Senator FANNIN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Of course, we will accept your advice that it should be located in Arizona.

The next witnesses will be Dr. A. Ray Chamberlain, Chairman, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges; Dr. David Howells, chairman, National Association of Water Center Directors, North Carolina State University; Dr. William R. Walker, Chairman, Executive Board, Universities Council on Water Resources. STATEMENT OF DR. A. RAY CHAMBERLAIN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND GRANT COLLEGES; DR. DAVID HOWELLS, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF REPRESENTATIVES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WATER INSTITUTE DIRECTORS; AND DR. WILLIAM R. WALKER, CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE BOARD, UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCES

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. To identify the three people, on my right is Bill Walker, director of Water Resources and Research Center at Virginia. Polytechnic Institute. On my left is Dr. David Howells, chairman of the National Association of Water Center Directors, North Carolina State University.

I am Ray Chamberlain, president, Colorado State University and today speaking as chairman of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

We have prepared I have prepared a statement on behalf of our association with which your permission, we would simply like to have made part of the record. And I will verbally add some comments.

Senator FANNIN. Your complete statement will be made a part of the record and you may proceed as you think best to present your testimony.

Dr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make five main points on behalf of the association. The first is the association supports the enactment of Senate bill 1301 with some modest amendments that we would like to suggest.

The second thought, we propose three small changes in the bill for you to consider. First, on page 3, line 5, of the bill we would like to suggest that you insert the words "water for energy" in the listing of subject matter as appropriate to activities conducted under the bill.

I suggest among other things it would be appropriate since the subcommittee itself is named Energy Research and Water Resources. It would be highly appropriate for the bill to encompass the interrelationships between water and energy.

The second proposed suggestion for a change of language occurs on line 16 of page 3 where we would suggest specific reference to EPA be deleted and language substituted. We have presented a proposal for that in the written statement that would extend the cooperation and coordination to all Federal agencies rather than solely EPA.

The third proposal links to page 5. line 7, where we suggest the insertion of the word demonstration between the words operate and facilities. The reason for this suggestion is that it would better delineate the appropriateness of activities in testing and demonstration without the indication of a creation of new in-house Government research laboratories.

A fourth area where we do not yet know whether we would have suggestions to propose to you has to do with the patent provision that was just discussed. We have just received a copy of this. As the Assistant Secretary indicated, it has just been prepared.

We would like to submit at a later time our reaction to that particular item. Our third point for presentation to you has to do with consideration of the value of the program as a State and Federal partnership in water research and development. For the record, we believe that it is important that it be acknowledged that this Federal input into most States has served as seed money in such a way that it has induced many, many of our States to upgrade their commitment to water research and development in such a way as in many cases to lead the States to over match with Federal input.

This in itself seems to be a substantial fulfillment of the original content of the legislation, and it should be supported through continued legislation. It has drawn the States into a high order of commitment to what jointly is considered to be, through Federal and State, a meaningful effort.

We think in the same context that one of the byproducts of this particular legislation, that is its predecessor legislation during the last 10 years or so has been an improvement in the local decisionmaking by virtue of the enhanced interaction between State agencies, Federal agencies, and the intellectual resources available from our campuses and some of our private companies.

We do have one point of concern which links to a question you posed to the preceding people who were testifying, specifically in regard to the authorization in 1971 for increasing support to the Institutes under section 100 to the level of $250,000 per year to the State. The administration has not seen fit to propose, including fiscal year 1976, more than $110,000 or less than half of the authorization the Congress has put on the record.

Since the legislation was initiated more than 10 years ago, and the proposed expenditures now only run at $110,000 a year we fail to see how such administrative indications are supportive of the high priority which this committee has indicated one should put in the area of water research, particularly now that we have such strong interaction between energy development and water.

It would seem appropriate that a higher portion of the authorization be sustained through an administrated budget. We would like to convey to you another output of the program to date. Over the 10 years that the program has been underway more than 2,500 academic courses have been developed around the campuses that are involved in the program. These courses, by and large, impact on all the students of the campuses. I think one can say that a spinoff effect of the program has been a tremendous enhancement in the level of general literacy among the college age population as to the fundamental role of water in our society.

A very explicit side effect of the legislation has been that something over 1,800 students a year are actively involved in the research programs sustained by title I. This constitutes the flow of human capital. It is absolutely fundamental to our ability as a Nation to cope with the water needs and changing water requirements of our society.

