Industrial uses of water, now 1,200 million gallons per day, are expected to increase to 2,200 million gallons daily by 1980. To assist in meeting these water resource planning needs in the State of Washington, I wish to urge that the committee give favorable consideration to S. 1629. WYOMING WYOMING, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Thank you for your letter of June 21 advising that hearings are scheduled on S. 1629, a bill to authorize the payment of $5 million annually to the States to undertake comprehensive water resources planning. I am sending a memorandum to Senators McGee and Hickey, cosponsors of the measure, today. Sincerely yours, JACK R. GAGE, Governor. (The memorandum referred to by Governor Gage follows:) STATE OF WYOMING, Cheyenne, June 30, 1961. To: Zan Lewis. MEMORANDUM From: Earl Lloyd and E. Bruce Jones. Subject: S. 1629, Water Resource Planning Act of 1961. This bill was introduced on April 14, 1961, and the comments in introduction by Senator Anderson appear on pages 5556, 5557, and 5558 of the Congressional Record of the same date. It in general, makes provisions for the financial assistance to the States for comprehensive water planning over a 10-year period. In general, such water planning is needed but the manner in which a plan such as this is implemented is of prime importance. This bill, as stated by Senator Anderson, carries out the second recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources. This recommendation reads as follows: "The Federal Government should stimulate more active participation by the States in planning and undertaking water development and management activities by setting up a 10-year program of grants to the States for water resources planning. A minimum of about $5 million in Federal funds should be made available annually for matching by the States for use in the preparation of long-range comprehensive plans for water resources development along the lines recommended in No. 1 above." "Recommendation No. 1 referred to calls for the Federal Government, in cooperation with the States, to prepare and keep up-to-date plans for comprehensive water resources development and management for all major river basins of the United States, taking into account perspective demands for all purposes served or affected by water development, including full recognition of such purposes as stream flow regulation, outdoor recreation, and fish and wildlife preservation and propogation." In going through the bill, attention is especially called to section 3 which is a statement of policy. "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." Such a statement we feel is necessary and vital to the conducting of such a program. Section 4 authorizes a $5 million a year grant to the States on a matchingfund basis, and section 5 discusses the method in which the allotments are made to the States. Although several criteria are listed, such as population, land' area and need, no formula is set forth for determining for exact allocations for any given State. Section 6 sets forth the basis for the Secretary of the Interior approving a State plan for comprehensive water resources planning. Section 7 is a review section which gives the Secretary of the Interior the power to make no further payments to such State under the act, if he is dissatisfied with the State's activities. Section 8 sets forth the Federal cost-sharing percentages of the program and in this section the following is stated: "The Federal share shall in no case, be more than 66% percentum or less than 33% percentum." Section 10 under the head of administration, paragraph (a) states that "the Secretary may prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out provisions of this act." Under this act, it is highly possible that the State will be footing more of the bill than will the Federal Government. However, the final control rests with the Federal Government. There are no provisions which were immediately recognized as giving the States any major control over the program, except in section 3. Even with section 3, it could possibly be nullified by section 10, which states "the Secretary may prescribe such regulations that are necessary to carry out provisions of the act." The second problem is the fact that the program is over a 10-year period, and in order to insure continuity of the program, there would have to be appropriations set up by five separate State legislatures to insure the continuation of the program on a uniform and continuing basis. As a very rough estimate, the State would probably have to contribute about $100,000 a year to the program for 10 years. In general, the bill has merit, but again the importance is stressed that the program, to be fully effective as we see it, should be under the control of the State with broad general guidelines established by the Federal Government. These investigations would be of great value to such a report, especially if it were prepared by Wyoming people (consulting engineers, etc.). If you have any further questions we should be happy to discuss this matter with you. Senator ANDERSON. Improvement of State and local planning and decisionmaking in the water resources field is discussed beginning at page 47 of the report of the Select Committee on National Water Resources. In that discussion, the committee commented that "many States appear to have poor organization for long-range planning and their water resource agencies lack financial support.' The letters from the Governors substantiate that comment, and they commend the select committee and S. 1629 for attempting to stimulate and assist in improvement of State water resources planning efforts. I am especially gratified that the Governors of Eastern States appear to be concerned about water problems as are those in Western States, where water has always been a precious substance. This Nation need never suffer from water shortage. But whether we do or not depends on how wisely we use the abundant supply available to us. In the drought-stricken Missouri Basin the riverboats would be piled up on sandbars and riverbanks today if it had not been for the foresight of officials 30 years ago who started planning and building dams to store and conserve destructive floodwaters for use in years like this. In some western areas we are going to be down to our last drop of water by 1975 or 1980 unless, in the meantime, we learn to conserve and use our supplies more efficiently, get more out of the clouds, and develop economic methods of converting saline and brackish waters to useful quality. In the East, we are right now working out a compact to conserve and divide the waters of the Delaware River. And here, in the District of Columbia, we live beside a river and creeks so polluted they are a menace to health. The select committee wisely reported that complacency on water problems must be replaced by positive action. We are here today to initiate some of that positive action. In addition to the communications from the Governors or their spokesmen, we have a statement for the record from Leslie E. Mack on behalf of the Arkansas Water Resources Planning Committee endorsing S. 1629. Without objection it will be included with the State responses. We also have letters from Angus McDonald, of the National Farmers Union, who is listed as a witness this morning but cannot be present, and from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. McDonald favors the bill. The chamber of commerce is opposed to it as unnecessary and cites: California and Kansas as two States which have developed excellent water resources plans and programs. The witness who is here from California may be interested in getting a copy of that endorsement of the California plan. Governor Brown has advised of his support of S. 1629 as a "desirable step forward in encouraging the initiation or acceleration of water resources planning activity by the several States." The Governor of Kansas has had his executive secretary write us, reviewing their "limited and modest work" in the water resources planning field. He says: *** on the basis of this limited experience we believe the establishment and maintenance of adequate State water resources planning programs is to be desired.