Page images
PDF
EPUB

WATER RESOURCES PLANNING ACT OF 1961

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1961

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C.

The committees met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m. in room 3110, Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson, presiding. Present: Senators Clinton P. Anderson (New Mexico), Robert S. Kerr (Oklahoma), Jennings Randolph (West Virginia), Ernest Gruening (Alaska), Frank E. Moss (Utah), Stephen M. Young (Ohio), Oren E. Long (Hawaii), Quentin N. Burdick (North Dakota), Lee Metcalf (Montana), J. J. Hickey (Wyoming), Henry C. Dworshak (Idaho), Francis Case (South Dakota), Gordon Allott (Colorado).

Also present: Stewart French, chief counsel; Benton Stong, professional staff member; and Jerry Verkler, clerk, Interior Committee; and John L. Mutz, clerk, Public Works Committee.

Senator ANDERSON. This is a continuation of joint hearings of the Public Works Committee, and the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, on S. 2246, the President's river basin planning bill, and on S. 1629 and S. 1778, bills which Senator Kerr and I introduced some time ago to establish a program of aid to States for water resources planning.

On July 26, the committees heard Secretary of the Interior Udall, Secretary of Agriculture Freeman, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Ribicoff, and Mr. William Schaub, Assistant Secretary of the Army, on S. 2246.

Today's hearings are for our own Senate members and public wit

nesses.

We will lead off with a statement from Senator Philip A. Hart of Michigan, who served on the Senate Select Committee on Water Resources and was a very valuable and constructive member of that committee. He vigorously supports S. 2246.

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP A. HART, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for your leadership in moving to provide the Nation with improved machinery for water resources planning and management.

Earlier in the year, as you may recall, we had an exchange of correspondence in which we discussed the need for a proper balance of Federal and State responsibilities in this field. I was seeking a well

rounded course of action which would set the Federal and State Governments to work on a river basin development basis. This was the first recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources on which we both served and which was chaired so brilliantly by the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

We have great technical ability in this Nation, in many fields of endeavor; our problem seems to be, as with other peoples of this world, in devising the political institutions to make sound decisions and put those decisions into action.

Therefore, I support S. 2246 wholeheartedly, and hope the committee will report it favorably to the Senate this session. The more difficult defense and budgetary situation in which we now find ourselves makes all the more necessary that the moneys spent for water resource development-which is an imperative-be spent efficiently and in a coordinated fashion.

At the same time, I hope that your committee will continue to recognize the desirability for action on S. 239, which would facilitate coordinated conservation and development of all our natural resources. The fact that we are now giving attention to orderly development of water resources strengthens the case for doing the same for our forest, soil, mineral, and recreation resources.

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope your committee will see fit to move on both these bills, in order that our natural resources may be viewed as a whole and be developed with all the intelligence of which we are capable.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator Hart.

A statement from Senator Bartlett will be put in the record. (Senator Bartlett's statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY HON. E. L. BARTLETT, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the committees for this opportunity to testify on S. 2246, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961.

I am interested in S. 2246, not only since it is of paramount importance for resource development in the United States but also because of its relation to two other bills in which I have great interest: S. 498, a bill which I introduced to create a Water Resources Commission for Alaska, and S. 239, the Resources and Conservation Act of 1961, of which I am a cosponsor.

S. 2246 would establish a Water Resources Council and make possible the creation of river basin commissions, and would provide financial assistance to the States in order to further the optimum development of the Nation's water and related land resources through coordinated and comprehensive planning. My bill, S. 498, would provide for a commission for Alaska, comparable, but with some differences, to the river basin commissions contemplated by S. 2246. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that were S. 2246 to become law, my bill, S. 498, to create a water resources commission for Alaska, would be unnecessary. I, therefore, urge the committee, in the event S. 2246 does not become law during this session of Congress or is delayed for any reason, to act on S. 498. A similar bill did pass the Senate last year although it received no action in the House.

As the report on last year's Senate-passed bill stated: "The Congress has recently authorized similar study commissions for the southeastern river basins of the United States, and for certain southwestern river basins. The committee is of the opinion that the proposed study for Alaska will prove of equal value in the future development of the water and related resources of one of the newest States which is so important to our national defense and which is so rich in potential wealth and opportunities."

Mr. Chairman, whether the water resources commission for Alaska is created by S. 2246 or S. 498, there is a great and urgent need for the information and rational analysis of our resources which this commission would provide. With such a commission, Alaskans will be working with Federal officials to realize the

creative potential of Alaska's great glaciers, lakes, and rivers in such areas as navigation, power, recreation, irrigation, and fisheries.

