Mr. GOLDBERG. No, I have not, Senator Carroll. I have read the bill, of course.

Senator CARROLL. I think it is appropriate following your remarks, here, that I read from the Congressional Record, on page 5558, of April 14:

Appropriations authorized up to $5 million each year in Federal funds to be used for grants to assist States in comprehensive water resource planning. With equal matching this would provide an average

I repeat that:

With equal matching this would provide an average of almost $200,000 for each State for carrying out comprehensive water resources planning, which. should finance an average of about 10 professional engineers, necessary administration, and supporting facilities.

I do not mean to say it should be limited to $200,000, but there is no real definition here of the weight factors and the criteria that have been set up. And I think it would be bad for California and bad for the record to have the slightest inference left that one State would get 50 percent or more.

Mr. GOLDBERG. As I said, Senator Carroll, this was performed as an illustrative rather than an indicative calculation, and to give some idea of the magnitudes of the amount of money spent in California on planning.

Senator CARROLL. Since I came in here this morning, I received a copy of a letter that was sent to the chairman by the Governor of Colorado, and he also raises this question of the weight factor that may be given to need. So I am indebted to you for raising this point for the record.

Mr. GOLDBERG. The real importance of the bill, sir, is that there must be further cooperation between the States and the United States. There must be the development of a pattern of working together. Senator CARROLL. There must be a beginning.

Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes. And this bill we think is an appropriate beginning.

Senator CARROLL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ANDERSON. If you do not mind, I want to go back to the portion of the record where I referred to the responses received from the various States. We have received additional replies which I would like to put in the record: A letter from Governor Edmondson of Oklahoma favoring the bill; one from Leland H. Jones, Alabama Planning and Industrial Development Board, one from the office of the Governor of North Dakota, Mr. William L. Guy, also in favor of the bill; one from the North Dakota State Water Conservation Commission, Milo W. Hoisveen, chief engineer-State engineer, favoring it; a letter from Senator Chavez, who is a joint sponsor of the bill, in favor of it; a letter from Sydney Howe, a citizen of the State of Connecticut, in support; a letter from Archie Gubbrud, Governor of the State of South Dakota, favoring the bill, if it is amended. And he suggests some possible change in it.

Also a letter from the Governor of Arizona, which is not in favor of the bill, because of other resource considerations and the fear that it might be construed as requiring the States to conform to adminis trative procedure approved by the Secretary of the Interior; which I question, but nonetheless this will all be placed in the record at the same point as the other letters from the States.

(The letters from Senator Chavez and Mr. Howe are as follows:)

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CLINT: Thank you for your letter dated July 5, 1961, inviting my attention to the fact that you will soon hold hearings on S. 1629, a bill to provide financial assistance to the States for comprehensive water resources planning.

I believe that such a program as that which would be carried forward under S. 1629, would be most helpful in advancing the program of our national water resources development and I am very much in accord with its purposes.

As you know, we have a similar bill (S. 1778), which is before the Public Works Committee. S. 1778 does provide for a board which would administer the grant program rather than only the Secretary of the Interior.

Sincerely yours,

DENNIS CHAVEZ, Chairman.

GRANBY, CONN., July 7, 1961.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: This is to register my hearty support of your bill S. 1629, on which I understand a hearing is to be held on July 10.

It is also my hope that funds which S. 1629 would authorize to assist States in comprehensive water resources planning will be appropriated in the current session.

We have great and immediate needs for such planning in Connecticut.
Very truly yours,

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you.
Go right ahead.

SYDNEY HOWE.

Mr. GOLDBERG. To conclude, very briefly, the State of California supports the enactment of Senate 1629 or comparable legislation. Although it has engaged in water resources planning activities for many years, it is keenly aware that all financial resources possible must be utilized to accomplish the planning, construction, and operation of projects which are and will be required by its rapidly expanding population and economy. Much planning has been done. But much planning remains to be accomplished.

Even the relatively modest amounts which the bill would provide would be a welcome addition to the State's delicately balanced budget. The proposed legislation before you is an appropriate initial vehicle to assist the State in its endeavor to accomplish comprehensive water resources development planning which will satisfy the needs of the citizens of the State of California and be also in the national interest. Thank you very much.

Senator ANDERSON. I thank you very much. I thank you for coming. I hope you will express to Governor Brown our appreciation for your coming here.

I say that because California has done a very fine job in planning, and I have complimented both Senator Engle and Senator Kuchel in representing that State that is doing that very fine job with its water

resources.

Senator KUCHEL. Let me say before you leave that I am delighted to see you.

I have had the pleasure of knowing this gentleman for a long time. I think your statement is most helpful. I would like the record to so indicate.

Mr. GOLDBERG. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, I shall place in the record a statement from Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., for the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY OF CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conservation organization, with offices in Washington, D.C.

The Citizens Committee on Natural Resources is pleased to support S. 1629. We do feel however, that certain observations might be helpful to the committee in order to better carry out the context of the proposals, as we see it.

There has been much discussion for some period of time on the need for more comprehensive water resources planning. The general discussion has been to establish some sort of committee or commission, or both, as a proper political entity that would undertake this action. It was our general thought that the Federal Government would take the leading role, especially in river basin planning, and that its planning would be facilitated by various State and/or regional commissions.

With this background, we would therefore tentatively question the bill in its statement of policy, section 3, page 2, line 9, wherein it states: "it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to regulate, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in planning for the conservation development and utilization of their water and related land resources."

