the Federal Government. We tried to suggest in the first part of the report that there be river basin development by the Federal Government. The Federal Government is struggling with some language and some recommendations it wants to produce. We are ready when they get ready. But the Federal Government is not ready now. On the other hand, I would call your attention to what comment was made when the bill was introduced. I presented a section-bysection analysis, and I said on page 5558 of the Congressional Record for April 14:

SECTION 3. Statement of policy, which the Congress recognizes, preserves, and protects the primary responsibilities and rights of the States, in conservation, development, and use of their water. The statement of policy is important to emphasize that the Congress does not intend in any way to change Federal powers or responsibilities or those of the States in this field. By authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to assist the States financially in carrying out their prime responsibilities and functions, it is hoped that the cause of sound water resource development would be promoted.

I had in mind, for example, the fact that in my own State we have 11-plus percent of the water of the Colorado River allotted to the State. But the Federal Government has no responsibility of deciding where that 11-plus percent will be used. It merely is responsible for the construction of the dams, the reservoirs, the channels, and making that money available to us. The State of New Mexico then has to

decide what it wants to do with the water.

Now the State has very little money thus far for any planning. I thought, and I am sure the select committee thought, that it would be useful to let the States have some planning money so that they could make the best possible use of their water once they got it.

There are many illustrations of what at least I had in mind. I remarked the other day that with reference to Glen Canyon Dam, which is going to cost $400 million or more, the Federal Government could go out and survey the locations as to where the dam should be constructed, whether it should be up the river 5 miles or down the river some more, be responsible for the core foundations of that site, decide just how many sacks of cement go into it, just what the mix ought to be, just how many feet high it should be, and decide how many turbines might be there, and all about it, but it could not decide how to use the dam after it got it finished.

And we are bogged down now in a battle over filling criteria, which I think ought to have been settled in advance. Had there been some planning, it might have been settled in advance. But now the States of California and Arizona and Nevada have some ideas about how Glen Canyon Dam ought to be filled, and the States of Colorado and Wyoming and Utah and New Mexico have different ideas as to how it should be filled.

There is no use in arguing about this thing, which might have been settled before the dam was started, if there had been better planning available in various States.

So I only interpret this bill as an effort to make sure that we are able better to utilize the water that is obtained in these projects, to better utilize the water that falls on that land, but not to diminish or change the rights of the Federal Government.

I am very glad you brought the question up, because I want to early establish in the record that there is no desire to increase the

responsibilities of the State which would conflict with those respon:sibilities of the Federal Government.

We now have before us a proposal for legislation in that field, as well. You recognize that the Barrett bill was before this committee many, many times. Now, that did deal with the responsibilities of the States, and the increasing of those responsibilities and the redefining of those responsibilities.

That is not contemplated under this bill.

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate those clarifying remarks very much. We certainly do not want to in any way convey the idea that we are attempting to interfere with the use by the several States of their water supply.

But from our reading of the bill itself, at section 3, that is, we were somewhat uncertain as to exactly what it did mean. We very much appreciate your remarks.

Senator ANDERSON. That raises a question, because it is an important question. If that is what was contemplated by the bill, then it ought to be clearly set out in the hearings. But I am sure Senator Kuchel, who is the vice chairman of the select committee that made the study, knows that he and I argued that other point, relating to States rights, and so forth, to water, at considerable length in the committee hearings. But we are completely in agreement on the desirability of helping the States plan so that when water is made available to them, they can make the best possible use of it.

We hope that the development of saline water, the utilization of saline waters and brackish waters, will considerably change the water picture in many of these States. We hope if that is so, the States will be in a position to use it to the greatest possible advantage. And that is what is contemplated by this.

You correctly quoted me in saying that I wished there might be such projects. That came from experiences that I had perhaps in 1935 or 1936, when I was a field representative of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, trying to stir up projects of real value and validity in these States. These States had no shelf projects, and neither did the Federal Government.

You might sometime go back and look at the starting of the Grand Coulee Dam. It was not so carefully engineered in the first steps as some of us would have liked. The main thing was to provide some employment. We had teams and shovels to do some work in there. If we had better planning in advance, I am sure a better job might have been done.

Are there questions?