S. 498 is an expression of the desire of Alaskans to participate in the thoughtful and careful study processes which will make possible an ever greater contribution by Alaska to the well-being of the Nation, and which will insure that governmental efforts to develop rivers, ports, and drainage basins in Alaska on a comprehensive basis will be preceded by sound research by knowledgeable persons.

Alaska's need for a water resources commission is particularly acute since Alaska is just in the beginning stages of its economic growth. Each year of delay in the creation of this commission means that false starts may be made and the full range of promising alternatives left unexplored, and in its absence commitments may be made to less desirable and less economic courses of development.

During these crucial years, while growth is starting, decisions are being made which will shape the economic life of Alaska for a long time to come. This is why I feel that no time should be lost in creating the water resources commission for Alaska and it is my hope that the urgently needed job of comprehensive water and related land resources planning for Alaska will not be delayed for another year while the overall national system of water resources commissions is developed.

Mr. Chairman, having urged that, if S. 2246 is delayed, the committee take early action on S. 498 during this session of Congress, I would like to comment briefly on the goals of S. 2246, on the means set up to accomplish these goals, and on the relation of S. 2246 to our overall natural resource policies.

I am in general agreement with the goals of S. 2246 that "the conservation, development, and utilization of the water and related land resources of the United States shall be planned and conducted on a comprehensive and coordinated basis with the cooperation of all affected Federal agencies, States, local governments, and others."

I would, however, like to raise several questions.

What will be the status of planning for the conservation and development of those natural resources not included in S. 2246 and how will this activity be related to S. 2246?

I raise for the committee's consideration the problem of relating S. 2246 to our national policy and structure for dealing with natural resources as a whole, because it is my hope that S. 2246 will not be viewed as a substitute for a policy and a structure to deal with our natural resources on an overall basis.

Our water and related land resources are a part of our total natural resources and there should be some means of relating the specific activities contemplated by S. 2246 to the general activities which are necessary for effective overall resource conservation and development.

In my statement in support of the proposed Resources and Conservation Act of 1961, S. 239, I mentioned what I believed to be the necessary elements of a rational and effective resource and conservation policy for the United States. I stated that the President, with the help of Federal agencies, States, and local governments should formulate national and regional goals for resources and conservation based on a general congressional statement of policy.

I stated that the President should set forth for the Congress and the people the conservation problems of the United States based on an estimate of (1) the supply of and future demands for our resources; (2) the limits to the satisfaction of these demands; and (3) the rough time span within which such limits for each resource will be reached. He should set forth the alternative means for solving these problems as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives.

The President's statement of goals, trends, needs, problems, alternative solutions, and recommendations for a long-range balanced program should be presented to the Congress for discussion.

What I believe to be most important is that the above activities be carried out. But also important are the means which are used to carry out these activities since the structure which is set up will determine whether the activities are performed and performed effectively.

When testifying on S. 239, I believed, and I still believe, that the Council of Resources and Conservation Advisers to the President contemplated by S. 239 would be the most suitable means for effectively carrying out the process for resource policy formation outlined above.

Having raised for the committee's consideration the problem of relating the goals of S. 2246 to our natural resources policy, I would like to raise several

questions concerning the relation between the planning for water and related land resources, as proposed by S. 2246, and other types of planning conducted by the Federal Government.

In Alaska, the basic problems in the development of the Snettisham power project near Juneau are not only ones of water and related land resources but are also problems involving other factors which are central and crucial to the success of this project. I speak here of the attraction of industry and the general economic development of southeastern Alaska.

This leads me to believe that many resource and river basin problems involve factors other than "water and related land resources" and that very often the solution for a water resources problem will lie in the area of general economic planning for a region rather than in the specific fields of water and related land

resources.

I would like to ask, therefore, what will be the relation of the river basin planning functions for water and related land resources in S. 2246 to government planning in such areas as land use, housing, urban renewal, transportation, power, and public works?

What, for instance, will be the role of other Federal agencies such as the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the Federal Power Commission and the Area Redevelopment Administration which are involved in planning in areas which will be affected by the Council and the river basin commissions and whose activities will affect the plans of the Council and the river basin commissions.

Unless there is adequate coordination and communication between and within the various agencies which will be involved in planning, I fear that problems will be approached on a piecemeal basis and that in the end we will find ourselves in a situation where there are many separate groups involved in planning for a specific area, each going its own way, with little overall integration of the elements of the various plans.

Having stated, with reservations, my general agreement with the goals of S. 2246 concerning water resources policy, I would like to comment briefly upon the means created by S. 2246 to carry out these goals.

