PAGENO="0001" APRIL 22, 1968 GQVERt'M~1 ~ ~ ~)RY PROPERTY OF RUTGERS, THE SrJ4IE ~RSITY COLLEGE OF SOUTH JEt~SEY LI~ARY CAMDEN, N. J~ 08102 UUN5 1968 WATER RESOURCES PLANNING ACT AMENDMENT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, RESOURCES O~THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATh NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION A BILL TO AMEND THE WATER `RESOU11~ES PLANNING ACT TO R~TI~E flIt AUTHORIZAflON' OF APPROPRIA- TIONS 1~'OE ADMINISTEIflNG THE PROVISIONS O~ THE ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES DOC Pr! ted for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 93-629 IL&i Q~/is/q~s U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1968 /~;~) PAGENO="0002" T:1A 1!1~1~1AJq ~ ~ V ~4. L ~i a:; ~ ~ i~ I i:ir~. COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSUtJAR AFi?AIRS HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chafrman CLINTON P. ANDERSON, N~* ~f~xicó~ T~O~A~JH~. ~CHEL, California ALAN BIBLE, Nevada ~O~R!t5O~ ALLdTT, Colorado FRANI~ C U CII, .JçI~ho LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho ERNES~r~tfr~I1G~ ~aska~ j / ~ ,ø~ /I~AU~. &~NIN~ ~i~dn~ ~ FRANK E~ M 5, ~tJf ~LIFi?~1~D P: HA~E~, W~oini~g QUENTIN N. BU9~;t~~~kota. mMA~E 0. H~FJ~LD~ Oregon CARLHAYDEN,~iz4I4 f:1~ ~ GEORGE McGOV~N, lith~i~kota k GAYLORDNELS0N,~S~1T~~ ~/c ~ p LEE METCALF, Montana JERRY T. ~EJ~KLER, Staff Director ~ Côünaet E. LEwIs REIn, Minority counsel DANIEL A. DREYFUS, Professional Staff Member (j~j~K ~ U~CO~ITT~E ON WATER AND POR RESOtECES ~ ~ C~afrrnjzn, HENR~.~Aq~O~, WashIngton. ~ ~I~EL,Ca~UoIBia FRANK CHURCH, Idahp, GORt~ON ALLOTT, Coiorado FRANK E. MOSS, Utah `~ ~E~JOYAN,~Tdi~o QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota CARL HAYDEN, Arizona (II) 4 PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS S. 3058 Executive communication STATEMENTS Caulfield, Henry P., Jr., Executive Director, Water Resources Council_ - Thompson, Sam, representing Interstate Conference on Water Problems, accompanied by Charles F. Schwan, Jr Tidal!, Hon. Stewart L., Chairman, Water Resources Council, as read by Kenneth Holum, Assistant Secretary for Water and Power COMMUNICATION Ahlquist, H. Maurice, director, Washington State Department of Water Resources: Letter to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated April 5, 1968 (III) Pag 1 2 11 26 2. 2S PAGENO="0004" PAGENO="0005" I WATER RESOURCES PLANNING ACT AMENDMENT MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1968 T~LS. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESO~OES ~ . ~ OF TIlE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, ~ ` Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock :a.m., in room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. P~sent : Senators Anderson, Moss, Jordan of Idaho, and Burdick. Staff members present : Jerry T. Verkier, staff director ; Stewart French, chief counsel ; Daniel Dreyfus, professional staff member; and E. Lewis Reid, minority counsel. Senator ANDERSON. The committeewill cometo order. The purpose of this hearing before the Water and Power Resources Subcommittee this morning is to take testimony on S. 3058-intro- duced by Senator Jackson by request-to amend the Water. Resources Planning Act to revise the authorization of appropriations for admin- istering the provisions of the act, and for other purposes. . The bill would have the effect of removing the existing limitation of $300,000 upon annual appropriations for carrying out the provi- sjpns of title I of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. These funds generally cover the operating expenses of the Water Resources Council which was established by the act. At this point in the record we will insert a copy of the bill before us and a copy of the executive communication requesting the legis- lation. (The data referred to follows:) [S. 3058, 90th Cong., second sess.] A BILL To amend the Water . Resburces Planning Act to revise the authorization of appropriations for administering the provisions of the Act, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and Hoi~se of Representatives of the United ,States of America in Congress assembled, That section 401 of the Water Re- sotirces Planning Act (Public Law 89-80 ; 79 Stat. 244) is amended to read as follows: "Sue. 401. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this Act- " (a) such amounts as may be necessary to administer the provisions of titles I, H, III, and IV: Provided, That not to exceed $400,000 annually shall be availabe to administer the provisions of title III ; and "(b) not to exceed $6,000,000 annually to carry. out the provisions of title II: Provided, That not more than $750,000 annually shall. be available for any single river basin commission." (1), PAGENO="0006" 2 WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL, Washington, D.C., February 24, 1968. Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPEREY, President of the $enate, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. PRESIDENT : Enclosed is draft of a proposed bill to amend the Water Re~hiiTces Blnhn~g &ct~ (~tibl1Q LaW 8~-8O 7~ stat 244 ajproved ~uly 22 1965) . ~ ~ , .~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ . ~ ~ We iecommend that this bill be referred to the appropriate committee for con sideration, and we recommended that it be enacted. This proposed legislation would rey~s~ ~he authç~rization of appiopriations for administrative expenses in carrying out the provisions of the Water Resources Planning Act that is contaiiied in section 401 of the Act. Aside from changing the sequence of the prOvisiO~ ~ of seCtion 401, t~ie draft bill would make only one change in the~substanc~ oftheseetlon. It would r~move~ the llmltktion of $300,000 annually from the authorization fof approptiations for adminls~ering the pro visions ,f ~U~le I of t~ie Act, and substitute an authorization for appropriations in such amounts as may be necessary. The other limitations now contained in section 401 wou14 remain unmodified. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ The passage of the. Federal Salary Aet~ of 196~ has necessitated either the re- moval of the limitation for administering the provisions of, Tit~i I or the curtail- ment of essential functions. Furthermore, ~ experiei*ce under this Act since its enactment in July 1965, has pointe~l tothé desirability of removing the appropria- tion limitation so that consideration may be given in future years to Increase in appropriations to better carry out the. functIons and responsibilities of the Water Resources Council. The Bureau of the Budget has advised t1~at enactment of this draft bill would be consistent with the Administration's objectives. Sincerely yours, (The draft bill enclosed is identical to S. 5058.) STEWART L. UDALL, Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. Secretary Holum, I understand you have a state- ment. We will put your statement in the record and recOgnize you at this time. STATEMENT OP HON. STEWART L. UDALL, CHAIRMAN, WATER itESOTYRC1~S COUNCIL, AS PRESENTED BY KENNETH HOLU1V~, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND POWER Mr. HOLTJM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am~ a little surprised to find myself before you this morning, but at the last minute Secretary TJdall, who had intended to appear personally, found that his time had been preempted and asked me to appear in his stead. I am, of course, happy to be here to discuss the work of the Water Resources Council and the legislation pending before the Congress. . I am accompanied, as the Secretary would have been, by Henry Caulfield, executive director of theWater Resources Council. I hope that we will be able to supply the information that you and the mem- bers of the committee require. If not, I am svire that the Chairman of the Council, Secretary [Jdall, will be happy to supply the information in ease there areproblems that we.eannot deal with. This is only the. second appearance . of spokesmen for the Water Resources Councii~before the comniittee since the Coundil was created by act of COngress in 1965 and found itself immediately involved in the critical drought problems of the East at that time. With that in mind, Secretary Udall had planned to discuss in considerable detail the activities of the Council since that time. PAGENO="0007" I thhitk, Mr. :Ch~rrnan, it is only ~ppr~priate because I am here as his substitute that I read for the record what he had prepared to say this morning. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I think I can ~ appr~priate1y skip over the first three pages in this oral summary. `I would want th note, however, in so doing, that Sec' retary TJdall told me when he asked the to substitute for him this morning, to be sure a,nd~yto youand to the cOmmittee that from his p~int of view, and certainly ~ as hi~~ representative on the Council of Representatives I share ~ the Council is off to .a good `start. It has accomplished, in our judgMent,' everything that `could be expected of an org~ti1ization with such large responsibilities in such a ~hort.period of time. ~ ` ~ ~ ` The Water Resources Council came into' ~istence partly because of your own concern over the relationship between the Federal' agencies and the States' `in the field of water resource development. I think One of the outstanding accomplishments of the Council has been bringing together in a closer' working relationship the State agenci~s `and Fed- eral agencies that deal in this' water and related land resources field. The Secretary was prepared to say, and I shall say for him, that never in ` our history, Mr. Chairman, have Federal-State relations in water resources planning been as , close, cordial and cooperative a~ they have been since your successful conciliatory effort. One of the effective means that has been used in achieving this cooperation is the National Conference of State and Federal Water Officials, the first of which was held in Denver last September and the next of which is scheduled fOr Detroit in July of this year. Having summarized the first three pages, Mr. Chairman, I shall begin at the top of page 4 and take the liberty of reading Chairman TJdall's prepared statement to you. In reviewing progress in implementation of the Water Resources Planning Act, I would remind you that the act has three principal titles : Title I establishes, the Water Resources Council and specifies its authorities and responsibilities; Title II authorizes the' establishment of Federal-State regional or river basin planning commissions ; and Title III authorizes matching financial grants to States for com- prehensive water and related land resources planning. S. `3058, the' bill now before the subcommittee, would oflly affect the authorization `of appropriations for administering title I.' The limi- tations on appropriations relating to titles II and III would remain, unchanged. , ` Thus I propose, first, to review briefly the Council's progress in implementing titles III and II ; and then, with regard to title I, `to discuss the progress in implementation of that title as well as the need for S. 3058. The Executive Director, Mr. Caulfield, whose testi- mony is scheduled to f~ilo~r mine, will go into the need for S~ 3058 in greater detail. ` `TTTLE' Ill-FINANCIAL OnANTS ~o STATES In tifle III of"the act, the Congress' has authorized the appropria- tion of $5 million per year for 10 years for 50-percent matching grants for increased activity by the States ii~ developing Sand participating PAGENO="0008" I 4 in the development of comp~ehensive water ~uU related land r~soi~irces plans. