Page images
PDF
EPUB

basins in the Nation where there will be a water shortage by 1980, according to a January 1961 report by the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources. Such a shortage would limit growth and development of Montana, our region, and the Nation.

We all recognize the need for conservation and preservation of our precious water resources, If we did not, we would not have authorized the legislation which began the water resources research activity.

But research without planning is of little value. New methods, improved methods of utilizing our water resources are being developed. With planning we will be able to take advantage of the best of these new or better ideas and put them to work for us and future generations.

Planning must span a great many interests-individual, corporate, and public. This requires cooperation; a coordinated effort on the part of Federal agencies, States, local governments, and others that can best-in fact, only— be accomplished through the Water Resources Council that would be established under S. 21.

The idea of Federal-State cooperation in river basin planning and development is desirable. Success of the proposed program of course would depend on the way in which both levels of government meet their responsibilities. But by having an active role in the planning process, the States would have an added incentive to undertake development and construction projects contained in plans developed by the basin commissions.

The bill recognizes the need for increased participation by States in water and related land resources planning. It provides $5 million in each of 9 succeeding years for grants to States to assist them in developing and participating in the development of comprehensive water and related land resources plans. State programs such as those for flood plain zoning, pollution control, recreation, fish and wildlife conservation, and forestry, as well as local programs for recreation, water supply, and sewage treatment-affect water resources development as do Federal programs. In fact, local and State programs could have significant impact on the programs at other levels.

Recognition of the needs of the States goes even further. It is left to the States to determine their own representation on the various agencies and commissions and on the Council itself. Our bill provides for State consideration and expression on any proposals for development and for presentation and report of individual views whenever it is impossible to achieve a consensus.

It is essential that the States within a river basin and the Federal Government be fully involved in the planning process. As I noted, Montana faces a crisis. We may be able to delay it for a time with temporary expedients including expanded use of ground water. But the long-term economic growth—the future of Montana, of all the upper Missouri River Basin, depends on the full development and use of available water until some sort of scientific development can bring us relief. Of necessity, we must cooperate with the Federal Government and our sister States to achieve this full development. Increased State participation, made possible by this bill, will help us reach that goal.

This measure is the product of many years of study, discussion, research. and modification, until it became a proposal that best meets the requirements of all. Under the Water Resources Planning Act we would have an agency for cooperative planning on utilization of our water resources. It is our hope that through the proposed legislation we will devise the best possible method of development and we will then go forward with any needed construction on the same partnership basis as was used in the planning.

However, it will not stop there-that is only the beginning. This planning act also will provide the means whereby we can maintain a continuing study of the adequacy of water supplies in the various regions, and in relation to the national interest. We will be able to appraise the adequacy of existing and proposed policies and suggest improvements, particularly with regard to use of water and land resources in the area involved, as it affects development of agricultural, urban, energy, industrial, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other resources. Mr. Chairman, we seek a new facility for compromise from which will emerge a partnership of interest-public and private-in building toward our Nation's economic and social goals.

Senator ANDERSON. Several other communications are either in hand or it has been indicated that they will be submitted. They will all be inserted at this point.

(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 problemslocally, 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. 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.

It is needed in some areas to a greater degree than in

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,
Salt Lake City, Utah, February 16, 1965.

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,
Washington, D.C., February 5, 1965.

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,
Washington, D.C., February 9, 1965.

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

« PreviousContinue »