His opponents sought to ridicule his proposal by picking out one part of itthe reclamation of the West. They asked, "Shall we preserve the land we have or reclaim the land we have lost?" To them the only panacea was piecemeal legislation, dealing with one phase at a time and with little or no regard for the problem in toto. While Newlands was carrying the ball for conservation in the Halls of Congress, he was aided by another man of equal stature in his field, George Hebard Maxwell. Maxwell was as much of a pioneeer as Newlands. He might be called the first real lobbyist. He worked for and with Newlands, both as a Senator and a Congressman. Maxwell was the contact man, who never allowed the interest of the people of the West to flag in their goal of reclamation. He traveled constantly. He worked incessantly, without money and at tremendous personal sacrifice. His letters, voluminous and detailed, even when read today, are the work of a martyr who let nothing interfere with his purpose. As an aside, it is interesting to note that Maxwell at times slept in the United States Capitol on a cot provided by Newlands because he did not have enough money to stay in a Washington hotel. Other times, he traveled in railroad chair cars from coast to coast, carrying his meals with him in a paper bag. As the Such struggles as these two men made cannot long go unnoticed. years passed, Congressman Newlands was gaining precious seniority in the Congress, and with it, more responsive ears, probably prompted by the splendst reinforcement of Maxwell working with people all over the United State Finally Newlands became a Senator in 1902, and it was this year that the dres began to unfold as law. It was a close struggle but with the help of President Theodore Roosevelt Newlands pushed through his bill, "The Newlands National Irrigation Law But he was not to have the satisfaction of having his name on his own law. In due course, it was changed to the National Reclaination Act of 1902. It should be noted here that Newlands' own limitation of this act to reclama tion was intentional He realized the futility of attempting, at that time, the enactment of his comprehensive plan. I' The important act of 1902 authorized the Secretary of Interior to set u the Reclamation Service which was to become the Bureau of Reclamatoin. provided for a survey of potential developments and construction of irrigation works. It recognized the ninety-eighth meridian as the line of demarcation be tween the semiarid and arid States, and the humid States. The Secretary af Interior was give authority to construct irrigation projects "where practicable" Reclamation projects were to be self-sufficient and built from moneys in the reclamation fund. These things were important but the primary accomplishment of this act was the entry of the Federal Government into the field of reclamation and also s reservation of certain rights as belonging to the Government, thereby hold ́z the way open in the future for an expansion of the program if the next and desire arose. The same year was the advent of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har bors. Five members were to be from the Chief's office, Corps of Engineers T authorization of improvements on any navigable river by various groups was then to be subject to the approval of their plans by the Secretary of War and Chief of Corps of Engineers. Soon after 1902, the question arose of power development and disposal in tie various projects being constructed. In some cases, there was an excess of power over and above the requirements of the irrigation project. It was foolish to waste this surplus. So Congress again broadened the scope of the Interior Secretary and gave him the authority to develop power where neede for irrigation purposes and provided that he could make contracts for the de posal of surplus energy for a period up to 10 years. This act was clarified arm affirmed by Congress in 1911. It was in this general period that the first legislative conflicts and overtaupoz of authority became apparent. In 1889, the Department of Agriculture had been organized as an executive department. In 1891, the President was authorized to reserve certain publje lands as national forests. In order to preserve and maintain these forests a National Forest Reservation Commission was established. This Commission was given the power to acquire lands on navigable streams (the same streams over which the Corps of Engineers already had jurisdiction and the same streams which now could be dammed by the Reclamation Bureau for irrigation and power) needed in regulating the flow of such streams or for the production of timber. Six years later, in 1917, the original flood-control legislation, at least so designated, was passed. It was designed to control debris on the Sacramento River in California. Study of the river at this time reveals that while this legislation was designated flood control, it actually was passed to allow continued navigation of the river which was used by boats bringing gold from mines in this section of California. Sufficient electric energy was being generated in reclamation projects in 1920 and foreseen in other projects that the Federal Power Act was passed. At this point, it was recognized that dams should and could be justified on an economic basis for other than irrigation, navigation, and flood control. If the project provided enough power, this was to be classed as an asset and its value in this respect deducted from the cost of the project. This same year the Transportation Act was passed, charging the Corps of Engineers with the water transportation functions, with the Agriculture Department and the Department of Interior continuing to hold their rights. The overlapping was growing. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Indian Affairs previously had been granted a "constant" authorization for their reclamation projects so that once an appropriation was made, such construction could immediately commence. This legislation further clouded the picture because now the Secretary of War, the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior, the Secretary of Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Agriculture Department, the National Forest Reservation Commission, the Commerce Department, the Bureau of Fisheries, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Department of Interior had jurisdiction of a kind over the waters of the United States. The next great step in our Nation's water conservation history came in 1927. At that time the first Rivers and Harbors Act authorized the Corps of Engineers to conduct comprehensive surveys on all streams. This series of surveys was years in the making and became known as the "308" series. It was a tremendous step by Congress and showed recognition of the size and scope of the problem involved and the necessity for formulating a national policy. Hardly had the ink become dry on this