All of these activities necessarily depend upon a dramatic growth in our capacity to produce, conserve, and wisely use tremendous additional quantities of water. Putting all of the figures available to us together, the committee reached estimates of our need which, because of the modesty of the economic growth assumptions used to prepare the figures, are probably low. In any case, demands for water withdrawals are projected to increase by over 550 billion gallons a day by 1980 and by almost 900 billion gallons a day by the year 2000.

This will mean that we will need to undertake a tremendous effort to construct water use facilities, to distribute our water more efficiently, to protect its quality, and to make it available for many new

uses.

We estimated conservatively that the objectives would require the new capital investments in water facility construction of $12 billion by 1980 and $18 billion by the year 2000. We estimated that new investments in pollution abatement facilities would require over $42 billion by 1980 and an additional $39.4 billion between 1980 and 2000. We pointed out in our report that at a very modest-all too modest, in my opinion, if we are to meet the challenge of world communism and our commitments to new nations, while maintaining our own standard of living-rate of national economic growth of 334 percent per year the gross national product would reach $1,060 billion by 1980 and $2.2 trillion by the year 2000. These figures make the sum required for water resource investments seem puny, but the trouble is that without these investments in water resources even these modest growth figures cannot possibly be reached.

This stark fact makes it absolutely imperative that we begin right now to plan these investments for the most effective, the most economical, and the most productive water resource development possible. And it further requires that while we do so, we keep constantly in mind that if these investments are not expeditiously made, not only will we be unable to meet our commitments to other peoples or to protect the free world from the ravages of Communist economic aggression, but we will be unable to protect our own children against the ravages of crippling and debilitating diseases which like hepatitis, which is spreading so rapidly now and which may be the result of inadequate water quality control, will drag down the level of the Nation's health and vitality.

This bill is a start in the direction of making available some of the funds which are necessary to plan the investment I have been discussing. It should be obvious to all, as it is obvious to those of us who served on the committee, that we cannot undertake this gigantic task in a helter-skelter, patch-on-patch fashion.

The size of the task makes it obvious that the cooperation of every level of government as well as of private industry and the individual citizen will be required to build this necessary underpinning to our future economic and physical well-being. Thus, it is particularly significant that this bill would make available funds to the States to help finance comprehensive programs of water resource planning to be undertaken and administered by the States themselves through their own administrative agencies. This stimulus to State action by State agencies is recognition both of the State's traditional role in the development of their natural resources and of the urgent necessity that the States act.

If the results of the Water Committee study could be stated in one sentence it would be this: that unless we do this job of water resource planning, development, and construction, we will have placed a limit upon our own capacity to grow which is many times more suffocating and restrictive than any limit which could be imposed by such external forces as the rise of world communism. It is with these thoughts in mind that this bill to provide the Federal stimulation necessary to get the States started in planning the ways in which these goals will be met was introduced. I was proud to cosponsor it with the distinguished chairman of this committee. I know he realizes, as do I, that it will not by any means do the whole job, but I know he also realizes as does every member of the committee, and as must every citizen of the United States, that it is imperative that we should begin somewhere now. This is the beginning.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator McGee.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Moss has been detained in Utah. A statement he has prepared for this hearing will be put in the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. Moss, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to join with you in sponsoring S. 1629, a bill to provide financial assistance to the States for comprehensive water resources planning, and I appreciate the privilege of recording my views.

This bill implements the second recommendation made by the Select Committee on National Water Resources, on which I had the honor and distinction of serving, along with the chairman and some of the other members of this committee.

The water committee's first recommendation was that the Federal Government, in cooperation with the States, should prepare and keep up-to-date plans for comprehensive water development and management for all major river basins of the United States, taking into account prospective demands for all purposes served by water development. The President endorsed this recommendation in his message to the Congress of February 23, 1961, on natural resources, in which he outlined a vigorous and forward-looking program for the conservation and development of our water and other natural resources. He urged the Congress to authorize planning commissions for all major river basins where adequate coordinated plans are not already in existence-the members of the commission to consist of representatives from interested agencies of all levels of government. S. 1629 is designed to assist the States in carrying out their share of this expanded planning effort which must be exerted if we are to meet our tremendously increased need for water in the future.

