PAGENO="0001"
7O(~~ f~~2%1c1
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER AND POWER RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S 121, S. 219, and S 2428
~ ~LS TO AMEND THE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
~T OF 1964 TO INCREASE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH AND INSTITUTE'S AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSE'S
OCTOBER 13, 1971
RUTGERS LAW SCHOOL LIBRARY
CAM~ N. J. 08102
GOVERf~J*NT DOCUMENT
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Af1~airs
~% ..L:32'~i3 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
it) ~/ic/77/
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AF~'AIRS
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman
CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New'Mexico GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado
ALAN BIBLE, Nevada LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho
FRANK CHURCH, Idaho PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona
FRANK R. MOSS, Utah CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon
GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota TED STEVENS, Alaska
LEE METCALF, Montana HENRY BELLMON, Oklahoma
MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska
JERRY T. VERKLER, Btaff Director
WILLIAM J. VAN NEss, Chief Counsel
DANIEL A. DREYFTIS, Pro je8siOnal staff Member
CHARLES COOK, Minority Counsel
New Mexico Chairman
GORDON ALLOTT Colorado
LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho
PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona
CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming
MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND PowER RESOURCES
CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
FRANK CHURCH, Idaho
FRANK E. MOSS, Utah
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota
LEE METCALF, Montana
(XE)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
Page
S. 121, S. 219, S. 2428, 1I.R. 10203 2
Departmental reports:
Interior 14
Office of Management and Budget 16
STATEMENTS
Agnew, Dr. Allen F., State of Washington Water Research Center, Wash-
ington State University 60, 67
Allee, Dr. David, chairman of the Universities Council on Water Re-
sources - 32, 39
Anderson, Dr. Dale 0., director, North Dakota Water Resources Research
Institute, North Dakota State University 76
Bible, Hon. Alan, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada 18
Clark, Dr. John W., director, New Mexico Water Resources Research
Institute 83
Evans, Dr. Norman A., director, Office of General University Research,
Colorado State University 30
Hansen, Hon. Clifford P., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming. - - - 22
Howells, David H., director, Water Resources Research Center, University
of North Carolin& 86
Lee, Dr. Robert R., director, Idaho Water Resource Board 21
Michalson, Dr. E. L., University of Idaho 20
Moss, Hon. Frank E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah - 17
Smith, Hon. James R., Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and
Power Resources accompanied by H `1~arland Hershey Director Office
of Water Resources Research, Department of Interior 22
Thomas, Dr. Gerald W., president, New Mexico State University 85
COMMUNICATIONS
Ilartung, Ernest W., president, University of Idaho: Letter to Senator
Jordan, dated October 8, 1971 21
Lee, Robert R., director, Idaho Water Resources Board: Letter to Senator
Jackson, dated October 4, 1971 20
RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions 1 and 2 on amendments to title I of the Water Resources
Research Act 33
APPENDIX
Hartung, Ernest W., president, University of Idaho: Letter to senator
Church, dated October 8, 1971 99
Huffman, Roy E , vice president for research, Montana State University
Letter to Senator Mansfield, dated September 29, 1971 91
Nelson, Hon. Gaylord, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin: Letter
to Senator Anderson, dated October 21, 1971 92
Pierre, Percy A., dean, Howard University:
Letter to Senator Jackson, dated October 12, 1971 94
Attachment I-Summary 94
Attachment Il-Study and research program 95
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
Iv
Rechard, Paul A., director, Water Resources Research Institute,
University of Wyoming: Letter to Senator Hansen, dated October 15, Page
1971 91
Robison, Hon. Howard M., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, statement of 89
Rohlich, Gerald A., director, Water Resources Center, University of
Wisconsin: Letter to Senator Nelson, dated October 8, 1971 93
Won Pat, A. B., Territory of Guam, U.S.A.: Letter to Senator Anderson,
dated October 12, 1971
PAGENO="0005"
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1971
TJ.S. SENATE,
StTBOOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER IRESOUROES
OF THE CoMMIrr1~E ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Anderson., Allott, Hansen, Moss, Jordan, and
Burdick.
Also present: Daniel A. Dreyfus, professional staff member, and
Charles Cook, minority counsel.
Senator ANDERSON. The committee will come to order.
The purpose of this hearing before the Water and Power ~esources
Subcommittee this morning is to take testimony on 5. 219, Moss and
Hatfield, and 5. 121 and S. 2428, Hansen, bifls to amend the Water
Resources Research Act of 1964 to increase the authorization for water
resources research and institutes, and for other purposes.
Each of these bills would increase annual appropriations to sup-
port a water resources research center in each State and provide for
information retrieval and dissemination activities at the research cen-
ters. 5. 219 would make the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands,
and Guam eligible for institute grants, and S. 2428 would also add
American Samoa. A bill similar to S. 219, 5. 3553--Moss--passed the
Senate on September 1, 1970.
The texts of 5. 11, 5. 21~, 5. 2428, and H.R. 10203 and the reports
of the Department of Interior and the Bureau of the Budget will be
included in the record at this point.
(The documents referred to follow:)
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
92n CONGRESS
1ST SEssioN S. 1 21
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JANtYARN 25, 1971
Mr. HANSEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Oommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, to in-
crease the authorization for water resources research and
institutes, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represent a-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That section 100 (a) of the Water Resources Research Act
4 of 1964 (78 Stat. 329; 42 U.S.O. 1961a), is amended (A)
5 by strikIng out "$100,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
6 "$250,000" and (B) by adding a sentence at the end of the
7 subsection to read as follows: "The amounts authorized to
8 be appropriated by this subsection to assist each participating
9 State shall be increased or decreased In fiscal year 1972 and.
10 each year thereafter in proportion to the average increase or
11 decrease of the costs of such research and training as deter-
"
PAGENO="0007"
3
2
1 mined by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with a
2 suitable formula to reflect the average increase or decrease
3 adjustment in Federal employee salaries as determined by
4 the United States Civil Service Commission based on findings
5 derived from Bureau of Labor Statistics' figures comparing
6 Federal salaries with industrial salaries."
7 Sw. 2. The second sentence of section 100 (b) of the
8 Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 329; 42
9 U.S.C. 1961a). is amended by inserting after the word
10 "problems", the following: "and scientific information dis-
11 semination activities, including identifying, assembling, and
12 interpreting the results of scientific and engineering research
13 deemed potentially significant for solution of water resource
14 problems, providing means for improved communication
15 regarding such research results, including prototype opera-
16 tions, ascertaining the existing and potential effectiveness of
17 such for aiding in the solution of practical problems, and for
18 training qualified persons in the performance of such scien-
i 9 tific information dissemination;".
PAGENO="0008"
4
92D CONGRESS
1ST SEssioN S. 2 1 9
TN TIlE SENATE OF TIlE UNITED STATES
JANUARY 26, 197.1
Mr. Moss (for himself and Mr. llATrI1~LD) introduced the following bill; which
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 to in-
crease the authorization for water resources research and
institutes, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represent a-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That section 100 (a) of the Water Resources Research Act
4 of 1964 (78 Stat. 329; 42 U.S.C. 1961a), is amended by
5 striking out "$100,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
6 "$200,000".
7 SEC. 2. The second sentence of section 100 (b) of the
8 Water Resources Research. Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 329; 42
9 U.S.C. 1961a) is amended by inserting after the word
10 "problems", the following: "and scientific information dis-
II
PAGENO="0009"
5
2
1 semination activities, including identifying, assembling, and
2 interpreting the results of scientific and engineering research
3 deemed potentially significant for solution of water resource
4 problems, providing means for improved communication re-
5 garding such research results, including prototype opera-
6 tions, ascertaining the existing and potential effectiveness of
7 such for aidii~g in the solution of practical problems, and for
8 training qualified persons in the performance of such scien-
~ tific information dissemination;".
SEC. 3. Section 306 of the Water Resources Research
11 Act of 1964 is amended by inserting immediately before the
12 period at the end thereof a comma and the following: "the
13 District of Columbia, and the territories of the Virgin Islands
14 and Guam."
PAGENO="0010"
6
92o CONGRESS
1ST SEssIoN 2428
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
AuousT 4 (legislative day, AtTG~rsT 8), 1971
Mr.. HANSEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 to increase
the authorization for water resources research `and institutes,
and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa~
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 ~ subsection 100 (a) of the Water Resources Research
4 Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 329; 42 U.S.C. 1961a), is amended
5 (A) by striking out "$100,000" and inserting . in lieu
6. thereof "$250,000" and (B) by adding the following pro-
7 viso at the end of said subsection: "Provided ft~rther, That
8 for the fiscal .yea.r 1973 not more than $50,000 shall be
9 appropriat~id for the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands,
10 Guam, and American Samon, riot more than $100,000 for
II
PAGENO="0011"
7
0
1 the fiscal year 1974, and not more than $150,000 for fiscal
2 year 1975."
3 Si~c. 2. Subsection 100 (b) of the Water Resources Re-
4 search Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 329; 42 U.S.C. 1961a) is
5 amended (A) by inserting in the second sentence thereof,
6 after the word "problems", the following: "and scientific in-
7 formation dissemination activities, including identifying, as-
8 sembling, and interpreting the results of scientific and engi-
9 neering research deemed potentially significant for solution
10 of water resource problems, providing means for improved
11 communication regarding such research results, including pro-
12 totype operations, ascertaining the existing and potential
13 effectiveness of such for aiding in the solution of practical
14 problems, and for training qualified persons in the perform-
15 ance of such scientific information dissenimation ;" and (B)
16 by adding to the end of said subsection the following sentence:
17 "The annual programs submitted by State institutes to the
18 Secretary for approval ~ha1l include assurance satisfactory to
19 the Secretary that such programs were developed in close
20 consultation and collaboration with leading water resources
21 ~fficials within the State to promote re~earoh, training, and
.22 other work meeting the needs of the State."
23 SEc. 3. Section 102 of the Water Resources Research
24. Actof 1964 (78 Stat. 329; 42 U.S.C. 1961a) is amended by
25 adding a sentence after the first sentence to read as follows:
PAGENO="0012"
8
3
1 "Funds received by a State institute pursuant to such pay-
2 ment may be used for any allowable costs as defined and per-
3 mitted by title 41, part 1-15, of the Code of Federal Regula-
4 tions: Provided, That the direct costs of section 100 an-
5 nual allotment programs of each State institute, as di~tiii-
6 guished froni indirect costs, are not less than the amount of
7 Federal funds made available to such State institute pursuant
8 to said section of this Act."
9 SEC. 4. Subsection 200 (b) of the Water Resources Re-
10 search Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 329; U.S.C. 1961a) is amended
11 by striking the existing language of that subsection and in-
12 serting the following in lieu thereof: "(b) In addition to
13 other requirements of this Act, the Secretary's annual report
14 to tl~e President and Congress as required by section 308
15 of this Act, shall specifically identify each contract and
16 grant award approved under subsection (a) of this section
17 in the preceding fiscal year, including the title of each
18 research project, m~a~ie of ~rinbrgaiiization, and the
19 amount of each grant or contract."
20 Sne. 5. Sections 303 through 307 of the Water Resources
21 Research Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 329; 42 U.S.C. 1961a)
22 are renumbered sections 304 through 308, respectively, and
23 the following is inserted after section 302:
24 "SEC. 303. The Secretary is authorized to acquire Fed-
25 eral excess personal property in accordance with and as
PAGENO="0013"
9
4
1 defined by title 41, part 101-43, of the Code of Federal
2 Regulations that will effectively contribute to the e*ercise of
3 authority granted by tills Act, and to dispose of ~ucli property
~ in accordance with provisions of the aforementioned Code ~f
5 Federal Regulations or in a maAnner similar tO that authOrized
6 by section 2 of Public Law 85-934."
7 Sic. 0. Section 30(3 (renumbered 307) of th~ Water
8 Resources Research Act of 1904 (78 Stat~. 329; U.S.C.
9 1961a) is amended by inserting iinmediaitely before the
10 period at the end thereof a comma and the following: "the
11 District of Columbia, and the territories of the Virgin Islands,
12 Guam, and American Samoa."
13 Snc. 7. Section 307 (renumbered 308) of the Water
14 Resources Research Act of 1964 (78 Sta~. 329; 42 U.S.C.
15 19t31a) is amended by striking out the word "calendar" and
16 inserting in lieu thereof the word "fiscal".
PAGENO="0014"
10
92n CONGRESS
SESSION H. R. 10203
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER 6, 197.1
Read twica and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
AN ACT
To amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, to in-
crease the autiioriz~tion for water resources research insti-
tutes, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That section 100 (a) of the Water Resources Research Act
4 of 1964 (78 Stat. 329; 42 U.S.C. 1961a), is amended
5 (A) by striking out "$100,000" and inserting in lieu
6 thereof "$250,000", aild (B) by striking the period at
7 the end of the subsection and adding ": Provided further,
8 That for fiscal year 1973 not more than $125,000 shall
9 be appropriated for each of the District of Columbia, the
W Virgin Islands, and Guam, and for fiscal year 1974 not
II
PAGENO="0015"
11
2
1 more than $200,000 shall be appropriated for each of such
2 areas."
3 Si~c. 2. The second sentence of section 100 (h) of
4 the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (78 Stat.
5 329; 42 U.S.C. 1961a) is amended by inserting after
6 the word "problems," the following: "and scientific in-
7 formation dissemination activities, including identifying,
8 assembling, and interpreting the results of scientific and
9 engineering research deemed potentially significant for
10 solution of water resource problems, providing means for
11 improved communication regarding such research results,
12 including prototype operations, ascertaining the existing
13 and potential effectiveness of such for aiding in the so-
14 lution of practical problems, and for training qualified
15 persons in the performance of such scientific information
16 dissemination;".
17 SEc. 3. Subsection 100 (b) of the Water Resources
18 Research Act of 1964 is further amended by adding at the
19 end thereof the following sentence: "The annual programs
20 submitted by the State institutes to the Secretary for ap-
21 proval shall include assurance satisfactory to the Secretary
22 that such programs were developed in close consultation
23 and collaboration with leading water resources officials within
24 the State to promote research, training, and other work
25 meeting the needs of the State.".
PAGENO="0016"
12
3
1 SEC. 4. Section 102 of the Water Resources Research
2 Act of 1964 is amended by adding after the first sentence
3 a new sentence reading as follows: "Funds received by an
4 institute pursuant to such payment may be used for any
5 allowable costs within the meaning of the Federal procure-
6 ment regulations that establish principles for determining
7 costs applicable to research and development under grants
8 and contracts with educational institutions (41 CFR 1-
9 15.3), including future amendments thereto: Provided, That
10 the direct ~osts of the programs of each State institute, as
11 distinguished from indirect costs, are not less than the amount
12 of the Federal funds made available to such State institute
13 pursuant to section 100 of this Act.".
14 SEC. 5. Section 200 of the Water Resources Research
15 Act of 1964 is amended by adding a new subsection (c) as
16 follows:
17 "(c) In addition to other requirements of this Act,
18 the Secretary's annual report to the President and Congress
19 as required by section 307 of this Act shall specifically
20 identify each contract and grant award approved under
21 subsection (a) of this section in the preceding fiscal year,
22 including the tithe of each research project, name of per-
23 forming organization, and the amount of each grant or
24 contract.".
PAGENO="0017"
13
4
1 Si~c. 6. Section 306 of the Water Resources Research
2 Act of 19(34 is amended by changing the period to a comma
3 and addiiig "the District of Columbia, and the territories
4 of the Virgin Islands and Guam.".
5 SEC. 7. Section 307 of the Water Resources Research
6 Act of 19(34 is amended by striking out "March 1" and
7 inserting in liea thereof "October 1" and by striking out
8 "calendar" and inserting in lieu thereof "fiscal".
9 SEC. 8. The Water Resources Research Act of 1964
10 is amended by inserting the following new section:
11 "SEC. 308. Excess personal property acquired by the
12 Secretary under the Federal Property and Administrative
13 Services Act of 1949, as amended, for use in furtherance of
14 the purposes of this Act may be conveyed by the Secretary
15 to a cooperating institute, educational institution, or iion-
16 profit organization, with or without consideration, nuder
t7 such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe.".
Passed the House of Representatives October 4, 1971.
Attest: W. PAT JENNINOS,
Clerk.
69-528 O-71-----2
PAGENO="0018"
14
U.S~ DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., September 21, 1971.
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: In response to your request for the views of this Depart-
ment concerning several bills to amend the Water Resources Research Act of
1964 to increase the authorization for water resources research and for other
purposes, we furnish herewith our comments on 5. 121, 5. 2:19, and S. 2428.
We recommend that S. 2428 be enacted, if amended as set forth herein.
S. 2428 would amend section 100(a) of the Water Resources Research Act of
1964 (the Act) so as to increase to $250,000 the present $100,000 maximum au-
thorized appropriation for support of each state university water resources
research and training institute. It would authorize the use of funds for dissemi-
nation of scientific information produced by the programs, a function not now
specifically covered by the Water Resources Research Act, and would require
that state institute programs be developed in consultation with leading water
resources officials and agencies of the respective states. Section 102 of the Act
would be amended to permit funds received by an institute to be used for any
allowable costs permitted by Federal Procurement Regulations, provided direct
costs of the program are not less that the amount of Federal funds made avail-
able to the institute. This would eliminate the present necessity of segregating
program costs to assure that Federal funds are not used for employee benefits
or indirect costs. The bill would also delete the present requirement of sub-
section 200(b) of the Act that proposed title II contracts and grants must be
submitted to Congress for 60 days prior to final execution of the contract and
grant documents. It would, however, substitute a requirement that the Secre-
tary of the Interior's annual report to the President and Congress under the
Act must identify each contract and grant award approved in the preceding
fiscal year. A new section 303 of the Act would also be added to permit the
Secretary to acquire excess property that will effectively contribute to the
authority granted by the Act and to dispose of such property in accordance with
Federal Property Management Regulations The bill wou1d amend the Acts
definition of the term State to include the District of Columbia and the ter
ritories of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, thus permitting them
to participate in the state Institute program. New institutes for these areas would
be funded at a level of $50,000 for fiscal year 1973, $100,000 for 1974, and
$150,000 for 1975. Finally, the bill would amend the Act to require that the
Secretary's annual report be on a fiscal year basis rather than the pr~sent
calendar year basis.
S. 121 and S. 219 are simi1ar but not identical to S. 2428. Both bills would
amend section 100(a) of the Water Resources Act of 1964 so as to increase the
present $100,000 maximum authorized appropriation for support of each state
university water resources and training institute. S. 219 would author-
ize a $200,000 maximum; S. 121 a $250,000 maximum, S. 121 would ~tlso provide
for adjustment of maximum to reflect changes in the cost of research and train-
ing programs. Both bills also authorize the use of funds for dissemination of
scientific information produced by the programs, as does S. 2428. In addition,
5. 219 would amend the definition of the word "State" to include the District of
Columbia the Virgin Islands and Guam thus making them eligible to receive
funds and participate in the program authorized by title I of the Act.
All bills agree on the need to increase the. appropriations for annual grants
to state institutes carrying out water resources research. I)espite significant
state contributions to this cooperative Federal-State program, the present author-
ized Federal contribution is not adequate to support the needed research at a
time when problems of both quantity and quality of water are mounting. Infla-
tion has seriously eroded the purchasing power of the dollar amount originally
authorized, which did not anticipate today's multitude of water-related problems.
Additional funds will also be needed to carry out the directive of both bills
to interpret and disseminate results of water resources research to those who
can apply such results to the solution of water problems. Additional funding
would also increase the opportunity for highly competent research personnel of
other universities to participate in state institute programs and for state insti-
PAGENO="0019"
. 15
tutes to expand upon their success in training water resource scientists and
engineers. We believe, however, that a $200,000 maximum annual appropria-
tion for each state institute under section 100 (a) of the Act is adequate and we
would therefore recommend that the figure "$200,000" be substituted in line 6,
p~lge 1 of the bill for the figure "$250,000". In addition, we believe that the pro-
visions of section 2 of S. 2428 authorizing the use of funds for dissemination of
scientific information should be deleted on the ground that the institutes now
have adequate authority to disseminate sitch infromation. To accomplish this,
we recommend striking from S. 2428 all language after the word "amended" in
line 5, page 2, through the end of line 15, page 2.
As noted above, 5. 2428 and S. 219 do not, in contrast to 5. 121, provide the
automatic cost-of-doing research adjustment of amounts authorized by section
100(a). We believe they are sound in this regard because no reliable index
relevant to the changing costs of this program due to Inflation or deflation
appears to exist and if future adjustments are found to be necessary, this can
be done by amendatory legislation when appropriate.
We favor generally the inclusion of the District of Columbia, the Virgin Is-
lands Guam and American Samoa in the Act s title I research and training pro
grams. We question whether the College of the Virgin Islands, the University of
Guam, and the Community College of American Samoa would be able, at least
initially, to utilize the full amount of grant funds efficiently and effectively for
conducting the types of water resources research and training programs author-
ized by the Act. All three schools are relatively new and small, have a limited
number of water-knowledgeable professionals in their faculties who could serve
as principal research project investigators, have limited research equipment and
facilities and do not have the graduate school programs that now provide so
much of the high-quality research assistance at the existing institutes. We
therefore agree that institutes for the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American
Samoa should be funded at lower initial levels (just as the present institutes
were) rising to the levels of other state institutes at no more than $50,000 per
year, or less if experience shows that they cannot effectively use the grants.
We would, however, recommend that an institute for the District of Columbia
be fully funded and to accomplish this would recommend deletion of the words
"District of Columbia" in line 9, page 1 of 5. 2428.
We also concur in S. 2428's other amendments to the Act. The provision in
section 2 requiring that proposed annual programs be developed in consulta-
tion with leading water resources officials and agencies of the respective states
would better assure that state institute programs will contribute to the solution
of important water-related problems.
Section 3 of the bill, providing that funds received by state institutes can be
used for any allowable costs as permitted under Federal Procurement regula-
tions, would retain in full the cooperative Federal-State concept and nature of
the section 100 program, while simplifying the fiscal bookkeeping responsibilities
of the state university institutes, since they would not need to be concerned with
segregating program costs, as they are now required to do, to assure that Fed-
eral funds are not used for employee benefits or indirect costs. For the same
reason, the amendment would simplify the preparation of program and project
proposal budgets and improve program management generally, including some
reduction in record preparation and recordkeeping costs.
Similarly, deletIng the Act's present requirement that contracts and grants
be submitted to the Congress for 60 da~ys prior to final execution, and sub-
stituting a requirement that specific identification of each contract and grant
be made in the Secretary s annual report would facilitate and expedite title II
research program management. The Office fo Water Resources Research believes
that it can keep the Congress fully informed of the title IT programs in a satis-
factory manner without continuing the present procedure and the additional
delay and paperwork involved. The proposed revised language would assure that
congressional committees and Members of Congress were informed annually as
to the specific application of title II funds.
The excess personal property acquisition and disposal authority provided by
section 5 of S. 2428 would simplify recordkeeping relating to Federal excess
personal property acquired in furtherance of the purposes and objectives of the
Act. When adequate and satisfactory justification is provided, it will permit
the transfer of title to such property to academic and nonprofit research founda-
tions where It is shown that such property will have continuing value on water
resources research and related training activities of the grantee organization.
PAGENO="0020"
16
Putting the Secretary's annual report to the President and Congress on a
fiscal rather than a calendar year basis, as section 7 of the bill would do, would
improve the annual report since it would be related directly to research grants
and contracts and to other program activities that are funded on a fiscal year
basis. The present "calendar year" report makes it necessary to provide fiscal
and program accomplishment information for two fiscal years, one of which is
completed and the other in progress, thus making the report more complex and
less understandable and accurate.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there Is no objection
to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's
program.
Sincerely yours,
JAMES B. SMITH,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
OFFICE or MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., September 20, 1971.
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, New
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your requests of March 2 and
March 3, 1971 for the views of the Office of Management and Budget on 5. 219
and 5. 121, two bills "To amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, to
increase the authorization for water resources research and institutes, and
for other purposes."
In its report, the Department of the Interior recommends enactment of S. 2428
in lieu of either S. 121 or 5. 219. The Office of Management and Budget concurs
In the views of the Department of the Interior and accordingly would have no
objection to the enactment of 5. 2428 in lieu of either 5. 121 or 5. 219.
Sincerely,
WILFRED H. ROMMEL,
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
Senator ANDERSON. Senator Moss?
Senator Moss. This is a hearing held on 5. 121, 5. 219, and 5. 2428,
all of which deal with the question of the revision of the Water Re-
sources Research Act of 1964, to increase the authorization of fund-
ing, and to extend the bill to other jurisdictions; namely, the District
of Columbia and the Virgin Islands and Guam.
The bill which is now law, of course, provides for a research center
on water in each of the States, and provides for $100,000 annually
to each of the 50 States for this research purpose.
The bill that I introduced, 5. 219, and the thrust of the other bills,
is the same: to amend this legislation and to increase the amount that
is available. My bill originally called for an increase to $250,000 an-
nually for each of the jurisdictions. By amendment, that has been
reduced back to $200,000.
The House has considered similar bills, and has reported that bill
but, I don't know whether it has been pased. It is either reported or
it is passed over there. Therefore, we are considering also the House
work here today.
I have a statement, Mr. Chairman, that is more extensive indicat-
ing my position, and also it contains a number of statements that are
made from reports that have been compiled by Utah State University,
which is the university in my State that does the research work in
Utah. These statements indicate how very helpful and useful and
profitable it has been to have this research designation on funding.
I think the story is similar for the other States, and I think it would
PAGENO="0021"
17
indicate that the additional authorization of money as an annual
increment will pay great dividends in this field of water research.
I ask unanimous consent that this statement be placed in the record
at this point.
Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, it will be done.
(The document referred to follows:)
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. Moss, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the subcommittee is including consideration
of my bill, S. 219 in the hearings held today on legislation to amend the Water
Resources Research Act. This bill, which was introduced *on January 26 is
identical to the bill the Senate passed in the 91st Congress-late in August of
1970-and which died in the House of Representatives.
The bill provides an increase in the amount authorized for a water resource
research center in each state from $100,000 to $200,000 annually. The bill also
provides for information retrieval and dissemination activities at each research
center, and treats the District of Columbia and the territories of Guam and the
Virgin Islands as states for the purposes of the act, so that a water research
center could be established at one of t~ie universities in each jurisdiction and
receive funds annually.
The original Water Resources Act which became law in 1964, was based on
one of the recommendations made by the Senate Select Committee on National
Watter Resources, of which I was a member.
In the original bill, annual grants of $100,000 were authorized for each center.
Since that time, however, costs have gone up considerably so that $100,000 is
no longer an adequate amount to finance the level of activity contemplated in
the original act.
The bill, as introduced last session, authorized an increase to $250,000 a year
for each research center. The House-passed bill contains this amount, and I
hope that the Senate will agree to the higher figure. Last session the Adminis-
tration opposed the bill in its entirety, but this session the Administration has
about-faced, and I understand now supports the bill, but at the $200,000 annual
figure. I would like very much to see the amount increased to $250,000 which is
realistic in view of inflation, and the wider responsibilities this bill places on
the centers.
The Administration has also made some recommendations on bookkeeping and
procedures in the program, which I trust the subcommittee will look at carefully.
The program carried forward under the provisions of the Water Resources
Act o~f 1964 in my state of Utah has been most impressive, and the potential is
great for enlargement under the amendments proposed here today. I would like
at this time to place in the record of the hearings some excerpts from the report
of the Utah Center for Water Resources Research at Utah State University at
Logan. These may be helpful in consideration of the bill. The Report was pre-
pared by Dr. Dean F. Peterson, Chairman of the Oenter, and was issued on
May 14, 1971. I quote:
"Utah State University has been conducting research in water resources since
its founding in 1888. The President of the University is Dr. Glen L. Taggart;
the Provost is Dr. Gaurtb A. Hansen. All research in the University is coordi-
nated by the Vice President for Research, Dr. P. Wynne Thorne.
