you know, the Governor has asked that we reply to your letter. Officials and representatives of the Commonwealth of Virginia have opposed, and still oppose, Federal grants for such purposes. However if the bill is passed it is probable that, as visualized by the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources, active participation by some States in planning for and undertaking water resources developments will be stimulated by the proposals appearing in S. 1629. As is the case in Virginia, it is also probable that participation by individual States will depend on the readiness of the people for the development of suitable plans and the availability of the funds needed to meet State obligations under the program. This subject has not been before the General Assembly of Virginia. From our point of view, if such legislation is enacted it would be improved if (1) the Federal responsibilities for the Eastern States are carried out by the Secretary of the Army (through the Chief of Engineers) and (2) there is included a provision under which Federal funds which are not expended by States to which allotted will revert to the U.S. Treasury rather than be allotted to other States. The first suggested change is made since, in Virginia as in other non-Western States, the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, has been the Federal agency to which we look for guidance in water resources development on the basis of a river basin. Its representatives have insured coordination of all interested agencies, both Federal and State. Better results would be insured if the present relationship is maintained. This we consider to be very important. The reason for the second suggested change seems to be obvious. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. DEAR SENATOR: I have carefully reviewed Senate bill 1629. I have discussed this legislation with the Board, and I think I can say that it has their wholehearted support, and concurrence of the Governor. We are keenly aware that in the field of water development the States can, and should, make a greater contribution. As you know, for a 14-year period we have carried out a State program of water development which has been extremely helpful. This participation has served to demonstrate the need for a comprehensive plan for all development in the field of water. The incentive provided by this legislation would offer a means of developing a needed water plan, and still protect the States' primary responsibilities. The States would be interested in making suggestions and reviewing the regulations which would be developed by the Secretary. S. 1629, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961, will be of inestimable value in meeting the problems of comprehensive water planning and develop ment. We strongly urge your support of this legislation. Very truly yours, JAY R. BINGHAM, Executive Director. WASHINGTON STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT D. ROSELLINI, GOVERNOR, STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the State of Washington, in support of S. 1629, the proposed Water Resources Planning Act. If enacted, the State of Washington is prepared immediately to qualify under the provisions of section 6 of S. 1629 and to submit a program for comprehensive water resources planning, through our department of conservation, the State agency charged with responsibilities in this field. We have long recognized the need for such comprehensive water resource planning and in 1959 initiated a water inventory program for each river drainage basin of the State. To date, we have completed 1 river basin survey of 52 which have been planned. A second river basin report will be completed this year. The program outlined by S. 1629 would greatly accelerate the water inventories we have undertaken to meet the needs of agriculture, industry, and the general public. These needs have been outlined in a statement submitted to the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources a year ago. Briefly, by 1980, the State's population is expected to increase to 4,430,000, from the present 2,883,000, a 57 percent gain. In the same period, water requirements for irrigation will increase by 1 million acre-feet as additional lands are reclaimed. Development of economic hydroelectric power sites must keep pace with the demand for low-cost power. Present demands in the State of 27 billion kilowatt-hours annually are expected to increase to 106 billion kilowatt-hours by 1985. |