(The documents referred to follow :) STATEMENT OF IVAL V. GOSLIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION The title of S. 21 describes the purpose of the proposed legislation by saying that it is a bill to provide for the optimum development of the Nation's natural resources through the coordinated planning of water and related land resources, through the establishment of a water resources council and river basin commissions, and by providing financial assistance to the States in order to increase State participation in such planning. Thus, the intent of S. 21 is to provide congressionally approved administrative policy and operative machinery to implement a comprehensive basin-wide concept of planning the development of our Nation's water and related land resources. The idea of comprehensive river basin planning is not new. This concept was recognized early by those interested in the conservation and utilization of our natural resources as a method that would provide the optimum in benefits to the most people for the longest time. The first official expression of this idea in the United States has probably been lost in the Nations' early history. During the past 50 years many economic and social forces related to a rapidly increasing population and high standards of living have caused our planners to look again and again at the manner in which we are utilizing our resources in order to devise ways of deriving optimum benefits therefrom, and at the same time enhancing their conservation. The more recent incentives for comprehensive basin-wide water resources planning legislation have undoubtedly sprung from the seeds planted by the Hoover Commission Report, which in 1955 proposed the creation of a water resources board to establish basin commissions to represent Federal, State, and private interests; the report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources in 1961; various studies and reports of the Federal and State governments directly concerned with water conservation projects; the recent lawsuit, Arizona v. California, which gave impetus to the Pacific Southwest Water Plan; activities of many national and State organizations; and the general public's growing awareness of the seriousnes of water problems— locally, statewide, and nationally. Bills antecedent to S. 21 include the following: (a) H.R. 3704 (Aspinall) of the 86th Congress, which, had it been enacted, would have authorized the establishment of water resources commissions. (b) H.R. 2202 (Aspinall) and H.R. 2287 (Saylor) of the 87th Congress were reintroduced versions of H.R. 3704. (c) A draft bill prepared during the Eisenhower administration and transmitted to the Congress in January 1961 by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget would have established regional or river basin water resources commissions. This draft bill evolved into title I of the presently proposed Water Resources Planning Act of S. 21. (d) S. 1778 (Kerr and Case) of the 87th Congress would have authorized a presidentially appointed water resources planning board and $5 million per year for grants to States for 10 years to assist them in developing plans. (e) S. 1629 (Anderson and 15 Senators) of the 87th Congress would have authorized $5 million per year for 10 years as grants to the States to assist them in planning. S. 1629 and S. 1778 were predecessors to title III of the present version of the proposed legislation. (f) S. 2246 (Anderson) and H.R. 8177 (Aspinall), the proposed Water Resources Planning Act of 1961, were sent to Congress by President Kennedy and introduced by the sponsors in July 1961. (g) S. 1111 (Anderson) and H.R. 3620 (O'Brien) of the 88th Congress are the direct antecedents of S. 21; although there have been certain revisions. S. 1111 was passed by the Senate on December 4, 1963. It was reported on September 2, 1964, with amendments by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. From this brief summary of recent background it is reasonable to conclude that S. 21 has evolved as a bipartisan proposal. Furthermore, the legislation has had nationwide support. According to the Senate committee report on S. 1111 of the 88th Congress, officials of 33 States supported the bill, six others gave it qualified endorsements, three opposed it, and eight States did not comment. The proposed Water Resources Planning Act would be for all 50 States, plus Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands-not for the Western States alone. It is needed in some areas to a greater degree than in others. As pointed out by the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources, in spite of all the steps that have been taken in the past at the National, State, and local levels to improve water resources planning, there is still much to be desired. State and local agencies still play minor roles in many important water resource decisions. Many States have poor organizations for long-range planning, and their water resources agencies lack financial support. Some States even appear to lack the proper agencies to effectively do their share in the overall planning job. In many instances initiative in planning rests with the Federal agencies. States and local governments are often in a position of having to approve or reject plans without having made adequate studies necessary for major decisions in the field of water resources. Lack of organization, etc., are not true in all instances. For example, many of the States in the West are keenly aware of their water problems and are striving actively to improve their planning procedures. S. 21 seems to be soundly predicated upon the idea that a major improvement in State participation can be fostered by making Federal funds available to the States for a limited period of years to assist them in participating and developing comprehensive river basin plans. Perhaps S. 21 should be regarded as a medium through which States may be able to stimulate their own people and their own agencies to participate more vigorously in planning. A comparable precedent in this regard can be observed in the results that have been achieved under the Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, which provides for similar grants-in-aid to the States for their participation in public health programs or in the field of urban planning under the Housing Act of 1954. In almost every State utilizing these programs grants have been helpful in stimulating State agencies to the point where they have been able to command increasing State financial support. One of the most meritorious aspects of S. 21 is that it recognizes that Federal, State, and local governments will all participate so far as water resources planning is concerned. S. 21 should also be a major step in more effectively utilizing the interrelated activities of the various Federal departments. The proposed