completed, we will have good protection for that part of the State, and not until then. The essential feature of the project is a dam called the Chatfield Dam, which is on the South Platte and before you get to Denver. The dam, and channel improvements, will protect the channel all the way into northeastern Colorado and it, together with the entire project, should protect some of our most important towns, such as, for example, Boulder, which is on a tributary of the Platte, and a mining town that I have in mind, the town of Erie, that is affected by floods on a tributary. I heartily recommend that project. It was approved by the committee last year and was also in the House. Senator MCCLELLAN. Senator, the project is in the House bill? Senator MCCLELLAN. And $26,300,000 was authorized for it? Senator MCCLELLAN. And what you want is that the committee retain this in the bill? Senator MILLIKIN. Yes; that is right. I believe there were authorized expenditures of about $26,000,000. I am in favor of that House authorization; I am in favor of the House recommendation. What I meant to say was that this committee had already considered the matter last year and had approved it. Now, this time, it comes here from the House where it ran into difficulties before. Senator MCCLELLAN. Are there any questions about that project? (No response.) ARKANSAS RIVER, PUEBLO, COLO.-RESUMED Senator MILLIKIN. There is another small item of a couple of hundred thousand dollars which is for the purpose of supplementing the protection for Pueblo on the Arkansas River, which it gets through its own locally built conservation works on that river, running through and beyond Pueblo. As I understand it, there is a kind of a backwater situation there, which is a dangerous thing and which impairs the full effectiveness of the flood-control system which the people of Pueblo themselves put in at their own expense. An authorization of that project is highly recommended by the State Water Conservation Board. I feel especially sympathetic toward the project there, because the people there have spent $5,000,000 of their own money to give themselves their own flood protection, so we are not asking for a great deal of cooperation from the Government; but that which is asked, is asked very earnestly. I hope that this committee in the cooperative spirit, which has characterized it, will help us on this project. Senator MCCLELLAN. I believe that is the project where the city. itself spent over $5,000,000. Senator MILLIKIN. That is right. Senator MCCLELLAN. And without any contribution from the Federal Government. Senator MILLIKIN. That is right. They had a tremendous flood there in 1921 that inundated the town and killed a lot of people and was very destructive. The people there pitched in and established a water conservation district and spent over $5,000,000 of their own money to build protective works. This item is for $200,000-some and it will be a very useful adjunct to that system. I think it is well deserved. Senator MCCLELLAN. Are there any questions on that project? (No response.) BAYOU METO, ARK. Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one other brief statement. I hope that you will give a lot of careful consideration to the irrigation features of the Bayou Meto project. I am very fearful that if we commence to divide the responsibilities for our reclamation projects, we may wind up without having any projects. I do not believe that we can have one reclamation system in one section of our country and another system in another section, without causing great confusion and conflict. The Senator will remember that last year I was helpful in trying to bring Arkansas under the reclamation system. That passed the Senate; it died in the House. As I understand it, the reclamation feature of that project would be under agriculture. There is a system of repayment that is not in accord with the present way of doing it. It brings the engineers and Agriculture into reclamation, so we are likely to wind up with creating duplication, instead of accomplishing what we have always tried to do, reduce duplication between those agencies and Interior. I am heartily in favor of the flood control aspect of it, and I am heartily in favor of the irrigation aspect of it. I am directing my point to the way you propose to do it, and I am hoping that you will reconsider that point. I hope that we can bring the irrigation project under the established system of reclamation, and I believe that is already provided for and required in existing law, and I believe that we should do whatever is necessary to get that done without setting up a conflict between one system of reclamation in one part of the country, and a different system in another part of the country which, in the end, may arouse so much trouble, Senator, that we might lose a lot of support and strength, that we have to have from other parts of the country, to carry out that and other projects. Senator MCCLELLAN. I believe the Senator is mistaken about the bill having passed the Senate and dying in the House; we were never able to get it off the calendar in the Senate. Senator MILLIKIN. Well, I am not challenging what you say, but I had that checked up the other day and I was informed it had gotten off the calendar, but had failed later on in the House. Senator MCCLELLAN. If the Senator will recall, there was quite a bit of opposition to it from two or three sources in the Senate, and my recollection is that it never passed the Senate. I think that is correct. Senator Overton, I think, seriously objected, and Senator Donnell, of Missouri, opposed it for some other reason. Senator MILLIKIN. Well, I will be glad to check it again. Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, it is immaterial. Senator MILLIKIN. However, I did want to develop that I do not approach your problem in an antagonistic spirit and that, at least in the Committee on Public Lands at that time I took the proposal under my wing and helped it out of the committee and into the SenI want to make it very clear I am not opposed to what you are trying to do for irrigation. It seems to me that you have an excellent project here, from an irrigation standpoint. I am simply hoping that we will not wind up with having some kind of a project that will result in pulling the whole system into confusion, where you will have a new system of repayment in one part of the country that will not conform to the rest of the country. I simply want us not to wind up with having a system which I am afraid will not help anybody. Senator MCCLELLAN. Senator Stennis? Senator STENNIS. I would like to ask a question. To what part of the bill do you direct your recommendation? Senator MILLIKIN. This is on the White River, as I recall it. Under existing authorizations you have a series of dams at the headwaters of that river. Senator MCCLELLAN. Page 20 of the bill. Senator MILLIKIN. In connection with flood control, you have river improvements and a swampy area which you wish to drain. I am in hearty favor of this flood-control feature, including the drainage of that swampy area-what is that area known as? Senator MCCLELLAN. Grand Prairie. That is irrigation. Senator MILLIKIN. You pump your water up on the Grand Prairie, and that is where you will have some 300 miles of laterals for irrigation purposes. I suggest that until we can work out the reclamation features of it, that you content yourself for the time being with an authorization for an appropriation for your flood control, including drainage of the Swampy area we are talking about. Senator McCLELLAN. Senator that is what the bill does. We checked it this morning. It only authorizes an appropriation for the purpose of flood control, although the bill approves the entire project. It only authorizes expenditures for flood-control purposes. Senator MILLIKIN. Well, the thing that touched me off was the authorization for the whole project. I understand the technical situation that you have. I hope, most respectfully, that you will content. yourself, until we get the irrigation feature straightened out, with he authorization for flood control, because, obviously, when you authorize the whole project, then you have authorized the procedure under the bill which will create the troubles that I am talking about. Senator MCCLELLAN. That is correct. Of course, we could not make any expenditure to execute the irrigation under this bill as it is now: but the project would be authorized by the Congress substantially as recommended. Senator MILLIKIN. That is right, and that is what I am afraid will project us into a hornet's nest of trouble that I would like to avoid and keep out of, because we have got to have the support of a lot of people that really do not like very much what we are doing. We will not be able to get any place by ourselves with our own voting strength. Do not let us get ourselves all divided up over the bureaus, which shall have jurisdiction over conflicting reimbursement plans. I think that we ought to have those things settled between ourselves, so that in trying to advance our projects, north and south and east and west, we may present a united front; otherwise, I am afraid it will all fall. Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much, Senator Millikin. Senator Kerr, will you proceed with your bill? ARKANSAS-WHITE AND RED RIVER BASINS Senator KERR. Thank you. Senator MCCLELLAN. You may proceed. Senator KERR. I would like to have Mr. Staats make a statement. STATEMENT OF ELMER B. STAATS, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Senator KERR. Will you give the reporter your name and position? Mr. STAATS. My name is Elmer B. Staats. My position is Executive Assistant Director, Bureau of the Budget. Senator KERR. You may proceed, Mr. Staats. Mr. STAATS. Mr. Chairman, I understand that it is the desire of the committee to have some further comments of the Bureau of the Budget in reference to the bill S. 1576, to establish the United States Study Commission on Arkansas-White and Red River Basins. The Bureau of the Budget submitted its comments on this bill in considerable detail on August 8, 1949. I have a copy of that letter here. I would be glad to leave it for the record, if it is not already in the record. Senator MCCLELLAN. If it is not in the record, it may be incorporated. I do not recall whether it is in the record. There would be no point in duplicating it, of course. (The letter referred to above is as follows:) EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET. MY DEAR MR. CHAVEZ: At the request of Senator Kerr, I am writing to you to amplify comments made to you in my letter of July 15, 1949, on S. 1576, a bill to establish the United States Study Commission on Arkansas-White and Red River Basins. In my letter to you of that date I indicated that alternative types of organization for the coordinated development of river basin areas was under stody in the executive branch and indicated that, in the opinion of the Bureau of the Budget, enactment of S. 1576 at this time would be undesirable. In stating the Bureau's position, questions raised with respect to the de sirability of immediate action of the nature proposed in S. 1576 were ent cerned not with the bill's objectives but with the administrative arrangements provided in it. As you know, the President has indicated on a number of oc casions his wholehearted