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ For fiscal year 1967, the first year of the grant progra~u, the Con- gress appropriated $1,ThO,000 fo ~ r grants to States. Iii the very first year of this new program, the (~uncil. received 46 applications out of a potential 53, and approved all 46. in accord with the provisions of the act and the Council's rules and regulations. ~ . For fiscal year 1968, ~ the Congress . apprQprlated $2,250,000. The Council received and approved 51 applications. ~ The fiscal year 1969 budget request now before the Committee on Appropriations includes $2,500,000, an increase of $250,000 over that for fiscal year 1968. On the basis of present indications, 51 out of the potential 53 grantees are again expected to request grants for. fiscal year 1969. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . The response ~ of the States to the title III program has exceeded all expectations, reflecting a growing awareness by the States of the vital importance to them of becoming more involved in planning for the development and use of their water and related land resources. Many States have already made substantial progress in developing their capability for, and in engaging in, planning. This State response, Mr. Chairman, clearly validates your foresight in initiating some 10 years. ago the proposal that led to title III. . . ~ S S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TTTJ~E II-RwsR ~ . CoMMIssIoNs S Under title II of the act, the Governors *~ of the concerned States unanimously requested, the Council recommended, and the President has established to date four Federal-State river basin commissions: for the Pacific Northwest, Great La1~es, Souris-Red-Eainy and New England regions. ]Ir~formation as.to date of establishment, officers, and members of these commissions ~ is set forth in an attachment to this statement. S All four commissions were organized for the performance of their functions during 1967, within the 90 days specified in the act. They agreed upon rules of. procedure, initial budgets, recommendations as to the sharing of staff costs between the States and the Federal Govern- ment, the division of these costs between the States, and initial staff authorizations. Subsequently, the four commissions have been devel- oping their programs. to carry out thejr functio~is as set forth in the act. All four have now selected their professional planning directors; and, in varying degrees, have recruited other staff. Covering the regions of all four commissions, comprehensive framework studies, the first step in implementing section 201 (b) (2) of the act, are now under- way. They are being funded annually by the Congress for participa- tion by Federal departments and agencies. The amount of funds provided for each commission in fiscal year 1968, including the salary and expenses of the Chairman, is within a $200,000 limitation contained in the 1968 Appropriation Act. This limitation is substantially less than the $750,000 limitation contained in section 401 of the act. Nevertheless, in its testimony before the Committee on Appropriations this year, the Council did not request reconsideration of the limitation. It sees no need to do sd at this time. Section 207 of the act provides that each commission shall recom- mend what share of its expenses shall be borne by the Federal Govern- PAGENO="0009" 5 ment. In acting upon these recommeiidations, the Council has adopted the policy, which has been approved by the Committee on Appropria- tions, providing that the annual Federal contribution to each commis- sion may equal 50 percent of total operating costs. The balance is funded by the participating States. Governors of certain States within the Missouri River Basin and the Ohio River Basin have requested establishment of commissions for those basins, but the number of requests or concurrences so far, in each case, is insufficient for establishment. Discussion of the desirability of a Pacific Southwest River Basins Commission has occurred among representatives of the States concerned, but no official proposal for a commission has yet been made. Also certain States in the Tipper Mis- sissippi River region are actively considering this matter, as are cer- tam others in the Southeast region. The first four commissions, as I indicated, were established upon the initiative and unanimous request of the concerned States. State initia- tive is most desirable and the Council has not chosen to take such action upon itself. However, every opportunity afforded has been taken to make known to Governors and others the method of opera- tion of Federal-State river basin commissions, and their advantage's over other available means for Federal and Federal-State coordina- tion and preparation of comprehensive river basin plans. As this in- formation becomes widespread, and the present commissions demon- strate their advantages, further initiatives to establish additional river basin commissions will undoubtedly be taken by the States. ` TITLE I-WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL The Water Resources Council, as created by title I, was composed initially of the Secretaries of Agriculture ; the Army ; Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare ; the Interior ; and the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission. The Secretary of Transportation was added by the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Included by Council regulation, as associate members, are the Secre- tary of Commerce and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop- ment ; and, as observers, the Attorney General and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. All of these officials have substantial stat- utory responsibilities with regard to water. Section 101 of the act provides that "heads of other Federal agencies". shall be requested to participate with the Council when matters affecting their responsi- bilities are considered by the Council. Status as associate member or observer enables these officials to keep regularly informed of the busi- ness of the Council and decide for themselves when matters affecting their responsibilities are being considered. Each of the members, associate members, and observers has named a representative who functions with the Executive Director in the conduct of the Council's business between meetings of their principals. The principals meet regularly every 3 months and on the call of the chairman. The representatives, with the Executive Director acting as a voting chairman, meet almost every week. DecIsions at this level can be made only by unanimous agreement. Disagreements automatically become issues fo~ consideration by ~he principals. Major matters, as 93-629---68------2 PAGENO="0010" 6 . specified in Council rules and regulations, can be decided only by the principals. This system of decisionmaking by the Council, which has been in ~ effect since November 1966, has worked very well. It has enabled the Council to act upon many matters. whicholearly do not require face- to-face consideration by the principals. On the other hand, it identifies sharply th~ areas of real disagreement. Thus, the process ass~ires that the matters that the principals do consider are important. . Let me mention the Council's ~ functions, and some examples of the Council's work relating to each function Fir$t function.-To maintain a continuing study of the ade- quacy of supplies~ of water and related land resources to meet requirements, and to prepare a periodic national assessment (sec. 102). Early in 1967 the Council decided upon plans for making the first national assessment, within the limits of available sthff and other resources. A report on this basis is in the final stages of Council approval. it is now planned for publication in the next few months. Based on readily available data, the report establishes the water situation ~ for a base year, 1965 ; identifies current problem areas ; and includes projections of water requirements for larger regions of the country. To the extent proven feasible, longrun water management problems are identified. Conclusions and recommendations with regard to them are being made. Regional chapters have been prepared through cooperation of per- sonnel of member agencies in the field and of th.e States. National summaries for each water development or use function have been prepared by member agencies. Council staff, with assistance from member agencies, is performing the necessary central staff work. This first effort cannot be considered a full-scale national assessment within the meaning of Section 102. It represents all that is possible with present analytical methods and the organization of data for simultaneous coverage of the country as a whole, the ç~urrent degree of completion of comprehensive regional framework studies, and avail- ability of staff and other reSources. Future national assessments, to be more adequate, will require more deliberate planning and preparatory work over a longer period and substantially greater Council input and other resources. * . Second funetion.-To appraisethe adequacy of administrative and statutory means fOr coordination ~ attd implementation of the water and related land resource policies and programs of the 5ev- eral Fede& a~gëneies to make recommendations to the Presi- dent with re~peèt to policies and programs (se~tion 102). Council appraisal of proposed Fedélid-interstate compact commis- siolls for management of water and related land resources within river basins, with a view to advising the President tipon them, is a major activity at the present time. The ~ compact proposed by the Interstate Advisory Commission forthe Susquehanna River Basin in 1966 initi- ated this work. Subsequently, the Council has fOcused upon the pro- posed Potomac River Basin Compact, and upon generally similar proposals for the Hudson River Basin. Subst~ñtiai Council staff time, along with that of~ memb~ agencies, is nëcessâry to assist the Council in the development of concerted views. PAGENO="0011" 7 To enable more widespread official and public consideration of such matters, the Council prepared and published in August 196~T, a report on alternative institutional arrangements for managing river basin operations. Also under the heading of policy development, the Council has initiated studi~s of current Federal policies with regard to the sharing of costs between the Federal Government and non-Federal interests for flood control and water quality investmer~ts iii Federal and fed- erally assisted projects. Its concern with flood control cost ~ sharing stems from its broader concern with improved flood plain management. Its concern with cost sharing for provision of water quality `features stems from views expr~ssed several months ago in this committee aiid its counterpart in the other body. The aim of the Council in both instances is to discover improved cost-sharing policies that would be practicable to administer and ap- propriate to recommend to the President for transmission to the 91st Congress in its first session. As time and staff resources permit, review will be undertaken of the experience with the cost-sharing provisions of the Federal Water Projects Recreation Act and of other water and related land resource legislation. . Third /unction.