Senator KUCHEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to concur in what you have said. And speaking for myself, so far as the legislative intent of the bill before us is concerned, I completely approve the comments which you made at the time the bill was introduced, when I became, with you, one of the several coauthors. This legislation is designed simply to assist the States in carrying out their planning responsibilities and functions.

I quote from your statement:

The statement of policy is important to emphasize that the Congress does not intend in any way to change Federal powers or responsibilities or those of the States in this field.

Again, I will say to you, Mr. Robinson, using my State as an example, we would not be in the position we are today were it not for the great undertakings by the Federal Government in the water field, so far as California is concerned.

But by the same token, there is a large sphere, which I think the Congress, any Congress, would feel was primarily a State responsibility, and it is to the credit of the people of our State that they have approved the expenditure of a prodigious amount of money, some $1,750 million, of a total State water plan which would run, so the people in the State government say, between $10 and $15 billion.

But having said that, there continues to be, I think, a Federal responsibility in the solution of water problems in California, and I use California simply as an example, since we have today here testimony from representatives of States across the Union which indicates their hope that we will give them some assistance in their planning. So with that statement of what the intention of the bill is, by the chairman and by me-and I have no doubt that that statement will be accepted by all members of this committee, Republican and Democratic-I would hope that your apprehension might be allayed to the point where not simply the statement of policy but the desire of the committee to stimulate and assist the States in planning water projects might indicate a different view.

Mr. ROBINSON. We appreciate your statement, Senator Kuchel. And as I say, we have no desire whatever to interfere in any way whatever with the needs of the States to exercise their proper functions in the field of water utilization.

The only thing that occurred to us is that the first recommendation of the select committee dealt with an increased program of Federal planning, and we were a little bit surprised to see a bill recognizing the State role come ahead, or not simultaneously with, a bill recognizing and providing for an increased Federal project planning device.

We are very much reassured by your statement, Senator.

Senator KUCHEL. I want to say that just a few weeks ago we did hold some hearings before our reclamation subcommittee in which this problem of State versus Federal water jurisdiction was raised. And that hearing, to the credit of the chairman, was held in the absence of any specific piece of legislation before us, because it is our desire, on this committee, to try to fashion legislation that will give us some "first step" bill to lay at rest a part of the controversy between the States and the Federal Government, which is going on and which will continue to go on.

And in that connection, I would ask permission that there appear in our record here the language of the report of our Subcommittee on Water Resources, beginning on page 66, in the part starting "Senate Resolution 48 directs," and so forth, over through the next page, down to (d), which does indicate that we do have this controversy, and we are attempting to solve it.

(The excerpt is as follows:)

Senate Resolution 48 directs the committee to "make exhaustive studies of the extent to which water resources activities in the United States are related to the national interests." Clearly, Federal-State conflicts, if they retard water resource development, are "water resource activities related to the national interest."

The broadening pattern of these conflicts is conclusive proof of the urgent need for clear-cut, definitive action on the part of Congress to work out with the States a redefining of Federal-State powers and responsibilities for control, use, and development of water resources. The Federal Government should not hamstring the States in the States' efforts to develop their water resources to meet the needs of their people. Neither should the States hamstring the Federal Government in its efforts to fulfill its functions within the Constitution.

Among clearly Federal responsibilities are flood control and maintenance of navigability where navigability is an economic fact and not merely a convenient legal fiction for assertion of the doctrine of "paramount rights" for other purposes. In the creation of great multipurpose dams on interstate rivers, such as the Hoover, Parker, Garrison, and Fort Peck Dams, the Federal Government must continue to take the lead. Clearly, too, in the case of international rivers, such as the St. Lawrence, the Columbia, or the Rio Grande, only the Federal Government can negotiate treaties with foreign powers respecting the apportionment and use of their waters.

In such spheres the National Government is and must continue to be sovereign. However, in our 184 years as a Nation, the citizens of the individual States philosophically and historically have had recognized powers and responsibilities for the control, use, and development of the water resources within their State boundaries in accordance with local needs and conditions.

Precedents for Federal-State relationships in water resource development have been set in section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388, 399) and in the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887). These far-sighted Federal laws have stood the test of time and experience. Patently, however, they are not the final answer.