It also provides a technical skill with which to be of assistance to our friends around the world. One has to have this flow of human capital in order to perform as a Nation.

Our fourth point, we would like to suggest that S. 1301 authorization be for 5-year intervals. This would provide a means for periodic review. At the same time it would provide a mechanism for periodically considering any major new needs and programmatic areas that have emerged by virtue of research in the preceding period. It would provide a means for upgrading the authorization in a manner to cope with the impact of inflation in our general fiscal structure.

The fifth point we want to present has to do with stating that the program has demonstrated the universities and colleges ability to help States, regions and the nation as a whole to deal with current perceptions of water problems. We believe that we demonstrated clearly under this legislation the university's ability to not solely devote its efforts to high-brow intellectual long-range esoteric activities.

We feel we truly demonstrate a capacity to help our States and our regions, and secondarily, our Nation on current and explicit major problems.

Thanks to that the communications systems that have been developed between the universities and colleges, between these universities and State agencies and Federal agencies have truly led to better coordination for our entire social structure, and an improved cost effectiveness for all water research and development activities in the country.

Granted we still have a ways to go, and one of our priorities is trying to encourage an enhancement in the technology transfer sector. We believe title II has been very, very effective to date and should be extended in that it has permitted a way to bring to bear the private sector as well as other sectors of the public arena above and beyond those encompassed under title I in a way that has been a benefit to the entire water research and technology program of the country. With these five major points, Mr. Chairman, we would like to simply extend our willingness to respond to questions, and further, if there are written questions that may occur to you at a later date we would be pleased to receive these and submit responses to you at your convenience.

In our written statement we have indicated the specific representation of our association that is involved in the Water Resources Committee that I am representing today.

In addition, I would say for the record that I speak on behalf of this group that encompasses more than 100 of the major public universities and colleges in America including the University of Arizona that you have mentioned several times this morning and Arizona State University. Such institutes as the University of Colorado that Senator Haskell knows well, and all of us will do our best to be responsoive to any questions you may wish to put to us.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Chamberlain follows:]

STATEMENT

of the

Chairman of the Water Resources Committee

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

on

S. 1301

To promote a more comprehensive national program

of water resources research and technology development

before the

ENERGY RESEARCH AND WATER RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE

of the

Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

July 11, 1975

This statement by A. R. Chamberlain, President, Colorado State University, and Chairman of the Water Resources Committee of NASULGC calls for enactment of this Bill which will strengthen and extend the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-379 amended); expand the authority of the Department of Interior to promulgate technological development in water resources in order to accelerate the transfer of technology from research to application; and repeal the Saline Water Conversion Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-60).

I am A. R. Chamberlain, President of Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. As Chairman of the Water Resources Committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), I speak for the 118 institutions of higher education across this nation which constitute the membership of the association. Member institutions grant approximately 1/3 of all baccalaureate degrees and nearly 2/3 of all doctoral degrees in the United States.

The Water Resources Committee of NASULGC is composed of distinguished university scientists and administrators expert in water resources. Their names are included as attachment A to this statement.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the NASULGC views in support of S.1301 and to recommend that it be enacted with minor changes set forth herein. At the same time, we wish to commend the subcommittee for its stated concern for the health and direction of federal water resources programs, including research and technology development. We believe water resources are of high priority among citizen concerns, and we concur in the belief of the subcommittee that they are vital concerns to the future of this country.

The Association has repeatedly affirmed by resolution its support of the Water Resources Research Act over the past 10 years. We are impressed by the quality of research produced and by the multiplier effect of the program in stimulating state funds for water research. We are gratified by the support of public officials in the states, and by the interest of citizen organizations. We believe the Act of 1964 as modified has evolved into a cornerstone in the structure of the federal

water resources program. We and others have repeatedly documented in Congressional hearings over the past 10 years the results of the program, showing without doubt its value to the states and the nation.

It has been, therefore, puzzling to us why the Executive Branch has failed to take maximum advantage of the program. Although the Congress in 1971 amended the Act to increase state authorizations in Section 100 from $100,000 to $250,000, the executive budget recommendations have consistently remained near $100,000 $110,000 during the past two years, to be

specific.

11

Now, more directly to the subject of this hearing--S.1301. The Association recommends its enactment. It provides

for a vital element in the emerging federal water program which places an increasing amount of the planning and decision responsibility in the states and, in so doing, places greater burdens on the states for scientific and technological capabilities. The state water research institutes furnish necessary parts of that capability.