« PreviousContinue »
the President is authorized to declare for the establishment of a river basin water and related land resources commission. So this is something that the Secretary, that the draft men of this bill, had in mind, I take it.
Secretary UDALL. Yes. As I said earlier in my testimony, all of our resources are increasingly interrelated and complex, and this is the reason you need a forum where people can sit down and hammer out solutions.
Mr. DUNCAN. Does this bill include power planning and perhaps interbasin planning which I would say would become more important as the years go on?
Secretary UDALL. Yes; this does include that. I do not think there is any question at all. In fact, this committee has already acted on such proposals of interregional programs and programs between basins.
Mr. DUNCAN. So that as the years go on and our technology develops, we must lift the horizon at which we are aiming and this may be a device to help us do that.
Secretary UDALL. The two water bills which this committee acted on during the last Congress were transmountain diversion projects. So we are obviously entering into more and more of this type of water planning.
Mr. Duncan. I assume you have many problems in the Bureau of Reclamation that have developed as a result of the local group that started working for a single dam, and it eventually gets authorized and financed without basin planning. We still have some of that, do we not?
Secretary UDALL. This is the real thing the legislation is intended to do, to put this in the broader framework and give you a mechanism to fit into the broader plan.
Mr. DUNCAN. I think you said, in your earlier testimony, the creation of these commissions was optional with the States involved. Even should the States not make a request, does not the President have the power, upon recommendation of the Council, to still establish local commissions?
Secretary UDALL. As far as a particular interstate stream is concerned, this could only be done if more than half of the States involved agreed. In other words, this would be to prevent one State from blocking action merely to protect some selfish interest, perhaps.
Mr. Duncan. But still it would require 50 percent of the States in the area?
Secretary UDALL. Yes, the concurrence of.
Mr. DUNCAN. Even if the Council at the Federal level were to make a recommendation. I thought there was some language in here to the effect if an insufficient number of local signatures is not obtained, the President can still do it.
Secretary UDALL. This is a technical question. Mr. Caulfield, Director, Resources Program Staff, Department of the Interior, might want to answer.
Mr. CAULFIELD. The formal commission established by the President would be established with the recommendation of the Council and
have the States in the basin. Bearing that, you will notice on page 8 of the bill, starting at the bottom of page 7:
Whenever, within a reasonable time, sufficient concurrences by States are not obtained to effectuate a request of the Council that a commission be established, the Council may upon a finding of need recommend to the President that such planning as is otherwise authorized by law proceed.
Mr. DUNCAN. Without 50 percent?
Mr. CAULIFIELD. That is right. But the whole object here is to develop a cooperative scheme with the States, and it would be anticipated that many more than half of the States would go along if one were established.
Mr. DUNCAN. I see.
Mr. CAULFIELD. If there were a real division, it would not be feasible to have a commission under the circumstances, if you did not really have the States going along with you.
Mr. DUNCAN. I did not want to be in doubt about that part and I did not want the record to be unclear.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Secretary, I am always happy to see you before our committee. I am not sure that I fully get the purpose of this legislation. What are you seeking to accomplish by a council of this kind? What would you do that is not being done now in the field of development of water resources !
Secretary Udall. We would accomplish, basically, two things. Title I would establish legally a Federal Resources Council to coordinate Federal water policy, and this is a very serious problem. This has been much criticized and I think quite rightly.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Just elaborate a little on that.
Secretary UDALL. You know the responsibilities the Department of Interior has, the Corps of Engineers of the Department of the Army has, Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of Agriculture, and others have with water pollution.
This would set up a Federal Water Resources Council that would function in a regular way with established powers as provided just to coordinate Federal policy. That would be its only function.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Would each agency have to report to this Council and have its activities approved, and have its programs validated before proceeding.
Secretary UDALL. Each agency would have a representative on the Council and would have a vote. An agenda would be proposed from time to time on those matters which need to be coordinated. This would be a Council for making such decisions. We, as I discussed with one of the Congressmen earlier, already have and have to have an ad hoc organization to do this.
It usually ends up that when a tough problem comes up and there is a conflict between agencies, the Bureau of the Budget calls a meeting and we all go over and sit down and argue it out. And we either come to a conclusion or, in some instances, if necessary, the problem goes to the President, and he resolves it.
This would set up a Council in a systematic way by law.
Title II would enable the States and Federal Government to set up these river basin planning commissions. This would be similar to and
a little bit broader than the Upper Colorado commission, which was set up to produce the unanimity that resulted in the Upper Colorado council.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Would you say the main need would be for coordinating joint development of our water resources by the States? Secretary UDALL. No; I think title II is the most important.
I think in terms of looking to the future that title II is much more important, in my opinion.
Mr. CHENOWETH. When was this legislation first proposed ? Secretary UDALL. I think Teddy Roosevelt is the first one that talked about comprehensive planning. He thought you ought to look 50 years ahead and plan a river basin on the basis of foreseeable needs.
But in recent years Congressman Aspinall introduced a bill similar to this in 1959. President Kennedy proposed something similar to this in 1961. A lot of the State people felt that the Federal Government was too dominant, and this now represents a new bill which, I believe, is a Federal-State partnership approach.
Mr. CHENOWETH. How long has this proposal been pending before the Congress?
Secretary UDALL. It was submitted early in 1961, so it was before the last Congress. And we, I think, have taken most of the controversy out of it.
