This myriad of Federal efforts appears to be reflected at the State and local level. Every State has a department of water resources. Sometimes these departments also encompass fish and wildlife, and pollution control, but frequently they are separated into two or more departments which may not agree on water resource policy.

There are regional water commissions which attempt to coordinate the needs and policies of several States or several geographical areas. There are organizations reflecting the views of different water user groups. There are county bodies striving for optimum water development for each county and its citizens.

There exists today in the West a drought which has reached an emergency level. Billions of dollars in agricultural produce have been lost. Water is being rationed in certain parts of the country. If the drought continues, its impact will be even more disasterous. Predictions have been made that similar water shortages will occur in other regions of this country, including the Washington area.

Even without the peculiarities of the weather and the vagaries of snow and rain, we must face the fact that at a certain point in time, we will simply have too many people and too much need for the water we have.

What are we doing to prepare for that time? What can we do in emergency, short-term situations such as the drought in the West? What are and what should be the responsibilities of Federal, State, and local bodies to take care of the water needs of our people?

How can we strike a balance between the competing needs of industrial and municipal water supply, the environment, hydroelectric power, and agriculture for a limited supply of water? What are we doing to find new sources of water for the future?

We hope that this series of hearings will serve as a basis for developing answers to these questions. Next week we will continue. with 5 days of hearings in drought-stricken areas of the West. A final day of Washington hearings will be held on April 18.

I would like to ask my colleague, Senator Domenici, if he has an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am honored to join you in the opening of these important hearings centering on our Nation's water policy. I certainly don't come here with any simple solutions to offer. H. L. Mencken once pointed out that, "For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it is wrong."

But I do believe that these hearings, plus ones in the field over the next 2 weeks, should educate us and establish the record to enable the Congress to act more effectively to meet the demands for an adequate water supply.

As you stated, until this year the Subcommittee on Water Resources held responsibilities for a far more narrow aspect of water resources; but under the reorganization, we have taken on associated responsibilities that I believe increase our abilities and that of the

Federal Government to establish a well-focused national program for water resources use and development.

We need to look at many other questions-is there a need for a national water policy; and if so, what should its goal be? How can water policy agencies be more effectively coordinated? What water uses need to be developed and protected?

What aspects of water policy must remain with the States? How can water forecasting be improved? What should be done with the Office of Water Research and Technology? What should be done with the Water Resources Council? Is there a need to reshape its membership. What can be done to improve ground-water supplies?

In an effort to assist in these deliberations, I have introduced three bills, Senate bill 772 which contains a variety of provisions and which passed the Senate last year; 846 which expands the Interior Department's Office of Water Salinity Research and augments the saline water program; and S. 1143 which I was honored to introduce with the cosponsorship of our chairman, Chairman Randolph, and ranking Republican Senator Stafford, which would authorize the Corps of Engineers to expand its jurisdiction so that it could construct single-purpose water supply projects.

As I mentioned earlier, I cannot offer any comprehensive solutions to those problems, but more important than the individual bills, these hearings should serve as an educational experience to explore where the Government's water program is and where it is going, what priorities should be emphasized, what can or should be done to strengthen and coordinate.

I don't know whether the lack of a coherent approach in policy results from inherent regional conflicts within the Nation or whether it is the result of an unfocused Federal program spread throughout many agencies; but I do believe that the time has come that we must find some solutions.

We have a broad range of issues that can and should be addressed, issues on a both long- and short-term basis. I believe we will explore what this committee can do this year and over the long-term to alleviate drought.

One of our goals obviously must be the more efficient use of water. We can fruitfully look at the potential for water conservation in irrigated agriculture, existing policies and practices should encourage improved efficiencies, possibly through incentives for more effi

cient use.

Another issue which is often heard is the need for greater program continuity in the mission of the Army Corps of Engineers. There is a need to maintain a reasonable level of new project starts each year. One effective way to achieve a stronger, more effective program with greater continuity would be to ensure that programs that provide a benefit to specialized commercial interests, also produce a continuing self-sustaining return to the Treasury. This has already been recognized in hydroelectric power and water supply.

A less controversial, but more important issue is how to improve the process of project development. How can the review after the distritc level be streamlined? What can be done at the level of the Chief of Engineers, the Board of Engineers to accelerate review?

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS.
UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS

All of this has great importance because our Federal water-related expenditures now approach $10 billion a year, about half of which involves pollution control, which this committee will address later this year.

Senator GRAVEL. Thank you, Senator Domenici.

Senator McClure, do you have an opening Statement?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. McCLURE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator MCCLURE. I, too, am happy to join in the opening of this series of hearings as we begin to try to define not only the responsibilities of this committee, but the role of Government in water resources policy.

I am struck by the fact that in this field, like most others in Government, we manage crises. We don't manage policy. The Water Resources Council itself was the outgrowth of an earlier crisis in water because some eastern cities were running short of water and water rationing was the rule in New York City and Philadelphia and shortage was apparent in Washington, D.C. There was a high level of interest in the Congress of the United States in water policy.

It was thought then that the agencies of Government were not well enough coordinated to deal with this question and the Water Resources Council was the outgrowth of congressional concern and the expression of congressional response to that concern.

Immediately after that happened, as is so often the case here, the crisis diminished and so did the attention focused on the problem. The result has been a continuing decline in the emphasis upon the coordination of Federal Government activities to the point that last year we saw the administration suggesting that the money for the Water Resources Council be eliminated, or at least certainly very drastically reduced.

Now as the drought hits the Eastern United States, there is a resurgence of interest in a question that should have had a high level of interest throughout all these years. Certainly, there is nothing more fundamental to the need of mankind than water. There is no city in the United States that can exist for very long without an adequate supply of water.

There have been some changes in public attitudes and the law of the United States since 1958 when the Water Resources Council was formed. Those changes have to be brought into the context in which we discuss the question of the water resources policy.

The enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act, the creation of EPA, the creation of the Council on Environmental Quality, and the new and welcome concentration upon the environmenal quality of the lives of the American people, and I use that in the broad sense that I think NEPA used it, that includes economic and social as well as the natural surroundings of human beings; but certainly nothing is more important to the people of the United States than whether or not they have adequate supplies of water.