WATER RESOURCES PLANNING ACT

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1964

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:50 a.m., pursuant to call, in the committee room, Longworth Building, Hon. Walter Rogers, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Mr. ROGERS. The Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation will come to order for the consideration of pending business, H.R. 3620 and S. 1111.

This morning we are honored to have the Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable Stewart L. Udall, former member of the House of Representatives and this committee.

Secretary Udall, we are glad to have you. If you will come forward, you will be recognized.

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, I would think that the Secretary would be happy to leave the forest and confusion of downtown and come up here where things are calm and easy, and we are glad to have you, Mr. Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY P. CAULFIELD, JR., DIRECTOR, RESOURCES PROGRAM STAFF, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Secretary UDALL. I am glad to be here in this atmosphere of ease and relaxation. It is, Mr. Chairman, a source of particular satisfaction for me to appear on this very vital conservation legislation.

I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to have it appear in the record, and I will summarize the highlights, if that is satisfactory with the committee.

Mr. ROGERS. Without objection, your statement, Mr. Secretary, will be included in the record, and you may discuss it further.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, MARCH 24, 1964, ON H.R. 3620 AND S. 1111

WATER RESOURCES PLANNING ACT

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity you have afforded to testify in support of legislation to authorize joint FederalState comprehensive river basin planning. I believe that this legislation, if enacted, would be a fundamental advance-a notable milestone-in the long history

31-928-64-4

45

of constructive Federal legislation dealing with the development and conservation of the Nation's water and related land resources.

Support of comprehensive river basin planning was first stated by this administration in President Kennedy's message to the Congress of February 23, 1961. He reiterated this support in his message of March 1, 1962. And President Johnson's budget for fiscal year 1965, transmitted to the Congress on January 21, 1964, also recommended early enactment of legislation to promote the coordination of water resources planning between Federal and State agencies and to authorize limited Federal grants to assist State planning.

River basin planning legislation is no new thing for the House Interior Committee and its chairman. On January 29, 1959, in the 86th Congress, Mr. Aspinall introduced H.R. 3704 which, among other things, would have authorized the creation of water resources commissions in the several river basins. In the 87th Congress, on January 9, 1961, he reintroduced the same measure as H.R. 2202. In substantial degree, the river basin planning provisions of Mr. Aspinall's proposals of the 86th and 87th Congresses provide the foundation and the framework of the bills that are before this subcommittee today.

Each passing year has intensified the need for more effective Federal-State comprehensive river basin planning. This need has been continually urged since the 1951 Report of the Water Resources Policy Commission appointed by President Truman, and urged again in the 1955 Report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Water Resources Policy appointed by President Eisenhower. In fact, comprehensive multiple-purpose river basin planning and development was first strongly urged by President Theodore Roosevelt's Inland Waterways Commission of 1907 and his National Conservation Commission of 1908. Thoughtful students of our water problems have supported this concept ever since.

Thus, President Kennedy drew on more than a half century of thoughtful consideration by the Nation's leading conservationists when, in his July 13, 1961, communication, he requested the Congress to enact legislation authorizing comprehensive and coordinated planning by Federal and State agencies.

President Johnson's commitment to comprehensive water planning is wellknown. In addition to his support of this legislation, you are all aware of his leading role as a Senator in authorization of the U.S. study commissions for the southeast and Texas river basins in the 85th Congress. The conservation and development of the water resources has been a major concern for him of long standing.

President Kennedy's request was accompanied by a draft that generally outlined the principal features of the needed authorization. On July 17, 1961, Chairman Aspinall introduced that draft as H.R. 8177 of the 87th Congress, while in the other body the draft was introduced by Senator Anderson as S. 2246. Extensive hearings were held before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with testimony by representatives of the Federal executive departments, State and local governments, resource and conservation organizations, and other citizens. With only very few exceptions, the testimony endorsed and supported the objectives and purposes of the proposed legislation and concurred in the urgent need for comprehensive river basin planning. It became apparent, however, that the legislative proposal in the form that was then before the Congress was not satisfactory to a number of the representatives of State interests. They believed that the bills did not adequately provide for the exercise of the responsibilities of the States. Subsequently, through informed consultations of Federal and State officials, revisions were developed to remedy these inadequacies. Congressman O'Brien introduced a revised version as H.R. 3620 in the 88th Congress. Senator Anderson introduced S. 1111, a similar bill, with bipartisan support.