"Until about a decade ago, water resources research, (as was nearly all of
the research program of the institution) was done under the AgricultsraZ
ILvperiment ~8tation (AES). In 1959 the Utah Water Research Laboratory
(UWRL) was created.
"Water resources research In Utah was given a major thrust forward in
1965 when Utah State University was named recipient institution for funding
under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. The earlier establishment of
the Utah Water Research Laboratory provided excellent new facilities and
some basic funding. The timely addition of the Utah Center for Water Resources
Research (UCWRR) made possible joint efforts in Utah which are far greater
than the sum of what could have been accomplished separately. The Center has
assumed a coordinative and overseeing role for all of the water and water-
related research of the University, especially in relation to the State generally.
It has attempted to use its resources to generate new research in neglected
areas, particularly where interdisciplinary efforts are deSirable.
PAGENO="0022"
"In 1966, the Board of Trustees created the Center for Research in Ecology
which deals basically with that subject, but does include water-related research.
Water resources research may be implemented aso `occasIonally under the
general research program of the University, i.e., University Research. Over
the past six years, the University has developed an International Water
Research and Management Program. Over approximately the same period Train-
ing and Education grants have been developed under the Water Quality Divi-
sion of the Protection Agency
"The Utah Center was organized under a council composed of the Deans of
the Colleges of Engineering, Agriculture, Science, and Natural Resources, the
Directors of the~ Agricultural Experiment Station and the Water Research
Laboratory and the University Vice President for Research The chairman is
appointed by the University president and has responsibility to the Department
of the Interior for the program and for the lawful expenditure of federal funds.
"The Utah Center acts through the other organizational units-colleges, depart-
ments, etc.-of the Utah State University, and of other universities as appro-
priate in financing and executing its program. In this way, it mobilized existing
structure already widely committed to water research and devised a workable
means for overseeing their efforts.
"In addition to the $100,000 allotment, the Center usually wins a matching
grant totaling $75,000 to $125,000 in federal funds each year resulting in addi-
tional projects valued at $150,000 to $250,000 annually. Close liaison has been
maintained with the Water Resources Division of the Natural Resources Depart-
ment of the State of Utah. The Division has provided matching funds for several
projects. Other sources of matching funds are the Utah Water Research Labora-
tory, the Agricultural Experiment Station and the general research program of
the University through the colleges.
"A very important benefit of the Water Resources Research Center has been
its `catalytic' or `entraining' effect. Since the initiation of the Utah Center's
program, research in water and water-related areas throughout the University
has grown by a factor of at least five. While detailed data are not available,
the estimated dollar volume of such research in FY 1965 was about $400,000. In
FY 1972 this will easily exceed $2.5 million. The major reason for this increase
is because some firm funding was provided so that additional career opportunities
could be offered by the University. A university cannot operate purely as a
retail broker for research contracts Although the impact of the basic ~ ater
related program cannot be fully measured, it doubtless provided part of the
institutional capacity which permitted formation of the Ecology Center in 1968
and the Rockefeller Foundation-supported Environment and Man Program in
197~. Efforts of the Center have stimulated interest and activity in water and
related resources In the social sciences which were virtually nonexistent prior
to 1966." (end of quote).
Mr Chairman this brief summary of what has been done at the Utah Center
for Water Resources Research since the 1964 Act was passed, and the Impact
this program has had on the work done there indicates that the additional
authorization for water resource centers for each of our states will return
benefits to us worth manifold the dollar investment which we will make. I
urge the subcommittee to take early action so that a bill can be passed within
the next few weeks..
Senator Moss. The Senator from Nevada, and a member of our
comthittee, has prepared a statement on the bill before us. His is
directed to S 219, in which he endorses the principle of the bill and
supports the provisions of S. 219 to increase the entitlement there, and
I ask that the statement of the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bible, be
placed in the record at this point.
Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, it will be done.
(The document referred to follows:)
STATEMENT OF Hon. AL&I~ BIBLE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate having this
opportunity to addre~s the Subcommittee in support of 5. 219, to amend the
Water Resources Research Act of 1964 to increase the authorization for water
PAGENO="0023"
19
resources research institutes and to authorize the establishment of such insti-
tutes in the District of Columbia and the territories of the Virgin Islands and
Guam.
A primary objective of the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 was to enlist
the scientific and engineering competence of university research in the critically-
important matter of water resources problem-soiving and to augment the number
of scientists and engineers trained in sciences related to water resources.
The program launched by the Act has been Increasingly effective. The 51
institutes established pursuant to the legislation are making significant contri-
butions to the solution of water resources related problems in the many fields
and disciplines involved in water resources management.
A good case in point is the Center for Water Resources Research of the
Desert Research Institute, a unit of the University of Nevada System. The
Nevada Center has made a very significant contribution in the field of post
graduate training in the water sciences, in its conduct of specialized studies in
the fields of water resources planning and management and in hydrologic
research. A number of its trainees have moved on to teaching and research pro-
grams at various universities throughout the United States. Others have moved
into water resources programs with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the U.S.
Geological Survey. And other graduates have continued their research with
private consulting firms and under other private auspices.
Nevada's Desert Research Institute and other Water Research Institutes
elsewhere in the country have clone great service in augmenting the critically
short supply of specially-trained scientists and engineers in this vitally Important
resource area.
Unfortunately, in Nevada and elsewhere throughout the country the work of
our Water Research Institutes has been hampered by the general inflation that
has marked the economy these past few years. Inflation is reflected in higher
salary costs and in substantial increases in the cost of the `mupplies and equip
ment needed to carry on this kind of research effectively. Increased funding is
essential to permit the Institutes to continue to make their invaluable contri-
butions in this highly specialized area.
S. 219 is needed to enable the Institutes to carry out the purposes of the
1964 Act. I understand the cost of doing business in the research field has more
than doubled since this program was initiated. The increased allotment pro-
vided by this legislation will help the Institutes recover the ground they may
have lost as the result of inflation. It will also help spur the Initiation of
imaginative programs and enable additional research on water-related environ-
mental problems.
Also, I am pleased to suppdrt the proposed establishment of Water Research
Institutes here in the District of Columbia and in the Virgin Islands and Guam.
I sponsored legislation recommending a District of Columbia program in the
91st Cqngress, and am glad to see that we are moving toward that goal. The
District, the Virgin Islands and Guam are not immune from water resource
related problems requiring specialized research. Effective and timely solution of
their problems calls for a research capability within each of these jurisdictions
with an adequate level of funding.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to add my voice in support of this legisla-
tion, and I urge favorable action by the subcommittee.
Senator JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I have two statements, one from
Dr. Robert R. Lee, director of the Idaho Water Resources Board. I
shan't read it, but I would like to have it inserted in the record at
this point, if I may, and I also have a letter from President Ernest
Hartung of the University of Idaho, which delineates the university's
position in support of this legislation, accompanied by a statement
which I should like to have included in the record at this point.
Senator ANDERSON. This will be done.
(The documents referred to follow:)
PAGENO="0024"
20
STATE OF IDAHO,
IDAHO WATER RESOURCE BOARD,
Boise, Idaho, October 4, 1971.
Senator HARRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,
Wew Senate 0/lice Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: It was recent1y announced by your office that hearings
are being scheduled before the Water and Power Resources Subcommittee on
three bills to increase the amounts of annual appropriations to assist water
resources research institutes in each of the states. Although the Board will be
unable to have a representative appear at the hearings, I would like to have
included for the record the attached Statement of the Idaho Water Resource
Board supporting increased appropriations for water resources research. This
is the same statement submitted last year on H.R. 1400 at the hearing held on
June 29, 1971 and reported in the House Report on the hearings before the
Subcommittee on Irrigation Reclamation of the Committee of Interior and
Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Serial No. 92-16.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT R. LEE,
Director.
Attachment.
STATEMENT OF DR. E. L. MIOHAL5ON, UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
I am Dr. E. L. Michalson, Project Leader for Wild and Scenic Rivers' Studies
of the University of Idaho, representing the Water Resources Research Institute
of our University. With me is Professor C. C. Warnick, Director of the Institute.
The Water Resources Research Institute of the University of Idaho has made
what we feel is a very good start in stimulating a progressive and efficient pro-
gram of research in water and related land resources. This is elaborated on
in detail in a recent publication entitled, "A Six-Year Review-The Impact of
the Water Resources Research Act at the University of Idaho as reflected in
resulting research and training activities in the State of Idaho and snrrounding
regions."
The key accomplishments are the following:
1. A very direct impact in helping to staff and to stimulate an active State
Water Resources Planning program.
2. An outstanding increase in involvement of new staff and graduate students
in graduate research programs including several new doctoral degree programs.
3. A new program of research that is specifically designed to research the
new concept of scenic and wild rivers, including planning for management of,
and methodology for selection of such rivers.
4. Cooperative programs with such sister institutions as Washington State
University and Utah State University.
The need for additional funding has com.e about for five principal reasons:
1. The escalation of all costs but particularly the salary of competent staff.
2. The fact that two other State Institutions, Boise State College and Idaho
State University have now reached a size and graduate student capability that
makes it necessary to include them in our Institute's overall State effort.
3. The passage of such acts as the Wild Rivers' Act and the implim!en'tation of
planning efforts by both State and Federal agencies operating In the State have
made it very apparent there are many new problems that we need to research
and the University of Idaho Water Resources Research Institute offers the
most objective place for such research to be undertaken.
4. The accumulation of many of the early research findings has been con-
centrated in rather technical reports such as degree theses which leaves a gap in
the scientific information dissemination.
5. The State of Idaho with a very limited tax base, a very large public land
acreage, and many rivers and lakes that have much need for sttidy for both
potential resource development and for preservation for environmental
purposes, offers an inordinate financial burden on the State and its educational
institutions.
The question could be asked, why would it be a good investment in federal
funds to increase funding to Idaho in particular, fully realizing all States have
needs and pressures for Federal funding also? We would submit the following
as justification:
1. Such federal funding is necessary to help such conservative states as Idaho
to embark on the progressiye programs af upgrading training, of stimulating
PAGENO="0025"
21
new ideas for both preservation and development of water and related land
resources.
2. The State cannot afford to fund the research itself.
3. Many times the research is best done in the field by scientists familiar with
Idaho's diverse topographic, meteorological and hydrological conditions.
4. There is need to stimulate a greater interest in water resources and the
value of good scientific information to base decisions on resource development.
5. The pressures to preserve the waters In quality state make it important to
know when to limit development and when not to limit development.
6. There `are many more good research proposals and ideas of professional staff
than we are able to sponsor and support.
We strongly recommend favorable action by the Congress to increase the
funding for this important research activity that has already brought new
knowledge for solving the pressing water and related land resource problems
facing our entire nation. _______
STATEMENT OF DR. ROREBT R. LEE, DIRECTOR, IDAHO WATER RE5OtRCE BOARD
The Idaho Water Resource Board is hopeful that legislation to increase the
authorization for water resources research will be passed since it would mean an
increase in funds for the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute. We have
worked closely with the Institute in conducting water needs studies and in
developing the Wild Rivers Methodology Study. Water Resource Board fund-
ing has helped create an excellent capability at the ~niversity of Idaho to sup-
port water-related research. Because of our pressing need to develop our own
planning and development capability, we will be unable after fiscal year 1971 to
continue any mafor funding of University research. Increased appropriations
for the Water Resources Research Institute pick up the funding slack and help
maintain a water resources research capability at the University, which will be
of enduring service to the State of Idaho, and, indeed, to the Nation.
UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO,
Moscow, Idaho, October 8, 1971.
Hon. SENATOR LEN B. JoRDAN,
U.S. Senate Office Building,
WasMngton, D.C.
DEAR LEN: At this time it has come to our attention that the Senate's `Sub-
committee on Water and Power Resources of the Senate Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee is considering amendments to the Water Resources Research
Act in the form of S. 219, S. 2428 and H.R. 10203. Our institute made a presenta-
tion at the hearings of the House of Representatives on this same subject. A
copy of this statement is enclosed for your reference.
We understand the Senate passed similar legislation during the past session
of Congress and therefore sentiment is in favor of passage of some legislation
in this regard.
Our desire now is to join with other state institutes in supporting H.R. 10203
which sets funding level at $250,000. We feel this funding level is necessary to
keep a viable program at our university. The press of many problems, such as
the issue of Hells Canyon-Middle Snake River, enhancement and protection of
the wildlife and fishery of the state, the economic well-being of rural areas
where irrigated agriculture is the sustaining support, and concern for urban
water supply in the scattered communities of our state are critical problems.
At the Idaho Water Resource Board meeting of September 24-25, Professor
Warnick appeared and discussed with the board eight major research topics
that have urgency and need for study now. These are repeated here to indicate
the extensive nature of the problems.
1. State Scenic Rivers evaluation.
2. Post audit of major project.
3. Geothermal Power.
4. Upper Snake water use.
5. Economic analysis of Jefferson County to ascertain capability to pay
for rehabilitation.
6. Methodology for computing the future depletion at the Brownlee Reser-
voir by upstream irrigation and multiple use development.
7. Minimum flows for satisfying use downstream of Hells Canyon.
PAGENO="0026"
22
8. Recharge of Snake River Plain:
(a) Effect quantitatively.
(b) Effect qualitatively.
(c) Legal considerations.
Idaho has difficulty supporting all these research areas because of its small
popu ation and industrial base. Travel costs are inordinately high because the
state is large and travel distances great.
We believe our past performance has demonstrated an efficient and responsive
program. With regard to Section 3 subsection 100(a) of the H.R. 10203 we
believe collaboration with leading water resource officials is desirable and only
last week Dr. Lee of the Idaho Water Resource Board spent an afternoon on
the campus discussing ways of cooperating with the institute. This week a
representative of the Idaho Fish and Game Department will be on campus to
discuss problems.
We solicit support for H.R. 10203 for increased funding of `the Water Resources
Institution by you and other members of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs
Committee. Professor Warnick is ready to answer any other questions and
informs me that you do not feel it necessary for him to appear in person at
the hearing on October 13.
Thanks for your continued support for our institute program.
Sincerely yours,
ERNEST W. HARTUNG,
President.
Senator HANSEN. Mr. Ohairman, I have a very brief statement that
I would like to ask unanimous consent for it to be included in the record.
Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, it will be done~.
(The document referred to follows:)
STATEMENT OF HON. CLIvFOBD P. HANSEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you and the members of the Subcommittee for
these hearings today. I am most impressed with the work which has been done
under the Water Resources Research Act since 1964. In light of the success
of these programs, it is important for Congress to insure their continued pro-
ductivity by providing the financial resources to conduct a meaningful program.
S. 2428, which I introduced on August 4, 1971, will increase the annual allot-
ment available to each institute from $100,000 to $250,000. This increase will
permit the research program to be conducted at a proper level, making up
ground lost to inflation, and in addition providing for adequate dissemination
of research findings.
Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the testimony we will receive today.
lit is my hope that the Committee will favorably report legislation amending
the Water Resources Research Act at an early date.
Senator ANDERSON. All right, Secretary Smith.
STATEMENT OP HON. MMES R. SMIT:~, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OP
THE INTERIOR FOR WATER AND POWER RESOURCES; ACCOM-
PANIED BY H. GARLAND HERSHEY, DIRECTOR, `O'P~ICE OP
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, DEPARTMENT OP INTERIOR
Mr. SMrni. Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to be here today to sup-
port the legislation to increase the authorization and do certain other
things in connection with water resources research in these United
States.
Before I begin my prepared statement, I would like to say all of
us who are interested in water resources research are appreciative of
the fact that the Senate last year pa~ed legislation, and we are very
hopeful that the l~gislation which is currently before you, and goes
somewhat beyond the legislation which you enacted last year, receives
the support Of the Senate.
PAGENO="0027"
23
Consistent with the legislative report of the Department of the
Interior, my statement is in general support of S. 121, Senator Hansen's
bill, 5. 219, Senator Moss' bill, and S. 2428, which is the extended bill
introduced by Senator Hansen. They have been introduced to amend
the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 to increase the authorization
for water resources research and for other purposes. S. 219 is identical
to S. 3553 that passed the Senate in the 91st Congress on September 1,
1970. S. 2428 is similar but not identical to H.R. 10203 that passed
the House of Representatives on October 4, 1971.
The Water Resources Research Act, Public Law 88-379, was enacted
in July 1964, and is administered by the Office of Water Resources
Resea.r~h. The objectives of the act are: (1) To establish water re-
sources research centers in each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico;
(2) to promote a more adequate national program of water and water
related research; (3) to train water resources scientists and tech-
nicians; and (4) to make generally available information and reports
on projects completed, in progress, or planned in addition to publica-
tion of information by the institutes themselves.
We believe that good progress has been made toward achieving the
objectives and intent of the law. For example, 51 State universit
water resources research institutes have been established, one in eac
State and in Puerto Rico; more than 1,400 research projects have been
supported under the section 100 "Annual Allotment Program;" and
in fiscal year 1971 alone more than 1,500 students served as research
assistants on annual allotment projects, thus receiving expert train-
ing in water and related resources. The State institutes have submitted
over 2,250 technical reports on research accomplished, including 780
research project completion reports and 1,470 other reports, such as
theses, dissertations, scientific journal articles, interim technical re-
ports, and miscellaneous publications.
The proposed increase in authorization applies only to the annual
allotment program, section 100 of the act, and does not affect the
matching grants to State institutes under section 101 or the contracts
and grants for additional research under section 200 of the act.
Although 5. 2428 proposes an increase from $100,000 to $250,000 in
the amount authorized for annual appropriation for each State insta-
tute under section 100(a) of the act, we believe that an increase to
$200,000 is adequate at this time. If a further upward adjustment is
found to be necessary in future years, this can be done by additional
amendatory legislation when appropriate.
I can't think of anything I should rather do than to have to come
back here in a year or two and to say that these research institutes
are doing such a good job in this important business of water re-
sources re.search that they can use and really need additional money
over what this bill would provide.
An increase to $200,000 annually per State institute is warranted for
the following reasons:
Inflation has seriously eroded the water resources research and
training purchasing power of the original authorization, which author-
ization did not anticipate the multitude of water-related problems
associated with the rapidly changing environment
The present authorized allotment of $100,000 to each institute is not
adequate to support the desired scope of water resources research and
PAGENO="0028"
24
related activities that, under the act, are the responsibility of the
State institutes despite significant State contributions to this coopera-
tive Fed,eral-State program.
Additional funding would increase the opportunity for other uni-
versities having highly competent research personnel to particiipate in
the State institute programs.
Increased funding will make it possible for participating universities
to expand upon the success they are achieving in training water re-
source scientists and engineers, and that is a particularly important
point to me.
I can tell you gentlemen, in the two and a half years I have been in
this job, I have searched and looked for people with competent water
resources skills and expertise. They are very difficult to find. This is
a rapidly emerging discipline, and to find competent people is dif-
ficult to achieve. I am personally convinced that the increased funding
which this will provide will make it possible for irs to develop more
people who are qualified and skilled in this water resources business.
I believe the committee will agree that the grave facts of our water
situation are evident. In major areas of the Nation, water supply
deficiencies jeopardize economic growth and wholesome living con-
ditions. Even in the humid areas, water quantity and quality prob-
lems are increasingly serious.
We recognize that research alone cannot answer all of our water
problems. Proper and improved planning, development, and manage-
ment also must occur. However, the amondatory legislation being con-
sidered by your committee today is one important step forward in
solving these water problems and will make a significant contribution
toward achieving the basic purposes of the Water Resources Research
Act.
Each year the Department issues a report on the progress made in
the execution of the program authorized by the Water Resources
Research Act. Copies of the reports have been made available to the
committee. The report discusses, in summary form, many of the re-
search results and training accomplishments achieved to date. How-
ever, as encouraging as progress and achievements have been during
the first 6 years of program operations, the program caunnot be
expected to meet our water research needs on a timely basis unless
augmented along the lines of the proposed amendments and the
Department's recommendations relating thereto.
There are obvious and significant research gaps that need increased
attention-including but not limited to those relating to urgent urban
and metropolitan water problems; protection and enhancement of
estuarine resources; development of effective ground water and sur-
face water conjunctive use practices; institutional and legal problems
associated with efficient water supply planning, development and
management; water quality problems which may be unique to State
or local areas; and other existing or rapidly developing environment-
related water problems. Water research efforts should be expanded
promptly if we are to match water uses with the supply available.
The Federal Government, the States, and local governments need
vigorous research programs to maintain and impro~ve the efficiency of
their operations in the water resources field. How should we go about
doing this?
PAGENO="0029"
25
* Certainly a very significant answer to this is the greater enlistment
of the research resources of the universities. They are an important
reservoir of technical competence that is being only partially utilized
for waiter resources research purposes. Experience has shown that uni-
versities can take an objective approach to water resources problems,
marshal creative talents from many sciences and academic disciplines,
and develop new approaches that can bring applicable new knowidege
and breakthroughs.
I should like to cite several of many examples resulting from the
annual allotment program under section 100:
One, New Jersey studies have determined the operating effectiveness
and costs of instream aeration systems. The studies indicated that
when applied to the Passaic River, an aeration system which would
cost $194,000 annually would be as effective in raising dissolved oxygen
levels as advanced waste treatment estimated to cost $785,000
annually.
Two, a Montana project, "Mountain Precipitation and Distribution,"
provided the basic support for the "spin-off" of a major multidiscipli-
nary research effort involving substantial funding from three other
sources. OWRR funded this project over a 3-year period in the amount
of $30,000. This investment resulted in the discovery of one of the most
unique natural laboratories in the West-the Bridger Mountain
Range-for weather modification experimentation. The existence of
this unique research site was recognized by other Federal agenciesr-
NSF, Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Army-and these agenc~tes
have provided further funding in the amount of $1.2 million to' im-
prove weather modification technology such as seeding site location
improvements. Work is continuing now to determine the effect of in-
creased mountain precipitation through weather modification practices
on the precipitation over the lower area downwind from the experi-
mentation area.
Three, a research project at the University of California, Los An-
geles, which commenced under the allotment program employs systems
analysis in development of improved techniques for planning and
management of water resources. State and Federal agencies are apply-
ing the research findings to achieve more efficient water management
for the Central Valley project and the California Aqueduct.
Four, under an Oregon project, the influence of spray irrigation on
the microclimate of an orchard in Oregon was determined. It was
found that application of a mist by overhead sprays cooled fruit by
6 degrees centigrade, an amount sufficient to significantly improve
fruit quality. This offers promise of being a profitable orchard practice
in the Northwest.
Five, through two Michigan projects, investigators discovered a
technique for monitoring water for pesticide contamination by ana-
lyzing the tissue of freshwater mussels. This technh3~ue met with wide-
spread acclaim throughout the Great Lakes region and is now a
standard procedure for pollution monitoring programs in Michigan,
Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio.
Six, in Arizona, an innovative project has developed a watershed
treatment technique for increasing runoff which otherwise would be
lost. This additional high-value water is then conserved for municipal
and agricultural uses by means of procedures for installing low-cost,
PAGENO="0030"
26
gravel-covered plastic catchm~nQs. The combined method of water
harvesting and storage already is being used effectively in the State.
The universities' readiness to accept larger obligations and oppor-
tunities of participation in water research activities, including effec-
tive disseminaton of research results, has been stated by the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and by the
Universities Council on Water Resources. Also, it has been demon-
strated clearly by the universities participating in the program since
it began in 1965. Because university representatives are scheduled to
testify, I defer to them as spokesmen for the academic world. I want
to say, however, that from the point of view of the Department of the
Interior, we welcome and look forward to the larger involvement of
universities in this critically important field of water resources
research.
There are two or three elements in my prepared statement that I
think I should go through in some detail.
If water resources research is to achieve its end objectives, it must
be prepared in an understandable manner. This must be done in ways
that make possible the transfer of research results, conclusions, tech-
niques, and recommendations into everyday planning, management,
and operations. It must bridge the communications gap between the
researcher and the administrator, legislator, and water resources com-
munity participant. The State institutes now have the authority under
existing law to implement the necessary dissemination of their. studies.
We do not believe that subsection 2(A) of 5. 2428 is necessary.
Through improved management and direction at the Federal and
State levels, we can properly direct the transfer of technology into
meaningful and practical documents that will be useful to the com-
munity of water interests.
In proceeding to develop and implement information dissemination
programs under the amendatory legislation, the Department will
work closely with the State institute universities to assure that full
advantage is taken of ongoing and past technology transfer experi-
ence of other Federal, State and private organizations in other techni-
cal fields.
A major and highly important "bonus" that will stem from the in-
creased support for the State water research institutes relates to the
training of skilled scientists and engineers to fill essential water-
related positions in the future at all levels, both public and private.
This is accomplished by having students, most of them at the graduate
levels, serve as research assistants to professional researchers on ap-
proved projects. The amendments being considered today will make it
possible for the State university institutes to employ and train many
hundreds of additional student research assistants who, upon gradua-
tion, will be qualified for water resources positions as well as for
training others to fill such positions in the future.
Furthermore, the increased program will make it possible for the
State institutes to bring into the national water resources research ef-
fort the multiple disciplines of many skilled and professional scientists
and engineers who, up to this time, have not participated in or con-
tributed to the solution of the Nation's water resources problems.
We are pleased that one of the amendments proposed in S. 2428 con-
cerns a matter we feel is of significant importance-that is, the need
for close consultation and collaboration between State university re-
PAGENO="0031"
27
search institutes and the leading water resources officials and agencies
of the respective States. Several of the State institutes voluntarily
developed effective practices and procedures within the past 2 or 3
years to accomplish this; however, we see no reason why the other
State institutes should not do so and we are convinced that, by so
doing, their research programs will bear increased relevance to water-
related problems throughout the Nation. Therefore, we urge that the
committee retain the amendatory language set forth in subsection 2(B)
of 5.2428 which reads as follows:
The annual programs submitted by the State institutes to the Secretary for
approval shall include assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that such pro~
grams were developed in close consultation and collaboration with leading water
resources officials within the State.
The committee will be interested in knowing, I believe, that the
program authorized by section 100 of the act has developed, truly, into
a cooperative Federal-State program-as contemplated when the act
was passed originally. This fiscal year the States, in total, are nearly
matching dollar-for-dollar the Federal funds provided. The contribu-
tion by the States was about $4.1 billion last year which is more than
80 percent of the $5.1 million which the Federal grants to institutes
provides. We expect that significant amounts of non-Federal funds
will continue to be provided in the future.
S. 2428 also includes a further amendment which we feel will fa-
cilitate the financial management of the program at the State in-
stitute level. Pursuant to the legislative history leading to the enact-
ment of the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, and in the admin-
istration of the program to date, funds provided the State institutes
under the section 100 annual allotment program have been available
for all appropriate research costs except for the support of indirect
costs and employee fringe benefit costs. Support of such costs from
non-Federal fund sources has constituted, in part, the State contribu-
tions to this cooperative Federal-State program.
However, this requirement has necessitated the development and
operation of cumbersome and unique bookkeeping practices at most
of the State institute universities. Section 3 of S. 2428 would resolve
this matter since it would permit the State institutes to utilize their
Federal annual allotment program funds for any proper cost of the
program, including indirect costs and employee fringe benefit costs.
On the other hand, to assure that the cooperative Federal-State nature
of the program is effectively retained, section 3 of 5. 2428 would re-
quire that the direct costs of each State institute annual program, as
such costs are defined by Federal procurement regulations, equal or
exceed the amount of the annual Federal grant.
I should comment to the committee that one of the principal ob-
jectives in the Department's administration of this program will con-
tinue to be to provide research coordination so as to avoid duplica-
tion and to assure that funds are applied to achieve most effective re-
sults. Internally, within the Department, we have acted to place the
Office of Water Resources Research, as well as the Office of Saline
Water, under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary for Water
and Power Resources. This, plus legislative changes, should pu.t us
in position to do a, better job. This puts virtually all of the water
activities of the Department of the Interior under one boss, so we
PAGENO="0032"
28
can obtain the kind of cooperation which we think is good manage-
ment and good business. We are `doihg that. We are all working very
closely together, more closely than ever in the past.
