Senator JORDAN. I agree with you, Mr. Secretary. I hope we can arouse public sentiment to the point where they demand that whatever cost is necessary to restore this effluent to use by others be assessed against the users themselves and not pushed on downstream to others. I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Simpson.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this subject is so full of ramifications that we could take an awfully long time with it. I happened to be late, unfortunately, because of another committee meeting, but I want to compliment the chairman upon the conduct of these hearings because they are of tremendous importance.

I have a matter that is of current interest to us in Wyoming and, incidentally we have the same goal that the Senator from Idaho has with respect to pollution. Wyoming is abating the pollution both by cities and industry very well, and it is a matter of State law, with State health officials formulating the requirements, and they either meet them or they close down, and we are taking a pretty stringent stand on that.

But currently, as you well know and it must be as disheartening to you as it is to me, at Fontanelle Dam we are losing water today-not losing it but sending it down to Flaming Gorge. Fontanelle Dam almost went out, which posed a very serious situation to the people on the Green River. Fortunately the Bureau was able to channel some of this water down, and they are letting it out about 4 and 5 feet a day, a great expenditure of public money.

Then we had the same thing happen in Hot Springs County at Anchor Dam, where recently we have anticipated some $5 million. We have thrown in there about $50 million now and probably a lot more will be necessary because the whole thing went out.

Now I want to ask the question here, Anchor Dam was built over the protest of people who pointed out that there was an underground water source just below the dam which might cause all the water to be lost. That happened, but the Bureau refused to take it into consideration. Are we faulty in our inspection of these things, which are tremendously important out there? It is a matter of life and death to some. People had to swim for it to save themselves. Is there any way we can shore up our engineers or the inspection of these dams and get a better groundwork laid before the construction starts? What are we doing about the retention of water in that regard? Secretary UDALL. Senator, I talked with the top Bureau of Reclamation people yesterday about this Fontanelle Dam, which is a recently constructed one which developed a leak. Let me make two or three points.

I think that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers are today, in terms of the quality of work they do, the best dam builders in the world. I do not think there is any question about it.

You may have noticed, for example, in the last 5 or 6 years there have been several major dams lost in Italy, I think, one in France in the Alps and in other places of the world. There has not been a single major dam built that has been lost, you know, where you have had the collapse.

And I shared your concern with the Fontanelle Dam, because this is a dam that was built according to the latest, most modern methods, and in terms of the materials they used and how they built it, I have

gone over this with them, and this supposedly was one that was leakproof, and yet it suddenly developed what could have been a very serious and damaging leak.

They are trying to find out the cause of this. It is undoubtedly due to some geological factors that were not thoroughly investigated. Senator SIMPSON. That was true of Anchor, as you know, and we tried to warn them.

Secretary UDALL. Yes. I think what it proves is that we have got to do a better job of understanding the geological conditions. will say this about the Bureau of Reclamation. I know they are very thorough. I know the Corps of Engineers are too, because I have just gone through the Dickey Dam thing, looking over their shoulder, in terms of drilling, of finding out what geology is there, because, if you do not, a dam can collapse and the loss of life and the destruction can be tremendous, through man's error, and this should not happen.

But we are looking for the answer out there. I hope we find it. It may be difficult to determine, but we are going to try and correct it.

Senator SIMPSON. I thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. Secretary, let me explain I am not critical of the Army Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation. We cannot get along without them out there, and they do a tremendous service in the State of Wyoming. But two of these in Wyoming alone is disturbing, very disturbing, to the people. Fortunately Flaming Gorge will retain that excess water but the loss of Fontanelle Reservoir is going to give some trouble in a dry area now. I do not know how long it will take to repair the dam. I might ask, are they working to repair it now?

Secretary UDALL. They have the best people they have out there right now.

