on the need for and value of providing storage for water quality control in all Federal reservoirs. The act requires that these responsibilities be carried out in cooperation with other Federal agencies and State and local interests.

In the previous Congress this Department endorsed and supported S. 2246, a similar bill, sponsored by the administration. The Department has consistently favored coordinated water resources planning and development.

We fully agree, therefore, Mr. Chairman, with the statement of policy set forth in section 2 of the bills that the conservation, development, and utilization of the water and related land resources of the United States should be planned on a comprehensive and coordinated basis with the cooperation of affected Federal agencies, States, local governments, and others concerned.

The formulation of desirable and appropriate patterns of coordination in water resources planning are of major concern to this Department in the discharge of its responsibilities under existing authorities.

Title I of the bill would establish a Water Resources Council, composed of the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, the Army, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and as passed in the Senate, S. 1111 includes the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, the chairman to be designated by the President.

The Council would be directed to maintain a continuing study of the water resources needs of the Nation. The Council would be empowered to establish, with the approval of the President, principles, standards, and procedures for Federal participants in the preparation of comprehensive regional or river-basin plans.

The Council would review plans submitted to it by river-basin commissions, make such changes in the plan as it deems appropriate and desirable in the national interest, and transmit it to the President, with comments of other Federal and State officials concerned.

The President would, in turn, review the plan and then transmit to Congress his recommendations regarding the authorization of Federal projects.

The Council should have adequate power to bring to bear on riverbasin plans submitted to it, the knowledge and experience of the major water resources development departments of the Federal Government.

S. 1111 authorizes the Council to revise plans for Federal projects intended to be proposed in any plan or revision thereof prepared by a river basin commission, a provision which is not included in H.R. 3620. We believe, Mr. Chairman, that this much authority, at least, is necessary if the Council is to give effective support to the objectives of the proposed Water Resources Planning Act.

Title II of the bill, Mr. Chairman, would provide for the establishment of river basin commissions to plan the comprehensive development of water and related land resources of river basins, regions, or groups of related river basins in the United States. S. 1111 refers to "areas" rather than "regions."

S. 1111 carries a proviso in section 201 that "wherever a river basin has been divided into subbasins by an act of Congress or by an interstate compact to which the consent of Congress has been given, each subbasin shall be treated as a separate basin."

The

Defining boundaries of river basins can be a complex matter. Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control has had considerable experience in this area in both our basic data program and comprehensive water pollution control planning programs. For this purpose, the country was divided into 17 distinct major river basins.

In turn, these 17 basins were divided into 272 minor basins which have been identified geographically and hydrologically as complete basins.

H.R. 3620 would provide that voting on a commission be only by the chairman, acting on behalf of the Federal members, and by the vice chairman, on instruction from the State members. S. 1111, as it passed the Senate, states that every reasonable endeavor shall be made in the work of a commission to arrive at a consensus of all members on all issues, but if that fails, full opportunity shall be afforded each member for the presentation and report of individual views.

When a commission fails to act by reason of absence of consensus, the position of the chairman, for Federal members, and the vice chairman, on instructions from the State members, shall be set forth in the record.

Differing viewpoints in the development of comprehensive riverbasin plans can best be resolved through discussion and compromise. The alinement of interests required by the voting provision of H.R. 3620 seems unsuitable for developing and arriving at a constructive program.

We view the provisions of S. 1111, encouraging consensus and affording the opportunity for the presentation of individual views, as far more conducive to the attainment of the proposed act's objectives than the voting procedure set out in H.R. 3620.

Title III would provide financial assistance to States for developing comprehensive water resources plans and participating in the development of comprehensive water resources plans. We certainly agree with the intent of these proposed bills that financial assistance to States would encourage the establishment of water resource planning agencies within the States.

In closing I can sum up my comments by indicating that the improved provisions of S. 1111 provide, in our estimation, an appropriate and desirable vehicle by which to achieve sound, coordinated comprehensive river basin water resources planning. We would, therefore, favor the enactment of S. 1111, as passed by the Senate, in preference to H.R. 3620.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Quigley.

Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. I have no questions.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Saylor?

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Quigley, it is always a pleasure to have a former Member of Congress before this committee.

Mr. QUIGLEY. It is always a pleasure to be here.

Mr. SAYLOR. We welcome you as a fellow Pennsylvanian occupying a rather hot seat, at the present time, in the Office of Health, Education, and Welfare on water matters.

Mr. Quigley, I know you and I have had a number of discussions with regard to certain people in your agency that have been operating under the Federal Water Control Act of 1956 as was amended in 1961.

Now, in view of the fact that you state in the third paragraph of your statement that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has consistently favored coordinated water resource planning development, how can you explain to this committee the action of some people in your agency in setting up a complete new system of collecting water data and calling it a nationwide grid? I believe you have about 100 stations collecting such information, while at the same time in the Department of the Interior the Office of Geological Survey has had for periods of upward of 60 years more than 1,200 stations where they have been collecting water data.

Apparently the empire builders that you have down in Health, Education, and Welfare have decided that they would like to set up a whole new group of standards. Why have not the people in Health, Education, and Welfare used the facilities of the Geological Survey?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Saylor, I hate to give you this answer, but these are the facts. The decision to do what is being done in the matter of collecting basic data under the water pollution control data was made in our Department in 1957, some 3 years before I arrived on the scene. Whether it was a wise or prudent decision, I will not say. But it was made by a previous administration. I, frankly, think that it was a justifiiable decision. I think the kind of data that the people in our basic data operations have to have, the timeliness with which it has to be collected and coordinated to meet the responsibilities that the Congress imposed upon our Department when it passed the Federal water pollution control law, requires us to collect the data we do in the manner in which we do it.

This has not been a wasted and needless duplication. I think this has been clearly demonstrated. Making reference to what Secretary Udall referred to about the ad hoc groups, in which they review these problems and seek to achieve coordination, we have, within the last year, sat down and gone over this whole business to see whether the same 120 basic data stations that we have operating under our water pollution control program in any way, shape, or form duplicate the works of the some 1,200 stations that are operated in the Geological Survey.

And in going over the map, considering the information that we gathered, where we gathered it, and considering the information that the Geological Survey has been gathering in its stations for several generations, the conclusion was that there was absolutely no duplication in the collection of information data or effort.

Now we clearly recognize that maybe this was just luck in many instances. We clearly recognize that the potential for wasteful duplication is there. But I think we are on guard against it. Whether this might have been done in a different way, whether in 1957 when the policy decision was made, it could have been made in a different way, I do not deny.

I do point out that this was a decision that was made by the previous administration. I happen to think that, all things considered, recognizing that it could have been done a different way, that the decision to do it the way it was done was a sound one.

I think the way the program has operated has been a sound one. I also point out that we clearly recognize that there is need for coordination of our efforts in this regard with the Department of the

Interior to avoid wasting the taxpayer's money on our gathering information which the Geological Survey could gather more quickly, more cheaply, or just as effectively.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Quigley, let me say that the mere fact that it was set up under a prior administration has never been any criteria to me. If you will check my record, I think you will find I have been just as free to criticize a Republican administration as I have a Democratic administration.

I still think that this is a duplication of effort. While it might not be at the same places, the facilities of the Geological Survey are available, were then, and should be used now.

Mr. QUIGLEY. They will be used now and in the future, where this is the sound approach to the problem. But I think, frankly, our Department under the water pollution control program has to operate on a relatively short notice in areas and in States where the Geological Survey traditionally does not function.

So it was a question of starting from scratch. Now, whether it. would have been better to cause the Geological Survey to start functioning in areas where this did not previously function, or whether the Public Health Service started it, I do not know. That decision could have been made either way. It was made one way. I think it was made wisely and soundly, and I think it has stood the test.

