(a) As in these bills, the policy statement could include

1. A survey of present conditions.

2. A study of current and foreseeable trends.

3. The adequacy of available natural resources.

4. A review of all conservation programs and agencies-local, State, and Federal.

5. A program for action.

As well as

6. The protecting of the primary responsibilities and rights of the States. 7. Recognizing the need for increased participation by the States. 8. Providing cost-sharing funds for program development by the States. (b) We suggest the elimination of the language "continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal Government."

4. This board could advise the President and the Congress of its findings and recommendations and also could work directly with the States on the one hand and with the action agencies of Government on the other.

5. It is Farm Bureau's view that water resource development is everybody's job-especially it should interest local people. We are confident the more local people become interested in it or are drawn into it-by the use of their time, ideas, money, and supervision-the more water resources will be developedand the more value the country will receive for the dollars spent.

In your consideration, therefore, of S. 1629, we would urge your consideration of these principles and develop a program or agency which will have a real constructive impact on water resource development as indicated above.

We shall be happy to cooperate with you and the staffs of the committees in developing legislation to reflect these views.

We hope you will make this letter a part of the record of this hearing.
Sincerely,

JOHN I. TAYLOR, Assistant Legislative Director.

Senator ANDERSON. All right, Dr. Miller.

STATEMENT OF DR. ALBERT R. MILLER, CHIEF OF RESEARCH AND SPECIAL STUDIES, MARYLAND STATE PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Dr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I am Albert R. Miller, Jr., the chief of research and special studies of the Maryland State Planning Department. I have been requested by Governor Tawes to speak on behalf of the State of Maryland.

The State of Maryland is deeply interested in the policy and program content of Senate bill 1629 and its provisions for assisting the States in planning for the development of their water resources on a comprehensive basis.

Senate bill 1629 is particularly timely insofar as the State of Maryland is concerned. The State planning department has recently transmitted a report to the Governor calling for a reorganization of the State water resources agencies, which it is believed will greatly enhance the State's administrative opportunities for multiple-purpose water resources planning and development on a comprehensive basis. This report recommends that the State of Maryland should plan for the use of water and regulate water development on the basis of the integrated considerations of an entire watershed, or where appropriate a group of adjacent watersheds. To carry out this State policy objective, the report calls for the establishment of a new agency, the department of water resources, which would be generally responsible for supervising and planning for the multiple-purpose development of the inland surface waters and ground water resources of the State. A principal responsibility of this agency would be the timely preparation of advance plans which will permit water development to go forward as needed in a manner compatible with multiple-pur

pose management on a watershed basis. The mission of the proposed new department of water resources would thus appear to be entirely in conformity with the objectives of Senate bill 1629.

The report is being transmitted by the Governor to the State legislative council with a request that it be given an early and careful study for proper implementation by the next legislative session.

Of parallel significance is the fact that the State planning department now is completing preparations for the initiation of a broadscale study of the State's water resources intended to bring into sharp focus future availabilities in relation to anticipated future needs. Such a study logically precedes the type of State program envisaged by Senate bill 1629. That is, water resource planning activity on the part of the State.

Clearly, the State of Maryland has a vital interest in the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961, and urges its favorable consideration by this committee.

That is the end of my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much.

Are there questions?

Thank you very much for being here.

Mrs. Rosenblum?

STATEMENT OF MRS. HASKELL ROSENBLUM, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mrs. ROSENBLUM. I am Mrs. Haskell Rosenblum, a member of the Board of Directors of the League of Women Voters of the United States. The league has over 130,000 members in 1,120 leagues in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. It is a nonpartisan organization and works only in the field of government.

Members of the League of Women Voters, as a result of their study of the use and development of the Nation's water resources, have come to believe strongly that a continued supply of suitable and adequate water depends on planning.

When the thinking of our individual members was put togetherin 1960 after 4 years of water study-there was general agreement too that all three levels of government-Federal, State, and localmust work toward and participate in paying for planning and development of water resources.

The league has expressed its support of basinwide planning and shared responsibility a number of times in testimony before this committee and before some of its members sitting as the Senate select committee. We have also told you how, through the 5 years that the League of Women Voters has been working on water resources development, many of our members have grown to know and admire the work of men in State water agencies and to appreciate the role of the States in water resource development.

I would like to say at this point that although all of the State leagues can work within their own States to effectuate State planning, 17 States have separate study items along this line, because they have felt the need not only for cooperation between the States and the Federal Government, but many of them had started on planning for improved water resources within their own States, and that was how, when they

became unable to accomplish a great deal on their own, they urged the members of the league to adopt the water item 5 years ago.

Strong, well-planned water development programs in all States would serve the Federal interests. We see good State programs as basic in solving the U.S. water problem, the problem of distribution and quality, for with good State programs the available water will be developed and put to optimum use.

Incentive payments to encourage State spending for water planning seem to the league an effective use of Federal funds which can well bring benefits to the Nation far in excess of the Federal share expended.

We recognize that the grant-in-aid program proposed in S. 1629 and S. 1778 will implement the second recommendation of the Senate select committee. Members of women voters, testified at the Senate select committee hearings in every State describing conditions and needs in their basins. The league therefore is delighted that the recommendations of the select committee have good prospects of being enacted into law, thus avoiding the bleak fate which has overtaken the reports of earlier committees set up to study the Nation's water problems.

Although the League of Women Voters supports the principle of the proposal contained in the bill (S. 1629) under consideration today and also on S. 1778 before the Public Works Committee, we would like to know more specifically how (1) the State's need for a planning program and (2) the adequacy of a State planning program will be judged. We would like to see included in the final bill provisions for standards which States must meet in order to qualify for Federal grants-in-aid under this program.

