Mr. QUIGLEY. The potential for just that was there but fortunately the rather expensive and extensive interceptor sewer was built in connection with the other oulays that surrounded the construction of Dulles and this sewage is now being led into where it can be treated, and it is not the contributor to the pollution problem of the Potomac that it was feared it was going to be. This took a little doing and quite a bit of expense. Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Harold Wilm, representing the Interstate Conference on Water Problems. I understand that Mr. Wilm and Mr. Robert Pickrell, attorneys general, attorney general for Arizona, are here to testify. Let Mr. Pickrell come forward if he will and we will hear him. I understand that Mr. Pickrell has to catch a plane. Without objection, the Chair will insert in the record at the point following Mr. Quigley's testimony the letters which have been furnished to the subcommittee by the Governors of the States of Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. (The letters follow :) Hon. WAYNE N. ASPIN ALL, STATE OF COLORADO, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a pleasure to once again present a statement in favor of S. 1111, the River Basin Planning Act of 1964, formerly referred to as the "Water Resources Planning Act of 1963." The agencies in Colorado, both governmental and private, concerned with and responsible for water conservation, development, and utilization, and the actual water users, represented by their own organizations, have always manifested a great interest in this legislation. Since this legislation was first introduced in the Senate as S. 2246, numerous meetings have been held in the State of Colorado to discuss the act. We are pleased to report to you that suggested amendments in the legislation have, through the efforts of the State of Colorado and through the efforts of other States and the committees of the interstate conference on water problems, been incorporated into the act. The act as it passed the Senate proves that Congress is, indeed, responsive to the people that it represents. The bill under consideration, if properly implemented, will establish a national water policy broad enough and flexible enough to guide the Nation in its future course as related to planning water resources development, with due regard to varying needs of the different parts of the United States and the property rights which are based on established legal principles. There is a great need for the adoption of such a national water policy, and this need will continue to increase in perpetuity. The recognition by both the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government of this need for a national water policy is most gratifying. As a keynote of such policy there should be a recognition that water is a renewable natural resource which should be used for every possible beneficial purpose. From time to time, Congress has given recognition to the property rights of appropriators from the public water supplies in the arid Western States and the authority of the States themselves to establish and administer those water rights. The recognition previously given should be continued and extended as a basic part of any national water policy. Water resource planning and development originally found its leadership in private enterprise and at the State or regional level, with national leadership later supplementing such activity. This leadership should not be discouraged or eliminated by an attempt to transfer primary responsibilities to the Federal Government through financial subsidy. In order to encourage continued leadership by the people, the river basin commissions referred to in S. 1111 should employ the most highly trained and experienced people obtainable to encourage and assist local and regional water developers and to insure the full cooperation of existing Federal agencies in performing their traditional function with respect to water development. The composition of such a group should include persons of a variety of training and experience adequate to represent the viewpoints and needs of those who use water for various purposes. The viewpoints and interests involved would necessarily include persons representative of uses of water for domestic, agricultural, navigational, flood control, industrial, power, and recreational needs where applicable. The authority and functions of such a group could be so defined by law as to authorize and encourage the use of that group by the Congress of the United States in meeting its obligations with respect to water development. In line with the above thoughts, I believe it is significant to mention that S. 1111 has been amended to include the idea that all water plans prepared by the river basin commissions must include plans for urban development. We must, in the future, devote the same energy to the development of urban water supplies as we, in the past, have devoted ourselves to the development of water supplies for agriculture, flood control, and navigation. Those river basin activities which transcend State lines should be undertaken under the leadership of the river basin commissions. The use of interstate compact commissions to voluntarily settle interstate water problems is growing rapidly in the United States. Recognizing the wisdom of the provision for including compact representatives on a compact commission, it would seem appropriate that in those instances where interstate compact agencies have been formed and are functioning that the river basin commissions might well be composed of the membership of those interstate compact commissions, together with other required representatives. It is significant to note, at this point, that S. 1111 has been amended in section 201(a) to provide that where river basins have been divided by an interstate compact to which the consent of Congress has been given, each subbasin shall be treated as a separate basin. This, of course, is in particular and specific reference to the Colorado River compact of 1922, wherein the basin was divided into two parts in order that those portions which had related communities of interest could proceed with their own development without undue delay. Local projects should not be within the purview of this legislation. The Federal Government's part in the development of a national water policy should be one of leadership rather than of direct control. The dominant purpose of water resource planning legislation should be to provide for effective participation of the various States at both