PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS Mr. MAUGHAN. On the principles and standards, which relates to the subject we just discussed, as you know we held three sets of hearings on those and received an extensive public record last year right near the time we appeared before this committee. Last summer the Council published the summary and analysis of that hearing record. With the elections last fall and so on, we have been working but have not finalized our considerations of potential revisions in the December 21, 1971, proposal. We now have an indication that the report on the principles and standards will be available for the approval of the President by early summer. That is our time schedule. Since we have previously discussed extensively the substance of the principles and standards and more information is in my prepared statement I won't go on with further discussion unless there are questions on that. COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES On the use of our comprehensive plans, I am sure this committee. is better aware than any one else of the difficulty of deciding among very worthwhile programs which should get the Federal funds and which should not. We feel that the comprehensive studies that have been produced so far and those underway will be valuable aids to this committee and to others in the future in helping to make that kind of a decision. I will give you an example taken from the Missouri Basin Framework Study which is now nearing final approval. The participants in the Missouri Basin estimated future costs which I reduced to a per capita basis. I had developed it in this manner to help you gain a better grasp of the findings. A balanced development out there over the next 50 years would require a Federal capital cost investment of about $700 for each additional person added to the Missouri Basin population and the non-Federal would be about $1,000 per capita which doesn't seem like a lot of money over 50 years. The breakdown by functions yields the following information-for national recreation areas, $4 per capita; refuges, $2; wetlands, $6; fish hatcheries, $2; fish impoundments, $2; scenic rivers, $1; and trails, $3. That adds to about $20 per capita. For irrigation and drainage on a Federal basis, rehabilitation would be about $25 per capita, surface water development, $140, and group drainage about $5 or $6 for that item. For erosion control, grade stabilization the cost would be $20 per capita, bank stabilization, $4, and public land conservation, $5. For multipurpose reservoirs, including water quality, flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife, and so forth about $380 per capita. This is the largest amount. The non-Federal expenditures would be primarily for private land conservation, sewage, water supply and treatment, and flood plain management. These kinds of studies provide a balanced overview of how to best proceed for development and conservation in a major basin like the Missouri. There is further information in my written testimony on the comprehensive planning program aspect. GUIDELINE COORDINATION Finally, as you know, there has been a proliferation of environmental and natural resources legislation these past few years and when you stack them on top of 50 years of such legislation, it could result in some confusion in the States and other quarters unless they are closely brought together. One means of doing this is to incorporate proper correlative instructions in the implementing guidelines being promulgated by EPA, NOAA, Interior, et cetra, who have new and far-reaching legislation to administer. The States strongly recommended to us last fall, right after several bills had been enacted, that the Council's mechanism be used to make sure that the guidelines of the administering agencies are coordinated among themselves and with all of the other things that are going on. So we have been very energetic in the last 4 months in doing this. I am pleased to report that EPA is responsive and appears to be quite satisfied with using the Council and all the agencies who are members to get together and comment on their guidelines so that the Council can help in the correlation of single agency views. EPA feels the State planning process in section 303 is the important planning tool in the new act Public Law 92-500. On those particular guidelines the Council was given just 2 weeks to provide coordinated comments, which we did, with EPA working along with us. We understand that EPA incorporated the vast majority of our comments in the final guidelines and appreciated them very much. I think this effort will be particularly helpful to the States so that they will not be forced to respond one way to one agency and another way to another agency because the implementing guidelines are not carefully coordinated. We are concentrating right now to help. At the outset I said I would mention verbally today only the four areas in which you may have particular interest. However, we have been working well with the River Basin Commissions, the States in our grant program, and we have found other ways to help the States and for them to help us do a better job in the planning aad policy development area. If that is all right, Mr Chairman, I will stop here. Mr. EVINS. Thank you for your excellent statement, Mr. Maughan. You are always helpful and knowledgeable and informative. MR. MAUGHAN LEAVING THE COUNCIL We hear you are leaving your present position. We want to commend you for your long and effective service. You have contributed much. You have been very helpful and you should take with you a real sense of satisfaction on your contribution and a job well done. Mr. MAUGHAN. That is very kind of you. Mr. EvINS. We mean that from the heart. Mr. RHODES. Before you leave that subject, I want to second what you said and tell my good friend, Don Maughan, whom I have known long and favorably even before he came to this job, that we will miss him. However, we will look forward to a continued friendship through the years in working together for the great causes which we share. Mr. MAUGHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rhodes. I certainly look forward to that. Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman. Mr. EVINS. Mr. Robison. Mr. ROBISON. I think Don Maughan has been a great force for good in this planning area, in the water-resource field especially, and in working along lines I have felt increasingly important which, throughout the years of his own endeavors, have become increasingly important to us all. I think his contribution has been a very large one, and will be so recognized, more and more, as time goes by. It is going to be hard to replace you, Mr. Maughan, and we are sorry to see you leave. Mr. MAUGHAN. I deeply appreciate that, Congressman Robison. Mr. EVINS. We will include your full statement and justifications in the record. [The information follows:] WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL CONTENTS Overview Statement_. Legislative Impact and Involvement: National Water Commission Act (P.L. 90-515). Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (P.L. 92–500) Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611)_. National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448) Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas.. Flood Hazard Evaluation Guilelines for Federal Executive Agencies__ Connecticut River Basin Supplemental. Long Island Sound Regional Study. 86 APPROPRIATIONS TESTIMONY FISCAL YEAR 1974 WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL MARCH 1973 INTRODUCTION The Water Resources Planning Act (P. L. 89-80) encourages the conservation, development and utilization of water and related land resources of the United States on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by all levels of Government and non-Government entities and individuals. The Council's objectives are to encourage effective planning for efficient and timely use of natural resources; pay careful attention to alternatives and competing uses of them; encourage the involvement of all interests -- Federal, State, local and private--from the beginning; evaluate realistic estimates of the capability of plan implementation at the Federal, State, or local level; and demonstrate the interrelationship between the comprehensive plan for a region and the separate projects or programs that comprise the overall plan. These objectives underlie our budget presentation. The President's budget request for the Council for Fiscal Year 1974 is $7,812,000 an increase of $226,000 over the anticipated Fiscal Year 1973 appropriation. I say "anticipated" because the budget request also includes a FY 1973 supplemental request of $500, 000 for the 1975 Assessment. The requested funding for FY 1974 provides $2,400,000 for planning grants to the States; $1,062,000 for the operations of six river basin commissions; $2, 395, 000 for the 1975 Assessment; $775,000 for study direction and coordination of nine comprehensive studies; and $1, 180, 000 for administration and coordination under the Act. By use of $600,000 carried forward from FY 1973 the Title III grant program will be maintained at a $3, 000, 000 program level for both FY 1973 and FY 1974. |