in the university is very different because they get far more information that they are actually providing resources for.

Mr. JOHNSON. I notice serving in the Government at both the State level and here that any problem we have out there, whether it relates to the State or another public agency such as the Metropolitan Water District, or our various irrigation districts or almost any other concerning water, whether it relates to a city or county, the University of California is always brought into it. You say, "Here is the knowledge that has been given to us from various programs in the way of research that concerns your immediate project."

Dr. ALDRICH. This is a very good example, Congressman, of the value of fundamental research. It has its impact across all kinds of applied problems. If you were to devote research specifically to a very local applied problem then the opportunity to extend the information to other situations becomes more limited. The value of fundamental research is that it is pertinent to a wide variety of areas with very many circumstances prevailing.

This is why the university is generally brought into problems relating to water, regardless of the agency involved.

Mr. JOHNSON. I want to thank you, Dr. Morgan, you and your group, and if there are no further questions on the part of any members of the committee, or the staff

Dr. MORGAN. Our thanks to you, sir, and the committee.

Mr. JOHNSON. The next witness is Dr. E. Roy Tinney from Pullman, Wash., representing the Washington State University.

STATEMENT OF E. ROY TINNEY, PULLMAN, WASH., ON BEHALF OF WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. TINNEY. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will read only excerpts from my prepared statement and then add a few remarks regarding this problem of duplication.

Mr. JOHNSON. Dr. Tinney, I imagine you would want your full statement shown in the record at this point.

Mr. TINNEY. Yes, sir, if it could be.

Mr. JOHNSON. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. TINNEY. My name is E. Roy Tinney. I am professor of civil engineering, head of the Albrook Hydraulic Laboratory, and chairman of the technical committee of the Water Research Center, all at Washington State University, Pullman, Wash. Beyond our campus, I am the incoming chairman of the Hydromechanics Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers and a delegate to the Universities Council on Hydrology.

I am appearing here today in support of bill S. 2 which passed the Senate in April of this year. My testimony will consist of a short general statement on water resources followed by specific reference to my home State and finally some brief remarks on the details of the bill.

The United States as a whole receives an abundant supply of precipitation. The average value of 30 inches per year is far more than will be required in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the Nation faces a serious water problem, because water is frequently neither available at the places and times required nor is it of the quality necessary for health and prosperity.

Shortages, excesses, and poor quality of water have noticeably af fected the economy of almost every State in the Union. It may be hurricane-induced floods in Connecticut, or estuarial pollution in New Jersey, or drainage in Florida, or floods in Mississippi, or empty reservoirs in New Mexico, or salt in Arizona, or ground water depletion in southern California, or floods in western Washington and northern Idaho, but the result is the same each State feels the economic burden of water problems. The national water problem is in reality a tremendous number and wide variety of local problems.

The Federal Government, primarily through the large construction agencies, has traditionally played a major role in water resource development. However, lack of knowledge on the interrelationships among the many variables affecting our water resource has prevented a good evaluation of future needs. We are, therefore, falling constantly behind in meeting the water demand. Bill S. 2 is a modest step toward finding these relationships.

Generally speaking, the need for 50 or less water research centers that bill S. 2 provides can be summarized as follows:

(1) Water resources affect every segment of our society and yet there are few water research programs either Federal or State, that treat this resource from a broad, multidiscipline viewpoint. The various governmental agencies each have specific objectives which are reflected in the research programs they support. Bill S. 2, on the other hand, is directed specifically toward the interdisciplinary approach. (2) Each State must strive toward optimizing its own water resources, keeping always in mind the great advantages of interstate cooperation. Just as climate, soil, transportation and markets determine a State's agricultural program so do abundance, quality, distribution and demand for water dictate its water resource development. Thus each State's water problem requires its own evaluation and research program. The proposed centers would provide for this individual approach by bringing not only local knowledge to bear on the problems, but, more importantly, local interest and enthusiasm. Thus bill S. 2 takes advantage of the expertise developed throughout the land.