legislation does not affect the issue of Federal versus State rights, responsibilities, or prerogatives with regard to water. It is intended to permit comprehensive river basin planning without affecting the States' water rights issue. A great deal of the basis of the argument against previous draft bills concerning Federal domination of the river basin planning commissions has been eliminated from S. 21. For this reason S. 21 provides for Federal-State cooperation in planning to a much greater degree than any former similar legislation. The Senate, before passing S. 1111 of the 88th Congress in 1963 added a proviso as follows: "Provided, That for the purposes of this Act 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 Upper Colorado River Commission, representing the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming in matters pertaining to the Upper Colorado River Basin, endorsed the above proviso. The overall conditions in the Colorado River Basin are unique when compared with other river basins in the Nation. An interstate compact has apportioned the water of the river system between two subbasins (upper basin, and lower basin) in such a manner that each subbasin, for all practical purposes, is a river basin within itself. Physical, geographical, and hydrologic conditions within the Colorado River Basin also effectively divide that basin into the two subbasins so far as water resources planning and development are concerned. In addition, another interstate compact, the Upper Colorado River Basin compact, has apportioned the water allocated to the upper basin by the Colorado River compact among the States of the upper basin and established the Upper Colorado River Commission as an administrative agency. This commission, in cooperation with Federal agencies, has played a major role in planning the development of the water resources of the four States of the upper basin. Furthermore, the Congress when it enacted the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, one of the Nation's major water resources development plans, recognized that political and physical conditions effectively divided the basin into the two subbasins mentioned. Coordinated river basin planning, such as that contemplated under S. 21, should recognize the specific terms of existing compacts which have subdivided the Colorado River Basin into subbasins. Both of the compacts mentioned above have had consent of the Congress. Because of dangers inherent in superior political power in one subbasin it is believed that the preservation of these compact-created subbasins, each with its own peculiar problems, would be essential for a practicable administration of water resources planning procedures. In the 2d session of the 88th Congress the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs reported S. 1111 after deleting the desired proviso from the Senate-passed bill. The House committee interpreted the proviso as forbidding the establishment of planning commissions covering a broader area than a subbasin in certain cases. The subcommittee evidently believed that if this were true it would forestall the preparation of plans covering a group of related subbasins or basins, that it was too restrictive, and was inconsistent with other language authorizing the establishment of a commission for a "group of related river basins." On November 5, 1964, the Upper Colorado River Commission reaffirmed its position that a Water Resources Planning Act should contain language similar to that of the proviso in section 201(a) of S. 1111 as passed by the Senate in the 88th Congress. I am sure that it is not the intention to make this proviso applicable to basins other than the Colorado River Basin with its unique legal and physical divisions into two compact-created subbasins, especially if other river basins do not want such a proviso; nor is it the intention to preclude the preparation of comprehensive plans covering a group of related subbasins or basins, because it is generally recognized that to resolve the water deficiency problems of the Colorado River Basin it is going to be necessary to develop and effectuate plans involving adjacent river basins. It is believed that some type of legislative recognition is necessary in order to preserve the independence of the water resource planning in the upper basin of the Colorado River, whose past, currently authorized, and presently planned development constitutes less than half of its legal entitlement, from that of the lower basin with its superior political power and the major portion of its compact-apportioned Colorado River water already in use. Such legislative recognition in the Water Resources Planning Act would certainly be in accordance with the Boulder Canyon Project Act, Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. California, documents that are unique to the lower basin; with the Upper Colorado River Basin compact, and Colorado River Storage Project Act, that are pertinent to the upper basin; and with the Colorado River compact and Mexican Water Treaty, the terms of which involve both subbasins. The proviso from S. 1111, as passed by the Senate in the 88th Congress and that preserves the planning identity and independence of the upper basin, can be reworded to apply only to the Colorado River Basin with the understanding that plans for both subbasins could be integrated into a comprehensive plan for the entire river basin, or for two or more subbasins, or river basins, if such integration proves to be desirable or necessary. It is apparent that some of the objections to the proviso may have been raised by those who do not have a full understanding of the physical, geographic, hydrologic and political problems that have been encountered in bringing the development of the upper basin to its present status; furthermore, the possibilities for future dilemmas and controversies may not be fully understood. The geographical area of either the upper or lower basins of the Colorado River is of sufficient magnitude to justify a separate river basin commission for each, with the understanding that the plans could be integrated into a master plan for the entire basin and with adjacent basins. Physical, hydrologic, economic and cultural conditions in the two subbasins are sufficiently different to warrant keeping separate the identity and independence of planning activities. The present relative status of water resource development in the two subbasins and the anticipated rate of development of the remaining resource lead one to the same conclusion. The language of the Senate bill of the 88th Congress is fair to both the upper and lower basins. In order to make the language of the current bill S. 21 applicable to the Colorado River Basin exclusively, the following proviso is suggested: "Provided, That the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin of the Colorado River Basin shall each be treated as a separate basin for the purposes of this Act." Viewing the water resource problems of the Nation as a whole the general terms of the proposed Water Resources Planning Act are regarded as constructive and desirable legislation that is needed in varying degrees in different parts of our country. It has had prolonged and serious consideration by many interested agencies and individuals as well as by the Senate and House Interior and Insular Affairs Committees. On behalf of the Upper Colorado River Commission and myself personally, thanks for the opportunity to present this statement and the views contained herein. Senator WALLACE F. BENNETT, THE UTAH WATER & POWER BOARD, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: We have studied the new versions of the Water Resources Planning Act (S. 21 and H.R. 1111). It continues to be the position of the board that the purposes of this legislation are desirable but safeguards should be provided that will assure the autonomy of the Upper Colorado River Commission and also protect the compact commitments arrived at on the Colorado River. Accordingly, it is the board's recommendation, which we believe has the support of Governor Rampton, that S. 21 and H.R. 1111, be amended at section 201(a), and the following language inserted: "Provided, That for the purposes of this Act 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." Your cooperation and help in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, JAY R. BINGHAM, Executive Director. CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are pleased to reaffirm our support of S. 21, which provides for the optimum development and coordinated planning of water and related land resources. We would be less than candid if we indicated to you that this measure fulfilled our complete hopes and aspirations, but we further contend that it is an excellent method for initiating comprehensive planning of our river basin and land related resources. The two salient features of the measure that are most appealing to us are first the provision for financial assistance to the States which will increase their participation in such planning and, secondly the wide representation which is provided for, not only in the council but for the regional river basin commissions. While this does require a consensus of what may prove to be a widely divergent use, this is true in any event; the achievement of the proposed procedures over the present system is the opportunity for full participation by the public in determining the optimum use of these resources. We feel this is a significant step forward and does provide the appropriate vehicle for both recognizing, as well as dealing with the broadened and complex uses of land and water. We hope that this proposal will receive the support of the Senate at an early date. If it is possible we would appreciate these remarks being included in the record of the committee's deliberations at the appropriate point. Cordially, SPENCER M. SMITH, Jr., Secretary. AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION, Hon. HENRY JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: American Public Power Association would like to record its support for the Water Resources Planning Act presently under consideration by your committee. The association has long been on record for comprehensive planning and development of the Nation's water resources, and we view enactment of S. 21 as another step toward this goal. In past years APPA has presented testimony as to the basis for its support of similar proposals, and that testimony is a matter of public record. Suffice it to say that the association sincerely hopes that the Congress will soon enact this legislation so that: (1) the States and the Federal Government can move ahead with coordinated planning and development of the water resources of the Nation; (2) the Federal agencies involved in water resources development can more readily coordinate their activities; and (3) a basis for overall review of the Nation's water resources development can be established. Support of S. 21, however, should not preclude establishment of a natural resources and conservation planning and coordinating unit in the Executive Office of the President, as proposed in S. 938, recently introduced by Senator McGovern and 15 other Senators. While coordinated planning and development of the Nation's water resources is essential to the welfare of the country, it is as necessary that the broad resources picture be brought into a similar focus. The council of resources advisors, as proposed by Senator McGovern, would review the availability and requirements of all the Nation's vital resources: land, air, minerals, timber, etc. APPA would hope that, once your committee has completed consideration of the present legislation, it would begin consideration of the bill introduced by Senator McGovern. Sincerely, ALEX RADIN. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, Washington, D.C., February 9, 1965. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: We respectfully invite your attention to the general policy position of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations regarding S. 21. The program envisioned by this bill was endorsed by the Commission at its meeting on June 27-28, 1963. In a letter dated July 2, 1963, subsequently included in the record of committee hearings, we informed you of this position. At that time we made a number of suggestions designed to strengthen the intergovernmental aspects of the proposed legislation. A number of these are included in the present bill. At this time we would like to reemphasize the basic position stated by the Commission 2 years ago: “*** we believe that the concept of Federal-State cooperation in river basin planning and development, as proposed in the bill, is not only desirable but consistent with sound principles of intergovernmental relations in our Federal system." As you know, the Advisory Commission is a permanent, bipartisan body established by the Congress to give continuing study to the relationships among local, State, and National levels of government. Its members are drawn from leading officials of State, city, and county governments, the Congress and Federal executive branch, and the general public. Accordingly, we urge your favorable consideration of S. 21 and ask that this letter be incorporated in the record of any future hearings on the measure. Sincerely yours, FRANK BANE, Chairman. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The National Wildlife Federation is pleased at the invitation and opportunity to comment briefly upon S. 21, "To provide for the optimum development of the Nation's natural resources through the coordinated planning of water and related land resources, through the establishment of a |