Three other amendments are proposed by S. 2428 and we recommend
their adoption. The first of these would delete from section 200(b)
of the act the present requirement that proposed contracts and grants
under the title II program be submitted to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for 60 days prior
to the execution of contracts and grants. In lieu thereof, all title II
contracts and grants would be specifically identified, by project title,
performing organization, and amount of each contract or grant, in
the annual program report required `by the act to be submitted to
the President and `the Congress. We think that is a method by which
on a more simple basis we can guarantee that `the Congress is properly
informed on what OWRR is doing. This revision would assure that
congressional committees and Mem)~(rs of Congress are informed
as to the specific application of title II funds and, at the same time,
it would eliminate the paperwork and `delay necessitated by the exist-
ing requirement.
The second of these amendments would provide authority to the
Secretary to transfer to the grantee universities, w'hen proper justifi-
cation is provided, `title to excess Federal property obtained for use by
the grantees in the conduct of research authorized by the act. Right
now there are several millions of dollars where the title is listed in
the name of O'WRR. We think it would be better if we were permitted
to `transfer title to these grantee universities, rather than him sitting
there `owning a `bunch of stuff `that he can't use himself.
The third amendment would place the annual program report on
a fiscal year rather than calendar ye'ar basis. While we support this
amendment, we would recommend against any proposal to change the
March 1 date now specified in the act for submittal of the report
to the President and Congress. The annual report is, in large part,
based upon the annual reports of title I and title II grantees and con-
tractors which are received in the Department on September 1. Placing
the annual report on a fiscal year basis would not significantly `change
the period `of time following September 1 needed to prepare, print
and `distribute the report.
These three proposed amendments are discussed in the Department's
report `on the bills `being `considered by your committee. While we
believe each is `significant in terms of simplifying and expediting ad-
ministration of the program, and improved management, we would
interpose no strong objections should the committee conclude that they
should not be adopted.
As a final `word, permit me to say that we are pleased with program
achievements under the cooperative Federal-State water resourees re-
search `act in the few years it has been in operation. The program
augmented by the proposed amendments as recommended in the De-
partment's report will continue to achieve significantly worthwhile
results while at the same time operating with a relatively modest
budget.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views. If you or others
of the committee have questions, I will gladly try to furnish answers.
That gives the position `of the Department of the Interior on this
legislation, and I would urge that the Senate `take due cognizance of
PAGENO="0033"
29
our recommendations. I would now attempt to answer any questions
which you gentlemen care to put.
Senator JORDAN (presiding). Mr. Secretary, do I understand that
the three proposed amendments which you suggested in your state-
ment, which are of not too great consequence in the overall, you are
in full support of this legislation, is that correct?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator JORDAN. Have you prepared these amendments in the exact
form that you would like to `see them incorporated in the bill?
Mr. SMITH. In S. 2428 they are written in the language which we
think is most appropriate, sir.
Senator JORDAN. How about the other bills? Do you suggest amend-
ments to the other bills?
Mr. SMITH. The other bills are silent on several items that 2428
has. 5. 219 and 121 are both very fine bills. We would have no
trouble in supporting them, but 2428 goes a little beyond and covers
some items on which the other bills are silent, and which we think
are important to be included in this ~egislative package.
Senator JORDAN. Very good. I have~'no more questions.
Senator ANDERSON (presiding). Mr. Hansen?
Senator HANSEN. Mr. Secretary, you stated you do not believe that
the act need be amended to provide for the new dissemination func-
tion. Can I assume that your recommendation of a funding level of
$200,000 does not fund the new information dissemination function
provided by 5. 2428, since you believe present provisions are
adequate?
Mr. SMITH. That is correct, sir.
Senator HANSEN. If the new function is provided, how much is
needed to fund it?
Mr. SMrPH. I will defer to Dr. Hershey, the Director of OWRR.
Dr. HERSHEY. Senator, this will be variable in different States.
We haven't put an exact figure on it. This is something quite new.
There is no basis or no established way of doing this in the scientific
field. So, we are a little unsure as to exactly how much money will
be needed. In some States they might spend as much as $50,000 or
even more. In other States, `however, it is obvious that they couldn't
spend that much money.
Senator HANSEN. One further question. There has been concern in
some institutes that the statutory requirement for coordination with
the States will become difficult. Could I ask you: What kind of co-
ordination is funded?
Mr. SMITH. Senator Hansen, the subject which you brought up is
one that happens to be very near and dear to my heart, because as you
know I have been involved in water resources for a good many years.
I don't think there is any intent on the part of our organization, the
Department or O'WRR, to hamper the academic freedom of these
water resources research institutes.
On `the other hand, I don't think it is appropriate for the Federal
Government not to have any control at all and to provide merely
a categorical grant which, and I know there are some instances
when this has been true, provides very little more than an opportu-
nity for a budding Ph. D. to do `a thesis. They don't have any par-
ticular relevancy to the real life, real world problems that the State
e9-528 O-71-3
PAGENO="0034"
30
water planners have, that the Governors have. And in your own
State, and certainly the States in the West, they need to have the
availability of the academic world to help them to solve some of their
very real problems.
There is no intent to do more than to help to coordinate and see
to it that these men work together, that they talk together, that they
communicate with one another, so that at least part of the money from
these institutes is used to help solve the real problems that we have
existing in this country today.
Senator HANSEN. No further questions.
Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Allott?
Senator ALLOTT. I have no questions.
Senator ANDERSON. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Au4o'rr. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask at this time, if
I may, I don't know when you intend to close the hearings on this-
I had a letter from Dr. Norman A. Evans, Director of the Environ-
mental Resources Certer at Colorado State University, who first indi-
cated his desire to appear here. I have not heard from him subsequently
and I would like to ask permission that I may insert a statement by
him in the record prior to the time you close.
Senator ANDERSON. Without objection that will be done.
(The statement referred to follows:)
STATEMENT OF Da. NORMAN A. EVANS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GENERAL
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
My name is Norman A. Evans. I am Director of the Office of General Univer-
sity Research at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. My re-
sponsibilities include supervision of the program of the Office of Water Resources
Research, U.S. Department of Interior, in Colorado. My duties are research
program development, coordination with both state and federal water agencies
in Colorado, and coordination among the research institutions of the state.
When the Water Resources Research Act was implemented in 1964, Colo-
rado was already a leader in various aspects of water resources research. Four
universities have been involved. Colorado State University traces a history of
national and international service in irrigation and hydraulic engineering back
to the date of its founding in 1870. The University of Colorado points Ukewise
to a long history of competence in the economic aspects of water resource de-
velopment. The Colorado School of Mines, recognized as the outstanding school
of Its kind In the country with regard to mineral and petroleum engineering
and geology, has also devoted much academic and scientific attention to water
as a mineral resource. The University of Denver has focused upon the economic
and social Implications of water resources, particularly as they relate to water-
based recreation and water pollution control. Although the history Is a long
one, the volume of research was small. The Act increased the volume and stimu-
lated research in other new and important disciplines. S
According to the 1964 OWRR Report for Colorado, there were 27 faculty mem-
bers in 11 disciplines working in water resources research, while my 1970
Annual Report shoWs that there are 54 professors in 20 disciplines so engaged
today. This impressive increase in scientific and professional effort is due in
large measure to the stimulation of supporting funds through the Office of Water
Resources Research. /
During the course of the program to date, there have been 280 students sup-
ported fully or in part in their graduate work on water problems These men
and women have subsequently entered the professional world prepared to bring
new knewledge, new techniques, new enthusiasms and new dedications to those
problems. Without that support, many would have entered other fields leaving
us even further behind in adequately trained manpower today.
The research and graduate training Institutions of Colorado have in fact
more capability for water research in terms of faculty and facilities than they
PAGENO="0035"
31
have fiscal suppor1~ with which to sustain it. The increase proposed by S. 3553
would help us make fuller use of that capability.
I am tempted to review all the water problems of Colorado for you in support
of legislation now being considered to increase financial support to water re-
knowledgeable about water problems in the various regions of the country today,
search. However, I will not do so because, In the first place, this committee is fully
and in the second place, I would venture to guess that the distinguished Senator
from Colorado, the Honorable Gordon Allott, has already oriented you to our
problems. I will, instead, show you by means of four illustrations the vitally
important role which the OWRR research program is playing in the development
and management of Colorado's water resources. Without this program, each of
these problems would still be waiting for answers.
Case No. 1
Long range plans and priorities for state water resource development are being
formulated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board with the help of the
15.5. Bureau of Reclamation. At the request of these agencies a study was
initiated which will measure the role of water in the total state economy. The
result will be an input-output model which will become the foundation for the
State Water Plan. Personnel of the two governmental agencies are getting
valuable training by actively participating in every stage of the project (B-059--
COLO).
Case No. 2
Colorado's water pollution control program is now moving from the standards
setting and stream classification stage into one of refinement in the surveillance
and enforcement program along with greater attention to forward planning
and operational efficiency. Project A-O1O---COLO was initiated jointly with the
Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission to make an analytical review
of current organization, procedures, and policies. Useful recommendations have
been made to the Commission concerning: (a) technical staff reorganization. for
better management efficiency; (b) development of a long-range planning func-
tion within the staff, and (c) greater utilization of federal funds to augment
state funds in water pollution control, especially pertaining to planning. This
critique from an external position gives timely guidance to the state agency as
it moves ahead in its important work.
Case No.3
Ground transportation routes in the intermountain West, because of topog-
raphy, coincide with river and stream systems. Highway embankments often form
* one bank of a river channel, croSsing and recrossing many times. Water erosion of
embankment's and at bridge `abutments is a serious problem for which solutions
have `been found in Project A-002---COLO and Project B-014-C'OLO. Through
laboratory models, erosion control design procedures were developed and pro-
vided `to Highway engineers for use along the Colorado River. The Denver Water
Board also uses the results in stabilizing banks of streams being used to transport
water for the city of Denver.
Case No.4
Flood runoff from watersheds in the mountain region has `been difficult to esti-
ate because `of lack of historical records and the extreme complexity of precipita-
tion events. Public agencies such as the Highway Department, the Soil C'onserv:a-
tion Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation, along with municipalities concerned
with urban `drainage, having requested research to improve flood flow estimates
for use in design of highway drainage, dams, canal protection floodways, and
other facilities. Projects A-002-CQLO. B-005--COLO, B-030-COLO, and
B-054--OQLO `have provided new `analytical techniques and procedures for
making better flood flow estimates in the mountain watersheds of Colorado. The
new technology applies equally well in any similar geographic region.
In conclusion: `the vision of C'ongress in initiating the OWRR program has
been confirmed. It has provided Colorado with research answers on urgent prob-
lems which `otherwise would not yet be available. It h'as been so successful in
stimulating water research and training that it should now be expanded to pro
vide for m'ore rapid use of results.
Public decisious are increasingly dependent upon new knowledge. Too often
the decision-making stage Is reached before the new knowledge is available.
II is vitally important that the Congress provide for a viable, forward-looking
water research program.
Senator ANDERSON. Dr. Allee?
PAGENO="0036"
32
STATEMENT OP DR. DAVID ALLEE, CHAIRMAN OP THE UNIVERSI-
TIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCES
Dr. ALLEE. Mr. Chairman, I am David J. Alice, chairman, executive
board, Universities Council on Water Resources, associate director,
Cornell University Water Resources and Marine Sciences Center,
Ithaca, N.Y., and professor of resource economics, New York State
College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Before I get into my prepared statement, I would like to put on
my university hat for a minute before I wear my Universities Council
on Water Resources hat, and say that a letter is coming to you from
the president of Cornell University, and I would like to read just one
sentence from it, because I think it makes an interesting point for our
concern.
It reads:
Cornell Is placing increasing dependence on centers such as Urban Affairs,
International Affairs, and Environmental Quality, as well as Water Resources
and Marine Sciences as organizations which provide an essential linkage among
the standard universities, colleges and departments.
I think it is this function of pulling together the resources of the
university to apply them to society's needs that we are speaking about
today.
I would also like to bring you greetings from Congressman Robison,
who represents the district which includes Cornell. He has been very
active in support of these amendments. I know he would like to be here,
but pressing business prevented him from doing so.
I recently became chairman of the Universities Council on Water
Resources and I must say I feel compelled, after following Assistant
Secretary Smith, to make at least a few remarks on the very nice
change in the environment of our working with the Department of
the Interior.
Since Secretary Smith has taken over the leadership for not only
the Office of Water Resources Research, but the other elements that
he mentioned in the Department of the Interior, we have found that
our communication has improved tremendously.
I would just like to point back to his recent statements about aca-
demic freedom. This is a concern, asyou know, among the university
community, yet there is an absolute need that we cooperate and work
closely with our State people.
I think he shows a nice understanding of the balance here that is
necessary, I would just like to say how pleased we are to be able to
work with him.
Also, I would like to provide for the committee's files a copy of a
report which an ad hoc committee of the Universities Council on Water
Resources prepared reviewing and analyzing the whole section 100
program.
I would like now to go into my prepared statement, which I will
abbreviate, but you, of course, have copies of the entire statement.
This statement is made on behalf of the Universities Council on
Water Resources, an organization of some 70 of the Nation's lead-
ing universities actively engaged in education and research in fields
related to water resource development and utilization.
PAGENO="0037"
33
On the occasions of its last three annual meetings, UCOWR dele-
gates have considered the increasing need for amendments to title I of
the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, and on July 2, 1969, adopted
the following resolutions:
Resolutions on amendments to title I of the Water Resources Re-
search Act:
One:
Whereas the Congress recognized the need for accelerated research in the
field of water resources and the urgent need for trained personnel to meet the
challenges of increased demand for the limited supply of water and passed the
Water Resources Research Act of 1964, and
Whereas the research and training which can be accomplished with the fixed
amount of monies authorized under Title I of the Water Resources Research
Act of 1964 for research and training continues to decrease at an accelerated
rate due to inflation, and
Whereas the restriction that funds provided under Title I of the Act cannot
be used for fringe benefits results in the necessity for special accounting pro-
cedures ~at most universities to meet this requirement with unnecessarily high
accounting costs, and
Whereas the problems associated with water resources have substantially
increased since the passage of the Act and will increase in the future as increased
pressure is placed on the quality of the environment, and
Whereas the cost of administering the research and training of the Act is
substantially increased and made cumbersome by the requirement that the state
centers and institutes report on a fiscal year basis and the Office of Water
Resources Research report to the Congress on both a fiscal and a calendar year
basis, and
Whereas the foundation for the partnership which exists between the states
and the Federal Government in water resource research and training is pred-
icated on a sound and substantial research program at each of the state centers
or institutes: Now therefore be it
Resolved, That the Universities Council on Water Resources urge the U.S.
Congress to amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 to:
(1) Increase the annual allotment program of Title I to $250,000 per year,
(2) Modify the language of the act to make all reporting on a fiscal year basis,
and
(3) Provide specific language authorizing the use of allotment funds for the
payment of fringe benefits.
Two:
Whereas the Universities Council on Water Resources in its 1968 Annual Meet-
ing passed a resolution encouraging the authorization of teaching and extension-
type programs in Water Resources; and
Whereas this resolution has been considered by many groups and individuals
throughout the nation during the past year: Now, therefore, be It
Resolved, That the Universities Council on Water Resources reaffirms the ur-
gent need for amendments to the Water Resources Resarch Act of 1964, to au-
thorize the Office of Water Resources Research and the universities to develop
educational programs for the interpretation and dissemination of water research
findings and seek adequate appropriations to expedite these programs.
The amendment passed last year by the Senate intending to modify
the Water Resources Act of 1964, unfortunately, was not matched
by comparable action on the part of the House of Representatives due
to a most crowded schedule. S. 219 introduced by Mr. Moss for himself
and for Mr. Hatfield is the reintroduction of your committee's final
bill. The House has now acted, passing a bill essentially the same as
S. 2428, introduced by Mr. Hansen. Thus, our major concerns in this
hearing are, hopefully, with the differences between these bills.
5. 2428 provides for the higher amount and we believe there is a
persuasive case for the larger amount and that the events of the last
year have made that case even stronger.
PAGENO="0038"
34
Let us examine the $100,000 provided for in the original act in 1964.
In the 6-year interval, inflation has eaten into the effective purchasing
power of that figure. Wages for professional personnel, faculty, tech-
nicians, graduate and undergraduate aides in the universities have
risen faster than prices overall. While many feel this has only cor-
rected unreasonable relative returns per man in the past and has partly
reflected strong competition from Government agencies armed with
needed pay scale increases themselves, this has nonetheless meant less
research for the dollar. Equipment costs have also risen more rapidly,
reflecting the high labor cost content in most scientific hardware.
It would not be unreasonable to estimate that some $50,000 per
year per State is needed to correct this change in purchasing power.
Note that the costs of construction of water resource development and
pollution abatement projects has risen at a faster rate than this. This
means that the State institutes will have firm funding that can be
considered in long-range plans in balance with other more variable
kinds of research funding as you envisioned this balance in 1965, and
I might add, to do the job that you envisioned in 1965.
But now we are considering a broader responsibility and a more
varied program than in 1964. The first phase of this expanded scope
is provided for in both bills-namely technology transfer. Experi-
ence under the act has shown that greater effectiveness of the research
investment can be achieved if there is an expanded investment in the
dissemination function. This requires specialized personnel, not neces-
sarily easily available to the State institutes through conventional
teaching and research departments.
Senator HANSEN. May I interrupt just a moment, Dr. Allee. You
used a figure "1964" a time or two in the copy of your prepared state-
ment that I have. I see 1965. Did you mean that to be 1965 or 1964?
Dr. ALLEE. Where it says 1965, that is an error. It should be 1964.
What are called for are professionals who can work across special-
ized disciplines with a strong and broad problem orientation, and the
skills needed to communicate the knowledge available to those who
will, in fact, solve the problem.
Again, there is a need for a solid year-to-year funding base. This
will and should vary from State to State, depending upon the charac-
ter of the problems and the other resources available.
It is our judgment, and I have been an administrator of technology
transfer types of programs, and I think it is not unreasonable to put a
$50,000 figure on what would be required for a typical State as a base
level for funding. This would provide for one to one-and-one-half
professional man equivalents whose credentials must be comparable
in almost every respect to regular research and teaching faculty. Also,
this would give modest support expenses including the underwriting
of seminars and workshops, printed materials, and other media costs.
But there is another aspect to the water resources research task
that we only dimly perceived in the early 1960's, and indeed we may
not have judged its full impact on our program even a year ago. This
is, of course, the concern for the environment, its relationship to tradi-
tional water resource development, and the new challenges that it is
posing for all of us with an interest, in water resources.
The result in terms of demand for the output of the research com-
munity shows itself in some very obvious ways and in others that are
less obvious.
PAGENO="0039"
35
First is the impact on what was considered hard and understood
technology. In our old frame of reference it wasn't necessary to con-
sider some of the alternatives that are now of interest because they
may have less impact on environmental values. Before our more limited
criteria-technical feasibility and economic efficiency-encouraged us
to pass by some kinds of solutions. We must now go back and under-
stand them better.
Second, we must, and have greatly increased our investigations into
the environmental impact of resource development alternatives, par-
ticularly with regard to understanding the ecological systems in-
volved. This has meant much greater involvement of biologists in par-
ticular, but also other disciplines such as environmental specialists in
law and economics.
Closely related is the exploding emphasis on the water q~uality
aspects of the various water resource development settings in the
Nation, and the management of aquatic resources to enhance and pro-
tect environmental values.
Finally, the rapid escalation of concern in the environment has
placed a special burden on the university community and the State
institutes in particular to provide opinions and judgments in the
many conflicts that have arisen. There is no lack of university faculty
members willing to give off-the-cuff opinions. Some say that is what
we do best. But to provide soundly developed opinions and analysis
takes time and money. Hopefully as agencies find ways to regularize
the solution of these problems, this demand will diminish. But right
now it is very great.
In all of these respects, the Nation is asking the universities and
particularly the State institutes to perform in ways that were not
anticipated in the 1960's. If it takes $150,000 to provide the annual
allotment program envisioned then, plus another $50,000 to respond
to the need for technology transfer, an additional $50,000 to provide
for an adequate response to the concerns for the environment seems
modest, but we hope adequate.
I would like to turn my attention now to some of the other features
of 5. 2428, particularly the coordination with State water resources
agencies. This has proven to be of some concern.
S. 2428 adds a sentence to subsection 100(b) of the Water Resources
Research Act of 1964 to make explicit the kind of coordination with
State officials which is now strongly encouraged by the rules and regu-
lations :and other policies of the Office of Water Resources Research.
This language calls for "assurance * * * that such programs were de-
veloped in close consultation and collaboration with leading water
resources officials . . . meeting the needs of the State.
We applaud the intent of this addition. It is a reaffirmation of the
cooperative Federal-State concept upon which this program was based.
State institute directors and university faculty must be in a constant
dialog with leading water resources officials in order to achieve the
kind of interagency, intergovernmental supportive program that is
needed.
The genius of the American political system is that it divides power
between many, and then builds ways to bring about their cooperation
and mutual reinforcement. This is what I think this is attempting to do.
The result may seem cumbersome and slow. An example is the grow-
ing length of time between the authorization of a study and the corn-
PAGENO="0040"
36
pletion of a development project by one of the construction agencies.
But the advantages are not to be overlooked. All points of view are
considered in a more evenhanded way than would be the case if one
interest could more easily hold down another. Final actions are more
apt to be supported by a large majority-usually unanimity-than a
bare majority. Hopefully, this means that the public interest is more
fully met.
Thus, we would not change the wording of this section. The Office of
Water Resources Research should continue to encourage the needed
dialog. However, this may not materially help to increase OWRR's
influence in encouraging the State officials to understand how the uni-
versities can help them. But it obviously should strengthen OWRR's
influence in encouraging even better university involvement in solving
State problems.
We must urge, however, careful development of guidelines and in-
terpretation for this language. Under present and past adniiinistra-
tions, the Office of Water Resources Research has understood the need
for consultation and collaboration, which nonetheless recognizes the
autonomy of the several agencies involved, the universities on the
one hand and the State officials on the other. The universities cannot
stress too hard that the essential ingredient to their contribution to
society is embodied in the concept of academic freedom.
We are sure that the Congress has no intention here of in any way
abridging that essential ingredient of university teaching and research.
However, it would be efficient to clarify in the record of these amen4-
ments, if they are adopted, that no such thing was intended. This
would prevent future misunderstandings on the part of both univer-
sity and State persomiel.
Many university faculty and administrators are unfamiliar with
the excellent relationships between the Office of Water Resources Re-
search and the State institutes. It is not hard to imagine them mis-
understanding the intent of this section. And a more subtle point, they
may also misunderstand the relationships between the institutes arid
the State agencies. There is a need within every university to main-
tain an independent image for the water program.
On the other hand, it must be recognized that State agencies have
very different responsibilities. Planning, regulating and operating are
very different activities than research and teaching. They cultivate
different views of the world and its problems. Thus, it would not be
difficult to imagine a State water official misunderstanding this section
and attempting to influence the university to carry out work and come
to conclusions that are not appropriate. Such misunderstandings could
be prevented or more quickly resolved if the record makes clear that
while this is a call for closer cooperation and a more active dialog, it is
in no way intended as a means whereby the State officials can impose
any particular tasks or conclusions on the university water program
carried out under this act.
Senator ALLOTT. Would you yield for a question there?
Dr. ALLEE. Sure. In fact, I will leave the rest of my statement, essen-
tially, for your perusal, and stop at this point.
Senator ALLOTT. I understand very well the points you are making.
But the inclusion of the word "tasks" there, why should not the State
water officials ask the universities to assume tasks? "Conclusions" I
PAGENO="0041"
37
agree with you completely, but if the State and university are to per-
form their function of research, for example, one that just pops into
my mind would be perhaps the methods of stopping evaporation-
Dr. ALLEE. And research in that area is vitally needed.
Senator ALLOTT. Which is a basic problem for all of us in the West.
Is there anything wrong with the Colorado River Conservation Board
saying to the people of the State university, we would like to have you
address yourselves to this task?
Dr. ALLEE. That seems like an appropriate area of research. I would
not quarrel with that at all.
Senator ALLOTT. I agree with your statement with respect to con-
clusions, saying here is a method, we want you to do it right. Usually
in the Western States, particularly the people associated with water
resources are people who have a long experience personally in handling
water, utilizing it, particularly industrial, but more in our area for
agricultural purposes, and I really can't see anything wrong with at-
tempting to assign tasks.
I do, like you, join wholeheartedly with the conclusions.
Dr. ALLEE. I think this is a very important point. I would like to
point out, though, there is confusion occasionally on a distinction be-
tween research and what you might call normal agency staff work, and
between research and planning.
In `my own experience, we have had State agency people come to us
with tasks which involved the routine collection of data, the .routine
sununarization and analysis of data. They essentially asked us to per-
form a task which we interpreted as being no different than that which
they would have had their normial planners carry out, that it involved
no challenging research area at all.
I think the university has to be free to make this kind of distinc-
tion and point it out. But to cut off communications of the kind
that you suggest, where they come up with a problem and say, look,
from oui~ point of view here is a research issue or a research question
that needs to be tackled, we have to have more that kind of dialog.
Senator ALIAYIT. I was thinking particularly I have seen so many
research programs, and I put "research" there in quotation marks,
financed by the Federal Government which actually were no more
than tabulatory j6bs that could have been done by any intelligent
man with a very simple calculating machine, and maybe even just
an adding machine, and then calling it a research project.
Now, you don't have, I take it from what you say, you don't have
in mind that any of this sort of thing comes under research? What
you are really thinking of, I think, is more on the basic research side.
Perhaps some development research, too, but you are thinking more
toward genuine, hard scientific research.
Dr. ALLEE. Research that uses the special skills that universities
have.
Senator Aii~o'rr. Of the various disciplines within the university?
Dr. A1L~E. Yes.
Sehator AI~Lorrr. I think we are talking the same language.
Dr. Ar~I~E~ I think so, too.
Senator AILorr. It is' very important because too often the Federal
Government has financed at great expense so-called research projects
which a normal, intelligent college graduate could have handled with
PAGENO="0042"
38
just an adding machine and without any particular expertise in any
discipline. This is the sort of thing you would like to eliminate; would
you not?
Dr. Au~. I would like to see the university personnel involved be
free to make that distinction. The operating term, I think, in the sen~
tence you pointed to is "imposed." The distinction here are subject
to debate. I just want to be sure they oan be fully debated.
Senator Au~om Thank you.
Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much, professor.
Dr. ALLEE. Thank you, sir, for this opportunity.
(The prepared statement of Dr. Allee follows:)
PAGENO="0043"
39
Prepared Statement of David 3. Allee
Chairman, Executive Board
Universities Council on Water Resources
and
Associate Director
Cornell University Water Resources and Marine Sciences Center
Ithaca, New York
and
Professor of Resource Economics
New York State College of Agriculture
at Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.
-At~ Hearings on 5.219 and 5.21428
Before the Subconr.mittee on Water and Power Resources
of the Senate Committee on' Interior and Insular Affairs.
October 13, 1971
I am David 3. Allee, Chairman, Executive Board, Universities Qo~~1
on Water Resources (UC0WR), Associate Director, Cornell University Water
Resources and Marine Sciences Center, Ithaca, New York and Professor of
Resource Economics, New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York. This statement is made on behalf of the
Universities Council on Water Resources, an organization of some 70 of
the Nation's leading universities actively engaged in education and re~
search in fields related to water resource development and utilization.