* * * 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. Without objection, the statements of Mr. McDonald and the Chamber of Commerce will be included in the record. (The material referred to is as follows:) NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, Washington, D.C., June 22, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Thank you for calling our attention to the hearings on S. 1629, which will be held on July 10, 1961. Unfortunately, I will be on vacation at that time and will not be able to appear. I would therefore appreciate it if you would make this brief letter a part of the hearings. The National Farmers Union approves the proposed legislation which will authorize the appropriation of funds to substantiate more active participation by the States in planning and undertaking water development, provided such cooperative activity or such projects met all the requirements of Federal law. I am referring particularly to the 160-acre limitation and to the so-called preference law which provides that cooperatives and other nonprofit groups be afforded the opportunity to buy electric power generated at Federal installations. We feel strongly that if the Government contributes 50 percent in the form of a loan or a grant of the funds necessary to construct the project that all of the Federal standards should be applied. We feel that this is true of any joint We project, such as the San Luis project approved by the Congress last year. have long been at a loss to understand the opposition of a group within a State who fight the 160-acre limitation "tooth and nail." We can only conclude that opposition emanates from large landowners who are hoping to benefit from subsidies provided by the general taxpayers. Sincerely, ANGUS MCDONALD, Assistant Director. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: The Chamber of Commerce of the United States heartily endorses the declaration of congressional policy in section 3 of S. 1629, "*** 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 ***." However, it appears that S. 1629 would nullify its own declaration of congressional policy and would transfer the primary responsibility and decisionmaking process to the Federal Government. Sections 5, 6, and 7 contain language which provides for a degree of Federal control that will lead to Federal domination. A system of Federal grants-in-aid, and other controls, rules, and regulations prescribed by Congress or an executive department of the Federal Government will replace local and State decisionmaking processes. For example, a State would receive a Federal grant for water resources plans only if the Secretary of the Interior decided a State's program met Federal standards on reports and procedures, and on meeting the needs of agriculture, industry, and the general public "for water and water related activities." Today such States as California and Kansas have developed excellent water resources plans and programs. The Senate Select Committee on Water Resources has been most helpful in alerting the Nation to this important need. The continued dissemination of the select committee's findings is helping to achieve public understanding and financial support for State and local water resource planning. The national chamber will continue its efforts to encourage State and local chambers of commerce to take an active part in encouraging the development of State comprehensive water resources plans. The national chamber, therefore, believes that S. 1629 is unnecessary and should not be approved. We would appreciate your making this letter a part of the record of the hearings on S. 1629. Cordially yours, CLARENCE R. MILES, Manager, Legislative Department. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hickey? STATEMENT OF HON. J. J. HICKEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING Senator HICKEY. As Governor of Wyoming I was an ex officio member of the Wyoming Natural Resource Board. My interest in the work of that board, particularly with respect to water development, went far beyond this ex officio standing. In this connection I learned in detail the challenge of water resource planning. I also discovered some of the limitations imposed by financial stringency. For these reasons I was glad to join Senator Anderson in the introduction of S. 1629 to provide financial assistance to the States for comprehensive water resource planning. I am a firm believer that it is necessary that planning for projects be kept as close to home as possible. I am also a firm believer in the idea that proper use of water is not totally a matter of stupendous undertakings such as the Central Valley project in California or the upper Colorado project in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Numerous local watershed projects, nothing to get excited about in themselves as engineering marvels, in the aggregate can make a contribution as effective as the great projects of which we are so justly proud. It follows that planning for these local and statewide projects can best be done nearest the locale. This being so, a normal question is, "Why not finance them at the local level?" The hard fact of this, as with so many other cases, is that the Federal Government has preempted the best sources of revenue in a highly organized urban industrial society. The States and local units must rely upon the property tax and to an extent a sales tax, both of which are strained to keep up with the day-to-day demands of operation without much left over for planning. S. 1629 permits local and State planning with financial assistance from the Federal Government with its richer tax harvest. I shall listen to the testimony with a great deal of interest. Doubtless the detailed knowledge of the witnesses as set forth in the testimony will make it desirable to secure rephrasing of the language, but I endorse the principle set forth here. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator Hickey. STATEMENT OF HON. GALE W. McGEE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING Senator MCGEE. S. 1629 is one of the legislative measures which was proposed in the report of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources. I consider myself fortuate in having been a member of that committee, and having had the opportunity to work intimately for almost 2 years to assess the Nation's water needs in relation to the future of our economy and to the national interest. This study led the committee to many recommendations, some of which have already been introduced by members of the committee and others as bills in the Senate. Reporting to our committee, the Business and Defense Services Administration of the Department of Commerce estimated that the total investment needed on all levels between 1958 and 1980 for water resources facilities would be $228 billion. The report of the Census Bureau and other Federal agencies made it plain to us why this investment need is so large. Our population is growing rapidly: it is estimated that it may well double by the end of the century. Our industry is growing to meet the demand, not only of our increasing population, but of maintaining the American standard of living while supplying goods and services and developmental stimulus to new nations in every sector of the globe. Even our agriculture, much maligned of late by those who fear the accretion of surpluses, is going to have to grow in its capacity to produce just to meet our domestic requirements within a very few years. -13 74139-61—— |