« PreviousContinue »
I respect the right of these Federal attorneys to advocate this position. However, let us take the extreme position and say that the U.S. Supreme Court finally recognized this extreme doctrine which they profess, this would have no effect on this legislation. This would mean that these are legal problems or that these would be legal problems, that the persons sitting down together in these basin programs would have to live with.
The main thing is to get the water to use and to get it to where it is going to do the greatest amount of good. I think outside of our national defense that the question of water and the availability of water is probably the most important subject facing the people of the United States in the future.
Whatever a court would do I am not advocating this, and I hope the courts never do this—but if they did, even under this legislation we could live within it.
Mr. SAYLOR. I agree with you, sir, that water is a very important problem. Whether or not you know it, I happen to be that poor, benighted individual that listened to your predecessor when he sat in the same spot that you are now sitting, and I sat way down on the lower end of this committee, and he told me that there was no justiciable issue between the States of Arizona and California regarding the waters of the Colorado River, I informed him at that time that what he better do was either get another attorney general or get a lawyer that knew something about justiciable issues between the States.
At that point I think you will find that the record shows that I made a motion which said that this committee would hold no further hearings on the central Arizona project until the State of Arizona proceeded to the Federal court and came back with a decision.
I am very cognizant of what water means not only to the West but to all of the country. I might tell you that while you are very must in favor of this bill, this bill taken very literally, involves over the next10-year period a small token amount of $125 million. I get that figure by finding out that they are going to give $5 million a year to be divided among the States for each of the next 10 years, and they are going to take $71/2 million for the next 3 years or each of the next 3 years to come up with a program to operate the agency.
My experience in Washington has indicated to me that any agency that is authorized to get underway with $712 million a year never shrinks. It always grows. Some of them mushroomed growth. Therefore, taking a very conservative viewpoint, I come up in the next 10 years with $125 million in this bill.
The House Rules Committee has just refused to grant us a rule on S. 2, which involves $85 million to give to the States and the land-grant colleges in the respective States for the next period or number of years for research in water problems because the Federal Government has not budgeted it.
I would like you to tell us how, if we can't get an $85 million bill out of the Rules Committee, we are going to turn around and get a bill that has 50 percent more money in. It is nice to say this is a nice piece of legislation, but the Chief Executive has said agencies are going to tighten their belts, and we are to reduce Federal expenditures, and calling upon the Federal Government to spend $125 million in
the next 10 years may not be much in the growing State of Arizona, but back in Pennsylvania, it is a good amount of money.
Mr. PICKRELL. Like the Arizona State Legislature, the Congress must be the judge of the amount of money available. Dr. Wendell would like to say a word.
Mr. WENDELL. Congressman, I think in this respect if we all recognize, as I am sure we do, the value and importance of comprehensive water planning and of doing as much of it as we possibly can, there ought to be something from the budgetary point of view that ought to be of very great interest to Congress in this proposal as opposed to many of the others that have come before Congress in recent years.
The proposal for the river basin commissions, as it exists in title 2 of the bill, comprehends not Federal financing alone, but FederalState financing in order for there to be commissions under this particular bill.
It would be necessary in each instance for each of the State governments concerned with the particular river basin commission to help support it and in this respect it seems to me as though there is an additional recognition of responsibility here which is not entirely Federal and which from the point of view of the Federal Treasury offers, perhaps, a much better arrangement than complete dependence on what Congress may be able to appropriate at any given time for the financing of what is certainly a worthwhile effort, but if left to Federal financing alone, would have to compete, of course, with the many other demands on the Federal Treasury.
Mr. SAYLOR. Doctor, I might say if you would go along with an amendment to this bill which would abolish all water research programs in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of HEW, the Department of Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Science Foundation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, I am sure that we might find Congress very, very willing to buy the approach that you have just given.
Mr. WENDELL. Where within the Federal establishment Congress chooses to lodge the authority for research programs is something that I think we in the States wouldn't want to comment on at this time. This is a matter of internal operations of the Federal Government and for Congress in its wisdom to decide.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. WENDELL. No. The Council of State Governments is secretariat to the National Association of Attorneys General, so I appear here in a staff capacity with General Pickrell.
Mr. PICKRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There has been a quorum call. Mr. Wilm, we are going to have to answer a quorum call, and it is going to take a few minutes, but we will be back, if you will bear with us. The subcommittee will stand in recess until we get back.
(A brief recess was taken.)
Mr. ROGERS. The Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation will come to order for further consideration of pending business.
I believe our next witness is Mr. Harold Wilm, representing the Interstate Conference on Water Problems. Mr. Wilm, will you come to the witness stand and be recognized ?
STATEMENT OF HAROLD WILM, REPRESENTING INTERSTATE CON
FERENCE OF WATER PROBLEMS; ACCOMPANIED BY SAM THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN, MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Wilm. May I be accompanied by Sam Thompson, of Mississippi. Mr. ROGERS. Yes.
Mr. Wilm. In introducing my testimony perhaps it might be permitted to say as conservation commissioner of New York State, New York also strongly supports this bill. Governor Rockefeller wrote to Senator Jackson when S. 1111 was considered on the other side, and he has more recently authorized me to express the endorsement of the State of New York for the bill to your committee.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Wilm, do we have Mr. Thompson identified for the record? He is associated with you?
Mr. WILM. Through the Interstate Conference on Water Problems, Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Fine, you may proceed.
Mr. WILM. Speaking for the Interstate Conference on Water Problems, it gives us a great deal of pleasure to present our viewpoints on this very excellent bill. The Interstate Conference on Water Problems, associated with the Council of State Governments, is an organization of State officials concerned with all phases of water resources administration. It serves as a medium to facilitate cooperation, coordination, consultation, and exchange of information among State officials as to the conservation, use, development, and administration of water resources; the laws governing these matters; interstate and Federal-State relations in the field of water resources; and, to the extent feasible and desirable, to promote a consensus or harmonizing of State views.