On the occasions of its last three annual meetings, UCOWR delegates
have considered the increasing need for anienc3merits to Title I of the
Water Resources Research Act of l961~ and on July 2, 1969, adopted the
following res~lt~tibns:
RESOLUTIONS ON A E~DME]~1TS TO TITLE I OF THE
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT
(1)
WHEREAS the Congress recognized the need for accelerated research
in the field of water resources and the urgent need for trained person~.
mel to meet the challenges of increased demand for the limited supply
of water and passed the Water Resources Research Act of l961~, and
PAGENO="0044"
40
WHEREAS the research and training which can be accomplished with
the fixed amount of monies authorized under Title I of the Water Resources
Research Act of l96l~ for research and training continues to decrease at
an accelerated rate due to inflation, and
WHEREAS the restriction that funds provided under Title I of the
Act cannot be used. for fringe benefits results in the necessity for
special accounting procedures at most universities to meet this require..
ment with unnecessarily high accounting costs, and
WHEREAS the problems associated with water resources have substan..
tially increased since the passage of the Act and will increase in the
fu±ure as increased pressure is placed on the quality of the environment,
and
WHEREAS the cost of administering the research and. training of the
Act is substantially increased and made cumbersome by the requirement
that the state centers and institutes report on a fiscal year basis and
the Office of Water Resources Research report to the Congress on both a
fiscal and a calendar year basis, and
WHEREAS the foundation for the partnership which exists between the
states and the Federal government in water resource research and. train..
1mg is predicated on a sound and substantial research program at each of
the state centers or institutes;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Universities Council on
Water Resources urge the U. S. Congress to amend the Water Resources
Research Act of 1961~ to:
(1) Increase the annual allotment program of Title I to $250,000
per year,
(2) Modify the language of the act to make all reporting on a fis..
cal year basis, and
(3) Provide specific language authorizing the use of allotment
funds for the payment of fringe benefits.
(2)
`WHEREAS the Universities Council on Water Resources in its l~8
Annual Meeting passed a resolution encouraging the authorization of
teaching and extension..type programs in Water Resources; and
WHEREAS this resolution has been considered by many groups and
individuals throughout the Nation during the past year;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Universities Council on
Water Resources reaffirms the urgent need for amendments to the Water
Resources Research Act of 196)4, to authorize the Office of Water Resources
Research and. the Universities to develop educational programs for the
interpretation and dissemination of water research findings and seek
adequate appropriations to expedite these programs.
PAGENO="0045"
41
An Analysis of the Differences
Between 5.219 and S.2L~28
The amendment passed last year by the Senate intending to modify
the Water Resources Research Act of l96I~, unfortunately was not matched
by comparable action on the part of the House of Representatives due to
a most crowded schedule. S.219 introduced by Mr. Moss for himself and
for Mr. Hatfield is the reintroduction of your committee's final bill.
The house has now acted, passing a bill essentially the same as S.21~28
introduced by Mr. Hansen. Thus our major concerns in this hearing are,
hopefully, with the differences between these bills.
Should the Annual Allotment Program be Raised to $252,000 or t~200,002
per Year -cer State
S.2i~28 provides for the higher amount and we believe there is a
persuasive case for the larger amount and that the events of the last
year have made that case even stronger.
Inflation .. ..... ***. *. :,. *. ~-* . . -
Let us examine the $100,000 provided for in the original act in
1965. In the six year interval inflation has eaten into the effective
purchasing power of that figure. Wages for professional personnel,
faculty, technicians, graduate and undergraduate aides in the universities
have risen faster than prices overall. While many feel this has only
corrected unreasonable relative returns per man in the past and has
partly reflected strong competition from government agencies armed with
PAGENO="0046"
42
needed pay scale increases themselves, this has nonetheless meant less
research for the dollar. Equipment costs have also risen more rapidly
reflecting the high labor cost content in most scientific hardware.
It would not be unreasonable to estimate that some $50,000 per year
per state is needed to correct this change in purchasing power. Note
that the costs of construction of water resource development and pollu~.
tion abatement projects has risen at a faster rate than this. This
means that the State Institutes will have firm funding that can be con-
sidered in long range plans in balance with other more variable kinds
of research funding as you envisioned this balance in 1965, and I might
add, to do the job that you envisioned in 1965.
Techno1o~y Transfer
* ~ut now we are considering a broader responsibility and a more
varied program than in 1965. The `first phase of this expanded scope is
provided for in both bills namely technology transfer. Experience
under the act has shown that greater effectiveness of the research in-
vestment can be achieved if there is an expanded investment in the dis-
semination function. This requires specialized personnel not necessar-
ily easily available to the State Institutes through conventional
teaching and research departments. What are called for are professionals
who can work across specialized disciplines with a strong and broad prob-
lem orientation, and the skills needed to communicate the knowledge
available to those who will in fact solve the problem. Again, there is
a need for a solid year to year funding base. This will and should vary
from state to state depending upon the character of the problems and the
other resources available.
PAGENO="0047"
43
It is our judgment that on the average $50,000 per year will be
required for a stable, well developed and articulated technology trans~
fer program. This would provide for one to one and one~half professional
man equivalents whose credentials must be comparable in almost every
respect to regular research and teaching faculty. Also this would give
modest support expenses including the underwriting of seminars and work.-
shops, printed materials and other media costs.
The Environment
But there is another aspect to the water resources research task
that we only dimly perceived in the early 1960's, and indeed we may not
have judged its full impact on our program even a year ago. This is of
course the concern for the environment, its relationship to traditional
water resource development and the new challenges that it is posing for
all of us with an interest in water resources.
The result in terms of demand for the output of the research com~
munity shows itself in some very obvious wnys and in others that are
less obvious. First is the impact on what was considered hard and under~
stood technology. In our old frame of reference it wasn't necessary to
consider some of the alternatives that are now of interest because they
may have less impact on environmental values. Before our more limited
~.crLteria technical feasibility and economic efficiency encouraged
us to pass by some kinds of solutions. We must now go back and understand
theta better.
Second, we must, and have greatly increased our investigations into
the environmental impact of resource development alternatives particu..
larly with regard to understanding the ecological systems involved.
This has meant much greater involvement of biologists in particular,
but also other disciplines such as environmental specialists in law and
economics.
PAGENO="0048"
44
C'osely related is the exploding emphasis on the water quality as-
pects of the various water resource development settings in the nation,
and the management of aquatic resources to enhance and protect environ-
mental values.
Finafly, the rapid escalation of concern in the environment has
planed a special burden on the university conmrunity and the State Insti-
tutes in particular to provide opinions and judgments in the many con-
flicts that have arisen. There is no lack of university faculty members
willing to give off-the-cuff opinions. But to provide soundly developed
opinions and analysis takes time and money. Hopefully as agencies find
ways to regularize the solution of these problems, this demand will
diminish,
In all of these respects the nation is asking the universities and
particularly the State Institutes to perform in ways that were not an-
ticipated in the 1960's. If it takes $150,000 to provide the annual al-
lotment program envisioned then plus another $50,000 to respond to the
need for technology transfer, an additional $50,000 to provide for an
adequate response to the concerns for the environment seems modest, but
we hope adequate.
PAGENO="0049"
45
~ion~
Coordination with the State Water Resource Age
S.21~28 adds a sentence to subsection iOOCb) of the Water Resources
Research Act of 196~~ to make explicit the kind, of coordination with state
officials which is now strongly encouraged by the Rules and Regulations
and other policies of the Office of Water Resources Research. This
language calls for "assurance.. .tbat such programs were developed in
close consultation and collaboration with leading water resources of.-
ficials. . .meeting the needs of the State.'
We applaud the intent of this addition. It is a reaffirmation of
the cooperative federal-state concept upon which this program was based.
State institute directors and university faculty must be in a constant
dialogue with leading water resources officials in order to achieve the
kind of inter-agency, inter-governmental supportive program that is
needed. The genius of the American political system is that it divides
power between many and then builds ways to bring about their cooperation
and mutual reinforcement. The result may seem cumbersome and slow.
An example is the growing length of time between the authorization of
a study and the completion of a development project by one of the con-
struction agencies. But the advantages are not to be overlooked. All
poiitsdf vie~r ai~e considered in a more eve~iñanded wa~ ~than would be
the case if one interest could more easily hold down another. Final
actions are more apt to be supported by a large majority -- usually
unanimity -- than a bare majority. Hopefully, this means that the public
interest is more fully met.
Thus we would not change the wording of this section. The Office
of Water Resources Research should continue to encourage the needed
69-528 O-71-4~
PAGENO="0050"
46
dialogue. However, this may not materially help to increase OWRR's in-
fluence in encouraging the state officials to understand how the uni~.
versities can help them. But it obviously should strengthen OWRR's in..
t].uenc~ in encouraging even better university involvement in solving
state problems.
We must urge, however, careful development of guidelines and inter..
pre'tation for this language. Under present and past administrations the
Office of Water Resources Research has understood the need for consii,lta..
tion and collaboration, ~hich nonetheless recognizes the autonomy of the
several agencies involved. The universities cannot stress too hard that
the essential ingredient to their contribution to society is embodied in
the concept of academic freedom. We are sure that the Congress has no
intention here of in any way abridging that essential ingredient of uni..
versity teaching and research. However, it would be efficient to clar..
i~y in the record of these amendments, ifthey are adopted, that no such
thing was intended. This would prevent future misunderstandings on the
part of both university and state personnel.
Many university faculty and administrators are unfamiliar with the
excellent relationships between the Office of Water Resources Research
and the State Institutes. It is not hard to imagine them misunderstand..
~ag the inter~t of this se ion. And a more subtle point, they may also
misunderstanã the relationships between the Institutes and the state
agencies. There is a need within every university to maintain an inde...
pendent image for the water program.
On the other hand, it must be recognized that state agencies have
very different responsibilities. Planning, regulating and operating
are very different activities than researc~i and teaching. They culti..
vate different views of the world and its problems. Thus it would not
PAGENO="0051"
47
be difficult to imagine a state water official nisunderstanding this
section and attempting to influence the university to carry out work
and come to conclusions that are not appropriate. Such misunderstand-
ings could be prevented or more quickly resolved if the record makes
clear that while this isacall for closer coo~eration and a more active
dialogue, it is in no way intended as a means whereby the state officials
can impose any particular tasks or conclusions on the university.water
program carried out under this act.
Indirect Costs, Review of Title II Grants cess Pro~ert~R~por~s and
New Institutes
The remaining differences between the two bills are largely to
streamline administrative procedures.
As long as direct costs for annual allotment programs equal the
federal contribution we feel a proper intent is served. This is a part-
nership program and the states should make a significant contribution
even beyona the amount of indirect costs for annual allotment activities.
But under the rules of some states most awkward arrangements are neces-
sary if the use of the federal funds is limited to direct costs.
Review of Title II grants by the Congress prior to award is a part
of a broader debate over the prerogatives of the several branches of
government, It is n~t clear to us that it has had a major effect one
way or the other on the program.
Clarification of the acquiring of excess property and its disposal
could present some needless delays and costs.
Reporting on a fiscal year rather than a calendar year would re-
duce some university administrative effort which now serves no purpose
at the university level and apparently does not add significantly to
PAGENO="0052"
48
the information used at other levels. Instead of t~o overlapping time
frames for reporting this program we would use one.
Finally the extension of the annual allotment program to District
of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa has not been
closely studied by our organization. We do note, however, that the
present program includes Puerto Rico and that the University of Puerto
Rico has had the associated resources to develop a program that has gone
far to meet the needs of the island. Its faculty and facilities have
been more than adecluate to mount an acceptable effort.
PAGENO="0053"
49
Water Resources and UniversitySe~ce
Research and Education Needed to Manage Our Waters
This is a good time to take stock. What is being done in research and in
structuring our educational programs to meet the reguirements of the nation for
more regulated flows in our rivers and: other related purposes. This discussion
will focus on the 51 State Water Resources Research Institutes funded under the
Water Resources Research Act of l961~. This is not to suggest that important work
is only being done at these universities, nor that the relative emphasis should
change between the universities enjoying support through these centers and others.
It is simply that these 51 centers have now had a chance to get started and show
us what might be done with systematic support from the federal government.
Another focus for this discussion will be the need for non-degree, non-
classroom educational programs. A review of the history of these 51 centers sup-
ported under the Water Resources Research Act of 196l~ shows this to be the funda-
mental weakness of the current approach. Experience in other programs and an
understanding of the way in which universities work suggest that broadly useful
problem-solving research is more likely to come about when we provide for a formal
linkage between the university researcher end the audiences that need new knowledge.
In the language of the ecologist and. the computer programmer, we must provide a
"fedbk loop." This is not a one-way street. The universities must hire pro-
fessionals whose job it is to take the results of research to those who have pro-
bleats and, most important, to bring back to the ace~iem1c researcher an intimate
knowledge of the situations faced in the real world.
PAGENO="0054"
50 ~
A casual examination of the potential for economic and population growth in
the foreseeable future should suggest to anyone that there will be substantial
pressure for expanding the uses that we make of our waters. This will mean more
demands for stream, flow regulation, more reservoirs, more channel work, more can~
ale; in essence, moving water in time and place to serve man's needs. At the sane
time we must recognize that this will not be achieved easily and smoothly and with
no stress and strain.
Certainly a major challenge that lies ahead of us is how to have our econom-.
ically important services from water to serve one set of rising expectations end at
the same tine manage and preserve the environmental values to which water is so
important in order to serve another set of rising expectations. Our traditional
water resource development agencies are all unanimous in one aspect of their re-
lationship to the new interest in the environment. They all agree that their
present capacity to evaluate many of the questions being raised by environmental-
ists is inadeciuate. The Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil
Conservation Service, municipal and state development agencies across the nation,
find it difficult to find the trained staff or consultants who can help them avoid
the time-consuming conflict that tends to arise. It is probably true that there
is more inisinfonriation on the environmental effec~ts of water resource development
than there is sound information. This doesn't make it any less effective in rais-
ing uncerta~.nty, and addi~ng to. ow~ proj~ct..i~ac~LOg. ~I~he. great. ~
act because we know, rather than not act because of what we can speculate night
happen.
In short, the programs of the 51 State Water Resources Research Institutes
need to add a component of work that will help the developmental agencies of gay-.
ernnent responci to the environmental crisis. But past experience indicates that
this will z~ot occur unless those who 8.6 the research are assisted in the cousaunica-
tion process by specialists at the universities, specialists in technology transfer.
PAGENO="0055"
51
The veto ~ supportive power of the environmental coalition must be recog-
nised. It has been able to raise the public works budget for sewers and waste
treatment plants from $2l~ million to $800 million. In this same period the Corps
of Engineers and Rureau of Reclamation and Soil Conservation Service have faced
the prospect of stable budgets which in a tine of inflation really means a fall
in real investment. The pressures for flood damage reduction are still there.
The ga.tns from expanded navigation works still bring many to the Congress asking
for more facilities. Our cities are still looking to upstream reservoirs as a
source of water supply. There are still farmers who ask the Congress to let them
make the desert bloom. The environmental choices must be made and we must learn
bow to move ahead.
Some Hist~y
It is instructive at this point to turn to the reports of the Senate Select
Committee referred to often as the Kerr Committee. This group conducted the last
complete assessment of water resources policy in the United States. It is inter-
esting to note that Ted Schad, who directed that study, is now staff director for
the current review by the National Water Commission. Two extremely relevant pieces
of legislation came out of that effort, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965
and the Water Resources Research Act of l961~.
The Planning Act proposed the Water Resources Council as a formal mechanism
?fo~ inte agency coordination at~ the Tedéral lewel. This: was è.n outgrowth of
many less formal inter-agency arrangements such as `Firebriekt' and "Ice Water"
and, of course, the ad ~ioc Water Resources Co~mcil which evolved into the present
arrangement.
The Water Resources Council has pressed forward the resolution of a number
* of knotty policy problems. One~exasiple is the stamd~rdization of guidelines for
the evaluation of hydrology between the severe), federal Water Resource Development
PAGENO="0056"
52
Agencies. Of course, a major task has been the coordination and development of
guidelines for comprehensive water resource development planning. The COUnCil'S
assessments of water resource development needs stand as a major contribution to
the nation's response to its many needs. A current effort is the development of
principles, standards and guidelines for project and plan evaluation. As the
Water Resources Council has undertaken these several tasks, it has had opportun..
ity to call upon the university community. The university community has been in
a position to respond more effectively in recent years as it has developed ~apac-
ity through the state institutes. The largest role has been in the most recent
effort. The new evaluation principles which move substantially farther tovrards
the full evaluation of all benefits of water resource development were tested by
a number of university teams. Most of these teams came from universities with
these institutes and the skilled manpower was available because of the experience
that had been gained on supported projects.
The Water Resources Research Act of l96t~, administered through the Office
of the Water Resources Research in the U. S. Department of the Interior, was mod-
ele~ closely on the Land Grant College and Agricultural Esperiment Statios~ system.
The emphasis was to be on a mission orientation in the development tradition. A
base fund of ~lOO,OOO per year has been provided to each of the institutes with
opportunities to obtain competitive matching grants and open grants through the
program. It, is probably fair to say that this has been a more closely managed
research program with careful review of each project and the development of care-
ful guidelines that identify the nation's research needs. Nonetheless, the pro-
gram fails to provide for that important Land Grant' College,component, namely an
Extension Service responsibility.
It is perhaps instructive to note that the Water Resources Planning Act of
1965 provides substantial support for the states to develop their own water re-.
sources planning programs * It also provides for their participation in river
PAGENO="0057"
53
basin planning commissions. The passage of that act was delayed while state ob-
jections were worked out to the original formulation ~y the Kerr Committee. The
Water Resources Research Act, on the other hand, passed somewhat more quickly,
perhaps because of the active support of the National Association of State tJniver-
cities and Land Grant Colleges. In its original form, it was a tried and true
format for organizing the capacity of the universities to meet some of the nation's
needs.
There should be no question that the Water Resources Research Act has achieved
a major part of it~ objective. The universities provide a reservoir of skilled
academic talent, much of which has a much better understanding of the problems
faced by those who would develop the water resource's of the nation. Government
agencies have been able to choose between a group of' students far better trained
for the tasks which are at hand. They have been able to send employees for ad~
vanced training to the universities and yet be assured of teaching that is more
relevant * The academic literature has been enriched, `indeed almost flooded with
the results of new research.
The annual reports of the Office of Water Resources Research detail many of
the advances that have been made * The same kind of picture can be gotten from the
reports of the individual Institutes. Many of the Institutes have prepared sum~
manes of their efforts over the last five or six years. A summary of some of
these is provided later inthis report.
By involving members of the university faculties from a wide range of disci-
plines, the program has had a "ripple" effect throughout the Land Grant Universities
and beyond. The problems of water have been effectively expressed at the univer-
sity on an urgent and understandable level. The faculties have responded.
PAGENO="0058"
54
flone Exnxtmles of Recent Work
The planning of public proj ects by every level of government has been improved
by the findings and analytical techniques developed in recent research. One ex~
ample is the optimization of power generation, peaking power and water releases
within the California water plant. Another is a new approach to integrating urban
area water systems developed for the New York City area. Some of the concepts de-
veloped in this research are currently being implemented by the Northeast Water
Supply Study carried out by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Preventing the degradation of the environment or taking steps to enhance it
has led to the development of a number of important pollution control measures.
In one state criteria were developed for stream bank stability to be used in con-
junction with highway construction. Sediment in our streams has been a major
source of excess nutrient loading and fish habitat destruction. Stream banks are
a substantial source of such silt. In other research it has been found that
stream aeration systems have greater capability than we imagined for improving
aquatic environment. In particular, it is apparently possible to artificially
improve the quality of lake waters by this method.
Naripower research has indicated a critical shortage of trained water resource
personnel to exist currently and to grow worse by 1980. The supply of water re-S
sources manpower is expected to be 1514,000 by 1980, of which 55,000 will be engaged
in research. In c~ntrast the demand for waber resoiirèes manpower is projected
at 267,000 with 95,000 being needed in research. Critical shortages in 1980 are
forecast for ecology, hydrology, water resources planning development and manage-
ment, water quality, and watershed management.
The framers of the legislation sought to establish a federal-state partner-
chip to mount an attack on these problems. In addition they recognized the need
to interest a large nisther of the best minds of the country in the problem areas.
The establishment of an Institute at each of th~ land grant universities seemed
PAGENO="0059"
55
to satisfy the criteria for implementing the research program. These Land Grant
institutions had a long and successful history of cooperative research in the
field of agriculture and the faculties represented a large reservoir of untapped
expertise.
The performance of these Institutes over the past cix years amply sustains
the wisdom of the broad base of operation. Directors at the local level have
been very successful in stimulating the faculty from a wide range of disciplines
to focus their expertise on water problems which had heretofore gone unnoticed.
The key to this stimulation was in part due to the fact that these experts became
keenly aware of the water problems which surrounded them. Much of their aotiva.
tion was the desire to provide input into solving local and state problems. In
working on these problems they also made a large con1~ribution to what might be
considered national problems. None of the states are in isolation, the external-
ities are felt outside the state boundaries and Institute research has had wide
applicability and usefnlness throughout the nation as a whole.
The reports by the Office of Water Resources Research to the Congress each
year provide tangible proof of the effective federal-state partnership which has
been established. The states on an average contribute support equal to between
60 and 70 percent of the annual federal allotment * The reported contribution `is.
probably low as the figures reflect only the most obvious and easily identifiable
items. `Actual' Contrthution~ probubl~ äpjrc~ch 50-50' funding. `There are man~''ex-"
amples where initiation of a very modest research project in the allotment program
has stimulated a vigorous research program supported by other federal and non-
federal funds * In some cases the expenditures for the expanded research may be
20 to 50 times the cost of the original research proposal. The statistics on
training of qualified personnel are equally impressive. To supplement this train-
ing many universities design curriculum and. special degree granting.programs in
the field of water resources.
PAGENO="0060"
56
The original program of $100,000 annually was thought by the sponsors of the
legislation to be adequate to initiate the program. It has become evident that
inflation has drastically eroded away the purchasing power of the amount origin-
ally authorized. In addition, the original authorization was predicated on prob-
lems recognized at time of enactment * Even the most keowledgeable scientist in
l961~ did not fully anticipate the multitude of emerging problems associated with
the rapidly changing environment. The present authorized appropriation is no
longer adequate for this wider horizon of responsibilities.
An estimated $th9,000,00o was invested in water resources research by the
federal government in Fl l9~9. Yet, it is recognized that procedures used by
funding agencies for the identifiôation and characterization of water research
need.s and the transfer of research results into practice are ;extremely unsatis-
factory. There is a demonstrated need -- a marked need -- to improve communica-
tion between research users and researchers if the research supported by this
large investment is to be responsive to the needs of water planning and management
agencies and the resulting new information is to flow into the hands of practi-
tioners in a form which can be utilized by the large variety of disciplines and
levels of skill involved.
The Water Resources Research Institutes are ideally situated to assume res-
ponsibility for information dissemination at th~ state an~ local level. Their
programs include the relationships with the users in local and state government,
planning agencies, consulting engineers and other practitioners. They are cur-
rently involved with these groups in the identification of research needs and the
development of research projects responsive to those needs. ~j~e lack is
~gis1ative authorization for the aD~rourjatjonsang actilties necessa~
to deve1o~p the second rhase of their pro7rsms -- the interpretation and
PAGENO="0061"
57
dissemination of water research findings. Such programs would utilize existing
state extension services such as agricultural, engineering and industrial, to the
extent they are available in the seine way that the Institutes currently utilize
faculty and laboratory facilities for research. Where such services are not
available, they would be developed along lines best fitted to the university and
the unique needs of each state.
Federal funds presently authorized for Institute annual allotments and natch.
ing grants are designated for research and related training. There is no specific
authorization for information interpretation and dissemination programs, nor funds
for this purpose.
The result is that there is little direct communication, on a systematic
basis, between the researcher and his logical counterpart -- the individual or
locality with a problem. It is probably true that our agricultural research pro.~
gram did not begin its nisxitnun period of effectiveness until the technology traxis-
far function was institutionalized at the university to complement the research
programs that had begun some years before. Within the university community,
there is, unfortunately, considerable resistance to the development of outreach
programs based upon general purpose funding. I)ollars that cam be used for any
purpose are scarce at the university as elsewhere. Left to its own incentives,
the university will use these funds for on-campus teaching and more research.
Earmarked funds are needed to encourage the universities to provide this important
service needed by the rest of society.
There is a demonstrated need to improve ~ommunications between research users
and the researchers if the research supported by this prograsi iS to be responsive
to the needs of water planning and management agencies and the resulting new in-
formation is to flow into the hands of practitioners in a form which can be util-
ized by the large variety of disciplines and levels of skill involved. For example
consulting engineers, particularly those in small firms, would welcome the support
PAGENO="0062"
58
this program could provide. It would put at their disposal new tools, new tech-.
nology, so that they in turn can do a better task of servicing their many cus-
tomers.
Professionals in the transfer of technology can provide the interdisciplinar~j
kind of information not now easily available to practitioners. Like researchers,
agencies and firms today tend to be narrowly based in terms of the mix of special-
ties that they have represented in their staff. But the problems they face call
for broader approaches.
To meet the need. for more information in the hands of those who could use it
and to insure that information is produced that can be used, a two-way process must
be developed. Both the generator of the information and its receptor must be ac-
tively engaged in the process. Often, however, initial isrpedence may be so great.
that coasnunication is ineffective without provision of special aides and special-
ized personnel.
At least four steps need to be taken in order to reduce the barriers that
stand between those who produce new information and those that need it. First,
specialists must be available who can define problems broadly and bring together
the research i~'om many researchers and disciplines that is potentially significant
in solving those problems. Very few researchers are this sort of generalist.
second, the scientific information available must be repackaged for ready under-
standing by pra~titioners...and. othey. decision.~make~~s... The, researcher, writes for
his fellow members of his discipline. Translation is reciuired for the busy prac.-
titioner. Third, educational experiences must be designed that offer ready com-
munication between both the generator of new information and the recipient of such
repackaged information. Finally, feedback must be fteilitated. that will alert re-
searchers to the s'cientific information needs of those involved in resource deci-
sions and actions.
PAGENO="0063"
59
Xn order for the Water Resources Research Institutes to become authoritative
and objective sources of information, not biased in favor of particular action
programs, it will be necessary to provide stable year-to-year funding for this
type of activity. Other available federal sources are not sufficient or suited
to this need. A project_by_project type of authorization does not provide the
basis on ~thicJi to employ the necessary skilled personnel and establish thb lasting
relationships that are needed. "Hard funds" which the university nay use this
year and, more importantly, for ~which the university may plan its activities over
future years, are needed. Only in the steady, continuing program can a university
recruit the kind of quality personnel necessary to insure that the program will
continue to be an effective impetus for progress.
The need in order to make an effective beginning is relatively modest by
current standards for public programs * But the impact of such funds may have
more coadrete results in work being done on localized water problems ~ll over the
nation than practically any other recent legislation currently being considered.
PAGENO="0064"
60
Senator ANDERSON. Dr. Agnew?
Senator ALLorr. Mr. Chairman, since I made my first interruption
here a few minutes ago, I have a wire addressed to me, received this
morning, which is October 13, which reads as follows:
Re: S. 219 hearing; Please refer to our statement in the hearing last year, for
transfer, vital step not provided in current Act. We again urge favorahie action
and authorization at 2&~K"-that is thousand-signed: Norman A. Evans,
Director, Environmental Research Center, Colorado State University.
Therefore, I would like to have Dr. Evans' former statement of last
year incorporated into the record simply by reference.
Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, that will be done.
Dr. Agnew?
STATEMENT OP DR. ALLEN P. AGNEW, STATE OP WASHINGTON
WATER RESEARCH CENTER, WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. AGNEW. Mr. Chairman, Senators, my name is Allen F. Agnew.
I am chairman of the National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges Committee on Water Resources, and I am also
director of the State of Washington Water Research Center.
I have two statements here which I would like to have introduced
into the record, and I would like to speak from those briefly.
Senator ANDERSON. That will be done.
Dr. AGNEW. The testimony I wish to speak from first is the state-
ment underlined, "National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges."