authorization than the Mississippi River went on one of its worst rampages. There was a series of floods which shocked and terrified the Nation. The Congress was quick to sense the public pulse. In response to the public demand, Congress in 1928 authorized the Corps of Engineers to make surveys for the purpose of flood control along the Mississippi. During this same year, the Boulder Canyon Project Act was passed. In it the concepts of conservation were again widened. The project was for flood control, improving navigation, and for storage and delivery of water. There was constructed the All-American Canal and a power plant, and all works were operated in conformity with the Colorado River compact. In 1933 a new experiment loomed large on the legislative stage and was passed. The Tennessee Valley Authority was created and the romance of water development began to capture the imagination of the general public. The TVA was an effort on the part of the Federal Government to plan on a comprehensive basis basin-wide. In this period of unemployment another service was born which was to have an Important bearing on water resources. Created specifically to eliminate unemployment, the Soil Erosion Service was established in the Department of the Interior. It accomplished so much in so short a time that by 1935 it was rewarded by having a special legislation passed in its behalf. The Soil Erosion Act transferred this service into the Agriculture Department and enlarged its field of duties which overlapped into an already overlapped field. The law stated that this service was to prevent soil erosion, preserve natural resources, control floods, maintain navigation of rivers and harbors, and also condnet investigations and research as well as carry out preventive measures. The advent of the Rural Electrification Administration into the field of electric power sales was later to come in for its share of legislative attention. The question of overlapping authority became more confused with its entry. Nineteen hundred and thirty-six marked one of the most important years in this history. Congress took up flood control in earnest. After all these years it was finally determined that flood control was a function of the Federal Government. It was also made clear that when the benefits of a project exceed costs or if the lives and social security of the people were adversely affected, that such measures were to be justified. The primary responsibility for this protection and flood control was assigned to the Corps of Engineers by amending the act of 1902. In order to clarify the overlapping authority to some extent, the upper watersheds were assigned to the Department of Agriculture. As a measure of further protection, the Rivers and Harbors Board was to review all surveys before the Chief of Eng neers submitted them to Congress. Stipulation that local cooperation was necessary was incorporated into the 1936 act. The following year saw another power administration, Bonneville, createi to market the power of the Columbia River. Another act was passed in 147 which enlarged the powers of the Department of Agriculture to provide facilities for water storage and utilization in arid and semiarid regions. Nineteen hundred and thirty-eight was the year that local cooperation restre tions were removed from the Flood Control Control Act of 1936. More important, it marked the passing of the first flood-control appropriatioon. Two important steps were taken by the Congress in 1939. One was the cosolidation of the Bureau of Biological Survey and the Bureau of Fisheries and transferring them en masse to the Department of Interior. In the same department, the Bureau of Reclamation was affected by the Reclamation Project Act. This act set up the variable repayment contracts and applied the power revenne to irrigation costs-thus again widening the economic justification of reclama. tion projects. The Bureau of Fisheries and the Bureau of Biological Survey were renamed the Fish and Wildlife Service by the President in 1940. That year, despite the "308" and various other surveys authorized by Congress, the Department of Agriculture was authorized to make studies of the relationship of weather and soil erosion plus snow surveys. The tangle of legislation was growing worse. By a departmental order in 1943, the Southwestern Power Administration was set up to market power in the Southwest. This step-by-step process, taking place year by year as ever-expanding of the field occurred, came to a climax in 1944. To fully understand that action by the Congress, it is necessary to quote from the act itself. For purposes of understanding, these points are: 1. It was declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the interests and rights of the States in determining the development of the watersheds within their borders. 2. To recognize preserve and protect to the fullest possible exter established and potential uses, for all purposes, of the waters of the Nation's rivers. 3. To facilitate the consideration of projects on a basis of comprehensive al coordinated development. 4. To limit navigation works to those in which a substantial benefit to naviga tion will be realized therefrom and which can be operated consistently with appropriate and economic use of the waters of such rivers by other users. Thus Congress endorsed its most comprehensive flood-control legislation aid defined the principle of comprehensive planning. But of transcending imp tance is the final step in water resources conservation. Whereas project ist. struction had begun on a single project, single purpose, single-stream basis, a. 4 progressed to multiple-purpose projects, the basin-wide concept was establisin by law so that comprehensive development was possible. Significantly enough, however, the hodge-podge earlier referred to in this his tory still exists. The overlapping of authority is clear. The inability of the various agencies to work together to evolve a coordinated plan has been too wen illustrated, too often repeated to be overlooked. The unavowed, unstated, and unpublicized determination of each of thes agencies to maintain whatever vestige of authority they now possess-with evers hope for gaining more-must be conceded. Furthermore, even though Congress reiterated the rights of the States in r Flood Control Act of 1944, they too show every disposition to become more weat ous in their determination to maintain each iota of their present jurisdiction Looking back over this development in legislation over the last 150 or more years, our record is not one of which we can be overly proud. It must be sa that our legislation has been dictated largely by circumstances rather than by plan. The lesson of the past is that legislation for the whole has never - 5. accomplished. As each new authority or agency was created by Congress, each went itway. Each did its job. Each produced its separate and different program. Fact is, at this moment, an