Is the composition and structure of the Water Resources Council and river basin commissions adequate to carry out the goals set forth in S. 2246 or will some other effect, unintended by Congress, be achieved because of inadequate means? I believe that the four-man Council, composed of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, Army, and Health, Education, and Welfare, is heavily weighted on the side of agencies with deep interests in operating and construction programs for Federal water resource projects.

I would like to suggest for the committee's consideration that these interests may not be compatible in certain cases with the development of comprehensive and coordinated long range plans for water and related land resources, the purpose which S. 2246 is designed to achieve.

I would like to suggest, also, that the same hazard is involved in the creation of the river basin commissions, since, if Congress is not careful, the planning function may become subordinate to that of operating and constructing Federal water resource projects.

The committee might therefore consider a broadening of the Council and of the river basin commissions with members representing the public or with other members from Federal agencies involved in planning. Otherwise, there is a danger that the operating and construction activities and interests will interfere with the development of the planning function.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment briefly on the resource studies which would be conducted by the Water Resources Council and the river basin commissions contemplated by S. 2246.

The report of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources, of which S. 2246 is an outgrowth, related availability of water supplies to future projected demands. This type of study should be performed for our other natural resources, for instance, our timber, fisheries, and minerals.

The select committee's report projected to the year 2000 the increased demands for water associated with population growth and with increased per capita consumption of water. It emphasized the fact that if we are to keep pace with predicted demands and if scarcity of water resources is not to become a limiting factor in population growth and economic growth in the United States, then there will be a need for increased investments and expanded programs for increasing our water resources and for making more efficient our use of water. I would suggest that, at the same time emphasis is placed upon increasing water supply to satisfy increasing demands, there should also be research and study into the probable limits to the satisfaction of the predictably increasing

demands for water, and that an attempt be made to predict roughly when such limits will be reached. Although our supply of water resources can be expanded through research and through more efficient use, with continued increases in demand for this not unlimited resource, it would seem that eventually there would be limits to the satisfaction of this demand.

The whole thrust of the report of the Select Committee on Water Resources is on activities and investments which are designed to try to meet the demands for water by increasing the supply. I would like to know whether or not in the long run, for instance 100 years, this will be effective and whether supply and demand can be brought into balance solely by trying to increase supply.

If there are limits to increasing the supply of our water resources, and if demands for these resources will continue to grow over the decades and centuries, then the President, the Congress and the people of the United States should know roughly at what point in time the limits to the satisfaction of demand for water resources are reached. The American people should know roughly at what point in time they will have to reduce their per capita consumption of water because increases in demand for water have outstripped our ability to expand our water resources. This statement holds for our other natural resources as well.

If creation of a balance between resource supply and demand for resources is desired and I believe it is-my feeling is that, at a certain point, it will be more efficient to achieve this balance through finding ways of limiting demand than it will be to try to expand continually our limited resources in order to meet demands which are, in the long run, unlimited.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committees for the privilege of presenting a statement in support of S. 2246. May I again urge the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs not to delay consideration of S. 498, to create a Water Resources Commission for Alaska, if for any reason S. 2246 is delayed. And, in summary, may I state for your consideration my apprehension that the overall job of planning for conservation and development of our natural resources as a whole will be slighted because of:

1. The narrowness of the ends of S. 2246 in relation to the national need for a comprehensive policy and structure for dealing with natural resources;

2. The possibility that S. 2246 may be regarded as a substitute for such a policy and structure;

3. Possible defects in the means to carry out the goals of S. 2246 combined with;

4. Lack of sufficient top-level emphasis on natural resource policies as contrasted with the emphasis in S. 239, the Resources and Conservation Act of 1961; and

5. Lack of adequate coordination and communication between and within the various agencies which are involved in planning in the United States.

Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, there will be included in the hearing record a statement filed by the National Cattlemen's Association, urging careful study of any comprehensive legislation in the water field, and a number of other statements submitted for our consideration.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, DENVER, COLO., CONCERNING THE PROPOSED WATER RESOURCES BILL, S. 2246, AUGUST 11, 1961

The American National Cattlemen's Association has a membership of 33 State cattlemen's associations, more than 100 breed, regional, county and local associations, and thousands of individual cattlemen members from throughout the Nation.

Since water is the most essential of requirements for the conduct of the livestock business, we have a vital interest in any proposal that would affect the use and distribution of water.

We believe that where water is a problem, States are becoming highly aware of critical situations and many States have already taken action to conserve and develop water supplies.

It is natural that this should be so, since States have historically first looked to their water supply and have jealously guarded this resource and, we believe, have established laws and precedents for the fair distribution of water within their boundaries.

« PreviousContinue »