During consideration of S. 1111 in the Senate, certain amendments were adopted which we believe improved the bill. Therefore, we recommend enactment of S. 1111 in its present form, subject to certain further perfecting amendments, largely technical in nature, as set forth in the Department's legislative report to this committee.

Widespread public recognition has been given to present, and to even greater impending, water supply problems. It is unnecessary to labor this point with this subcommittee, which is already so well-informed. Capsulized, the water problem may be said to be:

That virtually all readily available usable water is now being used for one or more purposes;

That water requirements, as estimated for the Nation in 1961, were projected as doubling in the next 20 years if the United States is to sustain population and economic growth along with acceptable standards of living;

That planned increasing reuse of water and intensified water research is necessary to meet these requirements; and

That, on the basis of a comprehensive approach to planning, significant choices among alternative uses will have to be made when all needs cannot be met.

A key element in resolution of the problem of water supplies versus water-use requirements is comprehensive planning through Federal-State river basin commissions, as would be authorized by the proposed legislation. Necessarily, such comprehensive planning must be a joint Federal-State participation. The States as well as the Federal Government have important water resource responsibilities. The bill that is before you now, S. 1111, was developed with the collaboration of the spokesmen for State governments. Title II, which provides authority for the establishment of Federal-State river basin commissions, makes explicit the recognition of State functions and responsibilities which were considered implicit in the provisions of the predecessor bills of the 87th Congress, H.R. 8177 and S. 2246. In this sense, the two bills are akin, the present one being a clear spelling out of the Federal-State relationships involved. Four comments concerning title II would appear helpful to your understanding of its intent. S. 1111 would establish a framework under which joint FederalState commissions can be activated when and where needed. There are, of course, areas for which we would not expect new commissions to be established. In these areas, functioning mechanisms already exist for undertaking comprehensive planning. Examples are the Delaware River Basin, the Columbia River Basin, and the Tennessee Valley. In other words, where effective machinery is already in existence and in satisfactory operation, new or additional river basin commissions would not be established.

Second, the proposed legislation recognizes that planning is a continuing process, and that valid recommendations should not be withheld merely because further delay may yield additional refinements. To this end, it is necessary that title II provide, as it does, that river basin commissions shall prepare and recommend from time to time such portions of comprehensive river basin plans as are compatible with the information available and current needs and circumstances. Thus, timely recommendations can be received from these FederalState bodies even during the possibly lengthy process of completing an overall plan.

Third, complete unanimity of opinion among river basin commission members and the entities they represent is not always possible of attainment. Diverse interests and diverse objectives may well preclude unanimity. While there should be full opportunity for expression of such diversity, it should not prevent progress. To this end, title II of the bill must provide, as it does, that river basin commissions may submit plans with alternatives that would reflect such diversity. This, I believe, will permit the work of the commissions to go forward expeditiously while, at the same time, protect each of the possibly divergent interests concerned. By this means also, decisions on matters that may be in disagreement are left to the appropriate decisionmaking bodies; namely, the Congress and the legislatures of the States. To provide full assurance of expeditious performance of commission work, without inhibiting expression of diverse opinions and statement of alternative, we recommend that the role of commission chairman be clarified to decide, when necessary, procedural issues in consultation with the vice chairmen representing the States. An amendment to effect this recommended change is set forth on page 4 of our report. Finally, I would like to restate two important conclusions that have emerged from the many years of thoughtful consideration and discussion of river basin planning commissions. First, such commissions should be so constituted that they will be effective in actually producing plans that are practicable of accomplishment. This means that the commissions should include adequate representation of those agencies that are knowledgeable and experienced in the practical affairs of water and land conservation and development. Second, the proposed river basin commissions should be constituted so as to assure, to the highest extent possible, a consensus of acceptance and support by the interests, local and national, governmental and nongovernmental, that are properly concerned with the water and the associated land resources of a river basin. These requirements would be fulfilled under the proposed legislation.

I have commented so far upon title II, only because this title has evoked the greatest interest in its precise statement and intended operation. Title I which would create a Water Resource Council including the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, is also of substantial importance. Legislative authorization of this Council would build upon and strengthen the close collaboration in water resources matters that has developed between the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Army, and Health, Education, and Welfare since October 1961. At that time, President Kennedy directed the four departments to work together on water matters of common concern and we have been doing so with increasing effectiveness ever since. Last spring, in hearings before this subcommittee, you were fully informed of these joint efforts. I will not comment upon them further, except to say that the momentum of this fruitful collaboration should not be lost. Without formal legislative establishment of the Council, this notable development of the last few years will be most difficult to sustain and further advance.