-To establish, after consultation with appro- priate interested Federal and non-Federal entities, and with the approval of the President, principles, standards, and procedwes for Federal participation in the preparation of comprehensive regional or river basin plans and for the formulation and evalua- tion of Federal water and related land resource projects (section 103). The principles, standards, and procedures for this purpose that were approved by . the President on May 15, 1962, ~s supplemented and amended, are considered to be in full force and effect. The document of May 15, 1962, established the discount rate to be used in the formulation and evaluation of water resource projects as the average rate of interest payable by the treasury on interest-bearing marketable securitjes of the Unite~1 States w1~ich, upon original issue, had terms to maturity of 15 years ~ or more. The discount rate for fiscal year 1968, based upon th1s formula, is 31/4 percent. In his budget message this year, the President said the following: "The Water Resources Council is developing a more appropriate interest rate to be applied in formulating andevaluating water proj- ects. The revised rate will be related to the average estimated current cost to the Treasury of long-term l~orrowing. It will be higher than the rate now in use for project evaluation. The new rate will be applied to future projects in order to' assure the most efFective use of Federal funds in the develOpment of the Nation's water resources." The Council has this subject u~ider consideration. When it arrives at a proposed new regulation, that proposal will be published in the Federal Register, This will be done to solicit comment and encOurage consultation with interested parties, before the Council, acting under section 103 of the Act, establishes any new formula for the determina- tion of discount rates with the approval of the President. As time and staff resources permit, the Council plans to review, generally, the standards of May 1~ 1962, as supplemented and amended, with a view to formal implementation of section 103. PAGENO="0012" 8 Fourth /unction.-To coordinate schedules, budgets and, pro- grams of Federal agencies in comprehensive regional or river basin planning (derivative of section 102(b)). In response to the recommendation of the Senate select committee that comprehensive water development plans be prepared for all the Nation's major river basins, 10 comprehensive framework-type studies are underway. One "new start" for fiscal year 1969, that for the Great Basin, is now before the Committee on Appropriations. Others will need to be started later. More detailed comprehensive basin studies are also in process in 15 smaller basins. Interdepartmental coordination of these studies predates the act. Greater effort is warranted to coordinate them than has been possible to date. Fifth function.-To review comprehensive river basin plans prepared in the field and to transmit them, together with its recommendations, to the President for transmittal to the Congress (section 104). One of the comprehensive framework-type studies, that for the Ohio River Basin, will be ready for Council review * in July of this year. Two more detailed basin studies have been completed and are now before the Council for review and action. This review process is critical, not only to assure that a field study is technically sound and to arrive at appropriate Council recommendations, but also to dis- cover needed changes in current instructions to improve preparation of such studies. Sixth function.-To carry out its responsibilities with regard to the creation, operation, and termination of Federal-State river basin commissions (specified in title II). The current stiitus of Federal-State river basin commissions has al- ready been discussed. I will only add here that this function demands substantial Council staff time, particularly that of the executive di- rector, the deputy director and the administrative officer. These six functions, together with the seventh (which I have al- ready discussed) , relating to the title III program, involve a very sub- stantial body of work. The most critical factor in the proper performance of these fiinc- tions is dedicated and skilled staff work preparatory to Council delib- erations. Whether deliberations are being conducted by representatives of the principals or the principals themselves, they are most fruitful when they can focus upon thoughtfully prepared documents, setting forth necessary analysis of facts, clear identification of isues, and alter- native courses of action that might be taken. In a body of this kind, not all staff work for the Council should be undertaken by the Council staff. Much staff work should continue to be done by the departmental staffs, but this, too, requires arrangements to be made by the Council staff. Adequate control staff work is clearly a critical factor in the Council's performance of its function. The Council staff now numbers 24 persons, including clerical em- ployees. Ten of these employees work on the title 111 grant program. The remaining 14, which includes the executive director and deputy director, clearly constitute an inadequate staff input in the opinion of the Council members themselves. , The Bureau of the Budget has concurred in this conclusion. In addi- tion, the Bureau advised that the Council's functions would best be PAGENO="0013" performed if the limitation of $300,000 with regard to title I were removed. If the limitation is removed, the President would then be permitted to request the Congress for funds, as he believes to be nec- essary each year, for administration by the Council of the provisions of the act, except as regards title III, which would retain its appro- priation ceiling. I want to say here definitely and clearly that the Council has no ambition to have a large staff, nor otherwise have very large sums to administer. Nevertheless, it believes with the Bureau of the Budget that the kind of flexibility in funding provided by S. 3058 would be highly desirable. In closing, I would like to add a final point bearing on the matter of flexibility. The National Water Commission bill is a major example of bills enacted or now under consideration by the Congress which would add to the work of the Council. The National Water Commis- sion bill contemplates a close working relationship between the Corn- mission and the Council. But also, it places a clear obligation upon the Council to consider carefully the Commission's reports and submit its own views to the President on those reports. The increased burden on the Council's staff with the advent of the Commission cannot be clearly foreseen at this time, but it will be substantial. This committee, the Congress, and the administration are expecting a great deal, and rightly so, from this dual effort by the Commission and the Council. If the Council is to perform its projected role, in addition to proper performance of its present statutory duties, the administration must have the means to respond to the Council's needs through timely re- quests to the Committee on Appropriations. That concludes Secretary Udall's statement, Mr. Chairman. I will not read the attachment to the statement but would like to insert it at this point. Senator ANDERSON. It will be printed at this point in the hearing record. (The attachment referred to follows:) {ATTACHMENTJ ESTABLISHED TITLE II RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission Established by Executive Order 11831 on March 6, 1967. Federal Members AS~tate Members Charles W. Hodde, Chairman William S. Holden, Vice Chairman and Representatives of: Member for Idaho Department of Agriculture Other Member States: Department of Army Montana I)epartment of Commerce Oregon Department of Health, Education Washington and Welfare Wyoming Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Department of Transportation Federal Power Commission Chairman, United States Entity for Columbia River Treaty PAGENO="0014" Federal Members F~deral Members Federal Members 10 State Members State Members State Members Mr. HOLUM. Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest, with your concurrence, that Henry Caulfield, the Director of the Water Resources Council, supply his information to the committee at this time. Senator ANDERSON. You have a statement about the limitation of $300,000. Do you favor taking off this limitation? Mr. CAULFIELD. Yes. Senator ANDERSON. Go ahead, Mr. Caulfield. Mr. CAULFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great Lakes Basin Commission Established by Executive0rder11345 on April 20, 1967. Raymond F. Olévenger, Chairman Representatives of : ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Department of Agriculture ~ ~ Department of Army Department of Commerce Department of Hea'th, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Department of Justice Department of Transportation Federal Power Commission Fred E. Morr, Vice Chairman and Member for Ohio Other Member States: Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota New York Pennsylvania Wisconsin 1Sovris-Red-Rainy River Basins Commission Established by Executive Order 11359 on June 20, 1967. Gor4on K. Gray,, Chairman Representatives of: . Department of Agriculture Department 4:~f Army Department of Co~nmerce ~ , Department of Health, Education and ~ Welfare Department of Housing and TJrban Development Department of Interior Department of Transporlation Federal Power Commission William C. Walton, Vice Chairman and Member for Minnesota Other Member States: North Dakota South Dakota New England River Basins Commission ~ Established by Executive Order 11371 On September 7, 1967; H. Frank Gregg, Chairman Representatives of: Department of Agriculture Department of Army Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Department of Transportation Federal Power COmmission Austin H. Wilkins, Vice Chairman and Member for Maine Other Member States: Connecticut Massachusetts ~ New Hampshire New York Rhode Island Vermont PAGENO="0015" I I STATEMENT OP HENR~ P.. CAULPIELD, JR~ EXECUTIVE DIEECTOR, WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL Mr. CAULFII~LD. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you as a witness, my first such opportunity, and tostipplement the remark~ delivered by Secretary Holum on behalf of the Ohairman of the Water Resources Council in support of S. 3058-to. amen.d the Water Resources Planning Act to revise the authorization of appropriations for administering the provisions of the act. As has already been indicated, the substance of S. 3058 relates only to title I of the act and would not change the present limits on appropriations relating to titles II and III. In the opinion of the Council members, in which the Bureau of the Budget concurs, the staff and other resources available to . the Council under title I is inadequate to carry out its functions; For this purpose, the Council's annual appropriations. are now limited to $300,000 by section 401 of the act. Before discussing in greater detail the need for greater financial resources, I believe it would be helpful to you i f I discussed the present organization and staffing of the Water Resources Council staff and present arrangements for providing necessary inputs in im- plementation of the Water Resources Planning Act. Water Resources Council $taff.