I can't see how that language could possibly be damaging, or possibly impose any limitation upon the prerogatives of the Council. It seems to me it simply states what we want, very clearly and specifically. Mr. STAATS. I believe, Senator Church, that is our view also. As far as we can understand section 3(b) of the House bill, it is adequately covered in the Senate bill. Senator CHURCH. I understood you to say that you thought this particular provision should come out. Senator ANDERSON. No, I don't think that is what he meant. Senator CHURCH. Apparently I did not follow wholly what Mr. Staats intended. You are not, then, calling for the elimination of the language that I have just read? Mr. STAATS. It is section 3(b) of the House bill, H.R. 1111, the deletion of which is recommended. Senator ANDERSON. We all worked very hard on section 3(a). Senator CHURCH. I thought so, too. I misunderstood the testimony. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Allott? Senator ALLOTT. I do have one question that I wish to address to the chairman, and not to Mr. Staats. Perhaps the committee might consider in line 12 the addition of the words "or modify." To me it would mean a little bit more than it means as it is. What would you think about that, Mr. Staats? "Nothing in this act shall be construed to expand or diminish either Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of water resources planning, development, or control; nor to displace, supersede, limit, or modify, any interstate compact;" et cetera. Mr. STAATS. Offhand, Senator Allott, I wouldn't see any difficulty with that. I believe that is certainly the intent here. Senator ALLOTT. I think that is the intent. But displacement of a compact is one thing; superseding is another. "Limit" might carry some of the connotations that the word "modify" does, but not all of them. I just would like to make it perfectly clear as to what we intend. Senator ANDERSON. May I say to the Senator from Colorado that I believe my name is on the original document, and I would not object the word "modify." I think "modify" would be a desirable addition. Senator ALLOTT. I think that is all I have at the moment, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Burdick? Senator BURDICK. No questions. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Jordan? Senator JORDAN. No questions. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Staats. We appreciate your testimony very much. We particularly appreciate the fact that you made it reasonably short and did not try to do the whole job all over again. You have done a fine job and we are grateful to you. Mr. STAATS. I always appreciate a short hearing myself. Thank you. Senator ANDERSON. Are there other witnesses? Is Mr. Wilm here? Mr. WILM. Yes, just as a visitor. Senator ANDERSON. Would you wish this statement placed in the record? Mr. WILM. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. The Council of State Governments has been extremely helpful on this matter. They have been very cooperative. This statement, without objection, will also be placed in the record at this point. I will also place in the record at this point a statement from the National Reclamation Association. (The statements referred to follow :) STATEMENT OF HAROLD G. WILM, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, INTERSTATE CONFERENCE ON WATER PROBLEMS Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to have this opportunity to present the views of the Interstate Conference on Water Problems on S. 21. The Interstate Conference on Water Problems, associated with the Council of State Governments, is an organization of State officials concerned with all phases of water resources administration. During its comparatively few years of existence the conference was organized in 1958-it has considered such subjects as strenghening State water resources agencies, research and data gathering, recreational use of water, water pollution control, water rights, and other subjects of major interest. The first official conference action with respect to coordination of Federal and State water resources planning was taken in 1960, following the introduction of H.R. 3704 by Mr. Aspinall. Conference interest and action quickened when, in 1961, H.R. 8177 and S. 2246 were introduced. A strenuous and I believe I can say successful-effort was made to obtain consensus of views of State officials with respect to the proposed legislation. Through the use of an extensive questionnaire, meetings and conferences and correspondence, views of State officials-Governors, legislators, attorneys general, and water resources agency administrators-were obtained. During and subsequent to the completion of this step, many meetings were held with staff representatives of the Senate and House Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and with representatives of the executive branch. Finally, early in 1963, bills were introduced in both Houses which represented the culmination of this intensive consultation. One of these bills, S. 1111, was passed by the Senate and reported by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The current bill is identical to the one reported in the last Congress by the House committee. We support it wholeheartedly. We believe in its objective, to insure that "*** conservation, development and utilization of the water and related land resources of the United States shall be planned on a comprehensive and coordinated basis with the cooperation of all affected Federal agencies, States, local governments, and others concerned." Mr. Chairman, title II is that portion of the bill that concerns the States most directly and significantly. In its every provision it recognizes that river-basin planning must be Federal-State in character. In the establishment of a commission, both levels of government must act. Membership on a commission would include representatives of Federal agencies, basin States and, where appropriate, interstate agencies and international commissions. Such members would be appointed by, responsible to and compensated by their respective jurisdictions and agencies. Commission expenses would be shared by the Federal Government and the participating States. Finally, in the work of the commission, there would be consultation with the respective agencies and jurisdictions. including both the