Mr. CHENOWETH. You mentioned something about 1959. Did the Eisenhower administration also consider this proposal ?
Secretary UDALL. It was very much discussed. I believe a similar bill was prepared under the Eisenhower administration, or similar proposals. Whether they reached the point of committee consideration or action, I do not know.
Mr. CHENOWETH. You are not sure whether the bill was actually introduced. It is immaterial, but I was just wondering about the background and history of this bill.
Secretary UDALL. I think this was a subject which was discussed a great deal in the last 2 or 3 years of the Eisenhower administration. Mr. Staats, who testified yesterday, after all held the same position in the previous administration, and he is a person who has been very close to water planning.
So I consider this something that is completely out of politics, as far as I am concerned. And I think both parties have made their contribution to it.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Is there substantial agreement among water groups on this legislation?
Secretary UDALL. I do not know who is scheduled to testify. I think you are going to find that most of these State people are now for this bill. Some of the people who had reservations 2 years ago now favor this legislation.
I think the dissent you find now is more to particular provisions which maybe the committee might want to refine a bit rather than saying that the overall idea is bad.
Mr. CHENOWETH. I get the impression from your comments that the opposition is gradually being overcome. Is that a fair inference?
Secretary UDALL. This has been my feeling. I think we may even get Congressman Saylor to agree with us in time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chenoweth, would you yield at that point ?
Mr. CHENOWETH. Yes.
Mr. ROGERS. The Secretary was assured that he could leave at 10 minutes to 11. I am sure there must be a lot of other questions by other members of the committee.
Mr. CHENOWETH. I had some other questions, but I will withhold them.
Mr. ROGERS. I regret there is not more time to go into it this morning. I am sure the Secretary will come back if it is necessary, and we will try to arrange another meeting.
Secretary UDALL. I appreciate the courtesy of the committee. I will be happy to come back.
Mr. ROGERS. We will advise you.
Mr. O'Brien, would you care to make a statement? Mr. O'Brien is one of the authors of the bill and is the author of the House bill. He is a member of the full committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. LEO W. O'BRIEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it will be a statement or an explanation. Mr. Haley said earlier in this hearing that he was glad to see some interest being shown in the eastern part of the United States. And while I am also happy to hear that, I note that the support from the State governments is hardly that parochial.
It swings all the way from New York to California and touches a number of important basins en route, including Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, and some others that I will not mention at this time. I had not expected to be the sole House author of this bill, Mr. Chairman, but in view of the fact that I am, I would like to point out that my interest was aroused not by the desire of anyone in the Federal Government to acquire a new bureaucracy or greater power, but I was approached by a number of people at the State level who were very much interested in this.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have always been a great believer in compromise. I think that we have before us this morning the result of a substantial amount of compromise. I think that what we have before us represents the views or the compromises, if you will, of a great many people at the State level.
Now my feeling is simply this: There is not a member of this committee who does not realize that we have an enormous and urgent problem, and I am beginning to realize at my age when you talk about the year 2000 it is not too far away. It is only 34 years away.
We are told that billions of dollars will have to be spent to correct what we did not take care of somewhere along the way. And I feel that while there are certain areas mentioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, perhaps they are partly out of bounds as far as the legislation is concerned, that we have a bill that will enable us to get along with what we have to get done rather than reject the whole matter because we cannot resolve every problem. And I also have the feeling there is no way under the sun that we can touch this problem at the Federal level alone, or State level alone, or even among cooperative groups of States among the various river basins.
It has to be done, in my opinion, by a partnership between the Federal Government and the States. I suggest that rather than look at all the things we cannot reach that we look at the substantial number of things we can reach, and get down to this legislation before our children suddenly discover the year 2000 is upon us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SAYLOR. I will say the statement fits the general suggestions of a partnership concerning rabbit sausage consisting of one mule and one rabbit. 'I am afraid that is about the percentage we are going to get, as far as the States are concerned.
Mr. O'BRIEN. I can only assume that when the gentleman mentions rabbits, he is talking about States. I have quite a lot of confidence in these particular rabbits. They have been gnawing away at this bill for a year or so now, and I think that they changed it in such a way that the rabbit gets a pretty good bite.
Mr. SAYLOR. Of course, we have the age-old story where the rabbit eats that little green grass, but you have the big mule that tramples all over the little rabbits and all their homes and hutches. I am a little disturbed about the partnership approach.
Mr. O'BRIEN. I might say further to the gentleman that if it is a matter of States rights, I will string along with you.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.
For our next witness we will have the Honorable James M. Quigley, Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Mr. Quigley, if you will come forward, you will be recognized
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. QUIGLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. Keith Krause, who is Chief, Technical Service Branch, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Department of of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement.
Mr. ROGERS. Do you desire to read that, Mr. Quigley, or do you want to brief it?
Mr. QUIGLEY. I think it is a short enough that I may save time by reading it rather than briefing it.
Mr. ROGER. All right, proceed.
Mr. QUIGLEY. My name is James M. Quigley. I am Assistant Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on H.R. 3620 and S. 1111 now before this committee.
Since the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1956, this Department has had a major role to perform in the development of the water resources of the Nation. This role was enlarged with the passage of certain amendments to Public Law 660 in 1961.
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, we are charged with the preparation and development of comprehensive programs for water pollution control and for advice and consultation