We have made considerable progress toward achieving comprehensive river basin planning in recent years. For example, in 1950 the Congress authorized the voluminous studies and reports which were undertaken by the ArkansasWhite and Red River Basins Interagency Committee and the New EnglandNew York Interagency Committee. These groups, which were composed of representatives of the Federal agencies concerned and the States, submitted reports to the Congress, setting forth inventories of the potential water resource development in their basin. Even earlier, in 1946, a similar inventory was prepared for the Colorado River Basin by the Bureau of Reclamation. This inventory provided the factual basis for the negotiation of the Upper Colorado River compact in 1948 and the 1956 authorization of the Colorado River storage project, which was developed cooperatively by the Bureau of Reclamation and the States of the Upper Colorado River Basin, and which is so important to my State of Utah.

Generally, one of the reasons for the time lag between the completion of an inventory and the authorization of the comprehensive plan has been the inability of the States in many cases to adequately finance their share of the cost of comprehensive planning.

In addition to the joint Federal-State inventories which have been prepared by groups of this type, interagency committees have been established, under Presidential authority, on a more or less permanent basis, to help carry on the

continuing work of coordination of Federal and State construction and planning activities in the water resources field. Such committees are set up in the Missouri River Basin, the Columbia River Basin, the Pacific Southwest (which includes the whole of the Colorado River Basin), as well as in the ArkansasWhite-Red Basins, and the New England area.

Still further action has been taken to foster comprehensive river basin planning on a coordinated Federal-State basis by the establishment, through legislation enacted in 1958, of the Texas River Basins Study Commission and the Southeast River Basins Study Commission. The work of these groups is underway. A bill to set up such a planning commission for the Wabash River Basin is now under consideration in the Senate, having been favorably reported by the Public Works Committee on June 6 of this year.

To make all of these efforts truly effective, in my opinion, and to speed up comprehensive planning to a fast enough pace to achieve the goals discussed in the report of the Select Committee on National Water Resources, the States must step up their activity so that they can function on an equal basis with the Federal agencies. One of the basic deficiences in our basin planning to date has been the inability of some of the States to participate fully in the comprehensive river basin planning work carried out by the interagency committees and the study commissions because they lacked adequate staff support. Each Federal representative can call on the very substantial resources of the Federal agency which he represents, whereas the State representatives, in many cases, have little or no staff support. Furthermore, the States have not always been in a position to develop a coordinated stand on the many-faceted problems of river basin development.

S. 1629 is now proposed in an attempt to improve State activity in this field by setting up a matching Federal-State grant-in-aid program to assist the States in developing and staffing adequate organizational structures to carry on their share of the coordinated river basin planning efforts.

Such an approach has worked in the past in planning pollution abatement programs. The program I refer to was established by section 5 of the 1956 Water Pollution Control Act, and it has proven to be very successful in stimulating the States to carry out their responsibilities in this field.

I believe the details of the bill and the way in which the program would operate are almost self-explanatory, and they are also covered in the statement made by the chairman when he introduced the bill on April 14. Therefore, I am not going into these aspects.

Officials of the State of Utah, with whom I have discussed the problem, have registered their strong endorsement of the approach taken by this bill. Since I do not have a specific statement of support to file at this time from the State of Utah I would like to have an opportunity at a later date to bring up any perfecting amendments which State officials may believe necessary to make the bill more effective.

Thank you.

Senator ANDERSON. Mr. B. Abbott Goldberg, deputy director of water resources and special counsel to Governor Edmund G. Brown of California, will be presented, I understand by Mr. Phillip T. Dickinson.

Senator CARROLL. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized? We have a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on some very important prospective criminal statutes that the Attorney General has recommended. I will have to leave here within the next 10 or 15 minutes. But I cannot pass this opportunity to pay tribute to the very able chairman of this Select Committee, Senator Kerr of Oklahoma, and Senator Kuchel of California, the vice chairman, and all the committee.

I think this is one of the most important hearings and investigations that have been conducted in a long period of time. Senator Kerr traveled all over the Nation, came into Colorado and held hearings at the State capitol, and we had some really brilliant testimony, not only on water resources but on the future efforts in desalination.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS H. KUCHEL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator KUCHEL. First, I want to thank the Senator from Colorado for his comments on the work of the Water Resources Committee. I concur with him that the report was an excellent job. We did, as the Senator from Colorado says, hold hearings all across the country, and I do sincerely believe that many of the recommendations of the committee are greatly in the public interest and indicate a way by which the Congress may better coordinate the responsibilities of the States and of the Federal Government in developing

water resources.