policymaking branches at the Federal and State levels from inception, through review to submission of a final plan. It is well that so much care and consideration have been given by this committee to the Federal-State concept for river-basin commissions. Such commissions will have to perform difficult, complex and important tasks. They will have to try to reach decisions representing substantial agreement among the participants concerning the development and management of water and land resources of a river basin, a group of river basins or an area. Of necessity, compromises will have to be worked out at times if a plan is to point the way toward the attainment of a number of important and sometimes conflicting objectives. We believe strongly, therefore, in the proposition that a commission should strive to "* * * arrive at a consensus of all members on all issues; ** *"" As we envision a plan-or a major portion or revision of the plan-it might be one on which complete agreement has been achieved. On the other hand, a plan might include certain elements on which there was lack of agreement. In the latter case, the alternatives would be presented to the policymaking branches of the Federal Government and the States. The resolution of such differences as there might be indeed the acceptance, modification, or rejection of all elements of the plan-would then be placed squarely before those whose responsibility it is to determine policy-the President and the Congress, the Governors and the State legislatures. The Interstate Conference on Water Problems, in a sense, is an interested bystander with respect to title I. Surely we should be "carrying coals to Newcastle" if we sought to persuade you how significant Federal responsibilities are in the field of water resources and how helpful it would be if there were improved coordination in planning among the several Federal agencies active in this field. Yet we are interested and we do support the establishment of the Water Resources Council. Our interest is direct at least to the extent that we believe coordination of planning among Federal departments and agencies at the highest level will promote coordination of planning by their representatives on river basin commissions and facilitate the reaching of agreement among Federal and State members of such commissions. As to title III, the interstate conference testified in favor of its enactment in 1961 when it was the subject of a separate bill. We recognize that in itself title III would not relieve the States of the necessity to increase further the quantity and quality of their comprehensive water resources planning efforts. Title III funds, however, would encourage and lend direction to such efforts. Mr. Chairman, earlier in this statement I remarked that I believed a successful effort had been made to obtain a consensus of State views on this legislation. The record made in the last Congress discloses that the bill enjoyed the active support of officials of 41 States, of the Governors' conference, of the National Association of Attorneys General, the Interstate Conference on Water Problems, the Council of State Governments, and the Great Lakes Commission. In my experience, no other piece of legislation of comparable significance and complexity has enjoyed such widespread support from State officials. We believe strongly in this legislation. We know it not to be a panacea— section 3 defines very well what it is not intended to do. It is, however, an enabling act to permit the relevant Federal agencies and the States to expedite the production of comprehensive, coordinated plans for the conservation, development, and utilization of the water and related land resources of the Nation. Its enactment will add another chapter to the proud record of the previous Congress in water and other natural resources legislation. Attached is a copy of the resolution passed by the interstate conference at its 1964 annual meeting indicating our continued support for this legislation. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE INTERSTATE CONFERENCE ON WATER PROBLEMS, SEVENTH ANNUAL MEETING, DECEMBER 7-8, 1964, DENVER, COLO. COMPREHENSIVE WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES PLANNING Whereas the 88th Congress considered S. 1111, a bill in whose development the States and the Interstate Conference on Water Problems played a leading part; and Whereas enactment of the legislation represented in the 88th Congress by S. 1111 is essential to proper Federal-State cooperation in comprehensive water and related land resources planning; and Whereas either the version of S. 1111 passed by the Senate or that reported from the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs would fulfill the objectives which the conference has consistently supported: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Interstate Conference on Water Problems, That the Congress is urged to give favorable consideration to the water and related land resources planning legislation previously known as S. 1111; and be it further Resolved, That the conference continue to work actively for the passage of this legislation and its implementation. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. WELSH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL My name is William E. Welsh. I am executive director of the National Reclamation Association. On September 12, 1963, I was privileged to present a statement before this committee relating to the bill, S. 1111 (Anderson and others). Embodied within my statement at that time was a statement which had been prepared by two members of a special NRA committee, including Ival V. Goslin and Jay R. Bingham. This same committee subsequently concluded that the bill, S. 1111, as reported and passed by the Senate was an improvement over the original bill. I would like to emphasize, however, that the provision in which we are especially interested is to be found in title II of the bill relating to the conditions which must prevail before the President is authorized to declare the establishment of a river basin water and related land resources commission. Because of certain conditions which prevail within the Colorado River Basin, we believe it is important that there should be concurrence by a majority of the States within the Upper Colorado River Basin before a river basin