interstate water resources agencies in developing and improving the effectiveness of comprehensive State water resources planning activities.

If I might deviate from my statement here, Mr. Chairman: The conference has a policy that no policy will be made by resolution in a policy area unless it is first circulated to the States, all 50 of them comprising the conference, at least 30 days in advance of its meeting. This is to be sure that every State has the opportunity to scrutinize closely those matters of policy that will be taken up.

This area was brought to the attention of the conference from one of the four group discussions, but since it had not been circulated, and the other three groups of the conference had not had an opportunity to discuss it, it was deferred and will be a major item on the program at the next conference in January.

Past proceedings of the conference have given emphasis to the need for programs of comprehensive water resource planning undertaken by the States. There has been emphasis on the need for States to develop their own long-range plans.

The reports of the water policy committee of the Interstate Conference on Water Problems have also emphasized this need, stating, for example, that there was a need for effective action by the States in programing the development of their water resources on a broad. comprehensive basis to meet the potential future demands.

The conference adopted a resolution recommending that each State water resource program should include among other elements mentioned:

A continuing program of interpretation and analysis of basic data and the utilization of the results thereof in a comprehensive long-range plan for the control, conservation, protection, distribution, and utilization of the State's water resources as necessary to provide an adequate guide for the State in its administration of water use and in the coordination of plans and activities of all agencies and organizations engaged in the development of the State's water resources.

The conference has not had an opportunity to analyze the specific issues raised by S. 1629 and S. 1778 and develop a policy position regarding them. However, in view of the marked interest of the conference in this problem, the executive committee, acting in the period between meetings, has considered the question and developed this statement.

Examples of the congressional policy encouraging State activity in water resource administration are numerous. The recent report of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources mentions congressional recognition of the desirability of deciding matters that can best be resolved locally at a level of government below the Federal level. Congress has recognized the importance of this in the past by enactment of amendments to flood control acts, rivers and harbors acts, and reclamation legislation calling for State participation in planning for water resources development prior to congressional consideration being given to specific authorizations.

The committee concludes that the implementation of these provisions should be strengthened and the views of States and local agencies should be considered in connection with the formulation and operation of all Federal water resources programs. Other Federal legislation reflecting a congressional policy of strengthening State participation in water resource programs could be cited--the

Small Watershed Act, water pollution control legislation, and the Water Supply Act of 1958-all of which provide for State approval of plans or for direct State participation.

For the States to provide leadership in the development of the water resources of the Nation, it is essential that they be equipped to carry on effective water resource planning programs. Only then can they be assured that adequate attention will be paid to the needs and interests of the States in the development of projects. Only then can there be assurance that the opportunities for participation in planning offered by congressional policy will afford a meaningful method for strengthening the Federal system by assuring the vitality of the States in this area.

Water resource assets are of much more immediate, intense and compelling interest to the people located in their immediate vicinity. These are the people who should have first call in determining the policy for their development and administration and first responsibility for their regulation. An adequate basis for the making of such policy is necessarily a set of programs which can gather relevant data, analyze their meaning, and relate them in a comprehensive fashion to the needs of the people in the State or region. This is just another way of saying that water resource planning is of first rank importance. In this field as in most others the availability of funds with which to do the job is one of the most significant factors in determining the ultimate product.

The executive committee of the Interstate Conference on Water Problems concludes that programs designed to strengthen and encourage comprehensive State water resource planning have real merit and that a program of assistance such as that envisaged by S. 1629 and S. 1778 would be an appropriate way to accomplish this goal.

However, assurance should be provided that any program of Federal assistance adopted really strengthens State planning without undue restrictions on the States. If legislation of the type now under consideration is actually to improve the capacity and performance of our water resource planning, a delicate balance must be struck between the national interest in seeing that the money which Congress appropriates will be usefully spent and the interest of everyone on both the State and National level in seeing that State initiative is fostered rather than restricted or displaced.

Congress will not have achieved the objective of strengthening the States' capacity to plan for water resource development, nor will the States have improved planning agencies as a result of this legislation unless the State planning agencies are free to use their own initiative and leadership in exploring all possible alternatives for the development, use, and management of the resources for which they plan. Such freedom to consider and choose among alternatives is the very essence of planning. Accordingly, the problem is how to assure that money subsequently appropriated pursuant to the authorizations contained in these bills will be usefully spent without diminishing the scope of the aided State planning activity or prejudging any of the questions which the State planners should be free to consider.