In its comparatively few years of existence—the conference was organized in 1958—it has considered such subjects as strengthening State water resources agencies, research and data gathering, water pollution control, water rights, the proposed Land and Water Conservation Act and other subjects of major interest. During the past 3 years, the conference has devoted more time and attention to coordination of Federal and State water resources planning than to any other subject. Of course, the interest of the conference predated 1961. Following the introduction by Mr. Aspinall of H.R. 3704, the conference at its 1960 annual meeting adopted a resolution which read in part:
Now, therefore, be it resolved, That this third annual Interstate Conference on Water Problems urges the use of interstate-Federal compacts where appropriate and such other mechanisms as may be devised to produce coordination of activities within a definite and stable framework and in a manner which will provide responsible and equitable representation from State and Federal Governments and the continuing support of joint and cooperative ventures which can be satisfactorily achieved only if each government represented is and remains organically connected to the undertaking to a degree and in a manner fully commensurate with its interests and responsibilities.
Following introduction of H.R. 8177 and S. 2246 in mid-July 1961, the Council of State Governments, on July 31, sent to all Governors and State water resources administrators, as well as to other State officials and to State legislators, a memorandum calling attention to the legislation. In August 1961, the executive committee of the interstate conference communicated to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs initial reactions of State officials and legislators to S. 2246 when hearings were being held on the bill. At that time it was indicated that a detailed survey of State views was being made.
Later in 1961, a questionaire, prepared by the conference and the Council of State Governments, was sent to all Governors and State water resources administrators. It was an extensive one, running to many pages, asking for comment not only on the major provisions of H.R. 8177 and S. 2246, but asking also for comment on possible alternatives to such major provisions. Well over half the Governors, either directly or through their water resources administrators, had replied to the questionnaire when in January 1962, the interstate conference held its annual meeting in Dallas. At that meeting—one devoted primarily to coordination of water resources planning—Congressman Aspinall was one of the major speakers. Subsequently, the conference directed its executive and policy committees to conşult with appropriate persons in the Federal legislative and executive branches to try to revise the legislation to make it conform more closely to State views.
In March 1962, representatives of the conference again appeared before the Senaté Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. They offered for consideration a revised draft. At that hearing, the then chairman of the committee, Senator Clinton Anderson, directed that its staff work with representatives of the interstate conference to develop a bill which wouldlet State and Federal planners proceed to work out together, much-needed, comprehensive development plans.
I might interject at that time Governor Rockefeller wrote especially to Senator Anderson urging serious consideration of this revised draft, and as a consequence Senator Anderson with Governor Rockefeller's consent asked me particularly to work with the interstate conference people to work on the redrafting of the bill.
One year—and many drafts-later, in March 1963, S. 1111 was introduced. During that period many meetings had been held involving both State and Federal representatives—the latter including staff members of both the Senate and House Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs. Mr. McFarland was not able to attend every meeting, but he was kept fully informed of all developments. To make a long story short-and it has been a long story—the bill before you has been the subject of intensive consultation by representatives of both levels of government. That it is before you now is attributable to an exercise in good Federal-State cooperation. Having been a party to the development of this legislation, I should like to add that the Federal and State representatives with whom I worked showed a spirit of cooperation and understanding that Federal and State representatives on river basin commissions would do well to emulate.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation you are considering contains the basic principles advocated by the Interstate Conference on Water Problems. We, too, support the proposition that,
* conservation, development, and utilization of the 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.
With equal firmness we believe that this bill will make possible the realization of this objective.
Title II is that part of the bill with which the States are concerned most directly. It embodies the principle that river basin water and related land resources commissions are to be neither Federal nor State agencies, but joint agencies of the two levels of government. This is as it should be. Effective planning requires a recognition that major responsibilities in the development and management of our water and related land resources inhere in both the Federal Government and the States. This division of responsibility makes it necessary that the legal framework employed for planning purposes be truly FederalState in character.
The procedure for establishing a commission involves both levels of government. A commission would be established only with the concurrence of the Federal Water Resources Council and not less than one-half of the affected States. An escape clause is provided in the event that insufficient State concurrences are obtained within a reasonable time to effectuate a request of the Council that a commission be established. In such a case, the Council may recommend that "such planning as is otherwise authorized by law proceed."
May I interject again, Mr. Chairman, that this particular point seemed to arouse some discussion earlier today. I might suggest that a little more precise wording of this exact phrase be “such planning as is otherwise authorized by other law proceed." In other words, other planning if you don't have a commission established would be done under existing authorizations of other laws than this one.
Commissions would be made up of representatives of the Federal Government and the basin States and, where appropriate, interstate agencies and international commissions. Such representatives would be appointed by, responsible to, and compensated by their respective jurisdictions and agencies. Commissions would submit annual reports to the Council and the Governors of the participating States. Such reports would be transmitted through the President to the Congress. Proposed plans—or any major portion or revision thereof-would be sent for comment to each Federal agency, Governor and, where appropriate, interstate agency and international commission. Final plans would be submitted to the Council for transmission to the President and by him to the Congress, and to the Governors and legislatures of the participating States. At such time, the commission would also submit to the Council recommendations for continuing the functions of the commission and implementing the plan.
The joint Federal-State concept is carried out by providing that commission expenses be shared by the Federal Government and each of the participating States in such proportion as the commission shall determine. In the employment and utilization of personnel, too, the Federal-State nature of the commissions is to be seen. Commission