(3) One of the most serious difficulties in developing water resources is the shortage of trained personnel. Indeed most water research centers will confront this shortage in their formative stages and will have to rely at first on the nucleus of staff currently at hand.

Research centers at universities have the unique capacity, however, of not only conducting research but also of simultaneously training young men and women. The very existence of these centers on the campuses of our Nation will be a buoyant factor raising the interest in water resources among graduate students. These centers will also offer direct research experience and, incidentally, some financial support by part-time employment to those students who have chosen some area of water resources for their careers.

Now let me turn to the State of Washington for a moment, because the water resources picture there provides a good example of the need for water research centers.

Washington is fortunate in having an enormous water supply, much of it of excellent quality. The mean daily runoff originating in the State is 68 billion gallons. (Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1,800, 1963, p. 906.) On the basis of 1,500 gallons total water with

drawal per capita per day (Geological Survey Circular 456, 1960, p. 8) one-third of this runoff alone would support a population of 15 million. This is more than 5 times the 1959 population of 2,883,000 and 3.4 times the projected 1980 population of 4,430,000. This still leaves two-thirds of this runoff plus all the inflow into the State for on-site and flow uses.

There are many varied and oftentimes conflicting demands for this excellent water supply. The hydropower potential has been estimated as 40 percent of the Nation's total (Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources, Committee Print No. 6, January 1960, p. 368). This cheap power supply has resulted in a per capita electrical consumption in our State that is 22 times the national average. We also have over a million acres under irrigation with an additional 2 million irrigable acres awaiting development.

Our industry uses 1.2 billion gallons daily, half of it for pulp and paper plants. The huge wildlife population requires a well managed habitat dependent on an abundant water supply. Our half million sportsmen spend approximately $84 million per year in pursuit of their favorite game animals, birds, and fish. Water-based recreation is developing rapidly on our large natural and artificial lakes, which are also a significant factor in the growth of tourism, now the fourth largest industry in Washington.

Our great river system is used extensively for navigation and fish migration as well. The main stem of the Columbia River is also used for cooling the nuclear reactors at the Hanford plutonium plant, for many years a central feature of our defense system and now the site of construction for the world's largest power reactor.

This brief sketch gives some idea of the immense size of our water supply, the multiplicity of demands on it, and the essential role it plays in our economy. We must develop this huge resource not only as a subsidiary feature of other activities but also as an exportable raw material itself. The following illustration will clarify this point.

With such a tremendous supply it is quite conceivable to export water from Washington to the arid South, even as far as the Mexican border some 1,200 airline miles away, mostly by existing natural watercourses. Suppose we exported 10 million acre-feet per year of the spring runoff, or 9 billion gallons daily on the average. This is less than one-seventh of the runoff originating in Washington. If this amount of water were diverted at the 2,000-foot level, the loss in potential power generation would be about $74 million per year based on a 4 mill per kilowatt-hour at-site power value. But the five arid Southwest States (Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) would each receive 2 million acre-feet of water per year. The value of this water, based on $65 per acre-foot or 20 cents per thousand gallons. which is cheap for industry, recreation, or domestic use, would be $650 million per year. This is nearly 9 times the value of the potential power loss.

A

Such a scheme is not as farfetched as it might first appear. yearly return of $650 million would amortize this scheme, pay the pumping costs to lift the water to the highlands, and pay for the lost power generation as well. There is no single engineering factor preventing such a large development. Indeed the U.S.S.R. is planning schemes on the Ob and Yenisei Rivers more than 10 times this size (Ravelle, Scientific American. September 1963, p. 106).

The question is "How soon will a north-south diversion be necessary?" The Governor of Arizona reported to the Senate select committee in 1959, for example, a need for 3.5 million additional acre-feet of water per year by 1980, more than a 50-percent increase over the total present demand of the State and more than the scheme described earlier would provide.

Such a scheme raises many general issues and technical points that must be investigated by research teams representing many disciplines. For example:

(1) How much water can the areas of water surplus export to their advantage and what local problems will diversion create? This question must be treated from a socio-political-legal viewpoint as well as from the economic and technical standpoint.

(2) Will the use pattern alter if large quantities of water are made available to the arid areas and what new demands will accompany this change in use?