individual agency. Each is concerned with a cominor, egue but each arrives at a solution, embracing its own approach and ultimate aid. After these solutions have been made, futile efforts have then been made to combine them into a single plan. The fault is not theirs. fundamental. The fault is not with Congress. Rather, the fault is Only a team can have teamwork. Only a team can come forth with one plan,. one program, one panacea for all the multiplicity of problems which each basin contains latent within it. * * The ultimate development of the richest area of this country hinges on the ability of the Congress to combine into a team the capable and unlimited capabilities of the agencies of our Government. That team hardworking and efficient as Americans only can be * can bring untold security, undreamed-of blessings, and undeveloped riches to our land control of our water. * * by complete Senator KERR. I have a letter from the State engineer of the State of New Mexico endorsing the bill which I would like to introduce for the record. Senator DoWNEY. It will be received and made a part of the record. (The letter is as follows:) Hon. ROBERT S. KERR, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Senator from Oklahoma, Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR KERR: This letter concerns S. 1576, the bill to establish the United States Study Commission on the Arkansas-White and Red River Basins, which was introduced by you on April 13, 1949, hearings on which are to be conducted on July 22, 1949, before the Senate Public Works Committee. I respectfully reques that you present this letter on my behalf at the hearings before the committee. As State engineer of New Mexico and secretary of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission my duties include the development and protection of the water resources of this State. I am in favor of this bill and believe that it will serve the best interests of this and the other affected States. This office has heretofore opposed the passage of regional authority bills because of the autonomous nature of such proposed authorities. S. 1576 is not a bill of that kind. It is noted that this proposed legislation recognizes the necessity to "protect the rights and interest of the States in determining the development of the watersheds of the rivers * * * and their interests and rights in water utilization and control, as well as the preservation and protection of established uses;" and to protect all existing and authorized projects. It recogLuzes existing water and land laws. The protection and recognition of the things enumerated above is a primary requisite in legislation of this kind. The need for proper coordination in planning the development of water resources has long been recognized. In my opinion, this bill provides the means for accomplishing the kind of coordinated planning which is needed. This bill provides for adequate representation of the States and the Federal interests and the means for review and comment by both the States and Federal agencies. It establishes he means for working out a unified plan of development for the Arkansas-White and Red River Basins. It leaves the final deterurmation of the plan of development with the Congress. Ennet ment of this measure will provide a workable method for coordinating the Federal and States rights and interests in water utilization, control and conservation; and it is an approach to the solution of the problems of duplicaIon of effort and unnecessary expenditures of public funds. I respectfully urge that the committee recommend the passage of S. 1576. JOHN H. BLISS, Senator KERR. I would also like to introduce into the record a letter from the board of water engineers of the State of Texas of like kind and character. Senator DowNEY. It will be so received. (The document is as follows:) STATE OF TEXAS, Hon. ROBERT S. KERR, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. BOARD OF WATER ENGINEERS, DEAR SENATOR KERR: I appreciate your letter of June 13, 1949, enclosing a copy of S. 1576, which authorizes the establishment of a United States Study Com mission on the Arkansas-White and Red River Basins, and an analysis made by Clifford H. Stone of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. I have had the pleasure of working with Judge Clifford H. Stone in Washington. D. C., on other water-development programs, and full realize his ability in such matters, and for that reason was pleased to receive his analysis of this bill. I believe Judge Stone in his analysis has very clearly set out the important parts of the bill, and in so doing emphasizes the need for the formation of a United States Study Commission on the Arkansas-White and Red River Basins. It is my belief that the legislative proposal will be of benefit to the Nation as well as the affected States by making it possible to study jointly with State and Federal agencies the needs of each State, and formulate a coordinated plan of river basin development for the future. I want to again thank you for furnishing me with additional information, and I will appreciate it if you will keep me informed concerning the developments in connection with this legislative proposal and the results of the hearings, as I am very much interested in the study and survey of the land and water resources of the rivers mentioned in the bill. Sincerely yours, E. V. SPENCE. Chairman. Senator KERR. I should also like to introduce a letter from the Governor of Missouri and attachment. Senator DowNEY. It will be received. EXECUTIVE OFFICE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Jefferson City, April 28, 1949. Hon. ROBERT S. KERR, Senator From Oklahoma, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR KERR: Upon receipt of your letter of April 18 enclosing S. 1576, I referred this matter to Mr. John A. Short, engineer in the water section of the Division of Resources and Development for Missouri. Recently he gave me his views and report on this bill, and I am enclosing you a copy of his letter for your consideration. With kindest regards, I am Yours very truly, FORREST SMITH. DIVISION OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT STATE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION APRIL 22, 1949. To: Governor Smith. From: John A. Short, water section. Pursuant to our conversation today, I am submitting my views on S. 1576 submitted to Governor Smith by Senator Kerr, of Oklahoma, with letter dated April 18, 1949. I am in general agreement with the provisions of the bill and would recommend passage with certain minor modifications. There is some question in my mind as to whether the Commission created under the bill would have enough freedom f action. I am particularly concerned with the limitations placed on the Commission with respect to authorized projects. In my opinion if the Commission. in the preparation of a comprehensive plan, should find it desirable to recommend |