I have appended a list of members of my committee, 15 men, as
the last page of that statement, and you will see that President
Hartung of the University of Idaho, President Heady of the Uni-
versity of Mexico, President Ray Chamberlain are members of this
committee.
This association, as you know, is made up of 18 major State insti-
tutions of higher education, and we wish to thank the subcommittee
for the opportunity to appear before it and speak in favor of the
provisions of this legislation which would amend Public Law 88-379,
the Water Resources Research Act of 1964.
The preceding speaker, Dr. Allee, representing the Universities
Council on Water Resources has made a statement that my organiza-
tion supports the National Association of State Universities, supports
the UCOWR statement. These people, as you know, are members
of our universities, they are the working people in the water arena.
Therefore, they are closest to the problem.
My `association is a policymaking organization, as you understand,
and deals with all kinds of educational matters in addition to water.
Well, a year `ago, Mr. `Chairman, at the hearing on S. 3553 `here be-
fore this subcommittee, the statement of my association showed our
great interest and concern for this legislation `and this concem going
back to 1963 and 1964, when the act was passed, `and then title II
amendments `in 1966. T'he statement that we made a year `ago `also
~howed the need that we recognized for further modification `of this
act `in order to permit or enable `the universities to do `a `better job of
fulfilling the charge that was `envisioned by the framers of this legis-
lation back in 1963 an'd 1964.
PAGENO="0065"
61
I think it goes without saying that the work of the water resources
rese'ardh centers and `the Office of Water Resources Re,search, the part-
nership during the past 6 or 7 years, has shown the effectiveness of this
partnership that was established :in that way.
In my statement I have cited certain projects that `appeared to show
the success of this program in striking at certain problems and their
solutions. This is on page 2, and I have cited one from Utah `and one
from Idaho, `and a `couple from my own State of Washington.
Moving on to near the `bottom of page 3, sir, in section 1 of Senate
`bill 2428, it would provide for an allotment of $250,000 rather than the
present $100,000. As we `have `heard before, such `an increase is needed
for several reasons, `one of w:hich is to support new and enhanced in-
formation transfer functions. Another is `to offset `the erosive effects of
inflation, and the third might be called coming closer t'o funding the
large number `of good project proposals tha't could search out `answers
to some of society's problems that we have been unable to fund at pres-
ent, wi'th `the present level of funding. Senate `bill 219, `by providing
only $200,000, therefore, in our view does not go far enough.
Now, in examining the 7-year history `of t'he Office of Water Re-
sources Research and the university water research program, `we have
noted that although it focuses m'ainly on regional or local problems
through the `allotment part of the program, many of these h'ave na-
ti'onal `application as well, far wi'der reach than just the State.
I `cited on p'age 4, four such projects, again one from New Mexico,
one from Wyoming, an'd `a couple from my own State of Washington.
If I could just look at the last one on that page, this is one I myself
have been in charge of. We are examining the ground wa'ter reserves
`that `are shared with `adjacent States, `because as you know ground
water goes underneath State boundaries. Different States commonly
have different laws; different administrative units to provide the in-
stitutional aspects `of managing `that resource, and I think you recog-
nize that just as `with surface water `which we share across the border,
our ground water resource that we sh'are under the border is just as
significant.
This particular study, or a report on that is due out very shortly.
Another major benefit of this water resources research program is
`that it `has permitted `a very substantial `and c'oordina'ted State-funded
program to be developed in many `of the States.
I would like, then to look at section 2(b) or Senate bill 24'28, which
would require that annual programs submitted by these State in-
stitutes, `as we have `heard earlier this morning, should be developed
in close collaboration with water program officials in the States and
the local communities to assure the responsiveness to this local
program.
My association is an agre'ement with the general thrust of this
provision, that is that the program of the center or institute be de-
veloped in such a way as to reflect an awareness `of and the interest
in the State and local needs, and therefore the close communication,
I think that is the keyword, with the State and local officials is highly
desirable. We are nevertheless concerned that the freedom of the
program, of the center or the institute, to include elements that go
beyond the State's borders or beyond the agency's interest not be
hampered.
6G-~528 O-7i~----5
PAGENO="0066"
62
Therefore, we recommend that the language be clarified along lines
such as those suggested in this statement in the middle of that
paragraph.
Looking at the communication transfer function, we reeogmze that
although our water research centers have produced a wealth of pro-
fessional reports dealing with all kinds of research projects funded
under the act, we are only reaching one kind of public in this manner.
We must communicate with many other publics, as you will require-
the State agency administrator, or the local government official, who'
is not a water professional quite often, or the local citizen groups or
individuals who need to understand the problems or their alternative
solutions.
I cited in my written statement two examples of this from the State
of Washington. I will move over this, just making the remark that I
think a journali~tic flair of `a staff person in the water research center
is needed to produce the kind of readable report that the potential users
could use.
Looking ahead, the water research center serves as a focal point on
campus for water research activity in the many subdivision's in the
university. This is a positive effect of the program over the last 6
years, and we wish to enhance this focal point.
I would like to mention the matching grant program because the
Office of Water Resources Research has `been able to provide funds
for only a small portion of the meritorious proposals submitted under
this program. It is unfortunate that when our State agency people
identify problems that need to be solved and come up with the match-
ing funds, and the university comes up with its share of the matching
funds, and then the university researchers are able to devise research
proposals that would lead to the solution of these problem's, it is un-
fortunate th'at these problems cannot be undertaken because of the
inadequacy of the moneys appropriated under section 101.
Therefore, my association urges full funding of the title I matching
grant, and the title II provisions of the Water Resources Research Act
up to their authorized sums.
In conclusion, back to the allotment funds of the center or the in-
stitute, they have been used largely for seed grants that enable ex-
perts to put together larger and more comprehensive programs, and
therefore these seed grants have had quite a substantial multiplier
effect.
So, in looking back over the 7-year history of the Water Resources
Research Act, we have seen a program that has been surprisingly suc-
cessful and is accomplishing much of what was envisioned by the
framers of the legislation in 1963 and 1964. But we also see areas,
such as information transfer, wherein the program could be improved
so it could be even a greater service to our Nation and the citizens.
Of course, we see the many unanswered water problems that require
research but for which present funding is inadequate.
Because 5. 2428 and provisions of S. 219 would enable this partner-
ship of the Federal agency and the university community to do a
better job of solving society's problems with water, the National As-
sociation of Universities and Land-Grant Colleges is pleased to reg-
ister its support for their provisions as we discussed here briefly this
morning.
PAGENO="0067"
63
Now, I would like to abstract even more briefly the statement for
the State of Washington Water Research Center, if I may.
Senator ANDERSON. Yes.
Dr. AGNEW. The statement you have in front of you is the second
statement, underlined "State of Washington Water Research Center."
I appreciate, again, the opportunity to appear and represent that
water research center which consists of two universities, the TJniver-
sity of Washington and Washington State University. This dates
back to the 1964 memo of agreement between the two universities,
and this cooperative venture is unique between the two universities.
The relationship has been an extremely viable one with the capa-
bility of drawing on experts of all fields of water and related resources.
After 7 years we can point to many accomplishments within our State
that our own water research center has been able to achieve because
of this program. This last spring I prepared an assessment entitled
"After 6 Years" and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to leave a copy of
this report for the file.
Senator ANDERSON. Without objection.
Dr. AGNEW. The research program of the State is very broad. It
has been funded by the Office of Water Resources Research through
two of the three programs, the allotment program and the matching
grant program. The title II grants we have not participated in. But
in addition, we have had State funding ,for State projects.
It is very important, sir, that all of these State projects have been
multidisciplinary ones showing the great breadth of our water prob-
lems and the interfacing of the many subdisciplines here.
One of the projects that we prepared which represents this multi-
discipline aspect is a water planning concept for the State of Wash-
ington which we prepared a year ago. This was done by 16 profes-
sionals from the two universities representing all manner of disci-
plines. This provided a vehicle for the State agency, a framework for
it to embark upon its planning for the management of its resources
in an organized way.
We feel this planning document which was entitled "A Concept Of
a State Water Plan" should also go a long way in helping the State
solve problems related to land-use planning with which, of course, the
water resource interfaces in all manner of ways.
I have cited, sir, a few examples of research projects within the
State that represent this multidiscipline aspect, and I should like to
move on, then, to the fact that about three-quarters of the allotment
money in the State of Washington has been used to fund these allot-
ment projects.
These are seed grant projects, as I mentioned earlier, and there is
quite a multiplier effect there. But I should like to point out one other
thing, in our State the State contribution, although it is not required
for the allotment program, has been equal to and slightly more than
the Federal money spent on these allotment projects. This non-Federal
money has come from the State department of ecology and from the
two universities.
It is important to recall or to understand how we select these proj-
ects. These are subject to at least two substantial reviews. We are in the
process right now of selecting the matching grant projects for next
year. They are reviewed by the Joint Scientific Committee, three mem-
PAGENO="0068"
64
bers from each of the two universities representing the various disci-
plines, and by myself and my assistant.
After going into Washington, they are subject to another thorough
review and screening there. This shows we can weed out the less effi-
cient, or those that we deem to be less likely to result with the funding
requested, in results that would be useful for that kind of money.
Many of these projects within the State have regional or national
applications, as I mentioned earlier, and two or three of those are
cited in my report, in my statement.
Then, on page 6., we have come to realize that the funding for the
allotment programs, the funding is inadequate because we are receiv-
ing nearly twice as many good proposals in terms of dollars and num-
bers than we can fund. The last 2 years it has been slightly more than
the amount that we have been able to fund. These are good proposals.
In addition, there are three State colleges which are now beginning
to get research program gleams in their eyes, would like to be able to
work in water research, and we would like to be able to fund their
capable researchers.
Therefore, we support section 1 of 5. 2428, which would overcome
the inadequacy and move the dollar funds up to $250,000.
In brief, the State of Washington Water Research Center urges
favorable action on the elements of this legislation that I just dis-
cussed here, and I should be happy to answer any further questions.
Thank you.
Senator Moss (presiding). Thank you very much, Dr. Agnew, for
your very fine statement and report of the use that has been made of
this program in Washington State and your recommendation that we
increase the amounts in accordance with the bills before us.
I wasn't able to hear all of your statement, but I do have the written
text before me, and I have been looking at that as well as listening to
part of it. I don't know that I have any questions, but I will call on my
colleagues to see if any of them have.
Senator Burdick?
Senator BURDICK. No questions.
Senator Moss. Mr. Hansen?
Senator HANSEN. No questions.
Senator Aia4orr. I have one brief question. I would like to ask you,
and then I want to ask Dr. Allee another question.
Do you have problems in Washington relative to water administra-
tion? I had the feeling that in some instances, ~n my own State I know
they made some advances, that we can solve at least some of our water
prthlems by upgrading arid bringing into the 20th century the river
administration problems that we have. They are terribly inadequate,
and I will ask you, do you have these problems in Washington?'
Dr. AGNEW. Yes, we do. Senator Allott, we have examined both
the legal aspects, the legal problems, and the institutional problems,
or administrative problems there. We find we are afflicted with what
we call districititis. All kinds of levels of overlapping jurisdictions.
In addition, at the State level we have conflicts as you know among
State agencies that have specific water authorities, specific reasons for
wanting to do certain things with water.
One particular project that we have right now is attempting to estab-
lish low flow guidelines for the State of Washington. We find that the
PAGENO="0069"
65
different States agencies wish a different degree of low flow, depending
on whether it is a fishery or flood management agency, or recreational
type agency.
We do find there are changes coming about in the last 2 or 3 years.
Unfortunately, the changes don't move as rapidly as we would like to
have them move, and we find again that we need to have counsel, shall
we say, of State agencies' heads and the middle management people
as well as working stiffs such as myself.
Senator ALLOTT. I understand your answer, but I think we have a
long way to go, generally, in bringing up the administration of water.
I am speaking of the West, where we are talking about the distribution
of water, particularly those of us who have heard this in prior appro-
priations, the need for immediate and accurate measurements in suffi-
cient numbers to provide the local commission and the State engineer
with an immediate picture.
I mean, in this day and age, it is just absurd that -we do not have an
immediate picture. We are still doing it on the basis that we did it back
in the 1890's, and continuing through most of this century. This creates
a lot of abrasiveness between competing users of water.
For example, two different companies, one of which may be up the
river, and one down, their appropriation priorities may overlap. The
first one may have a later priority than the one below it, and it may be
reversed for the second priority.
- So, you get in on extremely complicated problems in the distribu-
tion of water. It seems to me that this is an area of concern. While
your problems may not be identified with perhaps the water problems
of the Senators at this table, I think ours are pretty generally the same,
having worked in this area for a long, long time myself.
Then, when you create the shortages of water for distribution, you
-create animosities between the users of the river, often law suits, and
you destroy the ability to work as a unit to utilize this very valuable
commodity to the greatest extent.
Now, over to you, Dr. Allee. You don't live in an area where you
have these problems, but with such a project of trying to work out a
20th century way of allocating water according to the laws of the
State and according to the contracts of the river, would this fall
within your area of research ~
Dr. ALLEE. Definitely. We are engaged in some work along these
lines at the present time. Our water problems are in a slightly different
form than the West, but New York is not short of the kinds of problems
Dr. Agnew was referring to.
For instance, the tendency to create a new agency to carry out a new
function, or put new emphasis on a function, when perhaps changing
the activities of an existing agency might have been more expeditious.
It is sometimes viewed as more difficult to bring about, at least in the
short run. The new agency comes into being and stumbles along as any
new agency must, getting its feet on the ground, and perhaps doesn't
grapple with the problem as well as if the problems had been given to
an old one. This kind of problem we have, I don't think, it at an abso-
lute Federal level.
The case of New York City, in its search for an expanded water
supply, I think, is an interesting pQint. It has gone along viewing the
many agencies involved, but some have viewed the traditional sources
PAGENO="0070"
66
of supplies as being the next step. These have produced substantial
amounts of conflict. They have problems with the surrounding munici-
palities which they service, coming through equitable contracts with
them and this sort of thing.
I think a new arrangement there is called for It will involve par
ticqation on the part of Federal agencies, just as in the West. Ration-
alizing and improving the management of the Hudson is vitally
needed. We have for too long taken water supplies as one kind of
activity and water pollution as another. Putting these two together
seems to be a logical `approach in solving the problems of New York
City.
Senator ALwrr. The reason I ask you this is because my former
questions were more directed to you along the lines of basic research
and water problems.
If, for example, ditch A diverts, through poor administration, in-
adequate ability to properly administer 15,000 feet of water to ditch
B, aside from the legal responsibility and things that result from that,
you create antagonism between maybe 300 farm families here, and
500 farm families here, which is a very highly emotional one, and in
which eventually you are doing many things impractical.
From the practical standpoint which would be to the advantage of
all of them later-
Mr. ALLEE. Just change that to the community of northern New
Jersey, and the ones surrounding New York City, and you have the
same thing.
Senator ALLOTT. All right. The sort of project that I mentioned
is not concerned with basic research at all It is concerned with using
available technology which we have and applying that technology to
solving our own problems today. Yet as far as I have been aware, I
don't know of any place that this has actually been done to bring water
and river administration here. I can be corrected by my colleagues here
because they may have gone further into the statement than I have
seen But it is a very important thing, and something the universities
can contribute to greatly.
Dr. ALLEE. I have been working with a group of political scientists,
people in university areas and public administration, trying to help
them see where they can apply their talents to this problem, and I
think it involves some interesting challenges in basic research in areas
of political science, and I look forward to our doing more work in this
area.
Senator ALLOTr. I would just as soon see the political scientists stay
out of this, and get some good hard engineering, electronic,s as well as
as hydrology and water engineers, and as far as the problems I am
thinking of, I don't think the political scientists will solve any of these
Dr. AGNEW. Could I respond to that, please?
Senator ALLOTT. Yes.
Dr. AGNEW. I think here we are putting our finger on the need for
communication across disciplines. It is very `important for the en-
gineers to become versed in the political science aspects as well as the
legal aspects. And it is important for the economists to do the same.
Just as the political scientist, if he is going to be a true political scien-
tist, he must know about the resources.
I am not suggesting these men go back to school and get another de-
gree. I am urging that they sit down and communicate through these
PAGENO="0071"
67
committees and seminars which the water resources institutes through
the States have been able to provide. This is one of the pieces of genius
in the legislation that permitted us to do this sort of thing.
Senator ALLOTT. So do I, and I must say I have been concerned for
a long time. There is too much research where perhaps the thrust of
it has been into a particular discipline and we suffered too long in this
country from the lack of application of interdisciplinary approaches
to the solutions of our problems. We do need it.
I have taken too much time, Mr. Chairman, but I think this is a
very interesting question, and these gentlemen have been very helpful.
Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Dr. Agnew and Dr. Allee
(Dr. Agnew's prepared statements follow:)
STATEMENT OF Dii. ALLEN F. AGNEw, SPAn OF WASHINGTON WATER RESEARCH
CENTER, WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Allen F. Agnew.
I am Director of the State of Washington Water Research Center and Professor
of Geology at Washington State University, which is the land-grant institution
in the State of Washington This testimony is presented in behalf of the National
A ssoo~ation of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges through my capacity
as chairman of its Committee on Water Resources (A list of members of the
NASULGC Committee is attached to thi5 statement.) The Association is made up
of 118 major State institutions of higher education, and we wish to thank the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to speak in favor of the provisions of this
legislation, Which would amend P.L. 88-379, the Water Resources Research Act
of 1964.
The testimony of the NASULGC at the bearing on S 3553 before this Subeom
mittee a little more than a year ago documented the great interest and concern
of the AssocIation In the legislation that resulted iii the Water Resources Re-
search Act of 1964 and the Title II amendment of 1966 The statement of the
~ssociation a year ago also stressed the need for further modification of the
Act, in order to enable the universities to fulfill better the charge envisioned by
the framers of the original legislation in 1963 and 1964, most of whom continue
today as members of this Subcommittee.
The past six years of e"~perience under this unique partnership of the uinver
sity community and the federal government has provided us with well.documeuted
evidence of the success of this program in solving water-research problems in
our Nation. The performance of the 51 Water Research Institutes or Centers
has amply sustained the wisdom of the framers of the enabling legislation, as
is shown most graphically by the annual reports of the Office of Water Resources
Research to the Congress, which provide continuing tangible proof of the effec-
tiveness of the Federal-State partnership thus established. A few examples of
this success at solving water problems are given below.
A-001-Utah.----studied the problems involved in obtaining community and re-
gional support for water~resource pro~jects of regional interest, assessing both
social behavior and institutional aspects of the matter. This project, in a virtually
uneyplored field, helped arouse the interest of the country in the social aspects of
water problems.
A-010-Idaho.-analyzed P.L. 89-80 (the Water Resources Planning Act) for its
effect on the State of Idaho; it resulted in a more definitive law passed by the
1969 Idaho legislature, concerning the beds of lakes and streams especially as
related to high-watermark lands.
A-034-Washington.-examined nuisance algal growth in Moses Lake, eastern
Washington, related to environmental factors; results indicated two methods
that have good potential for decreasing the large biomass of blue-green algae in
the lake.
A-032-Waslungton -studied the hydrologic and energy balance of stocked and
unstocked Douglas Fir sites as calculated by meteorological methods The in
vestigation revealed that, contrary to the basic assumption of meteorological
methods, all fluxes are not verticaL
The Water Resources Research Act, which provides $100,000 annually to each
Water Research Institute or Center under the allotment provision ~f Title I,
was thought by the sponsors of the original legislation to be adequate for the
PAGENO="0072"
68
initiation of the program. It has become evident that inflation has dr~istieal1y
eroded the purchasing power of the allotment originally authorized.
In addition~, the original authorization was predicated on known problems. Even
the most knowledgeable scientist In 1004 did not anticipate the multitude and
complexity of the dilemmas associated with our rapidly changing environment,
or understand the magnitude of the task and the cost of interpreting and dis-
seminating the results of scientific and engineering research deemed significant
for the solution of water-resource problems. Furthermore, although much atten-
tion has been directed toward some of the social sciences such as economics and
the law, and to a, lesser extent political science, we did not foresee the magnitude
of the effort needed to be applied in other areas such as sociology-problems re-
lated to why people have certain desires, how these desires change, and the in-
teraction of these desires with economics and with ecological or environmental
effects of the use of the water resource by the different publics.
Accordingly, the Association supports the elements of S. 121, S. 219, and S. 2428
that recognize the need for an increased allotment to each of the Water Research
Centers or Institutes, under Section 100(a) of Title I. These bills would also
amend Section 100(b) of Title I, to reflect the responsibility of the Oenters or
Institutes to increase their efforts at communicating t.he results of water research
to the user.
Section 1 of 5. 2428 would provide for an allotment of $250,000 rather than
the present $100,000. Such an increase in the basic allotment is needed for the
new and enhanced information-transfer function, for offsetting the erosive effects
of inflation, and for coming closer to funding the large number of good project
proposals that could search out answers for society's problems but which must go
unfunded at present. Senate Bill S. 219, by providing only $200,000, therefore
does not go far enough.
In our examination of the seven-year history of this OWRR-University water
research program, we have noted that, although it has focused mainly on regional
or local problems, many of them have national application as well. Thus the
program has provided a mix of different levels of research application which
was heretofore impossible A few significant examples of this regional, or national
application are cited below.
B-019-New Mexlco.-is a multi-university project of several disciplines, is
testing the effects of transfers of water, land, and recreation on the economy
of the several segments of the Rio Gra.nde Valley region (400 miles long by 100
miles wide), from Colorado through New Mexico to Texas, It is studying the
effect of irrigated land hydrology sediment control desalting and population
changOs on the social legal political and economic conditions of the area
and Its people.
A-001-Wyoming.--also multi-d~scipline, studied criteria dealing with the
desirability, practicality, *and utility of water transfers between river basins
within the State.
A-044--Washington.-devised a program to predict the economic losses to the
State of Washington of diversion at various points in the Snake-Columbia River
system. The study predicted an economic loss of $2.9 million for a diversion of
100,000 acre-feet monthly at Brownlee Dam because of reduced flow for power
generation and pollution abatement. Further, the investigator believes that far
more substantial losses would probably accrue because of destroyed fishing and
recreational opportunities.
A-038-Washington.-studied the interstate ground-water aquifers of Wash-
ington their physical as well as legal problems It recommended that the common
law doctrine be eliminated from Washington's ground-water law, so that the State
should follow prior appropriation only. Furthermore, It identified eleven areas
of shared ground-water resources with Washington's neighbors, and noted that
five of these areas merit special attention.
One of the major benefits of the water resources research program is the fact
that the establishment of the Center or Institute has provided a focus on the
State, and has permitted substantial and coordinated State-funded programs to
be developed in many States. Section 2,B of 5.2428 would require that annual
programs submitted by State institutes be developed in close collaboration with
water-program officials of the States and local communities, to assure respon-
siveness to local programs. Although we are in agreements with the general
thrust of this section-that the program of the Center or Institute be developed
in such a way as to reflect awareness of and interest in state and local needs,
and thus that close communication with state and local officials is highly de-
sirable-, we are concerned that the freedom of the program of the Center or
PAGENO="0073"
69
Institute to include elements that go beyond the state's borders not be ham~rnd.
Thus we recommend that the language be clarified along the lines suggested in
the preceding sentence between the dashes.
We recognize that, although the Centers or Institutes have produced a wealth
of professional reports dealing with the large number of research projects funded
under the Act, we are reaching only one public in this manner. We need to com-
municate with many other Publics-the State agency administrator or local
government official who is not a water professional, and the local citizen groups
and individuals who need to understand the problem and its alternative solu-
tions. Section 2,A of 52428 and Section 2 of S.219 would provide this authoriza-
tion, so that a substantial part of the program of the Center could be devoted to
such informntion~transfer activities.
To examples of the need for this enhanced communiction effort can be cited
from the operations of my own Center in the State of Washington. (1) A massive
inventory of water resources and projection of water needs for the State of
Washington was produced in 1067 by a team of nearly 20 professtonals from the
two universities making up the State of Washington Water Research Center.
Totaling approximately 1,025 pages, 135 tables, 90 figures, and 51 large maps and
charts, this monumental study remains relatively unused on the shelves of most
of the State-agency people, despite its 30~page summary. The problem is two-
fold-It was written for the water professional, and it was not indexed.
Thus the administrator who is not a water professional cannot use it, and
his professionals are often so swamped with their daily overload of brush fires to
put out, that `they simply cannot take the time to search out what they need.
(2) The other illustration concerns the annual report of the State of Washing-
ton Water Research Center. Until Fiscal Year 1970, we had produced a series
of factual, but drab, accounts of our operations during the preceeding fiscal
year. In 170, we commissioned an engineer with a journalistic flair to produce
a more readable report. The result was overwhelming-we know that that an-
nual report has been read and its contents absorbed, whereas we are equally sure
that the preceding ones were opened only as a duty, if at all.
Thus at least two kinds of reports are needed to serve two kinds of users~-
one for the water professional and one for the nonprofessional. In addttio'n,
an expanded effort at continuing education is needed-numerous workshops,
conferences, and other kiflds of learning experiences whereby the potential user
can become familiar with the new knowledge.
Despite the need to reach a wider set of publics, the university water research
center has come to wield an influence on campus and in the State that is larger
than just the projects which the Federal agency helps fund. The Center serves
as a focal point for water-research activity in the many subdivisions of the
university, and thus provides a communication mechanism that previously did
not exist on the campus. This enables the researcher to undertake and pursue his
study with an awareness of related ongoing research in governmental agencies,
in universities, and in private organizations.
With regard to the Matching Grant program., the OWRR has been able to
provide funds for only a small portion of the meritorIous proposals sub'mitted~
It is unfortunate when State agencies identify problems that need to be solved
and offer the matching funds and the university researchers are able to devise
research proposals that will lead to their solution, that these problems cannot
be undertaken because of the inadequacy of `the moneys appropriated under
Section 101. Thus the Association urges the full funding of the Title I Matching-
Grant and Title II provisions of the Water Resources Research Act up to the
autorized sums.
The allotment funds of the Center or Institute have been used largely as seed
grants that enable experts in many disciplines to put together large and compre-
hensive research projects, many of which affect other natural resources such as
land. Such seed grants have a substantial multiplier effect, so that the program
of the Center or Institute is widespread, indeed.
In summary, then, we see in the seven-year history of the Water Resources
Research Act, a program that has been surprisingly successful and is accomplish-
sing much of what was expected of it by the framers of the legislation nearly a
decade ago. We also see areas, such as information transfers, wherein the program
could be improved so that it can be of even greater servIce to our Nation and its
citizens. And we see the many unanswered water problems that require research
but for which the present funding is inadequate. Because 5. 2428 and 5. 219 would
enable this partnership of the federal government and the university community
to do a better job of solving Society's water problems, the National Association of
PAGENO="0074"
70
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges is pleased to register its support of
their provisions as discussed above, and urge favorable action.
Thank you.
MEMBERS OF TilE NASULGC WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE-197l
1971: Dr. Allen F. Agnew, Director, State of Wahington Water Research Center,
Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 99163; 500/335-5531.
Chairman.
Dr. George P. Hanna, Jr., Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, Uni-
versity of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68508; 402 472-2371.
Dr. Alfred B. Garrett, Professor of Chemistry, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, 43210.
Dr. Charles A. Palm, Dean, College of Agriculture, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, 14850; 607/256-2241.
Dr. E. T. York, ~Tr., Provost, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32601;
904/392-1971.
1972: Dr. Daniel G. Aldrich, Chancellor, University of California, Irvine, Cali-
fornia, 92664; 714/833-5111.
Dr. A. Ray Chamberlain, President, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80521; 303/491-6211.
Dr. Ferrel Ready, President, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, 87106; 505/277-2626.
Dr. Richard Kassander, Director, Water Resources Research Center, University
of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721; 602/884-2447.
Dr. John F. Kennedy, Director, Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University
of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 52240; 319/353-4879.
1973: Dr. John C. Calhouii, Vice President for Programs, Texas A & M University,
College Station, Texas, 77843; 713/845-1811.