commission could be established within that area. We have gone over very carefully the language relating to this matter in the bill now pending before the House, and our committee is very much inclined to favor that language which reads as follows: "TITLE II-RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS "CREATION OF COMMISSIONS "SEC. 201. (e) The President is authorized to declare the establishment of a river basin water and related land resources commission upon request therefor by the Council, or request addressed to the Council by a State within which all or part of the basin or basins concerned are located if the request by the Council or by a State (1) defines the area, river basin, or group of related river basins for which a commission is requested (2) is made in writing by the Governor or in such manner as State law may provide, or by the Council, and (3) is concurred in by the Council and by not less than one-half of the States within which portions of the basin or basins concerned are located, or, in the event the Upper Colorado River Basin is involved, by at least three of the four States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Such concurrences shall be in writing." Quoting again from the special NRA committee report, that committee said: "For many years the National Reclamation Association has recognized the need for legislation of the type embodied in the provisions of S. 1111. At many of our national conventions, our association has adopted strong resolutions favoring the comprehensive, basinwide planning and development of the water resources of the 17 western reclamation States." *** "The fundamental philosophy underlying S. 1111 is to provide a practicable solution to the problems associated with Federal, State, and local relationships in the field of water resources planning. S. 1111 would be a major step in more effectively utilizing the interrelated activities of the various Federal departments. We believe that one of the most meritorious aspects of this proposed legislation is that it recognizes that the Federal, State, and local governments are all in the picture so far as water resources planning and development are concerned." The NRA Committee in its report pointed out that it had "solicited from the membership of the association comments and recommendations, and had worked closely with staff members of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. the Council of State Governments' Interstate Committee on Water Problems." Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of submitting this statement on behalf of legislation pending before your committee. Senator ANDERSON. I also wish to place into the record a letter received from our colleague, the Honorable Hiram L. Fong, senior Senator from the State of Hawaii. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. SENATE, February 5, 1965. Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is to express my endorsement of S. 21, a bill to provide for the optimum development of the Nation's water and related land resources. I supported the legislation in the last Congress as S. 1111, the "Water Resources Planning Act." The State of Hawaii is particularly interested in title III of S. 21, relating to financial assistance to the States for comprehensive planning. The background and reasons for Hawaii's support of the bill have been set forth as follows by Mr. Robert T. Chuck, manager-engineer, Division of Water and Land Development, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii: "The State of Hawaii has only in recent years had a State agency responsible for water resources planning and development. In 1957, while Hawaii was not yet a State, the territorial legislature expanded the scope of work of the Hawaii Irrigation Authority and created the Hawaii Water Authority as the agency responsible for overall water resources planning in Hawaii. Then, with the advent of statehood in 1959, the Hawaii Water Authority was placed within the department of land and natural resources as the division of water and land development. "The State of Hawaii needs to develop long-range, comprehensive water resources plans. In the past, we have done our planning and developing mostly on an as-needed basis and this patchwork approach has resulted, in some cases, in an undesirable leapfrogging type of development. It is the aim of the State to develop a comprehensive water development plan for each of its counties. date, some progress has been made toward this end, but because of financial limitations our goal of having a plan for each county has not been realized." To Under the provisions of title III of S. 21, $5 million would be authorized to be appropriated for the next fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of the legislation, and for the 9 succeeding fiscal years thereafter, for grants to States to assist them in developing and participating in the development of comprehensive water and related land resources plans. There is a definite need for this type of aid in Hawaii. Sincerely yours, HIRAM L. FONG. Senator ANDERSON. We also have a statement from our colleague, Senator Lee Metcalf, junior Senator from the State of Montana, for inclusion at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to support S. 21, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. As a cosponsor, it is my firm belief that if our Nation and our individual States are to fulfill their respective responsibilities to their citizens we must provide a vehicle for meeting the rapidly expanding demands for water throughout the Nation. We must encourage the wise management, orderly development, and highest possible use of our water and related land resources. To do so requires two things-study and planning. In the 88th Congress, we took the first step toward meeting this need with passage of legislation establishing the Office of Water Resources Research in the Department of the Interior. Through this Office, colleges and universities across our Nation are able to advance water resources studies. S. 21 is another step toward our goal of full development with maximum benefits. This is of particular importance to the people of Montana which lies, for the most part, in two great river drainages, the Columbia and the Missouri. Nearly two-thirds of Montana is in the Missouri River Basin, one of five major |