Specific provisions of any legislation inaugurating a new grant program call for careful analysis to assure that the objectives out

lined above are attained. The criteria established by statute and applied by the responsible agency in determining whether State programs qualify for grants will be of major importance in the success of the whole program. The administrative arrangements made at the Federal level will likewise be of particular significance. These provisions of the proposed legislation will no doubt receive careful consideration. We hope that the conference will be given an opportunity to express itself more fully on these and other important matters at a future date, after there has been time for a full discussion by the whole conference.

However, it seems to the executive committee that the need for interstate planning is of such fundamental importance that it should be given some additional consideration here. The very fact that these bills seek to promote comprehensive planning at the State level makes it desirable for the legislation to include interstate agencies among those who could qualify for grants. States must be able not only to make individual plans, but also to relate this planning to regionwide plans.

If one accepts the proposition that underlies these bills that local and regional units of government should handle much of our water planning any Federal law on this subject should encourage, certainly not discriminate against, regional water planning across State lines. Accordingly, we would urge that interstate agencies be made eligible recipients of the legislation's benefits.

The executive committee of the Interstate Conference on Water Problems commends the authors of S. 1629 and S. 1778 and Congress for considering ways in which State planning for water resources can be assisted. In recognizing the competence of existing State agencies, and in seeking to improve such competence, these bills: strengthen our Federal system. They represent a step forward in an area where the several levels of government, as well as privateinterests, have major and continuing responsibilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Let me just say to you that I assume that when legislation comes along for river basin planning, which covers the work that you mentioned, that probably would carry some provision for grants-in-aid to those areas. If they do not, it is quite probable that this bill would be amended to provide eligibility for that assistance.

There is no desire to hold down the river basin planning in regional areas, but to supplement that in every way possible. So this sugges-tion of yours, I am sure, will receive attention as we go along.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Are there any questions?

Senator HICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I was glad that this witness: brought out a discussion of Public Law 566 and also Public Law 594. And for the sake of the record, I had counsel lay them out.

The one is the one which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to "cooperate with the States and local agencies in planning and carrying out works for approval of soil conservation and for other purposes." That is one of the acts you referred to.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir.

Senator HICKEY. Now, I would call this to your attention, and I think the chairman and his select committee had this in mind at the time the bill was prepared. Section 3 of the bill provides that the State agency having responsibility should be given assistance to conduct such investigations and surveys as may be necessary, to prepare plans for purposes of improvement.

Now, the truth of the matter is that in the States, although there have been survey teams made available, they are not sufficient-the Federal survey teams are not sufficient-to do the job that the various States want. And that is why there has been a lack of State leadership in this field.

I think with the money that this bill might provide and the available State funds, you would see some leadership from among the States in implementing such laws as 566 and also Public Law 984, which is an act to supplement the Federal reclamation laws by providing for Federal cooperation in non-Federal projects and for participation of non-Federal agencies in Federal projects.

Each of these laws have been hamstrung by the fact that there was not sufficient personnel provided federally to go ahead in the State area, and the States did not have sufficient money to move into that particular field.

My understanding of the matter we are considering now is that it is to make available money so that agencies within the State could be set up that would provide the money for the planning that was envisioned in both these laws.

Mr. THOMPSON. Senator Hickey, we have completed one river basin study under section 6 of Public Law 566 in Mississippi and are currently working up a report to publish. We have under way, in cooperation with the State of Alabama, one on the Tombigbee River, in which we have a soil conservation work party, and in addition to that we have 54 State and Federal agencies on the Mississippi side of this agency alone cooperating, in this board, in which coordination is being made for total resource inventory, water, land, people, the whole gamut of the study.

Alabama has a similar group and is cooperating where the river crosses the State line, and the tributaries cross the State lines. This is an interstate, you might say, study, with two States sponsoring agencies cooperating with the Federal agencies and other State agencies in the total study.

This will be of invaluable value to us, once we have the total resource information in hand. But planning how and what to do with it following this is going to be a problem with us in the State with the limited funds that we have available, because so many States are just waking up to their responsibility in this field.

Senator HICKEY. Well, my question to you is: Recognizing the stated purposes of the legislation now before you, is it not your opinion that it will implement and assist the work you do in your State of Alabama and have it done and be of great interest to you?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. That is one reason why my interest in this is so great.

Senator ANDERSON. Before we close, do you have a letter that you would like to present?

Senator HICKEY. I have a letter, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to just present for the record. I have a cover letter from the Governor of the State of Wyoming directing to my attention a memo randum prepared by our State engineer and our water resources people. And I think the instrument itself will speak for the general approval of the State of Wyoming of this legislation.

Senator ANDERSON. That will be inserted in the record with the other State communications.

And I will say that the record will stay open at least until the Federal witnesses have appeared.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was recessed.)