I wish to express my support for S. 1629, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961, which I have the honor to coauthor with you, Mr. Chairman, and several of our colleagues. This bill is derived from a recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources, on which I had the honor to serve as vice chairman. The intent of S. 1629 is to stimulate more diligent State participation in the planning and development of our water resources through a matching grant-in-aid program.

As a member of that committee, which held 22 hearings in 19 States, I am keenly aware that adequate development of our water resources is essential for our security and for the continuing growth and development of our Nation. This is true in each and every State in the Union, but it is particularly applicable to my own State of California, where ouur water problems grow with our dynamically expanding population and economy.

For the Nation as a whole, the select committee found that our water needs will double in the next 20 years and triple in the next 40 years. As a result, planning today for the most efficient use of our water resources tomorrow is mandatory. We must have knowledge of our water resources, plan for their development, and initiate projects for fulfilment at the least possible expense to the taxpayer. Under our historic system of dual Federal-State sovereignty, we should not and we cannot depend on the Federal Government alone to accomplish all these ends. It is a State responsibility as well, and I am happy and proud that California has been a leader in assuming its responsibilities. The people of the Golden State have taken the initiative and assumed the burdens.

Although, speaking generally, some progress has already been made by the individual States toward water resources planning, nevertheless, the States have been handicapped in their endeavors by lack of comprehensive technical knowledge. With the enactment of a 10year program of $5 million annually, such as proposed in S. 1629, States will be able to come to grips with their water problems on a long term, large scale, basis. The necessary assistance from professional engineers, economists, and planners will be available to them. Once this activity is well established, I am hopeful that the States will carry on this worthwhile program without the need for further Federal assistance.

Therefore, I urge rapid approval by this committee of this significant, new approach envisioned in the legislative proposal set forth in S. 1629 so that the Senate may have the opportunity to act favorably on it before the close of this session.

74139-61-14

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Kuchel.

Senator ANDERSON. All right, Mr. Dickinson, you may introduce Mr. Goldberg.

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP T. DICKINSON, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO SENATOR ENGLE

Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Chairman, I am Phillip T. Dickinson, technical assistant to Senator Engle, who is a cosponsor of this bill, S. 1629, and as such intended to appear today to introduce the representative of Governor Brown. Senator Engle has been in California for the weekend and is not yet back and has asked me to come over here to present Mr. Goldberg and to say just a word or two, if I may, on his own position on this legislation.

Fundamentally, it is that as far as Senator Engle's long experience in water resource development is concerned, he wants to give special emphasis to the urgency and importance of the river basin approach. He has long felt that comprehensive multiple-purpose planning, which we hear so much about, is fine, but it is not enough by itself. The many functions that we know of, water resource conservation for irrigation, for electric power development, for flood control, for municipal and industrial use, salinity control, recreation, and so onall of these functions must be considered. They all require consideration. But they must be considered collectively, in relation to the overall conditions of water supply and water requirements and the impact of the various project developments in every part of a given river basin, including the main stream and all its tributaries.

In other words, functional coordination of the various purposes should and must be accompanied by geographical coordination, which gets to the function of this bill.

Rivers, of course, follow geographical boundaries rather than political boundaries. They run unimpeded across State and Provincial lines, and for that reason water resource development should properly be planned along natural river basin lines rather than manmade political lines.

The geographic river basin, including every tributary from the mountains to the sea, is the proper unit for planning water resource development. That being the case, and if that is accepted as the case, it naturally comes to the requirement for Federal-State cooperation and coordination in river basin development-because most river basins cover more than one State-as well as to interstate coordination, and naturally, in many cases, some Federal aid and assistance to the States in this type of planning.

Now, that, fundamentally, is Senator Engle's view as to why he is on this bill and why he is for it, and I am sorry he is not here to say that to you himself.

I am also sorry that he is not able to present the distinguished official of the State of California, Mr. B. Abbott Goldberg, who is a deputy director of the Department of Water Resources of the State of California, with a long history of participation in water resource matters in California, speaking here today on behalf of Governor Brown.

Mr. Goldberg.