Senator SIMPSON. I was assured that by Mr. Bennett of Reclamation. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Simpson, and Secretary Udall and your colleagues. We wish to express our deep appreciation for the very fine contribution you have made here this morning. We know that you will continue to pursue this matter, and we look forward to meeting with you again after the first of the year when there will be more in the way of definitive proposals for the long-term solution. Thank you very much.

This afternoon at 2 o'clock Mr. Elmer Staats, Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget, will testify, as will Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Director of the Office of Science and Technology, and the science adviser to the President.

We stand in recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

This afternoon we resume our hearings on the problems of water, not only as it affects the Northeast, but the Nation as a whole, and we are very honored and pleased to have Mr. Elmer B. Staats, who is

Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget, as our witness this afternoon. Mr. Staats has had a long and distinguished career in the executive branch of the Government, the Bureau of the Budget, and is in unique position to represent the executive branch on this important problem.

Mr. Staats, if you will come forward and I believe you have a prepared statement.

STATEMENT OF ELMER B. STAATS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; ACCOMPANIED BY WESLEY K. SASAKI, ASSISTANT CHIEF, RESOURCES AND CIVIL WORKS DIVISION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; AND STEVEN DOLA, BUDGET EXAMINER, RESOURCES AND CIVIL WORKS DIVISION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET

Mr. STAATS. I do have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that you proceed in your own way and have your associates with you.

Mr. STAATS. I would like to introduce my associates here, Mr. Chairman. At my left is Mr. Wesley Sasaki, at my right, Mr. Steven Dola, with our Resources and Civil Works Division of the Bureau of the Budget.

I have a brief statement, Mr. Chairman, and after I have finished that, I would be very happy to try to answer any questions the committee may have on this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine.

Mr. STAATS. I welcome the invitation to participate in a discussion of the Northeast_water shortage and related water resources development matters. It is appropriate that hearings be held on this subject, for no longer is it open to question that the prolonged drought in the Northeastern United States is a matter of national concern.

The adverse consequences of the drought-economic, social, and personal-will continue to be felt in the months ahead and, like the recent flood disasters in the Northwest and Midwest, surely will have an impact throughout this country. In such circumstances, the Nation as a whole must-and the President has already pledged that the Nation will do whatever it can to supplement the substantial efforts of non-Federal interests to alleviate the present situation and minimize the probability of its recurrence.

Secretary Udall, acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Water Resources Council, has taken leadership in developing Federal actions to alleviate the immediate situation in the Northwest. The President's recent request for supplemental funds to accelerate planning and construction of reservoirs in the Delaware River Basin and to initiate a comprehensive survey of the Northeast; the timely and welcome initiative of the Delaware River Basin Commission; the forthcoming meeting of the Governors of the New England States to consider establishment of a river basin commission; the administration's renewed determination to make real progress in pollution control these developments, among others, have been ably summarized by the Secretary of the Interior, and will not be repeated by me. I would prefer, instead, to supplement his statement.

The Bureau of the Budget's interest and concern is primarily with the longer term water resources development opportunities and problems which, although typified by the situation in the Northeast, are by no means limited to that region. Indeed, only last week the counterpart of this committee in the House of Representatives held hearings on legislation concerned with the water problems of the Colorado River Basin. The Great Lakes, too, face a serious water problem. And so also do regions of the country dependent primarily upon ground water; uncontrolled mining of underground supplies and salt water intrusion pose a threat to established economies. The specter of pollution, of course, neither knows, nor respects, regional boundaries.

It is worth emphasizing, then, that the current, presumably temporary situation in the Northeast, which has focused so much attention and comment throughout the land, is serious, but by no means unique. Whatever action may be taken by the Congress to mitigate the drought may set the pattern for dealing with water shortages not only in the Northeast, but in other regions as well. In time of crisis there is a tendency to settle on what may appear to be relatively simple and direct solutions to our water problems, thereby overlooking equally valid and perhaps less costly alternatives.