But I think clearly that we have to be on guard that we do not go in and set up a basic data station 3 miles from where the Geological Survey has been collecting information for 20 years.

We are alerted to this problem.

Mr. SAYLOR. I want to say to you, Mr. Quigley, that you have in your Department of Health, Education, and Welfare the best publicity group I think that exists in the Federal Government. They sell their bill of goods and they talk about their nationwide grid with 120 stations, while the Geological Survey with 10 times that many has never even referred to it as a "nationwide grid."

Now you heard the comments to my colleague from New York, who introduced the bill, that apparently your Department does not like the analogy I used-rabbit sausage-one rabbit and one mule. Your comments on page 2 clearly indicate to me that the Federal mule is going to take over completely, because you state that the Council will be "empowered to establish" and then, "The Council would review plans submitted to it by river basin commissions, make such changes in the plan as it deems appropriate and desirable in the national interest." In other words, this is a nice gesture to all of the States, but the final decision, according to your own statement, lies with the Council which is a Federal Council.

Mr. QUIGLEY. The final decision, Mr. Saylor, rests with the Congress of the United States. This whole evolution is nothing more than a planning operation. True, the Council does review and, true, the Council does make recommendations, but all of these recommendations are submitted to the President, who, in turn, makes his review and recommendation, and submits it to the Congress for the final judgment and its determination.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Quigley, there appeared a piece in a recent issue of the Saturday Evening Post by the former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and now the distinguished U.S. Senator from

the State of Connecticut, the Honorable Abraham Ribicoff, in which he pointed out just the very thing that you have so well enunciated that Congress itself has lost complete control of all these programs, that what this bill is doing is setting up such a groundwork by the executive agencies themselves, that when they present it you have closed up every available loophole that Congress might look to, and decide on its own.

And that what you and the agencies, particularly this Council intend to do, is to completely review it, present it to the executive branch of the Government as a fait accompli, and then with great magnanimity come up and say to the Congress, "Now this is what we want.” Now, Mr. Ribicoff complained about this and said it is about time Congress takes back its responsibilities and does not ask the various States and the various councils and the executive branch of Government what they should do, but that they should do it on their own.

For that reason, this bill, says at the top of page 3, "The Council should have adequate power to bring to bear on river basin plans submitted to it, the knowledge and the experience of the major water resources development departments.”

In other words, if the major water resource developments which have occurred now in the Pacific Northwest, the Columbia River Basin, and in the Colorado River, set up certain policies, those policies are going to be the ones which the Council will follow.

They will bring it to bear whether it is on the Mississippi, the Missouri, the Ohio, the Delaware, or any other one of the river basins that you have established. I would like to have you comment on that.

Mr. QUIGLEY. No; I think all that statement says is that the Council will have the benefit of the knowledge and experience that the Department of Interior has accumulated over several generations, will have the knowledge and experience that our Department has accumulated in water pollution matters over the last generation, will have the knowledge and the experience of the Corps of Engineers, who have been involved in river work since before we were even a country, really, will have the knowledge and experience of the Federal Power Commission and the Department of Agriculture.

There is no point in having this knowledge and experience available in the Federal Government, if the Council is not in a position to take advantage of it so that we can have an intelligent, knowledgeable review of the proposals and plans submitted, and pass these comments on to the President of the United States for submission to the Congress. In other words, this is not intended to be a narrow, limited view by somebody in Health, Education, and Welfare, or a similar, narrow, limited view by just someone in Interior. The Council is intended, is designed, and the bill is intended to provide that the Council should have the advantage of a variety of views, and knowledge and experience that the Federal Government and its various agencies have acquired over a period of time.

This is all that is implied or suggested by that particular part of testimony.

my

Mr. SAYLOR. If that is the case, then why do you prefer the alinement of Interior for voting as set forth in S. 1111 rather than the alinement for giving the States the greater authority as set up in Mr. O'Brien's bill, H.R. 3620.