We want to encourage State participation in plans for comprehensive water development and management which take into account water supply and water quality control, the non-revenue-yielding uses 'such as stream-flow regulations, outdoor recreation, and preservation of fish and wildlife, as well as the customary Federal interests of irrigation, navigation, and flood control. But most members of the League of Women Voters like to think themselves as shrewd shoppers. When we pay our taxes for this grant-in-aid program, we want to be as sure as we possibly can be that the Federal aid is going to States which need help and that these States in their "comprehensive" planning consider all water uses.

League members examining this proposed legislation will be glad to see that to be approved under the provisions of these bills a State water planning program must make adequate provision for coordination with all Federal and State agencies with responsibilities in the water field.

We like the requirement that the program for planning must include ways of carrying out and administering the State planning program. We think it would be better if there were also a requirement that the plan made under this proposed grant-in-aid program must contain recommendations of ways in which that plan could be implemented. If alternative physical plans and choices in methods of administration were required, this would be best of all. League members are quite content to leave the physical planning to professionals, but as informed citizens we want a chance to study the proposals, an

opportunity for citizens to suggest or object when they think values important to them have been overlooked.

Early in their study of water, the members of the League of Women Voters came to the conclusion that, to be successful, planning for water must be in accord with the natural physical unity of the drainage in a watershed. We saw that successful planning must be basinwide. A proposal which will help States develop comprehensive programs is good, but it is not enough. Many States share streams with other States. There must be coordination between the planning programs of the States which lie in the same basin. The proposal in the bills before us today will be satisfactory to members of the League of Women Voters only if there is a second part of this legislation, a second part which encourages and implements river basin planning. Many of our members have been watching for the administration's proposals for "establishment of planning commissions for all major river basins where adequate coordinated plans are not already in existence," proposed in President Kennedy's special message on natural resources, February 23, 1961. We understand that the administration's proposals are expected this week. Members of the League of Women Voters will read them with great interest. We hope that there will be further hearings before this committee when proposals for river basin planning have been incorporated into the legislation now before you.

With grants-in-aid for State programs for water resource planning as title I and a program for planning comprehensive river basin development as title II, the bill presently before the committee will truly merit its short titles of "Water Resources Planning Act of 1961."

If hearings are held later on the complete bill or on the part dealing with river basin planning, the League of Women Voters would appreciate the opportunity to speak to the provisions of the bill after having time to study it. If there are no further hearings, could the record be held open for a reasonable period after the full bill is available and the league be permitted to file a further statement during that time? Senator ANDERSON. I will ask the staff to look into that.

Mrs. ROSENBLUM. Thank you, sir.

I understand from what you said a little earlier that this is one of your concerns.

I appreciate your courtesy. Thank you.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you for your statement, particularly that first paragraph at the top of page 2, where you say: "Incentive payments to encourage State spending for water planning seem to the league an effective use of Federal funds which can well bring benefits to the Nation far in excess of the Federal share expended." I thoroughly agree that that is so, and I am happy to have that expression from the League of Women Voters.

Are there questions?

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment Mrs. Rosenblum for a fine statement. I know something of the work of the league in the water development field, because you have a very active group in North Dakota. As a matter of fact, I attended the meeting of the select committee in Bismarck, and Miss Carolyn Moore from Fargo presented your case very, very well.

I would like to compliment you in general for the work you have done on water resource development.

Mrs. ROSENBLUM. Thank you, Mr. Burdick.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Long, you had a statement, I believe, for the record.

Senator LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I raised the question as to whether the bill should not be amended at page 2, line 6, by dropping the fourth word in that line, “or," changing the period at the end of the line to a comma, and adding the words "or Guam."

I discussed this briefly with a member of the staff and learned, Mr. Chairman, that there was no particular attention given to Guam when the bill was being prepared. It is a little difficult for me to see why the Virgin Islands would be included and Guam not included. have been to both places. The economy in Guam, of course, is considerably greater than it is in the Virgin Islands.

I must admit that I have never made any study of the need in Guam as compared with the Virgin Islands, but I would hope that the staff would look into it, if they have time, to see whether or not that change should not be made.

That is a thriving community there, and any recognition that we give to them I think would be most helpful.

Senator ANDERSON. We are going to do that. I can say as far as the inclusion of the Virgin Islands was concerned, that this committee has been concerned right along with the things we have had to appropriate money for in an attempt to develop a water supply in the Virgin Islands. And now we are working with a saline water plant that is being constructed down there, and perhaps that fact might have brought the Virgin Islands to the attention of the committee a little more than Guam, where we have not had that problem. But in any event, it will be checked, and checked carefully.

The last witness is Mr. Sam Thompson.

STATEMENT OF SAM THOMPSON, FIRST VICE CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE INTERSTATE CONFERENCE ON WATER PROBLEMS, COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

Mr. THOMPSON. Senators, we appreciate your giving us this opportunity to express the views of the Council of State Governments. The Interstate Conference on Water Problems, an arm of the Council of State Governments, is an organization of State officials concerned with all phases of water resource administration. It includes among its participants, representatives of all types of State agencies charged with various activities that are essential for comprehensive State water resource planning. In consequence, S. 1629 and S. 1778, designed to promote comprehensive water resources planning by the States, and to provide financial assistance for that purpose, are of great interest to the conference.

The subject of State water resource planning will occupy a prominent place on the program of the next meeting of the conference to be held January 15-16, 1962. Specifically, the conference will have before it a resolution dealing with Federal support for State water programs which was deferred at its last meeting in order that more time could be devoted to a consideration of the policy issues involved. Among other considerations, the deferred resolution recommended a Federal program to provide financial assistance to the States and