Similarly, we must resist the temptation to lament the presumed lack of vision of those responsible for dealing with our water problems. Surely the record is not perfect. But State and local governments and private water companies have striven over the yearsmany of them succeeding admirably to provide good water service to their people, and Federal action, whatever it may be, should aim at encouraging and supplementing the progress made to date. Water supply traditionally has been, and no doubt will remain, largely a local responsibility.

Having urged that the problems of the Northeast be viewed in the context of the overall problems facing the Nation, I wish to repeat a suggestion made to this committee by the Bureau of the Budget in its May 10, 1965, report on S. 75 and S. 1019, similar bills to authorize the Lower Colorado River Basin project. We suggested then, and wish to affirm now, that this is the appropriate time to review the water resource development problems and opportunities of the Nation as a whole. Therefore, the Bureau recommends establishment of a National Water Commission to review water supplies and requirements on a national basis. Only a National Commission can effectively assess the many common aspects of water problems that we face, and only such a Commission can outline the consistent courses of action which must be followed if this Nation is to achieve the most efficient utilization of its precious water resources.

Establishment of a National Water Commission has strong administration support, and, since action cannot be taken too soon, we hope this suggestion will be carefully studied in the Congress.

The first order of business in any review of water supplies and requirements should be to make a comprehensive assessment of what portion of projected requirements can be met through the conservation and more efficient use of existing water supplies. Leakage from urban water distribution systems in the Northeast is as much a concern to the Nation as the significant losses from agricultural distribution systems supplying irrigation water in the arid West.

As we approach the day when our water supplies can no longer be taken for granted, universal water metering will be needed as well as experiments to reduce wasteful water use through alternative pricing policies. These are not new ideas. Indeed, more than a century ago, one of New York City's leading newspapers concluded that: The only reasonable method of preventing waste is to charge each house with the water that goes into that house, and the only possible method of ascertaining this quantity is to measure it * Then the amount of water that people are willing to pay for will be a very delicate test of what they want to use. Sooner or later, then, the effect of metering and pricing policies on water requirements may have to be reevaluated.

* *

Waste water purification and reuse will become an increasingly important means of mitigating the adverse consequences of droughts such as that in the Northeast, and, since it is a relatively low cost source of water, may in some cases delay the time when additional new sources need be developed. The effect of waste water purification and reuse on water requirements, therefore, needs careful study. Clearly, then, much more can and must be done to conserve and more efficiently use existing water supplies. There may come a day, however, when our best efforts are not enough, and development of major new sources of supply is necessary. Increasing consideration will then be given to interbasin and interstate diversions and to largescale desalting. As a matter of fact, desalting plants on both the east and west coasts are being seriously studied, and a major topic of discussion during the recent House hearings on the Lower Colorado Basin project legislation has been the possibility of importing additional water into the Colorado River from sources outside the basin. I need not tell this committee that such proposals-whether in the East or West-raise difficult problems needing the most careful study. nature and magnitude of compensation which may be appropriate involving interbasin or interstate diversions, for example, is an extremely difficult one. And, of course, the question of how best to finance such water resources developments also needs careful examination.

The

Comprehensive river basin planning has to a large degree eliminated the problem of how to operate storage reservoirs to maximize benefits from various water project purposes. However, as we continue to develop our water resources, we will need insight and wisdom—in the East, in the West and North and South-to achieve a proper balance between those who favor the full physical development of our rivers and those who favor the preservation of unique stretches of wilderness and natural beauty. The Nation should pause and reflect-as we are doing in the Potomac and as the administration has recommended that we do in the Colorado-before we commit outselves to actions which will forever change the character of our national parks and other places of rare and exceptional natural beauty, or which would deprive us of areas needed for the recreation of a rapidly growing population.

This brief summary of water resources problems facing the entire Nation serves to illustrate that projections of future water supplies and requirements will be an exceedingly difficult task. Granting this, however, one may well ask why it is that the administration believes that a national water commission is an appropriate vehicle