Senator ANDERSON. The telegrams and letters will be put in the record at this point. In my opening statement I referred to such requests, and to the reply which had been given that the record will be open for 10 days for statements or, if filed later than that, the statements will be distributed to committee members.

(Documents referred to follow :)

Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ,

MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., August 11, 1961.

Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Works,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

In connection with hearings which we understand are scheduled on August 16, 1961, on S. 2246, for the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961, this association respectfully requests that the hearing be continued at a later date.

This is legislation of a complex character with greatly important implications. We are vitally interested because of its possible effect on river transportation. Because of time limitation we have not been able to prepare testimony that will adequately reflect the views of important segments of our membership. We therefore urge continuation of the hearings so that all concerned may have an opportunity to be heard. May we please be informed that this request will be granted. A. C. MILLS,

Secretary, Upper Mississippi Waterway Association.

MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., August 11, 1961.

Senator DENNIS CHAVEZ,

Senate Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.:

Understand hearings are scheduled August 16 on S. 2246, the water resources planning act for 1961. We are vitally interested in this legislation because of its effect on water transportation. Because of shortness of time we have not been able to prepare testimony and urge that the hearings be continued at a later date to allow a full expression of the interests of all concerned. Would appreciate your confirmation that such hearings are continued.

UPPER MISSISSIPPI TOWING CORP.
HENRY M. BASKERVILLE, SR.,
Chairman of the Board.

Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ,

OHIO VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Cincinnati, Ohio, August 11, 1961.

Chairman, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate,
New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We understand that your committee jointly with the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has scheduled a 1-day hearing on August 16 with respect to S. 2246, providing for the establishment of a Water Resources Council and river basin commissions and other matters. This bill raises complex issues of policy and it is our sincere request that these hearings be continued in order that interested parties and organizations, such as our own, may have a full opportunity to present their views.

Very respectfully,

WILLIAM J. HULL, Chairman, Legislative Committee.

THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC.,
Washington, D.C., August 11, 1961.

Hon. Senator DENNIS CHAVEZ,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR SENATOR CHAVEZ: We understand hearings are scheduled before the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and the Senate Committee on Public Works jointly for August 16 on S. 2246, the proposed Water Resources Planning Act of 1961.

Because of the possible effect of this legislation on inland water transportation, we respectfully request that the hearings be continued at a later date on this bill to permit proper development of the interests of the water-carrier industry in this matter and presentation of this viewpoint to your committee, if this appears desirable.

The American Waterways Operators, Inc., is the nationwide nonprofit trade association representing the shallow-draft water-carrier industry. The association is the spokesman for a large segment of the Nation's domestic water carriers operating on the rivers, intracoastal canals, the bays, sounds, and the harbors of the United States. The channels over which they operate reach over 29,000 miles of the country.

We have not yet had an opportunity to develop fully the possible effects of S. 2246 on transportation; and, therefore, this request for continuance of the hearings is necessary.

We shall appreciate your consideration of this request and your advice.
Sincerely yours,

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Case.

BRAXTON B. CARR, President.

Senator CASE. Mr. Taylor, do you have the feeling that the bill would give the Federal Government an authority greater than the authority of the States and make the position of the Federal Government paramount to the authority of the States?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir; we do, Senator Case.

Senator CASE. And the thrust of your argument-I put it on the floor of the Senate recently-is that you feel that the rights of the States in water matters should be preserved through preservation for each of them equal recognition or status?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, we do.

Senator CASE. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Randolph ?

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taylor, I have noted in your statement on page 1 that you indicate the policy was adopted by resolution at your Denver meeting last December. I make specific reference to the language:

We are opposed to Federal domination of water resource development.

On the last page of your statement today you again call attention to the language which I have just quoted. I am not certain as to whether you believe that the provisions of Senate 2246, as pending in this study, does constitute this Federal domination of which you have spoken. Would you clarify that position?

Mr. TAYLOR. Senator Randolph, let me put it this way. We feel that the formation of this council and the provision for the appoint

74139-61-7

ment of the various commissions that might be appointed would be dominated by Federal personnel. Therefore, the Federal Government would certainly tend to dominate the water resources development of this country. We feel that it should be done on a cooperative arrangement, taking into account State governments and local entities in the development of the water resources of this Nation. Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Taylor, I believe it is the intent of those who sponsor this legislation by name on the bill and by others who are interested in the subject that there be this cooperation of which you have spoken, and that is why I think, although there is a general agreement, there is a difference of approach here which the sponsors of the measure have proposed and now which you seem, in part, to oppose.

Basically, however, there is agreement, and, whereas those who sponsor the bill think in terms of responsibility and leadership, you would think that that might be turned to domination, rather than the two points I mentioned; is that correct?

Mr. TAYLOR. It is possible, yes. It is possible that it can be turned in this direction and this is what we are fearful of.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Taylor, do I recall correctly that your organization opposed the Resource and Conservation Act which was sponsored by Senator Engle and which was the subject of hearings with Mr. Anderson chairing that committee? I am not sure. Mr. TAYLOR. I do not think so.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I see. You testified?

Mr. TAYLOR. I do not think we did. We sent a letter I think covering four bills. We did not testify, Senator.

Senator RANDOLPH. I see.

Mr. TRIGGS. May I supplement that?

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes, Mr. Triggs.