-Under the Council's rules and regu- lations, the Executive Director acts as the . principal executive officer for the Council and head of the Water Resources Council staff. He is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Council members. Among other duties, the Council's rules and regulations provide that the Executive Director shall insure. that "the quality of the work of the staff in its studies, reports and in other assignments is high, that the professional integrity of its personnel is respected, and that its over~ill perspective and independence of judgment ~ ~ ~ j~ appro- priately maintained within the context of the interagency, intergov- ernmental and other staff collaboration that is both necessary and desirable in fulfillment of the purposes of the Council * * The personnel selection policy established by the Council calls for a "balanced ticket" as between professions pertinent to water and related land resources~ matters ; as regards prior Federal agency affiliations; as well as Federal service in comparison to experience in State o~ local government, private enterprise and university teaching and research. My training is ~L5 an economist and my prior experience in Govern- ment in the natural resources field was in the Department of the In- tenor as well as in research outside Government with Resources for the Future, Inc. The Deputy Director, Reuben Johnson, is a civii engineer with 2~ years' experience in the Corps of . Engineers. His most recent corps assignment, before coming with the Council, was Chief of the Plan- ning Division, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific~ at San Francisco. The Assistant Director for Planning and Research Adviser, I 1arry Steele, is an economist with 31 years' service in the. Department of Agriculture. Prior to joining the Council staff, Mr. Steele was Chief of the Natural Resources Economics Division of Agriculture's Economic Research Service~ IT~ has long been ~s~ciated with water and related 11* PAGENO="0016" 12 land resource planning, both in the field and in Washington ; and in 1952 he was Assistant Executive Director of the President's Missouri Basin Survey Commission. Parenthetically, I would like to point out here that Mr. Steele, in his role for the Council as research adviser, is a member of the Com- mittee on Water Resources Research of the Federal Council for Science and Technology and Chairman of its Work Group on Research in Support of Water Resources Planning. In this role he brings knowl- edge from the water research community to the Council and makes that group aware of needed research from the point of view of the Council. The Assistant Director for State Grants, Dr. Harold G. Wilm, has his prc~fessional training in forestry and watershed management. Dr. Wilm cam~ to us from the State College of Forestry, Syracuse TJni- versit~, where he was associate dean. Previously, for some 7 years, he had :b~n eommissiotier ~ of conservation ~ and chairman of the Water Resources Commission of the State of New York. The Assistant Director for Policy and Legal Adviser is Philip M. Glick. Mr. Glick most recently has been ~ a lawyer in private practice for sorn~ 13 years. Previously, he had extenSive experience as a legal officer in the Department of State, Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture. He is widely known as the author of the Standard State Soil Conservation District Act-largely followed by all 50 States in authorizing the establishment of soil conservation districts. Parenthetically, I would like to point out here that Mr. Glickin his role for the Council as legal adviser advises on all legal probli~ms aris- ing under and relating to the Water Resources Planning Act. The other profensional members of th~ Water Resources Council staff are similarly varied in their professional training and experience. I would like now to go into the staff work and how it is organized. Work preparatory to exercise of Couneil'$ functions, other tha'n under title 111.-Work preparatory to exercise of the Council's func- tions, other than under title III, is largely conducted at the present time within the context of three administrative groups : The Planning Committee, Policy Committee, and a Task Force on Institutional Ar- rangements for River Basin Management. Repres~ntativ~s of member departments and agencies serve on each of these groups and their chair- men are, respectively, the Assistant Director for Plailning and Re- search Adviser, the Assistant Dir~etor for Policy and Legal Adviser, and the Deputy Director. To advise th~ Council in connection with its functions on a more technical level, and to provide needed technical coordination among departments and agencies, the Council sponsors four technical corn- mittees whose members largely are employees of member departments and agencies and are named by them : Hydrology, sedimentation, ecu- nomics, and vector control-the last relating to disease-bearing mos- quitoes. The chairmanship rotates among the members. For these technical committees the Council now provides only a place to meet, modest consultant and clerical services and in some instances meets modest requirements for reproduction of their technical bulletins and reports. In December 1967, for example, the Council published a tiniform technique for determining flood flow frequencies. Lack of uniformity PAGENO="0017" 13 on this technical subject has long caus~d confusion among Federal~ State, and local agencies. The Council's Hydrology Committee, corn- posed of 10 top hydrologists within the Federal Government assisted by two outside consultants, did an outstanding job in producing this greatly needed report which the Council adopted. Other work of this nature is underway in the technical committees. Now, I would like to discuss briefly the various functions of the Council, but under the heading of the organizational arrangements that I have set forth. In performance of work preparatory to exercise by the. Council of four of the functions identified by Mr. Holum, the Assistant Director for Planning and Research Adviser and the Planning Committee are now assisted by three WRC professional staff members. The first function noted was the national assessment, and our work On that has already been explained to you. I would only like to add here that the Council could only afford to allocate one man-year of professional time, in addition to the part-time contribution of the Assistant Director, to this major and important task. If it were not for the nonreimbursible loan of personnel and tech- nical and editorial assistance, from member agencies, preparation of most chapters in the member agencies and in field groups, in which State personnel also participated, and defrayal of costs for drafting of charts and maps and for printing by the member agencies, publi- cation in the near future of the First National Assessment would not be possible under present fiscal arrangements. The Council anticipates that research undertaken under auspices other than the Council will provide markedly improved technical methods of preparing national assessments in the future. Also, because our first effort has shown clearly that substantial improvements are needed in the Nation's water use data, the Council has already orga- nized a work group, aided for a short time by two outside consultants, to make a preliminary investigation of this important problem. In addition to a modest nuniber of permanent WEC professional staff for this function in future years, ~ temporary professional and editorial help funded by the Couficil, plus funds to hire computer time to make necessary analyses, will be needed during the next period of assessment preparation. Third function-Establishment of planning principles, standards and procedures : Secretary Holum on behalf of Secretary Udall, already has noted our work in this area today. Approximately one- fourth man-year of professional WRC staff time, in addition to the part-time contribution of the Assistant Director, is now devoted to to development of principles, standards and procedures-and this has had to be confined to flood plain planning analysis. Portunately, as Chairman Udall indicated, the principles,' standards and procedures approved by the President on May 15, 1962, as supplemented and amended, are in full force and effect. Background staff work on the matter of discount rates, which Chairman Udall discussed, is being performed almost entirely by the Council's economics committee. A very few highly qualified professional staff members could enable the Council to make very worthwhile and substantial progress in the conduct o.f this function. Work of this type could make a very sub- stantial contribution to improved planning in the field. PAGENO="0018" 14 Also; ~I might add in this connection that training of planning per- sonnel-both Federal personnel i~i the field as i~ell ~ as State profes- sional personnel-could contribute substantially to improved plan- ning. Shortage of adequately trained personnel appe~rs to l~e the chief stumbling block at. the present time facing State agencies in develop- ing their competence with the aid of title ~ III funds. A number of these ~ agencies are utilizing ~ the training provisions of title III to help themselves in this regard. Federal ~ age~icies, of course, have au- thority~ and funds for training their personnel. And the universities, speaking through the universities. Council on Water Resources, have expressed their ability and willingness to make their contributions in this regitrd. N~vertheies, there is need for a sharp focus to bring these efforts together and to effectively match a competent supply of per- sonnel with thepotential demand. The Council h~ been thinking of its appropriate role in this situation as one of a catalyst and coordinator. No action has yet been taken because of preoccupation of staff with other important matters. Fourth function-Coordination of comprehensive planning sched- ules, budgets and programs : Chairman TJdall's statement also mdi- cated in his testimony the 10 large-basin comprehensive framework studies and the 15 small basin more detailed comprehensive studies that are nOw underway. Budgets for comprehensive studies coordinated by the Council are formulated initially in the field by the~ appropriate Federal-State co- ordinating group in e~tch area. Each' such field-coordinated budget is then reviewed and approved by the Council and submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for its consideration when acting upon the in- dividual budgets of each participating department and agency. Dur- ing the life of a study, each budget is reviewed annually in accordance with general guidelines of the Council by the field coordinating group with a view to proposing any necessary reallocations of effort or other adjustments. For example, the coordinated budget for the Columbia- North Pacific Comprehensive Study is now reviewed each year by the new Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Proposed changes are considered and approved by the Council and then submitted to the Bureau of the Budget. The aim of this coordination process is to avoid duplication of effort between the several participating Federal departments and agencies, to achieve a balanced planning effort in terms of their respective re- sponsibilities and capabilities, and to assure so far as possible