Dr. Ernest W. Hartung, President, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 83843;
208/882-3511.
Dr. Roy E. Huffman, Vice President for Research, Montana State University,
Bowman, Montana, 59715 ; 406/587-3121.
Prof. Robert L. Smith, Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, The Uni-
versity of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66044; 913/864-3766.
Dr. George Worrilaw, Vice President for University Relations, University of
Delaware, Newark, Deiware, 19711; 302/738-2104.
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF DR. ALLEN F. AGNEW, STATE OF WASHINGTON
WATER RESEARCH CENTER, WASHINGTON STATE UNIvEE5ITY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Allen F. Agnew.
I am Director of the State of Washington Water Research Center and Professor
of Geology at Washington State University. My appearance today is in this
capacity and also as Chairman of the Committee on Water Resources of the
National Association of State Universities and Land~Grant Colleges; I am
presenting separately the written statement of the latter organization. The
statement that follows presents the thinking and position of he State of Wash-
ington Water Research Center, which represents both Washington State Uni-
versity and the University of Washington.
I wish to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our views
on S. 121, S. 219, and S. 2428, which would amend P.L. 88-379, the Water
Resources Research Act of 164.
THE CENTER
*The State of Washington Water Research Center was formed on. November 17,
1964, in response to the enactment of P.L. 88-379, through a Memorandum of
Agreement signed by the Presidents of Washington State University and the
University of Washington. The Director and his Assistant are members of the
faculty at Washington State University.
PAGENO="0075"
71
A Joint Scientific Committee of six members, three selected by the President
of each university because of their breadth of knowledge and Interest in water
matters as well as their competence in water research In their academic dis-
ciplines, provides guidance and advice to the Director of the Center. Appointed
by their respective Presidents for overlapping three-year terms, the Joint
Scientific Committee currently includes: Professor Milo C. Bell (IJW-Fish-
eries), Dr. Waiter R. Butcher (WSU-Agrlcultural Economics), Dr. James A.
Crutchfield (UW-Economics/Public Affairs), Dr. Stanley P. Ges'sel (UW-
Forest Resources), Dr. John F. Osborn (WSU-Civil Engineering/Hydraulics),
and Professor Warren A. Starr (WS'U-Agronomy/Soils). The chairmanship
rotates annually between the two universities.
The Center's research projects support the graduate studies of numerous stu-
dents through their specific Departments, thus contributing to their education
and training-238 students have been so supported during the seven years of the
Center's existence.
This cooperative venture between the two universities is unique, and this
relationship has proved to be extremely viable, with the capability of drawing
upon experts in all fields of water and related resources.
THE CENTER'S PROGRAM AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
After seven years of a new program such as this, it is appropriate to consider
its results and the degree to which it has accomplished what the framers of the
Federal legislation intended. This re-examination is appropriate also from the
State's viewpoint because a significant investment has been made by the State
of Washington In the program. Accordingly, I prepared recently an assessment
entitled, "After Six Years-The State of Washington Water Research Center,"
(Report No. 7 of the State of Washington Water Research Center, March 1,
19'l'l, 21 pages plus 6 appendixes), a copy of which is provided for the Subcom-
mittee file as Attachment A.
The purpose of the Center is to augment and strengthen existing programs of
the two universities in all aspects of water resources-political and legal, eco-
nomic and social, and scientific and engineering, and in the impact of water use
on other natural resources such as the land.
`The research program of the State of Washington Water Research Center is
very broad. The Center has sponsored research and published results in numer-
ous subject-matter areas-the 45 Allotment, 11 Matching-Grant, and 15 State
studies through Fiscal Year 1971 are Identified by more `than 175 key words.
It is significant that all of the State studies have `been multidisciplinary, and
that in several studies the different disciplines have been annealed in a truly
interdisciplinary fashion, as is shown by the following example:
A Water Planning Concept for the State of Washington, by a team of 16 pro-
fessionals from the two universities plus one from Central Washington State
College, which was published as Water Research Center Report No. 6 in
September, 1970.
Additional examples are listed in Appendix A, which is an updated version of
material supplied to the Subcommittee on July 20, 1970, for the hearing on S.
3553. The interdisciplinary approach, which is characteristic of current studies
for the State, and of the current Matching Grant projects and several current
Allotment projects, Is also going to provide the vehIcle whereby the Center will
engage in research on problems related to land-use planning, wherein the water
resource constitutes a significant element.
A few examples of recent projects are listed below, which illustrate the fore-
going statements (See Appendixes A and B for the remainder of the pro)eets)
A-038-Washington.-Interstate Ground-Water Aquifers of Washington, Physi-
cal and Legal Problems-A Preliminary Assessment, `by Dr. Allen F. Agnew
(WSU/Geology) and Russell Busch (11W/Law).
B-037-Washington.-Establishment of Low-Flow Criteria for Conservation,
Recreation, and Aesthetic Purposes, by Dr. John F. Orsborn (W'S'IJ/Hydraullcs)
and Dr. James A. Orutchfield (11W/Economics).
B-043-Washington.-Model Development and Systems Analysis of the Yakima
River Basin, by a team of six faculty researchers from the two universities,
under the direction of Dr. Walter R. Butcher (WSTJ/Agricultural Economies);
disciplines represented include hydrology economics fisheries forest resources
agricultural engineering, and sanitary engineering.
PAGENO="0076"
72
B-042-Washington.-Estabtishing Guides for Coordinating Urbai~ PlctnnSng
and the Design, Engineering, and Construction of Urban ~8torm-Runoff $ystems,
by Dr. David D. Wooldridge (UW/Forest Resources), Dr. Ernest L. Gayden
(UW/Sanitary Engineering), and Dr. Brian W. Mar (UW/Civil Engineering).
B-044-Wasbington.-The Biological Impact of Combined Metallic and Organic
Pollution in Coeur d'Alene Lake-Igpokane River Drainage $ystem, by Dr. Wil-
ham H. Funk (WSU/Sanitary Engineering), Dr. R. H. Filby (WSU/Nuclear
Radiation Center), Dr. Fred W. Rabe (University of Idaho/Zoology).
The Center is supported financially by the Federal Office of Water Resources
Research and by the State of Washington through Washington State University;
in addition, funds for large multidisciplinary studies and specific projects have
been provided in past years by `the `State Department of Ecology (formerly Water
Resources).
The Center has participated in programs of research through the Office of
Water Resources Research mainly under two sections of P.L. 88-379-Allotment
(Sec. 100) and Matching Grant (Sec. 101); its participation in the regional
Title II (Sec. 200) project through Utah State University is shown in Appendix B.
Approximately three-quarters of the Allotment money has been used to fund
research projects. These seed grant's, though small (averaging $4,750 Federal
money per year), are `sufficient to permit a problem to be examined and, in many
cases, solved in one or two years. Other projects have developed sufficient infor-
m'ation and challenges to warrant continued Allotment `support for a nu.m:ber of
years. Although non-Federal funds are not required, the amount of university
and other non-Federal money applied to these Allotment projects is slightly
more than the Federal money-averaging $4,800 per year for the 36 projects
funded in the first sIx years. This non-Federal money has come from the State
Department of E:cology and from the two universities. A list of Allotment proj-
ects thus supported, for Fiscal Years 1971 and 1972, is included as Appendixes
A and B.
Before an Allotment project is funded by the State of Washington Water
Research Center, it must pass through two thorough reviews. First, it is scruti-
nized by the six-man Joint Scientific Oommittee of the Center, by a number of
other professional colleagues at the two universities, and by myself and my
assistant. Then, those Allotment proposals selected for funding are forwarded
to the Office of Water Resources Research where the total program is reviewed.
Upon receiving a favorable statement from OWRR, the projects are funded.
The reviewers pay particular attention not only to the nature of the proposed
research, the plan of attack, `and the competence of the investigators, but also
to the relevance of the research to State problems.
Although this insistence on relevance does not preclude "far-out" ideas that
were recognized as needing attention by the FC'ST/CIOWRR report, "A Ten-
year Program of Federal Water Resources Research" (Feb. 1966), it does insure
that most of the work will be directed toward problem solving. This relevance
aspect is significant in another way-communication with State-agency per-
sonnel-for many of these project ideas were first identified by `State-agency per-
sonnel `as needing study. In fact, this was the subject of an early project on
"Planning and Evaluation," which resulted in the publication of Report No. 1
in 1967, entitled, "Water Research Needs in the State of Washington." A re-
assessment of those needs is currently getting under way.
Although much of the Center's program is focused on state needs and thus
might appear to have a largely parochial focus, many o'f the projects have re-
gional or even national implications. Two `examples are cited below.
`EPA/WQO-16130 FLM.-is a multi-disciplinary analysis of engineering alter-
natives for environmental protection from thermal discharges. The study is
developing `social, economic, and ecological accounting systems in conjunction
with computer-simulation models, to test the effects on `the accounts of various
alternative thermal power plant designs. The national application of this sig-
nificant study is obvious.
,B-005-Wa!shington..-investigated techniques to provide advance warning of
ground-water pollution in a glaciai-outiwash aquifer. The study showed that
drain-field operations are not currently a serious factor contributing to ground-
water pollution in the Spokane Valley, and that significant gro'un&water re-
charge does not occur from precipitation falling directly on the outwash plain.
`This monitoring of moisture content at depth is a basic tool to provide an under-
stan'ding of drain4lel'd operating conditions in the valley. Because glacial out-
wash aquifers occur throughout many of the northern States, extrapolation of
these results is an added value of the study.
PAGENO="0077"
73
The Allotment program of the Center has been concentrated in four of the
FCST/OOWRR areas-water-resources planning, water cycle, water-quality
management and pretection, and water-supply augmentation and conservation.
lit is interesting to note that these constitute four of the five categories which have
received the major part of Federal Agency research activity as well-only the
category of water quantity management and control has received minimal at-
tention through the Center's Allotment program.
One of the strengths of the Allotment (Sec. 100) program is the fact that
in the selection process the high-priority Federal research categories are not
applied by the OWRR as rigidly as they are in selecting the Matching Grant
(Sec. 101> and Title II (Sec. 200) projects; this provides for the recognized
need for breadth and flexibility in the total OWRR program, and enables each
Center to be more responsive to needs ~nd priorities in its own State and
region, `as enunciated by the Congress in the passage of the legislation in 1964.
We have come to realize that funds for the Allotment program are inadequate,
because the State of Washington Water Research Center is receiving nearly
twice the number and dollar amount of meritorious project proposals that can
be funded with the existing $100,000 Allotment from O'WRR. Furthermore, we
should like to `be able to fund some proposals of larger than seed-grant score.
In addition, the three State C~l1eges have expressed an' interest in participating
in our Allotment program and we would like to be able to fund their capable
researchers. Thus, we support Section 1 of S.2428, which wouI~ overcome the
inadequacy of the present allotment funding by increasing the amount to
$250,000.
Though Federal money is `unquestionably the backbone of the Center's oper-
ations, such funds are actually considerably less in the State of Washington
on `a year-to-year basis than the non-Federal funds. During the year just past,
the Center was working on several studies supported by the Washington De-
partment of Ecology; one of these, which deals with law-floW criteria, was
begun in Fiscal Year 1070 with solely State money, and led into an `OWI~R
Matching-Grant project in the Fiscal Year 1971.
The most recent major study performed for the Washington Department of
Ecology (then Water Resources) consists of a set of five reports that answer
questions raised by an earlier major study for the Department in 1967 entitled,
"An Initial Study of the Water Resources of the State of Washington." These
five later reports cover such subjects as future water requirements for agricul-
ture, industry, and fisheries; manipulation of runoff by forest practices; water
quality; flood~manage'ment criteria; and several aspects of `the Columbia River
as a resource.
Perhaps the most significant study performed by the Center for the State is
"A Water Planning Concept for the State of Washington," referred to earlier,
which provides guidance to the Washington Department of Ecology in the prep-
aration of a State water plan. New research projects that were begun during
Fiscal Years 1971 and 1972 are presented in Appendixes A and B.
The establishment of `the Water Research Center has' provided a focal point
for water-research activity in the many divisions of the university, and thus
provides a needed communication device that previously did not exist on campus.
The Center has also been able to focus the multiple talents of a large number of
professionals with diverse backgrounds on providing consultation to State agen-
cies in matters such as the review of Federal agency and River Basin reports
and programs.
TO ENHANCE THE PROGRAM OF THE CENTER
The need for a more substantial effort to get the research results to the user,
whether a State agency, a segment of the industrial community, or a citizen
group, is widely recognized and is certainly germane to the State of Washington.
A greatly expanded State-wide communication program is one of the ways in
which this could be achieved. Specific sections in each of the three bills under
consideration would permit the addition of an editorial and journalistic staff per-
son and support facilities, and enable much greater attention to be given to vari-
ous means of information transfer. Thus, it would enable the Cbnter to dissemi-
nate research results more adequately, thereby enhancing the total communica-
tion effort in water matters.
The legislation before `the Subcommittee, 5. 121, S. 219, and S. 2428, would au-
thorize the mechanism and funding for accomplishing those aspects of the
Water Resources Research program which we recognize are in need of bolstering
PAGENO="0078"
74
in the State of Washington_(1) an improved communication mechanism for
transferring research results to the user~ which includes other researchers as well
as "practitioners," and (2) an enhanced program of research which will enable
additional coleges and universities in the State to participate more fully, and
will permit the funding of worthwhile seed grant research pro)ects and larger
projects than can be supported presently.
The State of Washington Water Research Center urges favorable action on
this legislation as embodied in the elements discussed above.
Thunk you.
Appendix A
Lisv OF Nnw RESEARCH STUDIES OF TILE SPATE OF WASHINGTON WATER
RESEARCH CENPER, FISCAL YEAR 1971
OWRR ALLOTMENT
A-038-Washington._Agne~, Dr. Allen F. (Washington State University,
Geology) and Corker Professor Charles E (University of Washington Law)
Interstate Ground-Water Aquifers of Washington, Physical and Legal Proble~ns-.
A Preliminary Assessment, July 1, 1970-June 30, 1971.
A-039-Washington -Bender, Dr Donald L (Washington State University,
Civil Engineering). Flood Hydrograph for Ungaged Streams. July 1, 170-
June 30, 1972.
A-040-Washington._car~s0~, Dr. Dale A. (University of Washington, Civil
Engineering). Nffi'ogen Removal and Identification for Water Quality Control.
July 1, 1970-June 30,1972.
A-041-Washington -Hunt Dr Bruce W (University of Washington Civil
Engineering) Groundwater ~Seepage Past Sharp and Rounded Corners Septem
ber 1, 1970-August 31, 1971.
~ Dr. James A. (Washington State University,
Agronomy and Soils). Water Composition Controls by Clay Minerals. July 1,
1970-June 30,1971.
A-043--Washjngton -Leney Dr Lawrence (University of Washington Forest
Resources) The Use of Pulp Mill Sludges as Bo,tenders for Corrugating Medium
September 1, 1970-August 31, 1972.
A-O44-Washingtofl.Mjll~~~, Dr. Charles B. (Washington State University~
Mathematics). A Program to Determine the Economic Losses to the State of
Washington of Various Diversion Patterns. July 1, 1970-June 30, 1971.
A-045-Washington -Welch Dr Eugene B (University of Washington Civil
Engineering). The Response of Lake Samniamish Limnoplankton to Sewage
Waste Diversion. July 1, 1970-June 30, 1972.
OwRR MATCHING-GRANT
B-O36-Washington._~guew, Dr. Allen F. (Washington State University, Geol-
ogy).
B-O4S-Washington._But~h~~, Dr. Walter R. (Washington State University,
Agricultural Economics) Mar Dr Brian W (University of Washington Civil
Engineering), and others. Model Development and Systems Analysis of the
Yakima River Basin. July 1, 1970-June 30, 1973. Sourse of Matching Funds:
Washington State Department of Ecology, WSU, UW.
B-O37-Washington._ors~~p~, Dr. John F. (Washington State University, Clv~l
Engineering) and Crutchfield, Dr. James A. (University of Washington Eco-
nomics). Establishment of Low-Flow Criteria for Conservation, Recreation and
Aesthetio Purposes. July 1, 1970-June 30, 1972. Source of Matching Funds: Wash-
ington Department of Ecology; Washington State University; University of
Washington.
B-O42_Washington._..Wooldri~g0, Dr. David D. (University of Washington,
Forest Resources) Gayden Dr Ernst L (University of Washington Urban Plan
mug), and Mar Dr Brian W (University of Washington Civil Engineering)
Establishing Guides for Coordinating Urban Planning and the Design, Engineer-
ing and Construction of Urban Storm Runoff Systems July 1 1970-June 30, 1972
Source of Matching Funds: Washington Department ~f Ecology, UW, Cities of
Redmond and Bellevue, and King County.
PAGENO="0079"
75
EPA! WQO
16130 FLM-Agnew, Dr. Alien F. (Washington State University, Geology),
Mar. Dr. Brian W. (University of Washington, Civil Engineering) and others.
Analysis of Engineering Alternatives for Environmental Protection from Thermal
Discharges. July 1, 1970-June 30, 1971 (Extension of project until June 30, 1972,
applied for and funding expected).
OWRR TITLE II (REGIONAL, THROUGH UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY)
C-2194.-Regional Project of 11 states, through Utah State University under
the direction of Dr. Dean F. Peterson. Development of Techniques for Estimating
the Potential of Water Resources Development in the Achieving of National and
Regional Social Goals. Dr. Marion E. Marts (University of Washington, Geogra~
phy) a member of the seven-man Technical Committee. July 1, 1970-June 30, 1971
(Extension of project until June 30, 1972, applied for and funding is expected).
LIST OF NEW RESEARCH STUDIES OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER
RESEARCH CENTER, FISCAL YEAR 1972
OWRR ALLOTMENT
A-046-Washington.-Cunnea, Dr. Patricia E. (Washington State University,
Political Science). Preliminary Analysis of the Columbia River Interstate Com-
pact. July 1, 1971-June 30, 1972.
A-047-Washlngton.-Field, Dr. Donald R. (University of Washington, Forest
Resources). Sociological Dimensions of Leisure Involvement in Water-Based Rec-
reation. July 1, 1971-June 30, 1973.
A-048--Washington,-Johnstone, Dr. Donald L. (Washington State University,
Civil Engineering) Survival of Intestinal Bacteria in Pristine Waters July 1
1971-June 30, 1973.
A-049-Wasbington.-Millham, Dr. Charles B. (Washington State University,
Mathematics). A Dynamic Programming Study of Various Diversion Losses.
July 1, 1971-June 30, 1972.
A-050-Washington.-Shew, Dr. Richard J. (Washington State University, For-
estry and Range Management). Recreation Use Patterns and User Attitudes on
the Snake River-Almota Canyon to Clarkston, Washington. July 1, 1971-June 30,
1972.
A-051-Washington.-Starr, Professor Warren A. (Washington State Univer-
sity, Agronomy and Soils). Organization of Land Area in Washington for Water
and Land Use Planning. July 1, 1971-June 30, 1972.
A-052-Washingtoii -Carhle B L (Washington State University Agronomy
and Soils). Characterization of Suspended Sediments in Water from Selected
Watersheds as Related to Control Processes, Nutrient Content, and Lake Entroph-
ication, July 1, 1971-June 30, 1974.
OWRR MATCHING-GRANT
B-036-Washington.----Agnew, Dr. Allen F. (Washington State University, Geol-
ogy).
B-043-Washington.-Butcher, Dr. Walter R. (Washington State University,
Agricultural Economics), Mar, Dr. Brian W. (University of Washington, Civil
Engineering), and others. Model Development and Systems Analysis of the
Yakima River Basin July 1 1970-June 30 1973 Source of Matching Funds
Washington State Department of Ecology, WSU, UW.
B-044-Washington.-Funk, Dr. William IL (Washingtoti State University,
Sanitary Engineering), Filby, Dr. 11. H. (Washington State University, Nuclear
Radiation Center), and Rabe, Dr. Fred W. (University of Idaho, Zoology). The
Biological Impact of Combined Metallic and Organic Pollution in Coeur d'Alene
Lake-Spokane River Drainage System. July 1, 1971-June 30, 1973. Source of
Matching Funds: Washington Department of Ecology, Washington State Uni-
versity, University of Idaho. (Coordinated with a similar study at the University
of Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, under the direction of Dr. Rabe).
Senator Moss. Our next witness is Dr. Dale Anderson of North
Dakota State University.
PAGENO="0080"
76
I am going to ask my colleague from North Dakota, if he would
like, to introduce Dr. Anderson to us.
Senator BuiuIcK. Mr. Chairman, Public Law 88-379 of 1964 estab-
lished water resources and research institutes in the 50 States and I
am especially proud of the efforts Øf my home State of North Dakota
under this program.
Working under the $100,000 allotment program, both the University
of North Dakota and North Dakota State University have made signif-
icant additions to the area of water research. Their joint projects
over the past years include studies of livestock waste disposal sys-
tems; wikilife planning in irrigation projects; and the economic im-
pacts of water resource development.
These, coupled with many other projects over the past years, have
provided a real boon to the development of both our industrial and
agricultural water resources-and this along lines consistent with
sound ecological practices.
Again, North Dakota can be justly proud of the type of work done
by its water resources research institute in directing studies which
are of use to all segments of the water-using community. A 39-member
State and Federal water agency advisory commission to the institute
is a significant reason for this direction.
Today, we are faced with both a greater need for the type of infor-
mation provided by the water resources research institutes and greater
costs in providing these services.
This concept which has passed this body in previous C~mgresses and
has just recently been favorably acted upon by the Houe of Representa-
tives, will provide both the increased funds necessary for the further
development of the institutes and the authorizatioii necessary for the
institutes to carry their valuable information to even a broader sector
of each State.
Here with me today is Dr. Dale Anderson, the director of the North
Dakota Water Resources Research Institute. Working from the campus
of North Dakota State University, Dr. Anderson has coordinated the
efforts of our dual program in North Dakota and has carried out the
wishes of the advisory council with very beneficial results for the
whole of North Dakota. I can think of no one more qualified to testify
today on this bill and the related measures to amend the Water Re~
sources Research Act of 1964.
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to introduce to this commit-
tee Dr. Dale Anderson.
STATEMENT OP D~R. DALE 0. ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, NORTE
DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCK INSTITUTE, NORTIf
DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator Burdick, for your comments. R
is always ajpreeiated.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Dale 0. Ander-
son, director of the North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute
and professor of agricultural economics. My responsibilities in-
cludes (1) administration of the title I programs of Public Law
88-379, the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, in North Dakota;
(2) maintaining an active research program in natural resources eco-
PAGENO="0081"
77
nomics in the agricultural experiment station; and (3) conducting
on a very limited scale a statewide educational program in water re-
sources development, management, and use.
The latter program is, conducted through the university exten-
sion division. My duties as director of the water institute include
identification of water research problems, coordination of water re-
search programs with both State and Federal agencies involved in
water development, management, and use in North Dakota as well
as among the research institutions of the State, and to stimulate re-
search participation in water problems by scientists of the univer-
sity community.
The North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute was au-
thorized `by official action of the State board of higher education in
1964. The institute is operated on a partnership basis between North
Dakota State University at Fargo and the University of North Dakota
at Grand Forks. T'he headquarters of the institute were established
at NDSU.
A six-member executive committee consisting of three staff members
each from NDSU and UND provides guidance and advice to the
director on research policy and related matters. In addition, this com-
mittee receives, reviews, and makes recommendations regarding proj -
ects to be supported by the water institute.
An advisory committee of 39 members representing private groups
and State and Federal water agencies helps to identify and to estab-
lish priority rankings on urgent water research problems. This com-
mittee meets at least twice a year to discuss the current and long-
range program of the institute and to make recommendations for
changes in the priority listing. Each agency representative takes an
active role in assisting the institute meet its objectives. In turn, the
institute director looks to the advisory committee for guidance of a
"grassroots" nature.
T'he primary purpose of the water resources research institute is
to provide a catalyst necessary to stimulate development of viable re-
search and educational activities on urgent water problems related to
the development and management of water resources in North Dakota,
the region, and theNation.
The program of the water institute encourages competent research
of a basic and applied nature as related to water resources develop-
ment, management, and use. These activities are fostered in an effort
to provide the best quality of life for the citizens of North Dakota with
m'aximum benefit to the region and the Nation. The `policy of the
water institute is to develop an interdisciplinary program of research
and education.
The passage of Public Law 88-379 made possible rapid expansion
in volume and scope of water research in North Dakota. When the
water institute was organized, there was a relatively small number
of professional man-years involved in research directed at water
problems. During the period of 1965-1971, 46 different scientists at
NDSU and' UND served as principal investigators of projects funded
through the water resources research institute. During this period,
the water institute funded 31 projects through the annual allotment
program, and eight projects through the matching grant program.
- A point of special significance has been the stimulation this pro-
69-528 O-71-6
PAGENO="0082"
78
gram has generated to new disciplines becoming interested in the
critical problems in the water research field. For example, law, home
economics, sociology, psychology, and political science have only
recently become actively involved in research on water problems. Al-
though progress is being made, more involvement is necessary from
the social and behavioral sciences. Such increased involvement is
possible only with increased availability of funds.
Another important aspect of the program developed through
Public Law 88-379 funding relates to water as an organizing com
modity. As such, water provides a natural environment to stimulate
interdisciplinary research on increasingly complex problems. Inter-
disciplinary teams are becoming more and more common to the solu
tion of water problems in North Dakota. This is happening also
throughout the country.
The institute cooperates and works closely with local, State, and
Federal agencies involved in developing and managing the State's
water resources. The institute director is a member of advisory com-
mittees to several State and Federal water-related agencies. In addi-
tion, the institute director served during the past year as chairman of
the Citizen's Educational Affairs Committee of the Souris-Red-Rainy
River Basin Commission.
Involvement in these committee activities provides opportunities
to explain the importance of an imaginative forward-looking research
program which provides vital development and planning information
for the formulation of sound decisions for developing and implement-
ing effective water use programs.
The general public is becoming increasingly concerned about prob-
lems relating to the development, management, and use of our natural
resources in general, and in water resources in particular. This con-
cern is evidenced by increasing demands placed upon the director's
office for published and unpublished information, speaking engage-
ments, and miscellaneous requests.
The director presented about six talks per month last year to State
groups, civic organizations, sport clubs, and other interested groups.
Three years ago there were probably two requests a year directed to
the director's office for this type of activity. This type of activity is
increasing very rapidly. However, we were unable to fulfill all our
requests during the past year due to a shortage of funds. Passage of
S. 2428 will permit us to further extend our educational commitment
throughout the State.
The institute was called upon by the North Dakota Irrigation Dis-
tricts Association to study the North Dakota laws relating to irriga-
tion districts. The institute provided assistance in conducting the re-
search and drafting a bill which was introduced and passed in the 1971
session ofthe State legislature. The director was called upon to present
both oral and written testimony before House and Senate committees
during 1971 sessions of the North Dakota State Legislature.
In addition, the director served on other special committees prepar-
ing information for use by the State legislature. The institute was
involved in planning and preparing portions of a video tape series
dealing with environmental quality of the Lake Agassiz region.
The training of graduate students is vitally important in providing
highly trained and interested graduates for important water-related
PAGENO="0083"
79
jobs in the future. The program of the water resources research in-
stitute has supported either partially or totally 104 students working
toward advanced degrees. However, we see this activity leveling off.
By June 30, 1971, these students had produced more than 20 M.S. and
Ph. D. theses. Most of these graduates have taken jobs with State and
Federal agencies or private firms involved in water development,
management, and use.
In addition, projects fun'ded by the wa~ter institute have provided
financial support to employ approximately 75 undergraduate students.
The annual reports of the Office of Water Resources Research show
a substantial increase in graduate students supported by the title 1
program between fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1968. However, since
fiscal year 1968, the number of students has remained nearly constant.
