HOWEVER, WHILE FEMA ACTS AS A COORDINATOR, IT DOES NOT ASSUME THE SPECIFIC TECHNICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OTHER AGENCIES INVOLVED.

TITLE II OF THE ACT AUTHORIZES MEASURES TO IMPROVE PREPAREDNESS AT
ALL LEVELS IN ANCITICPATION OF DISASTERS, SO THAT POSSIBLE DAMAGES
MAY BE LESSENED OR AVOIDED ALTOGETHER. THE TWO CHIEF TOOLS IN THIS
EFFORT ARE THE DISASTER PREPAREDNESS IMPROVEMENT GRANTS MADE TO
STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND AN ONGOING EMPHASIS ON HAZARD MITIGATION.
THE PREPAREDNESS GRANTS PROVIDE A MAXIMUM OF $25,000 PER YEAR TO BE
MATCHED EQUALLY BY THE STATE. THESE FUNDS SERVE A VARIETY OF
PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:

1. PREPARATION, REVISION AND UPDATING OF STATE EMERGENCY PLANS.

2. HANDBOOKS FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS.

3. PREPARATION AND UPDATING OF VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS.

IMPROVEMENTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY GRANT PROGRAM AND THE TEMPORARY HOUSING PROGRAM.

5. TESTS OF WARNING AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.

6. REVIEW OF COUNTY PREPAREDNESS PLANS, AND THE PROVISION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL PLANNERS.

7. DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND GUIDELINES FOR PRE-DISASTER HAZARD EVALUATION AND MITIGATION PLANNING.

WE WOULD NOTE THAT THIS PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES STATE LEVEL PREPAREDNESS. THE HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM HAS PROVEN ITS WORTH IN AN IMPROVED LEVEL OF CAPABILITY ON THE PART OF STATES TO RESPOND TO POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL DISASTERS. FEMA HOPES TO PROVIDE EVEN GREATER SUPPORT TO THIS PROGRAM IN THE FUTURE THROUGH INCREASED FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

HAZARD MITIGATION REPRESENTS AN APPROACH TO DISASTER RELIEF MANAGEMENT
THAT EXAMINES THE MEASURES THAT MAY BE TAKEN TO BUILD UP RESISTANCE
TO CERTAIN PREDICTABLE TYPES OF DAMAGES FROM NATURAL HAZARDS. FEMA
HAS THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 406, P.L. 93-288 TO REQUIRE HAZARD
MITIGATION. AS A CONDITION OF ANY DISASTER LOAN OR GRANT MADE UNDER
P.L. 93-288, THE RECIPIENT MUST AGREE THAT ANY REPAIR OR CONSTRUCTION
WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF SAFETY, DECENCY
AND SANITATION. IN ADDITION, THE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST
EVALUATE THE NATURAL HAZARDS IN THE AREAS IN WHICH THE PROCEEDS
OF THE GRANTS OR LOANS ARE TO BE USED AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO
MITIGATE SUCH HAZARDS.

HAZARD MITIGATION ALSO IS ACCOMPLISHED UNDER THE 0.M.B. DIRECTED
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT FOR NONSTRUCTURAL DAMAGE REDUCTION WHICH
REQUIRES THE FEMA REGIONAL DIRECTOR TO ACTIVATE A FEDERAL INTERAGENCY
HAZARD MITIGATION TEAM AFTER EACH FLOOD DISASTER. THE TEAM MUST
PREPARE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE
DISASTER DECLARATION. THE TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COLORADO
RIVER FLOODING ARE THE WORK ELEMENTS OF THE INTERAGENCY HAZARD
MITIGATION REPORT DATED JULY 16, 1983.

FINALLY, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FEMA HAS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY

TO INSURE THAT ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES AVOID TAKING ACTIONS THAT WOULD CREATE VULNERABILITY IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, OR, IF ACTIONS HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE LOCATION, TO INSURE THAT AGENCIES MAKE APPROPRIATE ACCOMMODATIONS TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS.