support of an integrated approach to river basi development. The objectives of S. 1576 seeking to provide for a coordinated study plan for the land and water resources of these river basins are, there fore, fully in accord with the President's program. After careful consideration of alternative forms of organization to achieve the objectives of the legislation, the Bureau of the Budget recommends the es tablishment of a commission of five members as provided in section 3 (a) (b) and (2) of S. 1576. It is believed that a commission of this type is not only more workable because of its smaller size, but would permit the maximum ati.zation of agencies principally responsible for river basin development progr With an organization of this type the detailed surveys would be carried out primarily through the Federal agencies with greatest experience in riverdevelopment programs and it is understood that they are prepared to initiate the investigation promptly. All other Federal agencies should be required to provide full assistance and cooperation to the commission in its work and to participate in such studies and investigations as the commission may request. One of the problems presented in the development of a sound over-all plan, however, is that the agencies concerned may find it impossible, because of conflicting interests, to reach full agreement, especially on principles and policies, in which case the report would become largely a statement of the separate views of the individual departments. From the standpoint of assuring that an integrated report will be obtained at the earliest practical date for the consideration of the President and the Congress, it would seem essential to us that the legislation provide for a chairman who would be responsible for coordinating the work, views, plans and recommendations of the agencies involved. In this way a well integrated over-all comprehensive plan could be developed which would best serve the needs of the region. It would also appear highly desirable that the legislation provide for a staff director for the commission. The legislation might well stipulate that the staff director be appointed by the chairman on the advice of the other members of the Commission. This would also help to insure coordinated staff work and a common report resulting from the joint efforts of all agencies. It is also essential that the States concerned have a responsible part in the investigation to advise and collaborate with the primary Federal agencies. It is believed that it would be desirable to provide that the governors of each of the eight States designate a representative to serve on an advisory board to represent the interests of the States, to advise with the Commission, and to coordinate the work of the respective State governments in dealing with the commission. The objective should be to attain, insofar as possible, a common position by all the States concerned. It is believed that the bill should further provide that the Commission's report be submitted formally to the governors and a reasonable period of time allowed to permit the governors to transmit their views and recommendations with respect to the report, along with the Commission's report for the consideration of the President and the Congress. These changes in the Commission's organization and structure would locate responsibility more clearly for the development of a comprehensive plan and make possible greater flexibility and direction in the work of the Commission. They would sacrifice none of the interests of the States in the basin areas since those provisions of section 8 calling for comments and recommendations of each of the States involved would not be altered. The Bureau of the Budget recommends that three other provisions in the bill as presently written should receive further consideration of the committee. The bill provides that projects under construction or authorized for construction, or that may be authorized substantially in accordance with reports currently before Congress, if in compliance with section 1 of the 1944 Flood Control Act, shall not be altered, changed, restricted, or otherwise impeded or interfered with by reason of the act. This section would seem to restrict the Commission's responsibility too narrowly, since it would be required to prepare a plan that would be comprehensive, on the one hand, but on the other would have to conform completely with, and absorb into it without change, a large number of projects not yet under actual construction. Even though changes in authorized projects and plans might be found desirable by all concerned, no changes could be recommended by the Commission. In this connection it should be noted that Federal agencies, with the approval of the Congress, already have authority to make desirable modifications in the plans as the various projects are developed. This desirable precedent, which has been approved in hundreds of cases by the Congress, should not be denied to the Commission, if we are to expect it to produce a truly comprehensive and practical plan. Section 1 of the bill provides that in the formulation of the plans for the basin a number of new specific purposes not authorized in existing basic legislation for water resource development should be considered. Adoption of these purposes would give more favorable treatment to this area by establishing an enlarged and expanded yardstick for economic justification for construction of projects in the Arkansas-White and Red River Basins without considering their relation to or impact on similar plans in other basins. While there is a real need for consideration of at least some of these purposes in our water94522-49-pt. 27 |