tional boundary and the control and improvement of the streams forming part of the boundary. The section performs most of the work on the international parts of the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers and on the international land boundary line for which the United States is responsible. This includes maintaining boundary markers and fences; constructing and maintaining works to keep the Rio Grande from changing its course along the international boundary; and planning, constructing, and operating river improvements designed to develop the resources of the international sections of the boundary streams. In connection with this last function, the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 authorized the construction of three large multiple-purpose dams on the Rio Grande at an estimated cost of about 100 million dollars. For fiscal year 1948, the United States section received appropriations of about 1 million dollars for regular salaries and expenses and 4 million dollars for construction, and employed about 650 permanent employees. As the Bureau of Reclamation already is engaged in large water resource development projects on the upper Rio Grande and the Colorado, it is important that the work on the international sections of these rivers be properly integrated with that upstream. Several efforts have been made by the President and the Executive Office to get the United States section to utilize the Bureau of Reclamation as its agent for the actual construction, operation, and maintenance of these projects, but up to this point the section has proceeded with the engineering work itself. International negotiations concerning the streams on the Canadian border are under the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission. This Commission, consisting of three representatives of each the United States and Canada, has jurisdiction over all cases involving the use, obstruction, or division of boundary waters. The Commission has limited itself to settlement of controversies and to supervision of resulting agreements. The supervision is usually conducted through joint control boards on which the United States representatives are the appropriate district and division engineers of the Corps of Engineers. The Commission does not engage in project planning, construction, or operation. Its annual appropriation is about $37,000. The committee recommends that the responsibility for negotiating international agreements on either boundary continue with the State Department. However, the committee does not believe that the State Department should be involved in construction of water projects and, therefore, recommends that all construction on international streams be made a function of the Water Development Service. The situation with respect to planning and operation of projects is not so clear. In general the committee believes that the planning, the construction, and the operation of water development programs are so integrally a part of one continuing function that any division in responsibilities would be highly inefficient. In the case of international streams, however, there may be instances in which it will be desirable to have joint action by the Water Development Service and the State Department in view of the latter's responsibility for negotiating international agreements. The committee, therefore, recommends no rigid formula with respect to basin and project planning and operation; but believes that insofar as the State Department is necessarily involved in planning and operation, it should utilize the facilities of the Water Development Service wherever practicable and should effect careful coordination with the Service so that the plans for the development of the national and international sections of streams are not in conflict. The Water Development Service, in turn, should clear all construction and operation plans for international streams with the State Department for conformity with international agreements. The responsiblity for the maintenance of markers and fences on the Mexican land boundary and for minor works for stabilizing the locations of the streams could either be left with the State Department or transferred to the water resource agency or elsewhere without violating principles of unified responsibility or efficiency and economy. Decentralization Having achieved in significant degree unified responsibility for the development of the water resources of river basins by the recommended regrouping of functions in a Water Development Service, provision should be made within that agency for adequate decentralization so that basic resource development decisions will be made in the light of conditions and established rights and responsibilities in the areas they affect. Such decentralization would appear to require: a. Regional subdivisions based largely on river basin boundaries, but at the same time providing for adequate interbasin cooperation. With respect to power marketing, for example, interbasin relationships may be of great significance. b. Broad delegation of authority to the regional river basin offices of the agency. This delegation must be sufficiently broad so that the regional director of the office has adequate authority to represent the agency as a whole in dealing with local interests and beneficiaries, State and local governments, and other Federal agencies in the area. He must also have authority to settle controversies between units of his own agency on the spot. c. The establishment of unified budgets and working programs for the authorized and proposed developments in each river basin. d. The establishment of advisory councils in all river basins. These councils need not and perhaps should not have legal status, responsibilities, or duties. Their composition will vary from basin to basin, but they should be broadly representative of the appropriate Federal agencies, the States, the region, local agencies concerned, and groups of water users and beneficiaries. They should be given an opportunity to review and advise upon the unified basin development programs and plans. Their review and advice should be passed on to the Water Development Service in Washington. Appendix 2 STATUTORY PROBLEMS IN WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT Two great agencies, the United States Corps of Engineers of the Department of the Army and the Bureau of Reclamation of the Interior Department, have the principal Federal responsibility for developing main stem river control works to conserve and utilize the water resources of the Nation. The activities of these agencies were developed under separate statutes based on conflicting policies with regard to the justification and financing of various types of river works. The activities of the Corps of Engineers developed under navigation law which recognized the right of the Federal Government to control navigation and the obligation of that Government to build and pay for the necessary works. In contrast, the activities of the Bureau of Reclamation developed under reclamation law, which was founded on the principle that the Federal Government should plan, finance, and construct major irrigation works under State laws and in cooperation with State and local groups, but that the various beneficiaries should ultimately repay in full the project costs. As the scope of activity of the two construction agencies was broadened, the basis was laid for conflicting jurisdiction under inconsistent and divergent statutory authority. In 1927 the investigative authority of the Corps of Engineers was extended to include with navigation, study of works for flood control, water power, irrigation, and other stream uses. In 1930 the Bureau of Reclamation began construction of its first