The succeeding sentences in this statement seem to indicate that the bill is to help the States in their participation in this planning and to improve their effectiveness in the whole scheme of water resources. It would therefore be our suggestion that the word "primary responsibilities and rights of the States" be dropped from the statement of policy. It would be our thought that the Federal Government could be the only agency that would have the primary responsibility in water resources planning. It should therefore be the Federal Government that has the responsibility to coordinate the actions of the several States, and the burden of the remainder of the bill seems to bear this out. While our criticism of the statement may be one of interpretation and may not be at odds with intent of the framers of this legislation, it is important in our judgment to discuss this aspect, if for no other means than to achieve a proper interpretation as to the meaning and implication.

Certainly the Federal Government would be hard pressed to initiate all actions in the country for proper water resources utilization. It is not suggested that they do so, it is suggested however, that they maintain their fundamental responsibilities in these matters and serve as a basis for final coordination. It is most appropriate therefore, that the present bill give the Federal Government additional responsibilities, which is to improve the facilities of the respective States, in order to meet these problems. Even if the Federal Government is a sound and appropriate place for coordination, it must have something to coordinate. It would also be a place of informational service which could well serve for a proper orientation to State organizations.

It is hoped that the future will find the Federal Government with appropriate legislattion that will enable it to take the responsibility for fundamenal overall river basins and water resources planning, in addition to the roll that we feel the present legislation envisages, that of encouragement and supporting the States in their efforts to proper water resources management.

Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Adams?

STATEMENT OF H. MAT ADAMS, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I am H. Mat Adams, acting commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development. I am here today to represent Gov. Robert B. Meyner, in whose cabinet I serve.

Comprehensive water resources development cannot be achieved unless sound planning for multiple-purpose uses of our water resources is implemented wherever possible. Extravagantly used and poorly managed natural resources in time rob any society of its full development potential. Single-purpose development and usage of our water resources without forethought for other possible uses is an illafforded luxury in a nation which proposes to scale new heights of national growth and prosperity.

We must face the fact that water is a raw resource which is becoming an increasingly important input into the machinery of our economic productivity. Its scarcity can hamper growth. Uncontrolled in periods of abundant rainfall, it can cause millions of dollars in flood damages. Certain areas of the Nation have suffered the consequences of unsound water resources planning for years. In many instances planning as a part of water resources development has been almost totally nonexistent.

The objective of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961 is to promote sound long-range planning in water resources development. It is timely and important legislation. It is a right and responsibility of the States to plan for the conversion, development, and utilization of their water and related land resources. S. 1629 would promote long-range planning for multiple-purpose use of our water resources through Federal financial assistance to the States. It affirms the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States.

The State of New Jersey is fully cognizant of the value and urgent need for long-range comprehensive water resources development. On two recent occasions, New Jersey has reaffirmed her responsibilities in this field through legislative action. In 1958 the legislature enacted legislation directing the State to undertake immediately a long-range water program to assure the availability of adequate supplies of water as required by the growth needs of the State.

New Jersey is now engaged in a 10-year, long-range ground water program to accelerate the provision of technical data needed for the protection and sound development of its ground water resources. This year the legislature also voiced its approval of the interstate-Federal compact which was formulated to provide for coordination of longrange planning and multiple-purpose development of the water and related resources of the proposed interstate Delaware River Basin. Senator ANDERSON. May I stop you there to say that one of the. interesting things to me was when the saline water plant was built upon the east coast, or was under consideration, and the Department

of Interior was looking for possible areas where it might be located, it surveyed the eastern coast of the United States, and found that there was a request from a spot in North Carolina, and one in Virginia, and one in Florida. Sixteen, as I remember, very fine prospectives came in from the State of New Jersey, indicating the tremendous interest of that State in the development of this water resource. I was almost unable to understand it. You would not realize that a State that you regard as pretty well blessed with water-although I recognize it may not be would have 15 communities that would go to the trouble to make a good presentation, a good, scientific presentation, why that plant should be located there. And I was very much impressed by it. I think it was a fine thing.

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. We have been very water cognizant for some years in our State. We need it.

Experience has shown us that water resources development should not be done on a crash-program one-shot basis. We believe it should be a continuous process, geared to the needs of the area it is meant to serve. It is best and most economically done through sound State and Federal planning.

New Jersey is now experiencing water problems that will face the rest of the Nation in the future. Our population has increased 50 percent in the past 30 years. Between 1950 and 1960, while the national average population increase was 18.5 percent, we in New Jersey experienced a 25.5-percent increase over the same period.

We are adding about 125,000 people every year to our nearly 62 million population. Our average of more than 800 people per square mile makes us the most densely populated of any State. More than 75 percent of our population lives under urban conditions (2,000 or more people per square mile).

Significant factors which point toward substantial future increases in demand for water already have appeared in the economy of New Jersey. We have and are facing one of the most explosive upsurges in industrial, commercial, and residential development in the Nationan upsurge considerably above the national average.

Unless New Jersey meets these challenging demands upon its water resources, it cannot maintain a favorable growth climate.

We believe Senate 1629 is a step in the right direction in planning for long-range water needs. The government of the State of New Jersey strongly supports this bill.

Senator ANDERSON. Are there questions from members of the committee?

May I just say that I regret I did not ask the other members of the committee if there are questions they want to ask the California Representative. If you do have, he will be back to answer them.

Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate the interest New Jersey has in this legislation.

Senator KUCHEL. I think I would like to make this comment to the gentleman from New Jersey. This is a pretty clear example of the fact that the problem of a sufficient supply of water is not restricted in area to the semiarid West. Here, this gentleman represents a State on the eastern seaboard which has precisely the same kind of problem, perhaps in different degree, than we do in the State from which I I think it demonstrates that this sort of legislation as developed

come.