Mr. TRIGGS. We certainly have long favored water use planning on interstate rivers by the coordinated participation of State and Federal Governments, and we have also long favored a review at the national level by an impartial and independent agency. These are some of the concepts incorporated, in part, in this bill, S. 2246. We think that the bill can be substantially improved in terms of State participation and in terms of independent critical appraisal. Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Triggs, when you use the language "substantially improved" and this is not an improper question and nothing is implied, do the organizations-and I find by their statements today and the press releases there seems to be a common theme of danger in their thinking-get together and discuss the proposals prior to your testimony? With other organizations, do you discuss these matters?

Mr. TRIGGS. No, not in this specific instance. Now, our policy is developed after a great deal of discussion by State farm bureaus at their anual meetings and subsequent

Senator RANDOLPH. I meant with other organizations, not within the Farm Bureau structure.

Mr. TRIGGS. We have had some discussion with other organizations on this bill.

Senator CASE. Would the gentleman yield to me?
Senator RANDOLPH. Yes.

Senator CASE. In other words, has there or has there not been any position-fixing of these different groups making statements?

Mr. TRIGGS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. No. Senator.

Mr. TRIGGS. Each of us has, I think, our own policy.

Mr. TAYLOR. This quotation on the first page of our statement is what our policy is and this is what we adhere to.

Senator ANDERSON. What were some of the groups that were meeting?

Mr. TAYLOR. You mean at various times, or all together, or how? Senator ANDERSON. You just got through saying you were meeting with some other group in establishing this.

Mr. TAYLOR. There are a certain number of us that meet once a month and discuss various legislation, we have met with the representative of the Council of State Governments at times.

Senator RANDOLPH. U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. National Association of Manufacturers?'
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir; and others.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you.

Senator Hickey?

Senator HICKEY. I just have a brief matter, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taylor, underlying your entire statement that I have attempted to follow as you brought it out, it seems to me that you have some underlying fears that might direct themselves to the people in many of the States who make up small State associations for water conservation that operate under what I believe to be Public Law 566. It is my understanding that your fear is that such a council would not be able to cooperate with these State associations. Is that correct? Mr. TAYLOR. I would not say that they would not be able to. I think they could. It is a question of degree. To make a categorical statement that they could not, I would not do that, but at the same time, certainly there should be an objective approach, a cooperative effort, we feel, to include all of the studies that have been made and all the work that has been done.

Senator HICKEY. Is the basis of the fear which I interpret from your statement the fact that there is a possibility of disagreement between the small local area conservation groups, such as the association or committee formed in a general area operating under 566 and the conclusions that such a national committee might reach in studying a basin or river project?

Mr. TAYLOR. Senator Hickey, the answer to your question is "Yes," but I would like to also include State agencies in the same field and in the same category. You have State soil conservation associations. You have other planning associations within various States. I know we do in our State, and I know they do in several other States. These certainly should have their day in court as well, but the answer to your question directly is "Yes, we are fearful of that."

Senator HICKEY. And does that basically get back to the matter which has been discussed before this committee and similar committees on several occasions, and that is the question of how important the individual State's water rights are?

Mr. TAYLOR. Very much so.

Note

Senator HICKEY. And because of the fact that mention has been made with regard to a specific situation wherein Montana, for example, passed legislation, I would call attention to the fact that our State has a constitutional provision which was accepted by the Federal Government when it accepted our State, and also the organic act which created it, that presents a little different problem which I understand from other testimony at other committee meetings before our chairman, is still in the gray area.

Your concern is that policy would not evolve from this committee that would remove any State out of the gray area or establish what some people have placed as an interpretation on the Pelton Dam case as a national policy; is that correct?

Mr. TAYLOR. I believe that is. We, of course, are very interested in this field, not only with respect to the one case, but others as well. We would like to see legislation in this field.

Senator HICKEY. In conclusion, it is my understanding from the chairman of the committee that there is no intent in this bill, S. 2246, to establish any such policy of that kind. Is that not correct?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is true.

Senator ANDERSON. There was no such thought at all. I have been trying to get over what has been a serious hurdle, with reclamation projects at least, and I think others, where a bureau comes into existence or a man moves into a bureau and proceeds to establish a policy which destroys years and years of hard labor by a great many people. I worked for a long, long time on the upper Colorado River storage project, and participated in projects under it. I thought, when I finally succeeded in getting a bill, S. 500, which was introduced by me, and passed by the Senate and House, and signed by the President, that we were on our way, but a clerk in the Bureau of the Budget can issue a policy statement that makes it completely impossible to pass any anticipated project because he sets up a whole new series of tables which the Congress never passed upon. In order to try to straighten that out and get something done in the field of river planning, we tried to make sure that everyone involved in river basin development was being brought into the process. I am sorry that that is an objectionable feature in the minds of some people.

Senator HICKEY. It occurred to me that that has been cleared up in the colloquy between the chairman and Mr. Taylor, and that the understanding has now been reached that it is preferable to have what the chairman suggests, rather than what has gone on before.

Senator ANDERSON. We did have some hearings on this matter. I cannot find it now, but I know there was discussion in that preliminary hearing that if there was an area in a man's State he wanted to do something about, he would not want to do it without discussion with the Governor. I have forgotten how much further we went than that. It never occurred to anyone that that would not be done, but it could be done, perhaps. Possibly the President could set up a river commission upon the petition of one Governor without any others, but I have to say that goes on the assumption that he was not very smart in the first place. You have to assume the man who gets to be President of the United States has reasonable judgment, and I assume he would exercise his judgment about requests to establish river basin planning commissions and not do it wliere all but one Governor was hostile to the proposal.