that all related planning adds up properly and that the total makes sense. The aim also is to avoid duplication with State and other non-Federal planning activities. and to identify specific. inputs that non-Federal entities are able to make to these `studies. These inputs are now sup- ported, in part, by financial grants from the Council provided under title III of the Water Resources Planning Act. As contemplated by that act, comprehensive river basin studies coo~tinated by the Council will increasingly include planning aimed toward desirable non-Federal actions in addition to Federal projects. ~ . . Only 1 man-year of the Council's professional staff time, in addition to the contribution of the Assistant Dii~ctor, can now be devoted to this impoxtant work. A modest increase woñld pay, for' itself several times. over in better planned studies and coordinat~ed budgets. PAGENO="0019" 15 In this connection, I would also like to mention anotber funding problem. All comprehensive planning studies re4uire econó?niic ~pi~ojec- tions well into the future for the basin or basins that th~y cover, to provide a basis for determining long-run water and related land ~re- source requirements. Pfedating the Council, arrangements were n~4e for consistent professional preparation o~ necessary prQjections through the joint effort of the Office of Business Economics of the i)epartment of Commerce and the Economic Research Servk~ of the Department of Agriculture. The funds in support of this effort become charges upon the appropriations of the several Qther Federal agencies participating in the studies. The Couficil's periodic national assess- ments also re4uire such economic projections for j~ base year covering all regions of the country. . No decision has yet been made, but the Council has under consideration alternative means to finance prepara- tion of these projections in the future that might be more efficient and less cumbersome. One of these alternatives is for the Council itself to provide the necessary funds to meet the marginal costs of OBE-ERS in preparing the required j~rojections out of appropriations made available to it. Without change in the authorization of title I funds, this alternative is nOt possible of adoption. Fifth function-Review of comprehensive planning studies corn- pleted in the field : Mr. Udall's statement also included where we stood on this matter, with one large study coming in in July, and as I mdi- cated here, two studies already before us from the Council for the Sabine River and Pascagoula River Basin. For this efl~ort, at the present time, we only have three-fourths of a man-year of professional staff time devoted to this work. As the studies now underway in the field are completed, increased staff time must be devoted during fiscal year 1969 and subsequent years to this very important fifth function. Now, I would like to shift to the functions associated with the As- sistant Director for Policy and Legal Adviser, and the Policy Corn- mittee. In performance of work preparatory to exercise by the Cowa- cil of its second function-policy development-the Assistant Dir~c- tor for Policy and Legal Adviser and the Policy Committee ~re now assisted by only one WRC professional staff member. . As has been pointed out to you, the Council has, initiated studies of current Federal policies with regard to the sharing of costs between the Federal Government and non-Federal interests for flood control `and water quality investments in Federal and federally assisted proj- ects. "The aim of the Council in both instances," Secretary Udall said, "is to discover improved cost-sharing policies that, would be, practic- able to administer and appropriate to. recommend to th~ President for transmission to the 91st Congress in its first ~ session." Also, he noted that review will be undertaken to the extent permitted by' the ~ivailability of time and staff of experience with the cost-sharing pro- visions of the Federal Water Projects Recreation Act and other water and related land resource legislation~ ~ ` ` I should. like to ad4 to these tasks the work the Counci~ is under- taking in considering proposed legislation, both that which is jnitiathd in the Congress and that proposed by the executive `branch' to the Congress.. The CoiTmeil has been highly selective among the rn~ny legislative proposals that it could consider, and has confined it~ con-, sideration larg~1y to those: that relate, to twp or ~QreF~der~l d~part- I I PAGENO="0020" I I 16 ments and agencies. The proposed Flood Insurance Act, currently before the Congress, is an example of a bill on which the Council usefully worked before the administration's report was transmitted to the Congress. Besides the Department of Housing and Urban Devel-. opment which would administer the flood insurance program, certain of the provisions of the bill relate to the work of the Departments of the Army, Agriculture, and the Interior. Of necessity, of course, the Council must consider prOposed legisla- tion that would involve an addition, I might even just say a change, to its own functions. For example, S. 2564, now before the Joint Corn- mittee on Atomic Energy, provides that the Atomic Energy Corn- mission, prior to determining whether or not a license for ~ a nuclear powerplant shall be issued, sI~all request the advice of the Water Resources Council regarding "the compatibility of the proposed facil- ity with any comprehensive, coordinated joint plan for water and related land resources development which. has been approved for a region, river basin, or group of river basins in which such facility is to be located." ~ The Council's legislative reports, like ~ those of all Federal depart- ments and agencies, are cleared with the Bureau of the Budget before they are transmitted to the Congress. Thus, the role of the Council in this field does not infringe upon the longstanding role of the Bureau of the Budget. What the Council usefully adds, in my opinion, to the process of consideration within the executive branch is face-to-face interdepartmental consideration in an effort to identify oversights, improve clarity, and overcome any interdepartrnent~il disagreements. Such useful face-to-face consideration is not normally a part of the clearance procedure of th~ Bureau of the Budget. Because the Assistant Director for Policy and legal adviser is now preoccupied for half his time, at least, with the next matter Iwill dis- cuss, with title III, and with other legal matters, his profes~ionaI input to policy development along with that of his one professional assistant is clearly inadequate to meet the Counèil's needs. To make up for this present deficiency, the Council has called upon staff in the several. IF'ederal departments and agencies associated in its work to perform necessary staff work. Such assistance will always be useful and desirable. Necessary competence on particular matters might not otherwise be possible to procure. Nevertheless, greater WRO professional staff is clearly required. Next, we shift to th~ Deputy Director and the Task Force on In- stitutional Arrangements for River Basin Management. Institutional ~ arrangements for river basin management, as has been noted, also come within the Council's second function implementing section 102(d) of the act. In addition to his duties of assisting the Ex- ecutive Director in overall management of the WRC staff and of shar- ing with him and the administrative officer and Council secretary, the staff burden relating to the Council's sixth function-responsibilities regarding creation, operation, and termination of Federal-State river basin commissions, the Deputy Director is Chairman of the Council's Task Force ~n Institutional Arrangements for River Basin Manage- ment. He is assisted in this role by the Assistant Director for Policy and legal adviser. You will recall in Chairman T5dall's testimony, at the present time we are making an appraisal of proposed Federal-interstate compact PAGENO="0021" 17 commissions for management of water and related land resources within river basins. He mentioned in this reo~ard the proposed com- pacts for the Susquehanna, Potomac, and Hud'son River basins. Presumably, the establishment of concerted basic policy views with- in the executive branch on this subject will not require substantial con- cern by the Deputy Director indefinitely. Nevertheless, our intensive experience with problems in connection with river basin compact nego- tiation and consent legislation, as well as Federal representation in con- nection with existing compacts, has raised questions about the ade- quacy of present II?ederal attention and the need for greater Federal continuous focus. I would like to summarize the effect of what I have said in financial ~terms. To summarize, the total WRC professional staff now available to perform all of the work outlined to you this morning under title I of the act is eight men. This number includes the Executive Director, the Deputy Director, and the legal adviser who, along with the adminis- trative officer and Council secretary, must also involve themselves as required with the financial grant program of title III. For fiscal year 1968 the Congress appropriated $290,000 in support of the Council's six functions under title I. The budget proposal for fiscal year 1.69, now before the Congress for consideration, totals ~311,OOO. The increase over fiscal year 1968 is due solely to. the initial impact of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 and increased operating costs. If the present ceiling of $300,000 is not lifted, a cut in present staff work will be unavoidable. The President's budget for fiscal year 1969 indicated that addi- tional authorizing legislation would be proposed. By letter of Feb- ruary 24, 1968, the Chairman of the Water Resources Council trans- mitted to the President of the Senate, draft authorizing legislation, indicating that the Bureau of the Budget had advised the Council that enactment of the draft legislation would be consistent with the ad- ministration's objectives. S. 3058 embodies the provisions of the draft, as submitted. In closing, I would just like to reiterate a statement in Chairman Udall's statement to you "that the Council has no ambition to have a ~Iarge staff, nor otherwise have very large sums to administer." To have such, in my personal opinion, would tend to defeat the purpose of the Congress in establishing the Council. Nevertheless, I also believe ~that the financial resources ~ow available to implement title I a~e clearly inadequate for proper performance of its appointed role and that the kind of flexibility in funding provided by S. 3058 would be highly desirable. The Water Resources Council, as indicated by the testimony that you have heard this morning, has made substantial . progress toward achievement of those things that you, Mr. Chairman, the committee and the Congress would appear to have had in mind with the enact- ment of the Water Resources Planning Act. With your continued support I am certain that the Water Resources Council can accom- plish much more that is both useful and important, and within its appointed role, for the benefit of the American people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. . Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. You are asking for a raise in the limitation of $300,000. PAGENO="0022" is Mr. CAUIJ~1ELD. The proposal before yOu, sir ; would remove the ~ limitation of $300,000. Senator ANDERSON. How much of a burden is that now ? You do not have enough money ~ Mr. CAULFIELD. Pardon me? Senator ANDERSON. You are $11,000 short? Mr. CAULFIELD. At the present time, in terms of 1969, but we feel that in terms of the future, sir, the President should be in a position to be able to request more. It is not just the technical question of the $11,000 needed in terms of the 1969 budget, but further, the point that we have attempted to make in analysis of the Council's functions, is that we just do not have the critical minimum of staff needed to perform well the functions that Congress set out for us in the Water Resources Planning Act. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Jordan? Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had hoped the Secretary would be here to help me orient myself to some Of the programs that ~ are going on here. First, let me say I approve wholeheartedly the work that is being done by the Water Resources Council under this abt. As you have indicated, Mr. Secretary, under title II, several river basin commissions have already been established at the request of the Governors of the concerned States. Such a commission has been established for the Pacific Nox~thwest, under title II of the act-the Pacific Northwest Basin Commission-and it is operating very effec- tively. Mr. Charles W. Hoddy is chairman. The vice chairman is William S. Holden. He is also amember for Idaho. tinder the provisions of this act we are going forward in the Pacific Northwest, at least, with a comprehensive river basin plan. Repeat- edly throughout your statements, both of you this morning have emphasized the need for comprehensive planning studies that require economic projections well into the future for the basin or basins that they corer in order to provide the basis for determining long run water and related land resource requirements. I am leading up to a question now because I cannot understand how the Department in one instance can recommend thorough research and investigation of land and water resources and on the other hand come out with the wild rivers bill that completely counteracts the effect of the long-range studies that you recommendhere. In my State, for instance, the Department insists on including the Salmon River as a wild river, thus guaranteeing that this wholly Idaho River, which drains 30 percent of the water resources of my State, shall leave the State undiminished. You do not give time for the effects of these studies to be taken into account, for the great research that is already being set up and being implemented under this act to becorne effective. You prejudg~the results and would determine, with. out the economic study that you have advocated here, that certain rivers will be so dedicat~j aild removed from further study by the Wild Rivers Act. Now, I would ask you, Mr. Secretary, in the instance of a conflict between making a thorough investigatioi~, research joined in by the States and Federal Government with respect to the best uses for the waters of the river ba~in and related land resources, and a preemptory I I I I 1 PAGENO="0023" 19 judgment on that river that sets it aside, that guarantees that it be used for a single purpose use alone, where does the Department stand? For study or for the preemptive use of a river for a single purpose use before the studies are completed ? Mr. ELOLUM. Senator Jordan, that is an excellent question and 1 share with you the wish that Secretary Udall were here to answer this for you. It may well be that he will want to supplement my answer for the record. ~ I think, however, that the two proposals are consistent. A~ far as the work of the river basin commissions is concerned and the compre- hensive planning, it has also been recognized that we were going to go ahead and make decisions while this planning was going on, This committee has on occasion, with my enthusiastic support, authorized the construction of certain projects, and I think the planning is con- sistent with the attention of the Congress and the administration to the establishment of these commissions. I think it is also consistent with that principle that we make other decisions as needed, and that the wild rivers legislation does deserve careful consideration by the Congress. Senator JORDAN. Would you agree with me that, where there is a conflict, it would be well to pause and give some consideration to a thorough research and study of the water resources and the related land resources that might be developed with the use of that water ? Mr. HOLTJM. I am always in favor of studies, Senator Jordan. I would cite a case where I am more intimately familiar, the Potomac ~River, where after consideration, and I hope the Congress will in the near future act favorably upon it, the Department and the adminis- tration have recommended the creation of the Potomac National River, safeguarding this important riverway from Great Falls to Cumber- land. But, I do think we have to make some decisions on current projects while these studies are going on, and certainly I know that Secretary TJdalJ shares with you your enthusiasm for the work that Chairman Illoddy and his group are doing in the Pacific Northwest. I think the Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission is off to an excellent start and that they are going to do a splendid job in the' Pacific Northwest. . I do not think the enactment of the wild rivers legislation is incon- sistent with that effort. Senator JORDAN. Well, I am sure it is, Mr. Secretary, and if you will indulge me sOmetime in a private conference I will show you exactly how it is in conflict with what you are proposing here. If the Salmon River is included in the wild rivers bill, I see the end of the road. We' do not r~eed to go into all of these studies that you. are talking about here because we will have dedicated our remaining water su~pply to a single-purpose use. We would just as well withdraw from the. studies that go forward in the Columbia Basin. We will not need to stu4y our water resources any more. You have already reached, a judgment for us ahead of the studies that we hoped we could make. Mr. HOLUM. I will be ver.y happy, Senator Jordan, to have your views and I shall carry them back to the Secretary as you expressed them. Senator JORDAN. He knows them already. Senator ANDERSON. I think you ought to ask Secretary Udall. PAGENO="0024" STEWART L. UDALL, $ecretary of thc I~iterior. I 20 Mr. H0LtTM. I shall do that. Senator ANDERSON. There is a conflict and we might as well face it. Mr. HOLUM. I shall do so. (The information requested is as follows:) U.S. DEPARTM~E~'TT OF THE INTERIOR, Washingto~'t, D.C., April 25~ 1968. Hon. CLINToN P. ANDERSON, Chairman, subcommittee on Water and Power Resources, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.E~. $enate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : I am pleased to respond to the matter raised b~ Senator Len B. Jordati in connection with Assistant Secretary Kenneth Holum's testimony before your subcommittee on April 22, 1968. Senator Jordan indicated he believes there is a conflict between the compre- hensive planning program conducted under the provisions of the Water I~esources Planning Act (Public Law 89-80) and the' proposal to designute certaifi wild or scenic rivers in accordance with pending legislation. The comprehensive study now being directed by the Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission has, as the basic objective, the formulation of a framewQrk plan to provide a broad guide to the best use or combination of uses of water and related land resources of the region to meet foreseeable short- and long-term needs. Consideration will be given to development and management, as well as the preservation of resources. These studies were initiated in 1966 and are scheduled to terminate in 1971. Prom the inception of the comprehensive study program in 1963, it was under- stood that no moratorium was declared on ongoing water resources programs. The preparation of comprehensive plans has not deterred the submission of in- dividual . project reports to the Congress or the construction of projects in the regions under study. In my view, the proposed scenic rivers legislation is quite compatible with the comprehensive study program, in that one of the goals of such legislation is to highlight those rivers known to have outstanding attributes worthy of preserving in their natural condition. This is in consonance with objectives of planning set forth In Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, 2d Session, "Policies, Standards, and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans for Use and Pevelopmentof Water and Related Land Resources." Senator Jordan specifically mentions the Salmon River in Idaho as being an example of a conflict between the comprehensive studies and the scenic rivers program. While I appreciate his views, I believe there are adequate data devel- oped by a specific study to justify scenic river status for segments of the Salmon River. This stretch of the Salmon is one of the finest scenic rivers in the United States. As you know, the Salmon River was included in 5. 119 passed by the Senate on August 9, 1967. Thank you very much for the opportunity to supplement the record on this matter. Sincerely yours, Senator ANDERSON. Senator Moss ~? Sena~tor Moss. Thank' you, Mr. Chairman." As I ` ~iindersta~nd it, you ` are willing nOw to retain the ceiling `on title II ` and title III as prOvided `but wish t httve ~ no ~ c~iiing of expenditure at all on the title I functions. Mr. H0LUM. That is correct. Senator Moss. Do you consider it wise to ` abandon' ~ the ceiling entirely rather than just ask for an increase of ceiling? Mr. HOLISM. Senator Moss, that is the decision as I well know that the Congress always makes, but the Congress will have the oppor- tunity, through the appropriations process, to review the requests of the Council for funding under title I. I think that our experience has demonstrated the good work~ that the `Oou~ici1 has done up to PAGENO="0025" 21 now, bnt it is a little difficult to predict what the funding i~equire- ments are going to b~ and what the needs are going to be on the part of the Council. I would like to suggest, as the legislation does, that no ceiling be imposedbut that the Appropriations Committee continue to review these items as carefully as they have in the past. Senator ANDERSON. Will the Senator yield ~ Senatpr Most Certainly. ~ Senator ANr~EnSON. Will you tr~ to ~ submit th~e actual figures? If the personnel cost is just changed by $11,000, why do you not ask for that much ceiling on top of what you now have ~ Mr. HOLTJM. Principally because, Senator Anderson, and I think the Director, Mr. Caulfield, has done an excellent job of explaining it, and my own experience as the Department's representative on the Council has clearly indicated, that we not only need additional author- ity for funds to take care of the pay increase but the Council does need modest increases in its staff to do its work adequately. ~ ~ Senator ANDERSON. Suggest exact language. I think it would be much better if you would. . Senator Moss. I noticed' in both the `Secretary's testimony whith you presented, and that of Mr. Caulfield, ` there was a disclaimer of any desire to have a sizable staff, that is, a large staff, but tieverthel~ss, we