WE BELIEVE THAT ALL THESE PROGRAMS HAVE DEMONSTRATED THEIR VALUE.
THEY HOLD THE PROMISE OF SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED FUTURE DAMAGES AND
CORRESPONDINGLY REDUCED FEDERAL DISASTER RELIEF COSTS, REQUIRING A
RELATIVELY LOW INITIAL INVESTMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AS A
MEASURE OF OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS EFFORT, FEMA HAS SUBMITTED LEGISLATION
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PROVIDES FOR A DOUBLING OF THE PREPAREDNESS
GRANTS. ALSO, FOR THE FIRST TIME IT AUTHORIZES DIRECT FUNDING OF
HAZARD MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH WOULD BE COST-EFFECTIVE AND WOULD
RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT RISK REDUCTION. FEMA'S PROPOSAL HAS BEEN
INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS H.R. 3430. MR. CHAIRMAN,
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE AND REQUEST THAT YOU AND YOUR FELLOW COMMITTEE
MEMBERS GRANT FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION TO THESE PROPOSALS AT SUCH
TIME AS THEY ARE BEFORE YOU IN THE HOUSE.

THIS CONCLUDES MY FORMAL STATEMENT AND I WOULD NOW BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON THESE MATTERS.

STATEMENT OF PAUL L. BILLHYMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION

before the

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

(COLORADO RIVER HEARINGS)

Needles, California
September 8, 1983

I am Paul L. Billhymer, Executive Director of the Upper Colorado River Commission, and I appear here today to present a statement on behalf of the Commission supporting the Bureau of Reclamation's operation of the Colorado River reservoir system during Water Year 1983. The Commission's office is located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Commission is the administrative agency created by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. The Compact apportions the beneficial consumptive use of the waters of the Colorado River system allocated to the Upper Basin among the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming are the member States of the Commission.

The Upper Colorado River Commission has, since its inception, actively participated in the development of the water resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Commission has, at least since the passage of the Colorado River Storage Project Act, P. L. 485, 84th Congress, 2d Session, 70 Stat. 105, participated in the development of the "Law of the River," including but not limited to the "Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs" (June 10, 1970, 35 F. R. 112). Colorado River reservoir operations are a vital concern of the Commission and its member States. The complex of reservoirs in the Upper Basin (Glen Canyon Unit, Flaming Gorge Unit, Wayne N. Aspinall Unit, and Navajo Unit) was authorized and constructed for the primary purpose of providing the means by which the Commission's member States could

store and develop their Compact water entitlement. Conservation storage is vital to Upper Basin water resource development.

The Colorado River was divided at Lee Ferry into two distinct river systems in terms of water resource allocations by the Colorado River Compact of 1922. This division into two basins has not precluded the Upper and Lower Basin States from working together to solve their mutual water resource management problems, as evidenced by their joint efforts in the fields of water quality improvement, integration of the hydropower system, operation of the reservoirs for multiple purposes, and providing flood control benefits for the Lower Basin. This is not to say that the Upper Division States are not protecting their interests in the water allocated to them by the Compact and in managing their water resources for development and use in the Upper Basin, but the Upper Division States have in the past and will in the future work toward management of the Colorado River system for the overall benefit of all seven Basin States.

The Colorado River is one of the most regulated rivers in the world not only from a legal but also from an engineering viewpoint. Over the years the "Law of the River" has developed through public input from the whole water-related interest group spectrum. A casual review of this development process reveals that there was a great deal of compromise involved in the evolution of the "Law of the River." No one interest group or State was allowed to benefit at the destructive expense of another group or State. Benefits have had and continue to have wide distribution. The tools of river regulation are the complex of dams developed as part of the activities seeking to manage the Colorado River for the benefit of people living in the Colorado River Basin, an area which encompasses about one-twelfth of the continental United States. It has been estimated that nearly twelve million people are served by waters from the Colorado River system.

The key to development of the Colorado River Basin is the conservation of the system's water supply. It is true that the