Title III, which would provide Federal matching grants to States in support of their comprehensive water resource planning activities, is most desirable. As the Congress has repeatedly recognized, the States have major responsibilities in the water field. State comprehensive water resource planning, whether in conjunction with like Federal planning or not, is a necessity of our time and the years ahead. Encouragement of State comprehensive water-resource planning will assist all States, which so desire, to meet their responsibilities.

Mr. Chairman, President Johnson recognizes that we have a national obligation to manage our basic water supplies so that water will be available when and where needed and in acceptable quantity and quality. We have no time to lose in meeting this obligation in the most effective possible manner. I hope that you will soon find it possible to favorably report upon the legislation now before you.

Thank you for this privilege and opportunity to testify.

Secretary UDALL. Mr. Chairman, the subject of comprehensive planning of the use of water resources in this country is something that has been talked about really from the beginning of the conservation movement in this country. I think what we are really discussing here today, this kind of legislation, was first mentioned with approval as a vital national need by President Theodore Roosevelt.

Over the years in various parts of the country, I would say that we have done in some parts of the country, in some river basins, a very outstanding job of regional planning, of planning the conservation, which is use of our water.

There are other areas of our country and other river basins where we have not done a very good job. The purpose of this legislation, as I understand it, is to provide a vehicle so that from this point on in our country we can, with the proper type of Federal-State partnership and this is exactly what is supposed-have a vehicle to do the right kind of planning and to see that all alternatives are considered, to see that our water resources are put to the highest possible use in terms of the future.

Of course, there are members of this committee that were in advance of this administration in sponsoring similar legislation.

Mr. Aspinall, the chairman of the full committee, had a bill in 1959 that had many of the features of this legislation.

President Kennedy in the first year of his term, 1961, proposed legislation similar to this. In fact, in the last Congress, as I am sure this committee realizes, there was a great deal of discussion, because of some of the fears that were expressed by some of the State people that we might set off a vehicle that would be too topheavy in terms of having too much Federal power and control.

As a result, over the past 2 years of a lot of negotiations and conversations with the State people and the Federal people, I think we now have largely resolved this controversy and I think come up with something which is very sound in terms of seeing to it that there is a balance between the State interests and Federal interests.

Obviously, in any interstate stream we have a Federal interest. It is very important. And yet all of the States in a river basin on an interstate stream have vital interests which must be protected. I am sure that this committee may be able to provide further refining of the legislation, but I think that we have largely eliminated the controversy. I hope we have.

I think it would be one of the significant accomplishments of this committee and this Congress in the conservation field, if legislation of this kind be enacted.

I might say, too, Mr. Chairman, knowing the State that you, yourself, are from, I think one of the finest jobs of comprehensive planning that has been done in this country are the studies completed in recent months of the rivers in the State of Texas.

Now, these are not because of the size of Texas interstate streams for the most part, although some of them are. But this is an example of what we are talking about in terms of comprehensive planning and use where we look on down the road 50 years, 100 years, and say, "Here is a water resource. How can we use it in such a way that it will redound in the maximum economic and other benefits to the entire people in the region?" Of course, regional planning for the use of water, using the river basin as the focal point of planning, we are not setting out a great pioneering mechanism here. We are setting up the mechanism to finish the job.

The TVA, the Columbia River Basin, the Upper Colorado legislation that was passed by this committee in 1956, I think, is a very excellent example of the kind of comprehensive plan-and the Pacific Southwest plan-which the Department has been developing.

Within the last 3 years, Congress has set up in the Delaware River Basin in the East a unique mechanism for doing a job of comprehensive planning and development of the waters of this river.

But everywhere we look in this country, whether it is a result of growth of demands of municipalities or industry or irrigation, or whether it is a growth of such problems as water pollution and water quality problems, our water problems are going to be more complex and more urgent.

The danger of conflicts between States on river basins, of various interests on river basins, which must be resolved and harmonized, become more and more important.

This is the reason, it seems to me, to set up a vehicle which will enable us to do this planning on a long-term sound basis and let everyone be heard.

I want to read, Mr. Chairman, on page 5 of my statement the

essence of the bill, which is title II. Title I, of course, sets up a Cabi

net-level coordinating committee which actually would be a big step forward and is very much needed.

Four comments concerning title II would appear helpful to your understanding of its intent. S. 1111 would establish a framework under which joint Federal-State commissions can be activated when and where needed.