The U.S. Department of Justice clearly recognized the problem when in 1956 it cited, with approval, the following statement:

"It follows that the preservation of the integrity of State water laws cannot be accomplished if efforts for that purpose are confined to the insertion in various acts of Congress of a provision requiring that Federal agencies constructing and operating Federal projects shall observe the State laws respecting appropriation, use, and distribution of water. It is evident that the solution lies largely in the integration of the operation of physical facilities and the coordination in an appropriate manner of jurisdictions in a dual form of government.1

The problem of Federal-State water rights is one that calls for broad objective inquiry, and for statesmanship of the highest caliber on the part of both the Congress and the States in its solution. A solution must be worked out, and worked out promptly, for the preservation of the historic pattern under which our people have grown great.

(d) Need for further study and continuing appraisal.-The breadth of need for water resources development as part of the Nation's total economy affects all other aspects of the economy. As water demands grow, the already complex interrelationships between water resources development and other developments will become even more intertwined. It obviously is not possible for a committee such as the Select Committee on National Water Resources, in the short period of 18 months, to come to grips with and propose solutions in all of the problem areas, nor does Senate Resolution 48 contemplate that it would. Almost any one of them could justify a detailed study of greater magnitude even, than all of the select committee's efforts.

I said to Mr. Robinson at one time that I did not want the Federal Government to hamstring the States, nor did I want the States to hamstring the Federal Government. That is an oversimplification. But if we can proceed in our dual historic roles under our historic system, we will, I think, be undertaking to abide by the public interest in water resource development. And in this bill our attempt is I think only to generate additional interest in the States to do their own planning. As a result of that planning, then, whatever Federal interest was involved would, I take it, be the result of potential additional legislation.

1 Hearings, S. 863, 84th Cong., Senate Interior Committee, p. 281.

Senator ANDERSON. Are there other questions?
Thank you very much.

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ANDERSON. Back at the beginning of the hearing, where we were putting in statements, Senator Schoeppel, who was a member of the Select Committee and a very good member of it, asked to have inserted in the record the statement of Robert L. Smith, executive secretary of the Kansas Water Resources Board. Without objection, that will also be inserted at that portion of the record that contains the States' viewpoints.

I will submit for the record the statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation with respect to S. 1629 and other bills.

(The statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation follows:) AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Washington, D.C., July 6, 1961.

Re S. 1629, S. 1778, S. 239, and S. 1415.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Senate Interior Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: It is our understanding that a hearing is to be held on S. 1629 on July 10.

Inasmuch as all of these bills deal with similar subject matter we would like to consider them together and offer some suggestions for improving these

measures.

The American Farm Bureau Federation, consisting of 1,600,792 farm families, organized into 2,674 county and 49 State farm bureaus and the Farm Bureau of Puerto Rico, is very much interested in the comprehensive study of our water resources and the promulgation of a sound plan or plans for their development. Three of the above-named bills; S. 1629, S. 239, and S. 1415, were referred to the Senate Interior Committee while the fourth, S. 1778, was referred to the Senate Public Works Committee.

Our reasons for taking this means for transmitting our recommendations are as follows:

(a) Generally, all of these bills deal with the handling of water resources. (b) They all provide for a committee or board or general authority for administration. (c) They all contemplate either study or investigation or assistance to States. (d) We feel that the good ideas might be combined in one effort. We are sure the one board could handle this program.

At our latest annual meeting held in Denver, Colo., last December, our voting delegates adopted the following policy:

"We further recommend the creation of an independent advisory agency to Congress to analyze economic and technical data and present its recommendations to Congress with respect to Federal participation in water development projects and programs. This agency should be established so as to assure impartial and objective analysis of proposals."

The delegates further said:

"We favor the maximum participation of individuals, local agencies, and local government in the development of water projects. Federal participation in water development projects should be only upon the request of and in cooperation with State and local interests. We are opposed to Federal domination of

water resource development."

In line with these policies we suggest consideration of the following general principles in establishing an agency for water resource development.

1. It is our view that an independent board for this purpose would be de sirable of three to five members. We stress the word independent as we believe this to be important. It should not be one man or the head of any agency. It should not be composed of any present agency personnel nor should it be a part of any agency currently doing work in this field.

2. We would hope that such a board would be responsible to the Congress; however, we would not object to their appointment by the President and their reporting jointly to the President and the Congress.

3. In the declaration of policy, we believe a combination of those expressed in all four bills could be used.