large multiple-purpose dam. The Flood Control Act of 1936 brought the conflict of jurisdiction between the two agencies to a head by giving the Corps of Engineers authority to construct flood control projects throughout the country. As the tempo of construction activities increased in the late 1930's, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers sought additional power and jurisdiction through construction of multiple-purpose projects. The Bureau moving downstream inevitably met the Engineers coming upstream. Their functions overlapped, but long established single-purpose motivations guided each in the development of multiple-purpose projects. The agencies competed for local support in order to hold their own in this jurisdictional conflict. Each undertook to offer financial arrangements attractive to local interests. As a result of this situation, costs to the general public have risen and the use of wisdom in the development of the country's resources has declined. The Flood Control Act of 1944 incorporated provisions designed to mitigate this conflict and provide a basis for improved coordination of programs. That these provisions have not been entirely successful in bringing about the desired results is apparent from a study of developments in the Central Valley and Missouri River Basins. (See appendices 6 and 7.) Whether or not the river-development functions of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation are combined in a single agency, there is a strong need, as national groups interested in water resources have pointed out repeatedly, for a comprehensive examination and revision of Federal water laws. The purpose of this discussion is to indicate the matters which, in the opinion of the committee, are particularly in need of study. Overlapping Jurisdiction The uncoordinated growth of Federal statutes out of early single-purpose development policies has resulted in the assignment of responsibility for studying and developing specific water uses to a variety of Government agencies. The following outline suggests the degree of dispersion of water-resource activities within the Federal Government. Purpose Navigation... Irrigation... Flood control. Hydroelectric power.. Pollution control.. Basic data research and mapping. Fish and wildlife, recreation, salinity control, water supply, sediment control. U. S. Army Corps of Engi- Completely responsible for rivers and har neers. Department of Interior Bu- U. S. Army, Corps of Engi neers. Department of Agriculture.... U. S. Army, Corps of Engi neers. Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Bu- U. S. Army, Corps of Engi neers. Federal Power Commission... Federal Security Agency, U. S. Army, Corps of Engi neers. bors work eastern United States. Major responsibility western United States. Major responsibility in 17 Western States. Provides irrigation storage as part of some navigation, flood-control projects. Assistance to irrigation water users in leveling land and developing the farm unit. Major responsibility for improvement of rivers and other waterways for flood control. Major responsibility for watershed treatment involving measures for run-off and water flow retardation and prevention of soil erosion. Provides space for storing flood waters in reservoirs which they consider as serving primarily for irrigation. Develops hydro power when feasible in con- Responsible for pollution studies and for Department of Interior, U. S. Topographic maps, stream flow, and ground Department of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. neers. Federal Security Agency, Various agencies.......... water measurements and field surveys geologic surveys, fundamental hydrologic research. Meteorological measurements and studies, flood forecasts, fundamental hydrologic research. Fundamental hydrologic research. Sediment measurements and fundamental Hydraulic and hydrologic research. Model Mapping, hydrographic surveys, fish and In general these uses are considered secondary in Federal main stream projects. The agency handling the main assigned purpose takes care of these with or without the assistance of other functional agencies. The major problems created by this dispersion of responsibility are dealt with in the committee's report and, in greater detail, in appendix 1, “Regrouping of Water Resource Development Functions." The committee's recommendations, if adopted, would eliminate major instances of overlapping juris diction and provide means for the effective coordination of water resource programs. There would remain, however, a number of gaps and inconsistencies in Federal policy requiring corrective action. Inconsistent Provisions Water development agencies now operate under separate statutory authorizations and authorizing procedures which contain many inconsistencies. These inconsistencies appear in the following important steps in the development of river projects: (1) Authorization of studies, (2) authorization of projects and appropriations, (3) determination of project feasibility, and (4) submission and review of project reports. In addition to inconsistencies in connection with these four steps, there exist in the statutes profound differences in regard to the extent of reimbursement required for the different benefits for which rivers are developed and in regard to other conditions attached to Federal improvements. 1. AUTHORIZATION OF STUDIES Under reclamation law the Secretary of the Interior has broad powers to carry on studies leading to project proposals in the 17 Western States. The Corps of Engineers in contrast must have congressional authority to proceed with each individual investigation. This limitation does not, however, materially curtail the activity of the Corps, in part because the Congress has been exceedingly liberal in granting authority and funds to undertake investigations, and in part because of authority to revise the "308 reports," originally authorized in 1927. These reports comprise some 200 separate documents covering most important rivers and their tributaries in the United States. Under the authority of the Water Power Act of 1920 and acts amendatory thereto, the Federal Power Commission is authorized to conduct comprehensive river basin studies to determine over-all plans of water resource development for all purposes. Since the Federal Power Commission is not a construction agency, these studies serve only as guides in carrying out its regulatory and licensing duties and in making recommendations to other Government departments. The Department of Agriculture is authorized by Congress under the floodcontrol acts to make investigations in specific drainage basins for water retardation and soil-erosion control. These authorizations are now made jointly with authorizations for Corps of Engineers investigations. For example: Flood Control Act of 1946, Section 11. "The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys for flood control and allied purposes, including channel and major drainage improvements and floods aggravated by or due to wind or tidal effects, to be made under the direction of the Chief of Engineers, in drainage areas of the United States and its territorial possessions, which include the following named localities and the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys for run-off and waterflow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on such drainage areas. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS * * The Secretary of the Interior is empowered to authorize the construction of a project directly if he determines that the project is feasible under reclamation laws from both an engineering and economical standpoint. However, since the money for all projects must be appropriated by Congress before a project can be |