the national and regional levels, with the States having the preponderant influence in matters which are primarily of State and local concern. It is gratifying to note that in S. 1111 the States will participate on at least an equal basis with Federal representatives in the river basin planning groups. This was not the case in S. 2246, considered in the 87th Congress. I note that it is declared to be the policy of the Congress that the conservation, development, and utilization of water and related land resources of the United States shall be planned on a comprehensive and coordinated basis with the cooperation of all affected Federal agencies, States, local governments, and others concerned. It is clear that this bill relates solely to planning. Language has been incorporated into the bill to make it clear that the proposed legislation will not affect Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights; that existing arrangements for intergovernmental cooperation will be protected; that the right of Congress to authorize or fund projects will not be affected; and that other mechanisms for cooperation among governmental units may be used if preferred. We feel that this is a healthy attitude and that it places the various echelons of government in their proper prespective in our constitutional form of government. I feel that it is a step forward to have the Council's supervisory functions with regard to river basin commissions removed and the Council given full responsibility to maintain a continuing study of the relation of regional or river basin plans and programs of larger regions and the Nation. The procedure for creation of commissions requiring the concurrence of the Council, and not less than one-half of the States in which portions of the basin or basins concerned are located, is good in that it gives the smaller, less densely populated States equal representation in determining the need for creation of a commission. Membership provisions provide for a Federal member, who shall be chairman, appointed by the President; one member from each affected Federal department or independent agency, and one member from each participating State, appointed in accordance with the laws of the State which he represents. This gives the States adequate discretion in the appointment of their representatives. The inclusion of representation of interstate compact agencies and international joint commissions, or either or both, as appropriate, seems proper so that the "law of the river" as delineated by such interstate compacts may be properly incorporated into the deliberations of the commission. The provisions found in section 203 (d), that all efforts should be made to arrive at a consensus of all members on the issues before the commission, but in the absence of a concensus, the position of the chairman and vice chairman, representing the Federal and State members respectively, shall be recorded, seems to place the Federal and State interests in their proper perspective. The provisions that proposed plans developed by the commission are first to be submitted for comment directly to the Governor of each participating State, to the Federal agencies, and interstate and international agencies concerned is proper. Final plans, along with the comments, are submitted to the Council for transmission to the President and, by him, to Congress; and to the Governors and State legislatures of participating States. Again, these provisions provide that the State and Federal Government positions are considered in their proper perspective. Inasmuch as the total national interest is involved, together with the individual States' interests, in the optimum development of the Nation's water resources, the provisions for sharing of the financial support of the commission by the Federal Government and the States involved seems to be proper. In conclusion, I should like to state that water leaders in the State of Colorado have long felt that a national water policy should be guided by the following concepts: 1. Provisions must be established to avoid duplication of effort by and competition among various Federal agencies. This will permit filling any gaps in needed service which may exist, and will permit the adaptation of our water policy framework to meet the changing need of our growing economy and population. 2. Arrangements must be provided for the States and local governments to participate without expanding Federal jurisdiction and responsibility. The Federal Government must not be given additional control over the water re sources of the States. 3. Assurance must be given that all proposed development will be consistent with existing law and any interstate compact agreement and commitment. 4. The rights, powers, and prerogatives of Congress should not be diminished in the formulation of a water policy which will provide a means for bringing out and reconciling the interests of all groups in a common development program that can be kept current. 5. Water policy should not detract from the authority of Congress to authorize and fund projects, nor should there be any reduction or curtailment of existing authority of the Federal agencies for the construction of water projects. Those river basins, or groups of river basins, having an interagency committee established under the auspices of the interagency Committee on Water Resources have been directed by the President to begin a study and assessment of the adequacy of supplies of water necessary to meet the water requirements in the basin. While we are happy that this work has begun and are participating in several such studies, we believe that the proposals of the legislation under consideration provide for a more effective participation by the States as coequal partners with the Federal agencies in planning river basin development. It would also seem appropriate that many of the other activities of the interagency committees could and would be transferred to the river basin commissions, thereby eliminating a duplication of work and expense. It is my considered opinion that S. 1111 will accomplish the concepts set forth above provided that section 202 is amended so that the States will always have at least an equal number of representatives with the Federal Government on each river basin commission. Respectfully submitted. JOHN A. LOVE, Governor of Colorado. Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, HARTFORD, February 10, 1964. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE ASPINALL: We in Connecticut are following with great interest the progress of S. 1111 (the Federal Water Resources Planning Act). Comprehensive planning of water and related land resources conservation, utilization and development is much needed. The great strength of S. 1111 is that it authorizes the establishment of truly Federal-State machinery for river basin and regional planning. Both the Federal Government and the States would have the opportunity to assume their responsibilities for their respective parts of a most important and complex problem and to coordinate them into an effective program. In New England an arrangement of this sort would be highly desirable. Several years ago, Connecticut was one of four States to adopt the northeastern water and related land resources compact, which would provide for a similar Federal-State mechanism. While we still support this compact and would like to see favorable action on it, we recognize that there is little likelihood that the northeastern compact legislation will be enacted in the 88th Congress. Consequently, we are deeply interested in the possibility of setting up a commission under title 2 of S. 1111, in which the States as well as the Federal Government could participate actively. Since the Senate has already passed the bill, our opportunity to benefit from this legislation depends on favorable and timely consideration by your committee and subsequent passage in the House. Please be assured of Connecticut's desire to see early enactment of S. 1111. Sincerely, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, JOHN DEMPSEY, Governor. STATE OF HAWAII, Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It is our understanding that S. 1111, the Water Resources Planning Act, has been passed by the Senate and is now under consideration by your committee. We in Hawaii are very much interested in the provisions contained in this bill and we actively support passage of this bill. There is a definite need for financial assistance to the States in the field of water resources planning. In recent years the State of Hawaii has established a State agency responsible for water resources planning and development. In 1957, while Hawaii was not yet a State, the territorial legislature expanded the scope of work of the Hawaii Irrigation Authority and established the Hawaii Water Authority as the agency responsible for overall water resources planning in Hawaii. Since statehood, the water agency has been placed within the department of land and natural resources as the division of water and land development. Our State is particularly interested in title III of bill S. 1111 which relates to financial assistance to the State for comprehensive planning. Our State, as well as others, needs to develop long-range, comprehensive water resources planning. In many instances of the past, due to the lack of funds, development of water has been on an as-needed basis and this approach has resulted in some cases in undesirable leap-frogging type of development. It is the aim of the State to develop a comprehensive water development plan for each of its counties. To date some progress has been made toward this end but because of financial limitations, our goals have not been realized. Under the provisions of title III of bill S. 1111, Hawaii would be eligible for yearly grants for developing comprehensive water resources plans and we are definitely in favor of this provision. From a national standpoint, Hawaii is in favor of the formation of the Water Resources Council provided for under title I of this bill. Although we are not contiguous with any other State, we believe that this Council would go a long way in coordinating water and land resources development throughout the Nation. With warm personal regards. May the Almighty be with you and yours always. Sincerely, JOHN A. BURNS. STATE OF INDIANA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. ASPINALL: This letter is to express support of S. 1111, which I understand is before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and on which public hearings are being held at the present time. The text of S. 1111 has been studied carefully by Indiana officials working in the water resources field. They have requested me to express their endorsement and support of this bill. The bill provides for more unified planning of our water resources programs, for adequate Federal-State cooperation, and would be a significant step forward in water resources development. It would also formalize many of the coordinating efforts that are being followed in carrying on the many river basin comprehensive surveys now underway. Sincerely, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, MATTHEW E. WELSH, Governor. STATE OF IOWA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Chairman of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. ASPINALL: This letter is in support of S. 1111, the proposed Water Resources Planning Act. All of us recognize the importance of planning for future uses of our natural resources. It is my belief that the procedures called for in S. 1111 as passed by the U.S. Senate in the first session of the 88th Congress, provide an adequate means whereby the States and the Federal Government can effectively carry out the responsibility of comprehensive river basin planning for water and related land resources. The bill provides for genuine Federal-State river basin commissions to serve as the principal agencies to coordinate Federal, State, interstate, and local water development plans. One of the most attractive aspects of the bill is that it appears to serve the Federal and State interests equitably in this are so vital to both. It is a definite improvement over the earlier versions S. 2246 and H.R. 8177. I hope that you and your committee can find it possible to concur in my views and arrive at a favorable report on S. 1111 essentially in the form passed by the Senate. Very truly yours, HAROLD E. HUGHES, Governor. EXECUTIVE OFFICE, STATE OF KANSAS, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, U.S. Representative, House Office Building, DEAR MR. ASPINALL: I should like to take this opportunity to urge that the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs give consideration to the early scheduling of hearings on S. 1111, the Water Resources Planning Act. I have previously contacted the Kansas congressional delegation indicating my support of this legislation which I believe would be a major advance in the direction of insuring that both national and regional water needs are given adequate consideration in planning for the development and utilization of this resource. |