are confronted with going from a situation where we now have a c~ilhigto on~ of no ceiling at all, and I think you can seethe political problem that that might present in persuading the Coi~gress that this is, a necessary thing to do. It would be so much simpler and more logical if you just increased the limitation amount. That is the only reason I raise this point. . , Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HOLtrM. I understand. Senator ANI~RSON. Senator Burdick. Senator BTJI~DtCi~. Mr. Chairman, I arrii~ed late and I will defer my cross-examin~tiOfi and read the testimony very carefully. Senator ANDERSON. I do hope you will try to answer the points that Senator Jordan made. Mr. HOLUM. I certainly shall. Senator ANDERSON. The Secretary ought to answer himself. Thank you very much. , Will you answer four or five questions now? Mr. VERKLER. The ones that are on the paper. Senator ANDERSON. The staff of the committee has prepared some questions and I wish you would read the question and supply the an- swer to it. Read the question, please, and then supply the answer. Mr. HOLUM. "The Director of the Water Resources Council has testi- fled before the Senate Appropriations Committee that future editions of the national' assessment might require greater staff input. Is it pos- sible to predict the magnitude of the necessary expansion of the Coun- cii's staff at this time'?" Mr. CA~L~IEL~. As I indicated in my statemeiit with regar4 to the "national a'ssessthent," the way I conceive of the staffing problem i's that we need a very few people-my present judgment is three profes- sional staff `people who are all the time in the employ of the Council- working on national assessments during the period of preparation, in- tensive preparation, as well as developing the methods and developing PAGENO="0026" the' workand improvii~g theplans. for naticiial ~tssessrnents in the in- terim between the~ ji'itens~iye peak perio ., ~ And then, we need. enough money to hire temporary staff, consultants' and computer time in the periods of intensive, activity to con~'e o~it every 2 or 3 years~~-whatever the requirements ~ aim-to come ~ o~t with a periodic nat~ona1 assess- ment. ` ~ ` Now, we have a continuing problem of funding ~ ~or the national ~ssessnjent as weU~s the peak probleni, and that is the problem we have in thiancing inthis'particularactiyity,. ., . Senator ANDEñSON. You could specify jobs and. could not specify dollars. ii: think you ought to' try to put in the proposal exactly what you~ re~ily want. ` ` . Mr. HOLUM. The second question is, , "In reviewing principles, standards, aiid proèedures for the planning Qf'~*athr resource prQjects, such ~L5~ the appropriate interest rate, the Council utilizes coi~imittee~ and work, groups composed of personnel from other agencies. This insures the consideration of the various problems and viewpoints of the agencies involved, but it fragments the research and administrative support among staff person~iel of those agencies who are not directly respon~ib1e to the Council. Will additional administrative and lower grade technical support be necesasry to facilitate the performance of this function ? " , , ,` Mr. CAULFIELD. If I get the thrust of the qt~stion properly, 1 would say that the iieed for the staff of the Council is because we do not have what I referred to before, as a critical minimum of staff. We have to call upon the agencies too often for doing, literally, staff work for the Council. This is not to say that the agencies should not participate, and even including staff work, in the work of the Council. I think it is highly desirable that they do so. Otherwise we would ~et a divorce between Council staff and the agencies. We are not seeking that, be- cause I do not think you can haye aneffective Council without intimate relationship between the staff of the departments and the staff of the Council. , , The point is that the Council needs additional administrative and lower grade technical support-I would . say really the problem is one of higher grade professional support, grade 14's and 15's, with the necessary secretaries, and so forth, to go with that. The type of work that grades 14 and 15 perform in professional activity is the critical element in the staff work for the Council. I hope that is responsive to the question. Senator ANDERSON. No. 3. Mr. TI0LUM. Question 3, "the comprehensive river basin studies are participated in by a number of Federal agencies. The' total budget for the effort is reviewed by the Council, but portions of the funds are in- cluded in the budget requests of a number of agencies which come be- fore different appropriations subcommittees. The situation is further complicated by contractual arrangements and fund transfers among the agenciesinvolved. Is it advisable in the future to consolidate some part of the comprehensive river basin funds under the Council's budget request?" Mr. cAULFIELD. We, the Council and the Bureau of the Budget, have not given consideration to the question of whether the appropriations for comprehensive river basin studies should be made to the Council PAGENO="0027" 23.. for~ subaliocation, although various people~ have mentioned the possi- bility of it~ One of the problems has been in the pastthat-back before The time of the Council-that the Administratiofi endeavoredtQ con- solidate tIaes~ budgets so that there wouldnot be money transferred be- tween agencies, and so that each agency would ask for its own funds. The Congress did not see fit to go along with that Administration proposal a couple of years ago. The ApprQpriations Committee did not see fit to go along with that effort, that simplification ofthe budget process. ~ ~ ~ ~ This was some years ago, about 5 years ago or so. So~ we have the present procedure of having the budgets. go to the Congress the way the Congress wanted them to go but trying to have the coOrdination within the executive branch so that the budgets which are to go to the individual committees will be , coordinated and w~li. make sense. as a total. . Now, I would not care to offer an opinion on the exact question, namely, whether the Council should have this money appropriated to it and then distribute it, as it were, to the agencies, without more reflection and discussion in the Council. That would be a major change in our whole structure of appropriations. The Budget Bureau would be very much concerned with that. It would be difficult for me to offer ~an opinion at this time on that direct question. Senator ANDERSON. You may not like what the Congress has done, ~but do you not think yOu ought to follOw what the Congress has done? Mr. HoLu~1. Pardon me? Senator ANDERSON. The Congress has laid out certain requirements here. Why should not the Congress be your guiding light? Mr. CAULFIELD. Well, it is, sir, and that is how we are acting now. This is the way we understand the budgets are handled, by the sev- eral Subcommittees on Appropriations of the House and Senate ; and we present a coordinated budget. We have a single document which ex- presses the coordinated budget as a whole. In my testimony before the House Public Works Committee ~ on Appropriations this year, for example, I presented to that subcom- mittee the coordinated budget for all the comprehensive studies, even though the money that is in that budget for, say, the Department of Agriculture, goes before a different subcommittee of the House Ap- propriations Committee, and likewise in the Senate. But there is one ~ornmittee, namely, the Committee on Public Works, that the Council goes before which sees the budget as a whole. Now, exactly how that subcommittee handles its~4f in relation to the other subcommittees, both in the House and Senate, I am not, of course, aware or competent to discuss. ~. . Senator ANDERSON. Question No. 4. . ~ ~ . Mr. HOLTJM. "In general, what other organizational problems have been noted in the Council's experience thus far?" . Mr. CAtILFIELD. I think I have covered that pretty well in my state- ment. Senator ANDERSON. I think you have. Mr. CAULFIELD. I do not know exactly how to amplify that at this point. I think we have singled out the chief problem. We have iiot come before the Senate committee lightly with this bill. We have PAGENO="0028" I 24 waited until we were sure of what we ne~ded. I tried `to identify the critical problems. We feel this appropriation ceiling is a critical prob- lem. We feel we really need to come before you with this matter of appropriations under title I. We will.~againcome before you, I am sure, when we can identify other ` critical prthlems that are presented by the act. Senator ANDERSON. Last qn~stion, No.5. Mr. H0LUM. The fifth question is thehard one. "If the committee should decide to retain an appropriation limitation on title I activi- ties, what is the order of magnitude of `the increase which would be necessary to provide for ` desirthle organizational and budgetary changes within the foreseeable future as well as the immediate pay raise V' Mr. CAur~IELD. I think the answer to that question, sir, is that I would have to furnish the answer later. This could not be given with- out consultation `with the Bureau of the Budget, and if the committee wishes, I will undertake to do that, consult with the Bureau of the Budget and arrive at an answer for the committee. Senator ANDERSON. I think you can testify if you want to without the Bureau of theBudget,'but I `will respect your feeling. Mr. CAULrIELD. This is a rnone~y matter, sir. Senator Moss. That is what I was concerned about in my question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HOLTJM. If I could sum `it up, Mr. Chairman, and I think the Director has answered the questions appropriately, I think both the Director and the departments involi~d share what was `contained in Secretary UdaiPs statement, an interest in' Council stafF, that it not be large, that it not deal with ~ great magnitude of funds and that the departments. themselves be intimately involved, but I think it is criti- cally important, and I think I can speak to this with some' authority because I represent the Department on the Council of Representatives, that the Council have an adequate staff so that they can hear the views and the problems of the agencies that are members of the Council and prepare, for the Council's consideration, critical analyses of the prob- lems that I identified, and do' the central staff work. Senator AND1~RSON. As Senator Moss pointed out, you ought to specify how much you want and not have an open figure. Mr. II0LUM. Yes. (The information requested is as follows:) An authorization ceiJing that would meet the presently foreseen needs of the Water Resources COuncil cotild be provided by amending Section 401(a) of S. 3058, as follows :` ` ` " (a ) not to exceed $1,500,000 annually to administer the provisions of titles I, II, III and IV : Provided, that not to exceed $400,000 shall he avail- able to. administer the provisions of title III ; Provided Further, that not to exceed $1,100,000 ` shall be available to administer the provisions of titles I~ II and IV after the expiration Of title III ; and" This ceiling couki provide f~r a total of 42 permanent positions. At present, 1~ of these positions relate to the administration of Title III and only 14 positions (8 professional and 6 administrative and clerical) to administration of the other three titles, making a present ceiling'total of' 24 positions. Thus the ceiling would provide an additional 18 positions (10 professional and 8 administrative and clerical) for administration of Titles I, H and 1ST. PAGENO="0029" 25 1 The pi~esentiy estirxutted s~ai~y. ~ost~nnu~t11y of 42 pasitjon*s, including foreseeable salary increases $741, 652 Other estimated costs are : ~ ,, ~ ~ Consultants (iticl~iding fees fôl~ ft~ember~ öfadvisóry `bodies) and ~ ~ ~ ~ temporary personnel, other than for national assessment 25, 000 Office opcratn~g costs ~ ~ ~. . ~ ~ 258~ 348 N~4~óna1 asses~ient ~autho~z~J~n fo~ e~l~a .. Qsts in~y~ar o1~prep- . .ai~atiOn kr tempoMry ~ ~ ~itubiirsabIe ~vic~s of~ * * agencies, computer time, and printing) ~ ~ ~ ~ 2O0,~ 000 Economic projections (for transfer to Commerce's Office of l3usi- ness Economics and Agi1cultt~re's ]~onon~ic Research Service. ~ At pres~nt $600,O~Y0 ai1ni~a1ly i~ being transferred for this pur- ~ pose from severaiFêderäl dej~artments Mid ageticies. If `appro~ ~ priations were made to Counoil, such several transfers would no : longer be necessary. It is ~ x~w. believed ~ ~that future uiarginal costs for this work should be less than in tjiepast) * ~ 250k 000 Overhead costs in re1i~tion to Federal-state training 25, 000 TotaL ~ _ ~ -~ --3~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - -~- -~- ~ ~ - - - 1, 500, 000 It is no~ anticipatedthat the~ddit1dñal staffwork of the Water ResOurces Coun. cii, occasioned by establishment of the National Water Commission, would be able to be absorbed, wi1~bin the i~bov~ aui~horjzation ce~1ing., * ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ Senator. Moss. .1 wouldlike toask one thore question of Secreta~y Holum. ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ I ~ Reading Secretary. TJdaIl's testimony, .you.indicated that the Council is now reconsidering the formula for . the cost of money for: water projects. I would like to know if you can give us any interim report on that. This concerns me. I thought that.iegislatFv~ely we would finally come to the place wherethat' `formula wassettled and I am a `little surprised to. find it. i's now under review.. to be changed and,: as. you quoted the Presiden " Vs meSsage, the rate will be' higher. for the cost of money: hereafter. : ` ~ ~` : ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ` Mr. Hoi~ua~. Senator Moss, the President, `in his' budget .mess~ge to the Congress, did~ `ëall for a'~econsideratión Of the `discOunt rate used in evaluating projects and the `Counoil:is in the process. and:i'would like to underscore that what the President referred to is the `discount rate used in evaluation: ôfproj~cts. ~ ~ ~ ` `~ ` ` The ~ Council has that iresponsibility under: the Water `Resources Planning Act and by direction offthé"Presideitt. They h~e'that under consideration. ~ They have oniy h~d, up `to~this time, pre1iminái~y dis- cussions, . but as ..S~rOtary `.Udail'l's statement ~noted, th~! act requires that arrangementh' be made foran appropri~te consuittvtion with' all interested, aget~iës before tu~ty :final `decision is reached `by the `Coun- cii or the `President; and .Secr~ta~y TJdall's statement' says that `one of the methods that ;w'ill'be used~at iea~t, is','p " ubli~ation in the' Federal Register prior~t~the timeof decision. : ~ ... , , : ~ j:' ~ ` ~ ~ , ~ ` : ~ Senator,Moss~ ~[f. there t~.apropo~ai~ tochange.t'hé ~Eo~mu'ia,:wii,th,ie apply all across'the board orii aii*ater: projects"whetherthey'be flood cont~oi' or reclan~ation' i~j~' water ~suppl37, no `matter: what'? ` ` ` ~ Mr. TI0LUM. "Yes~ Sent~t~ MOss,' a~ it relates to ptoject .p1~nnin~ ~r project evaluation. ` ` ` ` ~ ` ` ` .. ` ` ` ` : , . ~` Senator A.wDBnso:N. You must all remember that seine' years ago w~ learned' that the `Hoover Pam could not even have `been ` built ~wi~h ,the interestratethen proposed. Better Ibecareful, I.thi~ik,~ . ` ~ .~ ~ :, , "~ , ` Mr. Hoitn~. We are~*eli ~~ware of the fact, Council' members `are, that this is a matter of critical importance. `~ ` ` : PAGENO="0030" 26 Senator A~DE1~soN. Thank you very much, both of you for ap- peariug. Mr. Thompson, we. are glad to have old friends back. STATEMENT OP SAM THOMPSON, REPRESENTING INTERSTATE CONFERENCE ON WATER PROBLE~1VLS, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES P. SCHWAN, J~R. Mr. TnO~1PsoN.Tbani~.yoü, $~nat~ Ai~derson, it is good to be back about a subject that we both love and. are very much interested in~ I have with me this morning Mr. Oharies Schwan, a member of the Council of State Governinetits staff here in Washington Mr Chairman, member~ of the subcoihmittee, my name is Sam ThOmpson. I am a member of the Mississippi l3oard of Water Corn- ~ missioners. I am appearing here today, however, on behalf of the ~ Interstate Conference on Water Problems, of which 1 am a past ehairni~tn. ~ For the record, Mr. Chairman, the intetState Conférènce On Water Problems consists of official representatiit~s dfState gov~rnmOnt ~ have special responsibilities for or interests in water problems. Par- ticipants~inciude water resources adnuini~t~rators, ~ attori~ys ~ general, legislators; and rState reprësenthtives ~ ow intèrstateiwater~esources age~cies. ~ ~ As ~ yOu~ `know, Mr. Chafrman, ~ proud chapter in the history of the Interst~te Conference on Water Problems was the part it played in:de'~eieping what was enacted ultimately as Public Law 89-80, the Water Resources Planning Act. We hadthe privilege of participating with you and other members and staff of the Committee on Interior ~ ~nd~Insu1ar~ffai~rsin bHnging abOut the ena~tthentof what~s+~ regard as a pieieof landmark legislation in water and related land resources; consertation, development and utilization, and : in ~ relatiOns. ~ ~ ~ , Our interest in this matter did not abate with thepassage of Pub1it~ Law ~ 894-:8thIndeed~to the extent it mighthave done ~o~the intent of the law ~ouldnoth~ve been fulfilled. ~ ~ ~ ; S ~ ~ ~ ~ S Taki~gfu~ matters in ~ reverse order, we under~tarid that both for the current; fisca1yearand~for the next, of 53 eligibIejurisdictions, ~51 hav~ recá~el ~ are applying for grants tO assist them indevelopiii~ conpreliensi~~w~aterresource~iansünder title III. Thi~ ye~tr requests exceeded appropriati~cns. It is already evident that the same : will b~ :truef~r next year. W~'regard this grants-request rehifionship as evi~ dence of at least two things. First, it is. evident that title III was ~ wise ~nactrnent. Co~agress recognizeda need for im~provi~g the State capability toplan for its water and land resources. Second~ the States, similarly aware, have reacted enthusiastically ~ and overwhehningiy to ii~ieet this need supported; in part by Federal gratits-in~aid. S The need for title II river basin commissions and the response of the Statcs~to the opportunity to participate with re~resentatives of appro~riate Federal agencies inbasin-wide planning h~vebeen amply demonstrated, Mr~ Qhairman. There. are now four active commi~sion~,. and, we: ui~derstand that serious considci'ation is being given to the formation of five more. S PAGENO="0031" Evidenee of th~ ~ontinuing int~rëst of the Sthtes* in and of support for the concepts of the Water Res~urees Planning Aôt nmy beaddu~ed from the National Conferences of Stat~ and Water Officials. T~e first such conference was~heid. in~ D~iir~crrias~ Sep.tei~beri~ The second will convene in Detroithi July. In Denver, in addition to the Federal rep- resentatives present,. 48 State~ arid th~ Commonwealth Of `Puerto Rico were represented. We hope to do as well in Detroit. . . . . ~ . . ; .~ . . Mr. Chairwai~ t1i~, Statt~ ~nt~rest in l~tle I, the subject of this h~r- ing, although indirect, is very great.: We cannot ignorethe signi~auce to us of the duties assigned' to~theWater Resources Corincil~ ~ by sections 102, 103, and 104. Among other things, the Council isrequirèci to pre- pare a biennial assessment ~ "of the adequ~y of supplies.'óf ~vtrter in each water resource region ~ ~ ~ ~." It must "maintanTi a ~ontinuing study of the relat~ouof regipnal or riverbasir~plaris and prograrn~ to the requirements of larger regions ~ ~ ~ " It is directed to establish, "~ ~. * principles, standards, and procedures for Fed~ra1 participants in preparation of comp~eheusive regional or river basin plans ~nd for the formulation and evaluation of Fedéi~l wátér and related land resources projects ~ ~ ~ Finally, the Council is required to review river basin plans and make recommendations concerning them. There . ~ major responsibilities t~at the Congress has seen fit to place upon the Water Resources Council. At the State level, we are cognizant of their magnitude and of their significance to the States. We do not have to go beyond our selfish interest to urge that you amend the authorizing legislation for title I to permit an appropriation in excess of the current ceiling of $300,000. We are informed that the appropria- tion for the current year is $291,000, and to meet the mandate of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 would require an additional $11,000. In itsel f, the latter would break the ceiling. Increased operating costs, we are told, accounts for the balance of $10,000. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest request-perhaps too modest in view of the Council's responsibilities. Indeed, if the overall fiscal situation ever eases, we should urge that your committee and the Committee on Appropriations consider increasing support for the entire effort repre- sented by the Water Resources Planning Act. So far as the other ceil- ings established in title IV, and continued by S. 3058, we support their continuance for the time being. Tosum iip,we. supportS. 3058 and respectfully request that the Sub- committee on Water and Power and the Committee on interior and Insular Affairs report the bill with the recommendation that it do pass. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. You have been a good friend up on Capitol Hill many long years. We are glad to have you here this morning. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Moss? Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any questions, Mr. Thompson, but I do wish to wel- come you before the committee again. It is always good to have you. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Burdick? Senator BURDIcK. I want to thank Mr. Thompson for his testimony. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, sir. Senator ANDERSON. The committee has received a letter from H. Maurice Ahiquist, director of the Department of Water Resources of PAGENO="0032" rt~ ~ 28 the State of Washington in favor of this amendment. It will be in- cluded in the hearingrecord at this. poinj. (.The~1etter referred to follows:> WAsHTN~ITO~ SrAt1~E: ~ ~ Warn REsotmoEs; 1968, Otympia, ~4~priZ 5, SE~TE ~ INTE~tIQR ANI~. INStJ~AR ~ AF~?AIRS CQ~MIT~FI~, Washington, D.C. (Attention Senator Henry XVI. ~ackson). DEAn SE~A~o1~ AND MEMBERS OF TUE INTEEIO~ `AND' INSULAR Ar~'AxRs COMMr~TEE: The `Director of Water Resources, acting under authotity Of Chapter 242, Laws of 1967,. for and' on behalf of the State of Washington, concurs with the amendment prçvl~led ~iS. 3058, , ` We sli~cerely hope that action by your ~opimittee will be' favorable. Very `truly yours, ` ` ` ` `IL' MAunicE AULQtIST, Dl~ector. Setrntor ~ This: finishes the hearing iitile~s there are other statethotits'to be made. ` " " If not,~th~hearn~g is concluded. (Wlereii~bn, at' ii t20 `aiñ., the hearing'was condluded~)