(3) What population shifts follow changes in water availability? (4) What are the institutional requirements, particularly legal and political, of such schemes?

There are, in addition, some technical aspects to be investigated such as economical methods of storing water, the physical and ecological dynamics of huge reservoirs, the best method of conveying water very long distances, the reduction of evaporation and seepage losses, and the design of extremely large pumping plants.

This example is only one of several imaginative schemes to rectify the present extremely uneven distribution of water. Research on a variety of ideas must be started, if we are to prevent the water deficit in the arid areas from increasing. We must train young men and women with the vision and skill to develop new concepts and new approaches. We particularly need new methodology for investigating water development, probably including the use of modern branches of higher mathematics and large, high-speed computers.

Compared to the magnitude of our present $10 billion annual capital expenditure on water and the benefit to the Nation from the type of scheme just described, the $20 million annual budget in bill S. 2 is small indeed. Certainly, the return to the Nation could be expected to far exceed this investment in research and training.

Finally let me make some comparisons between the size of the budget we might expect, if this legislation passes, and the present budget at my home institution.

Section 100 (a) of the bill provides a maximum of $100,000 per year without requiring specification of the projects. This money would probably be used for the administration of the center including the salaries of the director and his assistants, auxiliary services such as a library on water resources, and for projects not eligible under the matching provision. This is a modest figure, even for a small university. In fact, it is only one-third of the present annual budget I am currently supervising in our hydraulic research laboratory. We might also expect an additional $100,000 from each of sections 100 (b) and 200 bringing the estimated total Federal support on our campus to $300,000 per year. This is less than one-third of the water research funds that we now spend annually. It would, however, raise the present Federal support for the water research program on our

campus from the present very small 8.5 percent to a more realistic 28 percent.

In summary, this bill provides for much needed research on a modest scale at institutions that are in a unique position to make a twofold contribution in research and education. We at Washington State University feel that this is a sound approach to the protection and development of our great water resource.

Now, with regard to possible duplication of research effort, this problem is always one of proper concern to research workers as well as to administrators and legislators. Admittedly, duplication may exist in classified research programs, particularly in the glamorous fields. In natural resources, however, especially in the more mundane topics such as water, this is extremely unlikely.

There are in fact four mechanisms to prevent significant duplication in the proposed S. 2 program. First, university scholars working in the unclassified areas are extremely reluctant to carry on a research project that has any appearance of duplication. Faculty members are encouraged, perhaps pressured to publish their findings in reputable journals. Publishing results that have appeared elsewhere however is extremely damaging to one's reputation. A thorough acquaintance with prior work is the sine qua non of any reputable research effort.

Secondly, in addition to publications there are many conferences on water resources to keep one abreast of recent findings. For example. it was possible for me to attend three such conferences this summer at Las Cruzes, Denver, and Fort Collins. We at Washington State University are holding, jointly with the American Geophysical Union. another water conference at the end of October for those in this field in the Pacific Northwest. Such conferences make it possible for everyone to take advantage of the work of others and to avoid accidental duplication.

Thirdly, as I understand the workings of this proposed program as explained in the earlier testimony by the Secretary of the Interior, the actual individual projects would be reviewed by the Department of the Interior and its consultants before authorization. If this is done as it is now done by the National Science Foundation, for example, duplication is quite unlikely.

The National Science Foundation has all proposals carefully reviewed and evaluated and at least in those areas with which I am familiar, there is no evidence of duplication. Moreover, the national science program is many times larger than the proposed S. 2 program. so the latter should be much easier to administrate and check.

Fourthly, and finally, bill S. 2 speaks specifically to this point emphasizing under section 300 that this new program "will supplement and not duplicate established water research programs." Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Tinney, for a very fine statement. There is one matter we would like to clear up, and that is the grants from the National Science Foundation to your university. Is that a 3-year grant or a 1-year grant? The figures that were quoted this morning?

Dr. TINNEY. As of last year we have a $16,000 grant for that year. I think actually it was a 3-year grant, but it was $16,000 per year, as I recall.