The number of graduate students supported by the program reached
a maximum of 35 students in fiscal year 1969. This number `dropped
to 27 in fiscal year 1970, and 21 in fiscal year 1971. This reduction has
not resulted from a lack of qualified candidates, bu't rather the result
of continued inflation. This reduction in students occurs `at a time when
it appears that immediate action should be taken to increase the sup-
ply of manpower with water resources training if national goals are
going to be achieved.. For example, a study `conducted by Dr. James E.
Lewis, Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute, concludes that
by 1975 there will be a deficit in water resources manpower of over
50,000, and by 1980 thi's deficit will increase to well over 100,000. This
conclusion points out the urgency of passing 5. 2428 at the earliest
moment to alleviate this projected manpower shortage.
The additional funds which would be authorized by 5. 2428 would
compensate for losses due to inflation over the last seven years, ac-
celerate work now underway, support needed new research, and pro-
vide the means f'or initiating a much needed program for the inter~
pretation `and dissemination of research results.
Inflation has greatly reduced the purchasing power of a doflar dur-
ing the past 7 years. In 1964, the purchasing power of a dollar,
based on the 1957-59 price index, wa's 92 cents. By 1971, the purch'asing
power of this same dollar has decreased to 70 ceii~.;s. These figures
represent an overall index of purchasing power. The purchasing
power has decreased much more on some items. For example, salaries
and equipment prices have increased much more rapidly The average
salary of the professional staff at North Dakota State University has
increased more than 50 percent since 1964. The cost of many items of
equipment necessary for the conduct of research has increased as much
as 60 to 75 percent.
Therefore, the current purchasing power of the $100,000 allotment
approved in 1964 is in the neighborhood of $50,000. Therefore., the
proposed increase in the allotment program to $250,000 per year is not
a 150-percent increase from the original allotment, but closer to a 50-
percent increase. That is, the $250,000 annual allotment proposed in
S. 2428 represents only a 50-percent increase in the research capacity
of the program as intended in 1964.
The North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute has provided
a catalyst to initiate and carry out a considerable amount of much
needed research on problems relative to water development, conserva-
tion, and management in North Dakota. Interest has grown to the point
PAGENO="0084"
80
that this institute received proposals totaling $379,000 for funding
through the annual allotment program in fiscal year 1972. Since there
were only $100,000 to allocate for research, it was necessary to fund
some projects at less than optimum levels in order to provide some
input to problems requiring research attention. This obviously pro-
longs the duration of obtaining answers to urgent problems. At the
same time, many excellent projects had to be rejected because of a
severe shortage of funds.
Continued rejection of projects suggests to the researcher that other
problem areas are more urgent and, consequently, many confident
researchers shift their efforts to other areas. As a result, we lose the
research capability of the scientist involved as well as the training of
much needed manpower for future water-related jobs.
Another important element in the difficulty of accomplishing re-
search is that nearly all the easy solutions have been obtained, and the
problems that remain to be solved are much more difficult and com-
plex. This means that a larger input of financial support and scientific
man years will be necessary to make the progress toward the solution
of problems in the future consistent with that which has been obtained
in the past.
As we look to the future, some of the things that are going to be par-
ticularly important are what I call effective communications. I believe
this will be one of the most essential characteristics of a viable water
resources program for the 1970's.
One major area of concern is the communication of ideas relating to
the existence of water-related problems and the presentation of possible
alternate solutions to these problems to the general public. I found in
my ~various speaking engagements that people are not aware of the
problems that exist even in their local areas with rega~rd to water devel-
opment and use and even more astonishing is their lack of understand-
ing that there are solutions to this problem, that we do not have to live
with the continuing degredation of our water quality in our environ-
ment. I think we have not fulfilled our obligation in carrying this mes-
sage to them.
Continuing education programs are extremely important as a vehicle
to expedite the acceptance of proposed programs to solve water prob-
l:ems. The acceptance of action programs by the public is largely deter-
mined by the extent to which the public (1) is aware that a problem
exists, (2) believes that the problems present a threat to the community
or the well-being of the community, and (3) believes that corrective
action is possible and practical.
One major purpose of research is to develop a body of knowledge
adequate to answer the above questions. Only when the research re-
sults are communicated in a manner to satisfactorily answer the above
questions will the final payoff of the research expenditure be realized.
Emphasis, therefore, must be placed on the development of con-
tinuing education programs with the general public and to provide
effective use of the research results for which the public has been
willing to spend money for their solutions. Current continuing educa-
tion programs are being conducted in areas where funds are avail-
able to carry out work. A. catalyst is necessary to place increased em-
phasis or higher priorityon continuing education programs designed
to disseminate results of the water resources research program.
PAGENO="0085"
81
The research programs of the agricultural experiment stations were
not fully effective until the Cooperative Extension Service was cre-
ated to serve the dissemination function to that program. We have
the organization structure through various extension divisions within
our university systems.
Additional financial support to influence a redirection of priorities
in present programs or provide additional manpower will make pos-
sible a rounding out of the research programs initiated through Public
Law 88_379.
The North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute is in the
process of completing a new long-range research program. Prelimi-
nary results of this study show that (1) the university's water re-
sources research program should be reoriented to focus more effec-
tively upon the critical problems of the State and the Nation, (`2)
that a broader range of scientific disciplines should be involved in
research, particularly from the behavioral sciences, and (3) research
findings and results should be more effectively disseminated for the
purpose of fostering better private and public decisionmaking.
The program of the North Dakota Water Resources Research In-
stitute, with the aid of additional money, will expand as follows:
First, in terms of research~ we would broaden and intensify our
efforts to (1) more attention will be directed to North Dakota's ecolog-
ical and environmental complex with particular emphasis on the
impact of man and his facilities upon the State's natural amenities-
I think this is one area we have neglected in the past, the idea of di-
recting our attention toward man and his use of the environment,
the conservation and development of it for generations in the future-
(2) continued research effort will be given to the efficiency and pro-
ductivity of agriculture, but with new emphasis upon its interrela-
tionships to North Dakota's total environment and economy, (3)
more of the research focus will be oriented to municipal and industrial
water problems-we have probably neglected that more than any~
other aspect of water development in North Dakota-(4) studies with
respect to economic and financial considerations of water use and man-
agement will be intensified, and (5) more research will be directed
toward the human, behavioral, and institutional aspects of water de-
velopment, management, and use.
It has been pointed out this morning, and North Dakota is no differ-
ent, we have a mass of institutional organizations which are involved
in the management and use of the water resources in the State. In
some cases, four or five jurisdictions will have overlapping jurisdic-
tion.
In addition to the increased emphasis upon research, funds pro-
vided in the proposed legislation would enable the North Dakota
Water Resources Research Institute to systematically develop a pro-
gram designed to inform and educate the citizens of North Dakota
concerning water resources needs and problems. An expanded pro-
gram is sorely needed to fill communication gaps in this area.
If the money authorized in this proposed legislation were forth-
coming, the water institute would propose to undertake the following:
One, initiate a publication program designed to interpret research
findings and to relevant and comprehensive form for the citizens-
laymen.
PAGENO="0086"
82
Two, cooperate with major associations and groups representing
various segments of North Dakota's population in producing infor-
mational conferences courses, and educational materials appropriate
for the respective audiences.
Three, work through the university's informational media and with
nonuniversity media to develop information programs on significant
public issues.
Four, adapt some of the educational techniques of the Cooperative
Extension Service for rural populations for the transmission of wate.r
resources knowledge to urban populations.
I think it is fair to point out at this point that North Dakota, like
many States in the Great Plains, has experienced a rapid decline in
population as well as employment opportunities in the last 10 years.
As we think of development opportunities in the future, water is the
key to economic growth.
Water is the key to resource development and economic growth in
North Dakota. The economy of the State depends mainly on income
generated by the agricultural sector. Whatever is done to develop the
resources of North Dakota in an effort to expand employment oppor-
tunities and general economic activity, whether through industry, rec-
reation, agriculture, or other, it will be built on land and depend on
water.
In order to make certain that an adequate supply of high-quality
water is available for future use, a long-range program of research
and continuing education in the use, development, and management
of water are necessary. An increase in the authorization of funds to
the annual allotment program as proposed in S. 2428 would greatly
facilitate the accomplishment of this goal in North Dakota.
The North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute urges favor-
able action on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for
your attention and your interest in this program and the opportunity
to appear before you today, and present this testimony on behalf of
North Dakota and the water institute.
Senator Moss. Thank you, Dr. Anderson, that was a fine statement,
and you gave us a good review and analysis of what you have `been
doing in North Dakota, and what you would hope to do with addi-
tional funding..
I was interested in your discussion of the interdisciplinary teams
that have been put together in some of this research. We were having
a little colloquy about that with the last witnesses that were on, and
it seems we all were thinking along the same line. Of course, there
are many disciplines that would apply in this field of water utilization
and research about its preservation and use, and how it shall be dis-
tributed and so on. So, I am glad of that.
I think you pointed up very clearly for us the real need there is for
additional funding. If you will just look at inflation alone, or increas-
ing costs, personnel costs as well as material costs, it certainly would
require more funding.
Is it your opinion that the amount of $250,000 for each State is
superior to the $200,000? The bills we have before us have two figures,
you know.
PAGENO="0087"
83
Dr. ANDERSON. Certainly the $250,000, I believe, is the minimum to
develop the programs we are talking about, both in terms of even catch-
ing up with what we lost in terms of inflation on our research program.
There are many areas in which we have to become more actively in-
volved, and then the dissemination function, which really-in terms of
our involvement in North Dakota, I received- a little funding from the
universities extension division which allowed me to carry on some. of
the educational programs and conferences in our State. There haven't
been any funds utilized to this end.
Dr. Allee and others mentioned this morning, I think through my
experience in the cooperative extension program in North Dakota, cer:
tainly to get a program going that is going to be useful and effective,
$50,000 is a minimum in terms of the technology transfer aspect of our
program, not only in terms of the generating of the educational ma-
terial to get the job done, but then the taking of the educational ma-
terials out and holding meetings and conferences and so forth to make
the people aware of what is happening and what they can do to make
this environment in which they live more acceptable.
Senator Moss. So, you strongly recommend the $250,000 figure?
Dr. ANDERSON. Yes; that is a minimum, amount that I think we can
look for as really being the level of funding where we can get the
greatest payoff for the dollars invested.
Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Dr. Anderson. We appreciate
it.
Dr. John Clark, from New Mexico State University.
Dr. Clark, we are glad to have you before the committee, and we
look forward to hearing your testimony.
STATEMENT OP DR. J~O1IN W. CLARK, DIRECTOR, NEW MEXICO
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Jordan.
I am John W. Clark, director of the New Mexico Water Resources
Research Institute, and also representing Dr. Gerald W. Thomas,
president of New Mexico State University.
I would like to point out here that the New Mexico Water Resources
Research Institute operated under a written cooperative agreement
with the three major universities in our State, and that we are funding
a research grant at a fourth university, and we are opening negotia-
tions for cooperation with a fifth university. So, we truly represent
major universities in the State of New Mexico through our institute.
I have a prepared statement I wish to have included in the record,
and I would read it at this point.
Senator Moss. Yes, that will be included in the record in full as is
the order on all of these prepared statements, and you may emphasize
whatever part you wish.
Dr. CLARK. My two main points are these:
One, the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 has made and is
making valuable contrib~itions to the quality of life in New Mexico.
Two, funding at the $250,000 level is necessary to meet the reason-
able needs of our program.
As a direct result of the 1964 Water Resources Research Act, the
State of New Mexico has significantly increased its funding and activ-
ity in water resources research.
PAGENO="0088"
84
The 1970 legislature appropriated $104,000 for research in our State.
The 1971 appropriation is $108,000. We are asking at this point in
time for next year, $150,000 from our State for research.
In addition to that, the State has constructed with State funds a
substantial building to house our institute and is operating and main-
taining that building.
So, these are the substantial contributions from our State, and we
expect these contributions to increase in the future.
Now, the increase in annual allotments from the present $100,000 is
needed for several reasons.
One that `has been stressed here, but I would `like to stress it again, we
need more adequate information dissemination program at the State
level. I think it is absolutely necessary that we bring together the prin-
cipal investors on a research project and the water users. The research
professor will benefit from his close association with the application
of this work and the water user will get a clearer picture of what the
researcher had in mind and will be able to gain from the close associa-
tion. I think this needs to be formally incorporated within our State
program so we actually go out and disseminate our information among
the potential users, and not just publish them in the scientific journals,
and we develop a sort of mandarin-type language in society where
we talk to ourselves, but are not talking to the people that need our
work.
Also, I am particularly interested in the comments made by Sena-
tor Allott on the need to go into the study of the institutional mecha-
nisms by which we administer our water resources. This is particu-
larly important in the West. Many of these old institutional mecha-
nisms are quite old, they do not recognize the :muiltiuse of water.
We are not being as efficient in our administration as we should be,
and I think research toward these institutional mechanisms, both
better understanding the present mechanisms and possibly designing
or changing these mechanisms could lend much to water management.
We need increased funding to keep up, or keep abreast of the cur-
rent problems, because planning requires information at the present
point in time in order to take care of future problems, and while science
and technology are enlarging the range of possible alternatives in water
management, the changes in our society are creating new demands and
I think we have only scratched the surface with regard `to water re-
search needs.
It is going to be a continuing and enlarging need, just because of our
complexities of life in order to satisfy those needs.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Dr. Clark, `and we are pleased
to have your testimony and to know the use that you have made of the
funding in your State and the need for additional Federal
contributions.
I suspect New Mexico's water problems are a lot like Utah's. We
don't have enough water and at the same time we are being pressed
constantly on the water quality problems, and therefore we have to
consider reuse and all of these various things on which we need
research.
As you point out, what we need to do is to be in communication with
the water user so he understands the real problems that have to be
PAGENO="0089"
85
settled by research, and scientific consideration of all these factors that
impinge upon supply and quality and distribution of water.
I appreciate this paper, and I am glad to know you are doing as
much as you are in New Mexico, and can do more if you can get ade-
quate funding.
Senator Jordan ~
Senator JORDAN. No questions.
Senator Moss. Thank you, sir.
(The statement referred to follows:)
STATEMENT OF Da. GERALD W. ThOMAS, PRESIDENT, NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITX
Prepared statement of Dr. Gerald W. Thomas, President of New Mexico State
University and Professor John W. Clark, Director of the New Mexico Water Re-
sources Research Institute. (Hearing on S. 2428 to Amend the Water Resources
Research Act of 1964 before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Sen-
ate, Washington, D.C., October 13, 1971).
I am John W. Clark, Director of the New Mexico Water Resources Research
Institute, and also representing Dr. Gerald W. Thomas, President of New Mexico
State University.
In rather brief testimony, we would like to develop and support two basic
points. They are these:
1. The Water Resources Research Act of 1964 has made and is making valuable
contributions to the quality of life in New Mexico.
2. Funding at the $250,000 level is necessary to meet the reasonable needs of
our program.
Perhaps the greatest challenge facing New Mexico in the next decade is to pro-
vide an acceptable balance of economic and social well-being within a quality
environment. We can achieve this through adequate comprehensive planning
Such planning assumes a fundamental knowledge of biological, physical, and
social knowbow necessary to a political solution.
While science and technology are enlarging the range of possible alternatives
in water management, momentous changes In society are creating new demands.
The seriousness of this problem is noted by a recent study of the general Ac-
counting Office' which found that in every river basin stu.died the quality of
water has deteriorated in recent years. This situation is symptomatic of the
fact that we have not achieved a sufficient understanding of the basic causes and
dimensions of the problem. Much has been accomplished, much more remains
to be accomplished.
Water is the most limiting resource in New Mexico and the water that we
have is the State's greatest asset. Surface and subsurface water is used to
supply growing municipal and industrial demands and to irrigate the land.
According to the Senate Select Committee Report of 1961 and the Water Re-
sources Council Report of 1968, a major part of the State is facing the most
critical shortage of water in relation to projected demands of any other area
of the Nation.
As a direct result of the 1964 Water Resources Research Act, the State of New
Mexico has increased Its contributions for water research. These are:
1. The 1970 New Mexico State Legislature appropriated $104,000 as a line
Item to the Water Resources Research Institute for research and $108,000 in
1971, $150,000 is being requested for 1972.
2. A substantial building, built with State funds, was completed in March
1970 to house the Water Resources Research Institute and this facility Is operated
and maintained by the State.
3. During the period, 1965 to 1971, 71 research projects have been administered
through the Institute. These projects are conducted by investigators at the Uni-
versity of New Mexico, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Eastern
New Mexico University, and New Mexico State University.
The increase in the Annual Allotments authorization from the present $100,000
per state under P.L. 88-379 to $250,000 per state as provided in 5. 2428, is needed
for the following reasons.
1 "ExamInation into the Effectlvenes~ of the construction Grant Program for Abating,
Controlling and Preventing Water Pollution," Report of the Com~ptroller General of the
United States (1969).
PAGENO="0090"
86
1. There is an increasing concern with micro-chemical and micro-physical sub-
stances entering our raw-water supplies. We are, at present, poorly prepared
to evaluate the hazards of many of these substances in the water phase of the
environment.
2. Additional funds are needed to implement a more adequate "information
dissemination" program at the State level so that research results can be effec-
tively applied and used in decision making.
3. More efforts to be directed toward~ the social sciences where Institutional
mechanisms need to be analyzed and possibly changed to allow water to seek
its economic level in a period of changing priorities.
4. Increased funding is necessary for research to keep abreast of current
problems and to provide for planning and policy for the future.
Raw water sources have generally decreased in quality because of increased
water use and this trend is expected to continue into the future. This has placed
a difficult burden on the water-supply industry, which is caught between two
strong trends in water quality Water users are demanding improved quality
and uniformity In the wator product, while, at the same time, raw water sources
are deteriorating. An increased research effort is necessary to provide the tech-
nology to assist with this difficult task.
Senator Moss We will now hear from Mr David IFloweils, director
of the Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North
Carolina.
We are glad to have you, Mr. Howells.
STATEMENT `OP DAVID H. HOWELLS, DIRECTOR, WATER RE-
SOURCES RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OP NORTH CARO-
LINA
Mr. HOWELLS. Thank you, Senator Moss and Senator Jordan.
I am David H. Howells, director, Water Resources Research Insti-
tute of the University of North Carolina, located on the campus of
North Carolina State University at Raleigh.
I might mention here that five different institutions of higher educa-
hon in North Carolina are presently participating in our program
I have only a very brief statement at this time.
In view of my previous testimony before this subcommittee on
July 20, 1970, in support of similar legislation, I will restrict my
present comments to the principal differences between the bills now
under consideration. In doing this, however, I would like to underscore
the continued applicability and relevancy of my earlier statements
at the 1970 hearing.
I will address my remarks to the differences in appropriation author-
izations and language concerning the deevlopment of institute re-
search programs in cooperation with State water agencies.
First, the matter of appropriation authorization. It was my original
position that annual allotments of $250,000 are needed to fulfill the
expectations of the original act and proposed new pro~ramin.g in the
area of dissemination of research findings. The realities of inflation
subsequent to the 1964 act and new environmental pressures are well
known to the subcommittee.
Despite substantial matching by the participating universities-in
North Carolina last year, estimated non-Federal contributions in facil-
ities and indirect program support totaled $13,328-the purchasing
power of the $100,000 annual Federal allotment authorized by the
act is too small to get a really meaningful program underway. In the
past year, for example, we were able to reach only the first 10 of 22
PAGENO="0091"
87
worthwhile projects, and the budgets of these had to be pruned to the
bone to include them at all.
The annual allotment program authorized by the Water Resources
Research Act provides the only mechanism afid funding for associat-
ing a State's university research capability with its water resource
planning and management efforts. It is here, that a State can focus its
research on State and regional problems in support of its own pro-
grams. Without this kind of support, there is little hope of upgrading
State activities to the levels necessary to make them full partners in
water resource planning and management.
A vital part of this effort authorized by the proposed legislation
will be a new programing to facilitate the flow and utilization of new
information from research by State and local water agencies. I think
here the added language is essential and we simply need the under-
girdance in uiidertaking this new activity, the reassurance that comes
from that language.
This new work will not be a simple task, since it `must take into
account a variety of user groups with different technical capabilities
and the fact that special efforts must be made to break through the
barriers arising from agency personnel being too busy to reflect on
the need for new understanding, techniques, and methodologies to
deal with new and emerging problems.
Additional funds will be needed for this important new activity. An
authorization less than $250,000 will not provide for this without fur-
ther eroding an already inadequate research base. I strongly urge the
subcommittee to accept this amount as the authorized annual allot-
ment under new legislation.
The second point I wish to discuss is the language in S. 2428 which
requires that annual programs submitted by the State institutes to the
Secretary of the Interior for approval shall include assurance satis-
factory to the Secretary that such programs were developed in close
consultation and collaboration with leading water. resource officials
within the State. This is a reasonable and logical requirement which
I heartily endorse to the extent of developing institute programs in
close consultation with State s.gencies.
If collaboration is interpreted as a high degree of consultation, I
would endorse the language in its present form. If, however, collabo-
ration means sharing the final approval function, I would have to
oppose the inclusion of this word.
There are a number of areas associated with State water resource
planning and management which need thorough investigation and
review which might not be encouraged by State agencies. They should
have no veto in these cases.
Another important consideration is that authority for the final re-
search programs put together by the State institutes should not be
divided if the responsibility is borne entirely by, the institutes. The
wholly desirable intent of the language is close cooperation and I sug-
gest that the final language stop here, striking the words "and
collaboration."
I strongly urge the approval and early enactment of this important
b~gislation. If the subcommittee has any questions, I would be pleased
to respond.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
PAGENO="0092"
88
Senator Moss. Well, thank you very much, Director Howells. Your
suggestion on language is appreciated, and I would think, for my-
self, of course I cannot speak for the committee, we have not dis-
cussed this, but that collaboration ought to be clearly spelled out by
legislative history as to what it means. I agree with you that there
should not be really a veto power. It is really a consultation process.
Everybody has had his chance to talk about it and make his input
to be considered, but eventually the authority to go ahead on the proj-
ect rests with the institute that is responsible.
It certainly would not contribute to good administration if some
outside State agency or some other State agency could simply put in a
veto, so we will consider that very carefully. The word "collaboration"
appears in the House bill, and we will look at it very carefully and see
whether we would want to strike it or to refine it by legislative history
so it is clear what that word means.
You also strongly urge that we use this $250,000 figure. By way of
explanation, that is where it started last year, and by amendment we
had to put it back-we thought we did, anyway. But then the House
didn't act, so we didn't get a bill last year.
We are starting over anew, and this $250,000 figure does seem to be
supported by everyone who has come before us that has had any expe-
rience with the program at all and knows what we are trying to accom-
plish.
So, I think your testimony added to the others gives very strong
weight to that. The fact that you were only able to fund 10 of 22 pro-
posed projects is a pretty good indication of the limitation of funds
lessening your effectiveness in this field that might be felt otherwise.
I appreciate your testimony.
Senator Jordan, do you have anything?
Senator JORDAN. No.
Senator Moss. Senator Jordan doesn't have any questions, and we
are very aware of your testimony before us last year, and that is in
the minds of the committee as we consider this bill.
Mr. HowaLLs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Moss. Thank you.
This completes the list of witnesses we had for this morning, unless
there is someone that we overlooked in some way? Apparently not.
The hearing will be adjourned, and on the basis of the record we
will proceed to mark up the bill at an early date.
(Whereupon, at 12:05, the hearing was concluded.)
PAGENO="0093"
APPENDIX
(Under authority previously granted, the following statements and
communications were ordered printed:)
STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD M. ROBI5ON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to return to your Subcommittee, again thIs year,
to speak in support of the "Water Resources Research Act Amendments" bill
as recently passed in the House. I do so, fully recognizing that It was this
Subcommittee which undertook the important preliminary work on this subject
during the last Congress, and that it was largely because of your efforts that
we in the House were prompted to act this year.
Because of the presence in my own Congressional District of the Water Re-
sources and Marine Sciences Center at Cornell University, I know full well of
the contribution which the land-grant Water Research Institutes have made
to the development of clean and adequate water resources. By working to de-
velop environmehtal planning and management techniques for the water re-
sources of their own areas, they have provided much of the research inventory
to fuel present and future water-pollution control programs. It was with con-
siderable confidence In the abilities of the Institutes to further expand the di-
mensions of their work that I proposed, last year, along with Representative
John Saylor of Pennsylvania, that the authorized funding for these Institutes
be increased to $250,000 and they be given the further responsibility of dis-
seminating the results of their studies in an organized fashion.
This year's hearings by Representative Harold T. Johnson's House Subcom-
mittee on Irrigation and Reclamation produced a strong set of amendments
which increase funding to $250,000 per Institute and add reporting and coordina-
tion requirements commensurate with these funding increases. I was privileged
to work closely with Representative Johnson's Subcommittee during the drafting
of these amendments, and to cosponsor the final Committee bill which, as you
know, passed the House on October 4th. During every step of the process, I re-
ceived the cooperation and endorsement of the Universities' Council on Water
Resources. As you have no doubt already noted, there are some small qualifica-
tions to that endorsement, which I am sure have been explained in detail by
members of the Water Resources Council, but I personally feel that the report-
ing and coordinating requirements contained within H.R. 10203, the House Bill,
should be included with the increase in authorized funding, as a measure of
the increased responsibility and growth in stature attributed to the Research
Institutes.
I know that S. 219, Senator Moss's bill, which has provided the focal point
of your discussion, allows for a funding increase to $200,000 per Water Re-
search Institute, a figure which was strongly considered during hearings in the
House. However, I hope I can argue as forcefully in this body, as .1 attempted
to do in my own, for the $250,000 funding level. As I suggested during House
hearings on the Water Research Amendments, the authorization figure offers a
ceiling under which my colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee will
work. Should the Research Institutes continue to be as productive and dynamic
as they have already proven, I would expect that the Appropriations Committees
of both bodies would be pushing a $200,000 ceiling sooner than they would care
to. Certainly, the present funding level has proven singularly Inadequate to con-
tinue a topflight research effort; and in so many areas-but particularly in re-
search related activities-inflation continues to take a heavy toll.
It is further worth recalling that even the most knowledgeable scientist in 1964
did not fully anticipate the multitude of emerging problems associated with our
rapidly changing environment. So, I would urge, strongly, that you consider a
(89)
PAGENO="0094"
90
$250,000 ceiling to give the Research Institutes a cushion against the kind of
inflation that has made such serious inroads into their past authorization and
thus to allow them to build significantly upon the accomplishments of their last
six years.
I realize it is not necessary for me to speak at length about Section 2 of S. 219,
since it is identical to Section 2 of HR. 10203. By providing for the improved
communication of research re~u1ts, Section 2 would considerably improve corn-
inunication between the research users and the researchers. Closing the informa-
tion gap is a two way process which involves both the generator of the informa-
tion and the receiver. Each must be actively engaged, and the Water Research
Institutes are particularly suited to cooperate in this process because their work
brings them into constant contact with interested parties in local and State gov-
ernment, and with planning agencies, consulting engineers and surrounding public
utilities. What the Institutes lack is legislative authorization for the appropria-
tions and related activities necessary to publicly interpret and disseminate water-
research findings. An already effective program can best be made more responsive
by granting this authority.
The Water Resources Research Act has generated a modest program by the
standards of most other environmental control efforts; yet, the seed money which
ha~ previously been authorized the Water Research Institutes has often precipi
tated a considerable multiplier effect, as successful Water Research Act grants
attract as many as 100 times their cost in outside public and private supplemental
support. Your favorable consideration of the Amendments contained in H.R.
10203 will give the 51 Water Research Institutes-and, hopefully, newly-estab-
lished Institutes in the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and Guam-a
deserved vote of confidence together with a sufficient funding mandate to apply
themselves even more vigorously to the huge task of assuring clean and plentiful
water resources for the future.
TERRITORY OF GUAM, U.S.A.,
Osu'rcz OF GUAM'S REPRESENTATIVE IN WASHINGTON,
Washington, D.C., October 12, 1971.
Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power 1?esonrces,
New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the 100,000 Americans of Guam, I am writing
to express my full support of HR. 10203, one of three bills amending the Water
Resources Act that are now before your Senate Subcommitee on Water and
Power Resources.
As you know, HR. 10203, sponsored by Congressman Harold Johnson, Chairman
of the House Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, was passed by the
* House of Representatives early thin month. The bill authorizes an increase in
funding for the Water Resources Act from $100,000 to $250,000, and gives Guam
a graduated level of funding in the bill, ranging from $125,000 for FY 1073, to
$200,000 for FY 1974, and finally the maximum of $250,000 in PY 1975.
The other bills awaiting consideration by your Subcommittee, S. 219, introduced
by Senator Moss, and S. 2428, sponsored by Senator Hansen, are both fine meas-
ures, and if enacted, will go far to assist the States and Territories in eliminating
the problem of fresh water pollution. However, as originally drafted, S. 219
only increases the level of funding for the Water Resources Act from $100,000
to $200,000, an amount that I personally feel is too limited in these days of ramp-
ant inflation. 5. 2428 would provide a higher authorization level, but authorizes
the territories to receive only $50,000 in FY 1973, $100,000 in FY 1974, and
$150,000 for FY 1975 and thereafter.
The precedent of graduated levels of funding during the initial years of the
program's inception was successfully established in Suction 100 of the 1964 Water
Resources Research Act. However, the Department of Interior's rationale for
requesting Congress to increase the amount allocated in the Act, and at the same
time suggesting that the territories be funded at a level considerably below that
of the original Act, escapes me.
The inclusion of Guam within the Act at this time would be a farsighted and
meaningful action. Most of Guam's water supply comes from the numerous wells
dug throughout the Island, and present statistics seem to indicate that sufficient
fresh water exists to meet our immediate needs. However, several problems are
PAGENO="0095"
91
beginning to appear on the horizon that call for action now in meeting our
future needs.
First is the anticipated rise in the rate of tourism on the Island. Last year
75,000 persons visited Guam. By 1980 that figure is expected to reach 400,000.
In addition, the present civilian population of 85,000 is expected to double within
the coming decade In addition we are establishing light industries and business
enterprises. Obviously, additional sources of fresh water will have to be located
in order to meet the inevitable demand.
The initiation on Guam of a concentrated program of research will certainly
require substantial sums of money. The University of Guam, with 3,000 students
currently enrolled, is a full-fledged institution of higher learning. Our school has
a fine academic reputation and is fully qualified to handle research of this nature.
Accordingly, with all due respect for the excellent bills introduced by Senators
Moss and Hansen, I hereby request that your Subcommittee give every consider-
ation to H.R. 10203. Acceptance of this legislation by the Subcommittee and the
Senate will eliminate the necessity of a House/Senate conference, and therefore
permit the Federal Government and the University of Guam to proceed with
plans for a fresh water research center as soon as possible.
Thank you for your attention to this matter Should you or members of your
staff require further assistance or information with respect to the territory of
Guam, I shall be pleased to be of service.
With best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
A. B. WON PAT.
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Boseman, Mont., September 29, 1971.
Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,
Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: It is my understanding that the Senate Subcom-
mittee on Water and Power Resources will be considering 5. 121, 5. 219, and
5. 2428 on October 13, 1971. These bills are concerned with amendments to the
Water Resources Research Act. It is my understanding, also, that S. 2428 is the
same legislation as that coming to the Senate from the House of Representatives.
A major feature of the legislation is the increase of state allotments to water
resources research centers and institutes from $100,000 per state to $250,000.
This increase in research funds is needed and justified on the basis of inflation
in research costs as well as growth in the number and scope of water problems
requiring research since the original Water Resources Research Act of 1964
provided $100,000 per state.
I urge your support of 5. 2428. I am writing this as a former Director of the
Montana University Joint Water Resources Center (1965~4969) and as a member
of the Committee on Water Resources of the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. The current Director of the Montana
University Joint Water Resources Research Center, Dr. Helmer Holje, is admin-
istratively responsible to me here at Montana State University but the water
resourecs research program includes projects at the University of Montana and
Montana Tech, as well as at Montana State University.
Sincerely yours,
Rox B. HUFFMAN,
Vice President for Research.
THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING,
WATER RESOuRCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
Laramie, Wyo., October 15, 1971.
Senator CLIFFORD P. HANSEN,
Senate Office Bailding,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CLIFF: The University of Wyoming would like to go on record as whole
heartedly supporting the Bills now being considered by the Senate Interior Com-
mittee, S-121, S-219, S-2428, to amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1964.
The Water Resources Research Institute at the University of Wyoming has in-
creased the interest and competency of water resources research on the campus
PAGENO="0096"
92
at Laramie, Wyoming. While the research being funded under the Water Re-
sources Research Act of 1964 is not a major part of the total amount of water
resources research being conducted at the University, the OWRR program has
had a significant impact on the quality of all water-related research. The em-
phasis of the WRRI program has been to foster interdisciplinary interest and
consideration with the result that more individuals have become interested and
competent to accomplish water resources research.
The Water Resources Research Institute needs additional funding for several
reasons The first and most obvious one is the increasing cost of doing business
The $100,000 Annual Allotment is supporting much less research now than It did
in 1968, when that level of funding was reached. At today's level, it probably
takes $150,000 to accomplish the same amount of work as the $100,000 would
have accomplished in the early days of the Act. A second reason is that the corn-
petencies of the research workers through our Institutes have increased signifi-
cantly and there are enough problems requiring new insights, that it would be
irresponsible nOt to take advantage of this new competency and fresh approach.
In addition to the need for more support to accomplish necessary research, there
is a growing need to Interpret and disseminate the results of the research already
accomplished. The rules and regulations of OWRR specify that annual allotment
and matching grant funds cannot be applied to "formal instructional activities,
adult or public education, extension, or like activities. . . ." We believe it would
be advantageous to have the Act amended to permit this type of activity and, of
course, to accomplish such work would require additional appropriations.
Therefore, we believe that the Water Resources Research Institutes could make
high quality use of the total appropriation of $250,000 per year, and we would
encourage favorable consideration of this full amount.
In reviewing the proposed amendments to the basic Act, we note that there is
a provision to require ". . . assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that such
programs were developed in close consultation and collaboration with leading
water resources officials within the State to promote research training and othel
work meeting the needs of the State." Because of the close cooperation and coor-
dination we have always had with our State water resources officials, this pro-
vision is of no major concern to us. However we can envision some problems that
could arise should the State water resources officials attempt to dictate or have
veto power over the research to be conducted within an Institute. We would en-
courage that the Committee report make clear that it is not the intent of the legis-
lation to provide the veto power to the State agencies. The necessity for coordina-
tion and cooperation, we believe, is valid and, in fact,- we are practicing this
procedure.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment concerning the proposed Bills and
strongly encourage their enactment.
Sincerely yours,
PAUL A. RECHARD, Director.
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE,
Washington, D.C., October 21, 1971.
Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
Chairman, $ubcommittee on Water and Power Resources, t~enate Interior Com-
mittee, New Elenate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to express my support for S. 2428, the bill
to strengthen the Water Resources Research Act of 1964.
It is especially important that funds be increased for the Water Resources
Centers, which are doing such vital work. Your committee's careful and expedi-
tious consideration of this key legislation is most appreciated, and I am taking
the liberty of forwarding to you a copy of a letter from Dr. Gerard Rohiich,
Director of the Water Resources Center at the University of Wisconsin, which
explains the Center's needs and progress, and states Dr. Rohlich's strong sup-
port of this legislation.
If possible, I would appreciate this and Dr. Rohlich's letter being printed in
the hearing record on 5. 2428.
Sincerely,
GAYLORD NELSON, UJ~. ~~ienator.
PAGENO="0097"
93
THE UNIvERSITY OF WISCONSIN,
WATiot RESOURCES OENThR,
Madi$on, W1~8., October 8, 1911.
HOE. GAYLORD M. NELSON,
The U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR NELSON: We were pleased to learn that the Subcommittee on
Water and Power of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has
scheduled a hearing on Wednesday October 13 to consider bills S 121, S 219
and S. 2428, to amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1964.
The statement presented by our Center for the hearing on S. 3553 (91st Con-
gress, 2nd SessiOn), held on July 20 of last year, and printed on pages 183 and
184 in the published bearing, generally covers the concern we have toward the
amendments under consideration. In addition, the Wisconsin Center presented a
statement before the hearings of the House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs this summer on June 29, on amendments to the Act (H.R. 10203).
`The changes embodied in S. 2428 will make a significant impact on the water
resources research and information program underway at the existing 51 state
institutes. The increase in funds to the level of $250,000 per year will permit
the Wisconsin program to take advantage of the momentum that has `been
developed during the past seven years. In addition to the increase In funds,
S. 2428 offers a number of amendments to the present law which will strengthen
the effective administration of the program.
During the last few years, the allotment program has been weakened because
the fixed budget of $100,000 per year has allowed fewer investigators to partic-
ipate in the program because of the gradual decrease in purchasing power
caused by inflation. In recent years, most of the allotment funds have been
directed toward the support of faculty and student salaries, and for services.
For the continued success of the program, additional funds are needed to pur-
chase research equipment to insure a balanced research program.
In keeping with the objectives of the Water Resources Act, the Center has
maintained a viable program which encourages faculty and students throughout
Wisconsin to direct their talents and efforts toward solving water resources
problems. As a result, the Center has identified several potential investigators
interested in water problems especially as they relate to environmental quality
The activities in this phase of the Center's program has been complemented by
the recent public awareness of environmental issues.
Faced with the continuing increased cost of living, an Increased pool of ex-
pert talent available to study water problems, and the pressing needs for water
research aimed at making improvements a practical reality in the decades ahead,
an increase in the allotment grant program is necessary, if the program is to
meet the challenge of the Act under which these funds are authorized To main
tarn the focus and leadership whidh the water institutes have developed ovee
the last seven years increased funds are necessary to undertake and strengthen
the research activities, and additional funds are required to provide for the
effective dissemination of useful scientific and engineering information gener-
ated by the activities of this program, and other related activities.
As currently structured in Wisconsin, the allotment grant program provides
"seed" money for the development of significant research projects relevant to
the needs of the state, region, and nation; and supports research projects to be
accomplished by researchers who are not widely known, especially those at
the smaller universities in the state.
The allotment funds have permitted Wisconsin, as well as the other state
institutes, to participate with federal agencies in developing research activ-
ities tailored to the particular needs of a region. In Wisconsin, the principal
focus has been given to research that would lead to scientific and applied infor-
mation and strategies for the enhancement of water quality. Without the in-
creased support for the allotment program, it is likely that the program focus
will become less effective than it has proved to be in the past years. Also, the
increased support will permit us at Wisconsin, along with the other state insti-
tutes, to make positive contributions to the national needs in water resources
research.
We have had an opportunity to review the changes recommended In each of
the bills under consideration. We wish to stress our recommendation that
S. 2428 be given favorable consideration by the Senate, and that our endorse-
ment be included in the record.
Sincerely yours,
GERARD A. R0ELICH, Director.
69-5280-71-7
PAGENO="0098"
* 94
THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEn1UNG,
HOWARD UNIVERSITY,
Washington, D.C., October12, 1971.
Senator HENRY JACKSON,
senate Interior Committee,
Slenate Office Bu&ling,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: This letter is in reference to the proposal before your
committee to establish a water resources research institute in the District of
Columbia.
I strongly endorse proposals to (a) increase the authorization for the water
resources research institutes of $250,000.00 per year, (b) establish institutes in
the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, and (c) give full, first
year funding to the newly established institutes. Others have made a particularly
strong case for the first two proposals. I would like to expand on the third
proposal In light of our capabilities here at Howard.
If an institute is authorized for the District, it would be established at a
Land Grant Institution or some other institution designated by the District
Government. Some have argued that the District's Land Grant institutions,
Federal City College and the Washington Technical Institute, could not ade-
quately use full initial funding and for this reason initial funding should be
limited. This argument does not take into account the fact that there are other
institutions in the District which can cooperate with the designated institution to
fully utilize the full funding immediately. In particular, our School of Engineer-
ing has the following ongoing programs In water resources which are in need of
support:
A study of small urban watersheds to better understand the effects of
urbanization on surface runoff. This proposal Is being considered by the
Department of Interior (See Attachment I).
A study of water pollution with emphasis on bio-degrada:ble pollutants.
See Attachment II for a description of our Bio-Environmentai Engineering
Program of which water and waste water engineering is a part.
A study of systems engineering applications to the design of water and
waste water facilities. In this .study we expect to review the planning and
design of various projects around the country in order to discover those
benefits resulting from the systems engineering approach.
These are three major research projects which we have initiated, all of which
require substantial support. In addition, we plan to start a Ph.D. program in
September 1972 in Civil Engineering with a strong emphasis on water and other
environmental concerns.
It is clear that the problems of water resources and quality in the District
demand immediate attention. It is also clear that the educational institutions in
the District are capable of Immediately utilizing the $250,000~00 funding and
more. Therefore, it would be unfortunate If an institute was established In the
District without the full funding necessary to deal with this problem
Sincerely yours,
PERCY A. Pnumz, Dean.
Enclosures.
ATTACHMENT I
SUMMARY
This proposal presents a three-year research program to study the effects
of urbanization on surface runoff, with particular emphasis on a few selected
small watersheds in Washington~ D.C. Metropolitan Area. It has been well recog-
nized that man's activities in urban areas result in changes in watershed and
storm parameters which have great bearing on surface runoff processes. These
activities differ greatly from one area to another and are continuously changing
with time. To take into account the spatial and temporal variations of these
parameters, the dispersed system approach is more suitable than the lumped
system approach in attacking the problem.
Computation of surface runoff, by numerical solution of equations of continuity
and momentum, for the simple case of overianci flow has been demonstrated
to be feasible and accurate. However, considerable amount of computer time is
required for this type of computation because even the simplest type of water-
shed poses complications. Approximation techniques based upon sound physt-
PAGENO="0099"
95
cal concepts are urgently needed for developing economic and satisfactory
methods for prediction of runoff from urban watersheds under varying condi-
tionS.
The following three-year research program is, therefore, proposed:
1st year.-The sensitivity of surface runoff to spatial variations of watershed
parameters will be studied, and the major factors influencing the surface
runoff under various conditions will be identified.
2nd year.-Based on concepts outlined in this proposal and the results of
sensitivity studies obtained in the first year's program, approximate method
(or methods) for prediction of surface runoff will be developed.
~lrd year.-Based on the results of the first and second year's study, a few
small watersheds will be selected in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area
and data will be collected and analyzed. The collected data will be used to measure
the success of the approximation method(s).
A preliminary schedule for execution of the three-year research program is
shown on the next page. The estimated budget is $27,000 for the first year, $27,000
for the second year, and $28,000 for the third year.
We believe that this program, if carried out, will provide a physically sound
and computationally economic appruximation for prediction of surface runoff
for small watersheds having various degree of urbanization.
c-!ART I EELININARY Sc-RDULB FOR EEcU~FION OF r1u PRO?OSBD REStARO~ PROGRkM
PHASE
PERIOD OF E)ucUFION
No.
Short Title
.
I If cc s o~ Trfi -j. C ,1 R
IX
L!
Irfec S oc `~o ess
I~ec S of S on
TC/1
rc~
IV
Ma.]'cn~.t ca1 For-u a o~
r~i L ~ I
V
Cosn..tat o'~.l es a
c,~ I 2~
VI Selection of Watersheds
VII ~esing'odls
PIEE RRTIATXGi~'
0~ AZ I ~
TC& ~*Th~eoretical mf :con~utationai. Aidysis
TA * Theoretical Analyiis
CA. Corputational Analysis
R Report
DC Data Collection
ATTACHMENT II-Svun~ AND RESEARCH PROGRAM IN Blo-ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING AN~ SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, HOWARD UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
1971
HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY
Howard University was founded by an Act of Congress on March 2, 1867
and approved by President Andrew Johnson on the same day, as a "University
for the education of youth in the liberal arts and sciences, under the name, style,
and title of `the Howard University'." The Act, known also as the Charter,
provided for normal, collegiate, theological, law, medicine, and agriculture
"departments" and such other departments as the board of trustees might
establish.
More than 30 members of the First Congregational Society first discussed
the idea of an Institution for recently emancipated freedmen They were white
men, wanting to provide the most appropriate educational service for former
PAGENO="0100"
96
slaves. A ~1ogteaJ choice for this religiously motivated group was a theological
seminary for freedmen.
At a meeting a day or two later, November 20, 1866, 10 members of the original
grottp took the first formal action to establish this theologleal seminary. They
selected the first 12 trustees of the Institution and discussed the possibility of
a site for it. General Otis Howaixl, one of the original grou~p and head of the
Freedmen's Bureau, offered to erect a building If a site could be acquired.
At another meeting, December 4, 1866, United States Senator Samuel C.
Pomery of Kansas suggested that a normal school would Improve the chance
to get Congressional approval. The trustees adopted the new name, the Howard
Normal and Theological Institute for the Education of Teachers and Preachers."
Their plan also envisioned an institution of learning of "the higher grade" in
the National Oapltal "for the colored man."
Planning continued at meetings in December and January. A committee was
appointed to get a charter, the board of trustees was increased to 15, and the
name of the institution again changed, this time to Howard University. The
possibility of `adding a medical department was discussed at a meeting In Jan-
uary 14, 1867.
United States Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts Introduced a bill in
January 23, 1867 to incorporate "the Howard University."
The Normal Department opened in early May 1867. The first students were
white girls, children of two of the founders. Danforth B. Nichols and Ebenezer
W. Robinson. However, the racial situation in the United States, `and especially
in Washington at that time, changed the institution for the "education of
youth" into a predominantly Negro university.
The expansion of the University has reflected Its determination to serve.
By the end of its first term the enrollment had grown to 94 students. In five
years it had built a curriculum which included nine departments: Normal `and
Preparatory Musical Theological Military Industrial Law Commercial and
the College of Medicine. The Colleges of Liberal Arts, Medicine, Pharmacy, and
the School of Religion were organized in 1868. The School of Law was organized
a year later. The College of Dentistry, originally a department withIn the School
of Medicine, was organized in 1881, and was followed by the School of Engineer-
ing and Architecture in 1910, the College of Fine Arts in 1914, the Graduate
School in 1934 and the School of Social Work in 1945 Programs leading to the
Doctor of Philosophy degree were inaugurated in 1i~55.
Another significant point in the history of the University was the enactment
of the Substantive Act in 1928 which authorized an annual federal appropri~
ation to the institution.
The University's academic growth has been paralleled by expansion of its
physical facilities. What was originally a "campus" of a single frame building
Is now a 50-acre campus of buildings and equipment valued at more than $50
million.
Howard University is also people-some 1,200 teachers, twice as many non.
teaching employees, and over 12,400 students. Traditionally, Howard has had
the largest gathering of Negro scholars in the world, contributing not just to the
University community but to national and international areas as well Among
Its notable graduates are such people as Kelly Miller, Ernest Everett Just,
Charles Houston Dr Charles Drew Percy Julian Judge William H Hastie Alam
Locke, E. Franklin Frazier, John Hope Franklin, and Ralph J. Bunche.
Howard University has produced more than one-half of the nation's Negro
physicians, lawyers, dentists, pharmacists, engineers, and architects, and its
graduates are in positions of leadership and responsibility throughout the United
States and in many foreign countries.
Howard University is dedicated to high standards of professional training,
~ind to the education of scholars and researchers. It has also traditionally been
committed to community service. President James Cheek expressed this in-
creasing responsibility in his Formal Opening Address September 1969
"Our work in this University this year and in the years to come will be de-
voted to national problems in an effort to provide national leadership for both
our people and our country.
"The total resources of this University will be mobilized to engage the entire
spectrum of social problems which have emerged as crises in our national life.
`Here we shall seek and find creative and Imaginative ways to bring solu
tIons to the problems of the cities, the problems of human relations, the prob-
lems of educational disadvantage, the problems of economic insufficiency, the
problems of inadequate health care, and to the problems related to overcoming
PAGENO="0101"
97
the lack of knowledge, understanding and appreciation of black Americans and
black people throughout the world."
One way the University tries to solve problems Is by creating new programs
to deal with them. In recent years the United States has been faced with envi-
ronmental pollution problems that stagger the Imagination. Yet at the same time
human and natural resources have never been so available. In this Age of
Opportunity, when to hundreds of thousands of Americans education and work
are nevertheless out of reach, Howard University has launched a major effort
to prepare leaders for the crucial War on Ignorance, Ugliness, and Economic
Injustice. The new interdisciplinary Graduate Program of Bio-Environmental
Engineering and Sciences was established in the same spirit that gave birth
to Howard University. In the belief that the problems which so violently face
our nation and the world cannot be solved piecemeal, the University has launched
a comprehensive educational program encompassing all branches of knowledge
in a concerted effort to improve our environment.
BlO-ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND SCIENCES GENERAL
Today man lives with one foot on the moon and the other on the earth; how-
ever, the planet Earth, inhabited by man, is deeply polluted. Man's earth en-
vironment has deteriorated to an alarming degree, in many respects because of
man s ever increasing desire for convenient living and an expanding economy
In recent years it has become clear to the public sector that a reversal of
the trend toward environmental degradation must be accomplished. This sup-
port is welcomed by environmental engineers who have been well aware of this
situation for many years. During this time environmental engineers have worked
diligently for practical solutions for environmental Improvement and many
times have been lonely in this struggle. Now, with the public's awareness of
the problems, the opportunities for enthusiastic support of engineering solutions
to environmental matters are unlimited.
Howard University has recognized this opportunity to train qualified graduate
engineers to help fill the great need for specialists in the environmental field.
The Bio Environmental Engineering graduate program at Howard University
covers instructions and research in a wide spectrum of areas. Within the frame~
work of this education, students specialize in one of the several areas, includ-
ing water chemistry, water and waste water treatment, and radiological health.
PROGRAM AT HOWARD UNIVRRITY
As part of its many graduate offerings, the School of Engineering offers through
the Civil Engineering Department a flexible program In Bio-Environmental Engi
neering and Sciences leading to a Master s degree Based on the varied back
grounds and interests of the students and the faculty members concerned, a
desirable balance is maintained between theory and practice, and every effort is
made to tailor a program of study to the background, potential and interests of
each student. This multifaceted approach provides excellent academic preparation
either for (a) a career in consuiting or design and development, or (b) pursuit of
the Ph.D. degree.
SUPPORTING PROGRAMS
To provide an interdisciplinary and a broad spectrum of education, graduate
students can take advance courses In other allied departments at Howard Uni-
versity. Students are encouraged to take courses in chemistry, biology and
mathematics.
ADMISSION
Admission to the Graduate School with full status In Bio-Environmental Engi-
neering and Sciences (BEES) is granted to graduates of institutions whose
requirements for the Bachelor's degree are approximately equivalent to those of
Howard University, provided the applicant's scholastic average is high. The rules
of adtsission and other requirements are described in detail in the Graduate
School Catalog.
Students with a Baccalaureate degree in Chemistry Biological Sciences and
various disciplines in engineering may be admitted to the program without exten-
sive prerequlsites~
Application forms and other information may be obtained by writing to the
Director of Admissions, Howard University, Washington, D.C. 20001.
PAGENO="0102"
98
LABORATORIES
The BIDES laboratories are equipped with modern instrumentation for instruc-
tion and research in chemical, physical and biological aspects of various funda-
mental problems in pollution abatement. Space is also available for large scale
pilot plant work. The biological pilot treatment plant of the D.C. Sanitary Engi-
neering Department is also available for applied and basic research.
The Fluid Mechanics laboratory - contains basic facilities such as fixed-bed
flume, tilting flume, pump and piping system that are suitable for research on
water-related problems.
Modern instruments and space are available for special projects. Wind-tunnel
facility is also available for simulating water flow.
FACILITIES
The library of the School of Engineering contains thousands of engineering and
scientific volumes, and subscribes to periodicals relating to various fields of
engineering, mathematics and the sciences.
Besides a IBM 360/50 digital computer which is operated as a separate entity
by the University and is available to the whole University community, the Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering operates an IBM 1130 digital computer, and a TR 48
analog computer. The latter two are available on an "open shop" basis, thus allow-
ing the student direct and instant control over modification and completion of his
computer programs.
Other supporting physical facilities include X-ray diffraction equipment in the
Physics Department and an electron microscope in the College of Medicine.
UNIVERSITY SEMINARS AND COLLOQUIA
Howard University continually reaps the benefits of its ideal geographical
location. In addition to its planned academic year, the BEES lecture series
brings outstanding engineers and scientists to the campus. Students and faculty
are able to attend lectures given by specialists who are either visiting consult-
ants to or employees of federal government agencies in the Washington metro-
politan area.
REQUIREMENTS
Howard University's graduate program in Bio-Environmental Engineering and
Sciences leads to the Master's degree. For completion of the degree, 30 semester
hours of credit are required; this includes a thesis which must demonstrate the
student's ability to conduct individual research. Of the total, 20 hours comprise
the major area of study, and 10 hours the minor area. After the completion of
the research and/or course work, a final examination, written and/or oral, is
given.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Various types of financial fellowships are available. Details of such financial
aid awards may be obtained by writing to the Program Director, Dr. M. M.
Varma, Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Howard Uni-
versity, Washington, D.C. 20001.
MAJOR COURSE DESCRIPTIONS
A wide variety of courses are available in the Civil Engineering Department
and other departments of the University. BEES course offerings are:
C.E. 501 Water treatment and water resources 2-3-3 1.-Water resources sys~
tems planning is studied in relation to demographics, chemicals, and biological
factors. Treatment units are designed. Modern advances in the treatment proc-
esses will also be discussed.
O.E. 502 Waste water treatment 2-3-3.-Water quality control standards are
established, adjustments required for changes in waste water are analyzed,
treatment units are designed and the specifications prescribed.
OJD. 511 Chemistry of water and waste water 2-3-3.-Physical and chemical
properties of waiter and waste water. Kinetics equilibria in water and sewage,
organic and inorganic constituents of water and its effect on man's environment.
C.]D. 512 &znStary microbiology and biochemistry 3-0-3.---General properties of
bacteria and the growth of bacteria. The mechanism of biochemical reaction.
Carbohydrates, proteins, enzymes, energy balance, metabolism, and respira-
tion. Anaerobic and aerobic digestion dynamics. The discussions are directed
toward the application in Environmental Engineering.
1 Lecture, laboratory, total.
PAGENO="0103"
99
C.E. 521 Communicable diseases in man 2-0-2.-Respiratory diseases, water
and food borne diseases, insect and rodent borne diseases, disease control, con-
trol of the mode of transmission, and introduction to Human Physiology. The
principle of epidemiological investigations is presented together with mathe-
matical tools.
O.E. 531 Environmental health enØneering 3-0-3.-A detailed study of the
emerging problems surrounding the water and waste water in man's environ-
ment. Solid waste refuse collection and disposal, housing problems, laws and
rules involved in environmental sanitation, ventilation and air conditioning, oc-
cupational health hazards, and environmental planning.
C.E. 541 Radiological and environmental safety 2-3-3.-Fundamentals of ra-
diation, monitoring procedures, radiation detection, low level assay of water,
waste disposal, and regulation of radiation sources. Concept of maximal per-
missible concentration dose, radiation biology and effect of other environmental
pollutants affecting man. Introduction to theory and techniques of collection
and analysis of air pollutants.
C.E. 542 Radioisotope engineering I 2-3--&-Detailed properties of nuclear
radiation, production availability and purification of radioisotopes, statistical
consideration in radioactivity measurements, tracer selections, and calculation
for a tracer in a biochemical process.
O.E. 543 Radioisotope engineering II 2-3-3.-Tracer in chemical application.
Neutrons, introduction to quantum mechanics. Nuclear force and nuclear tech-
nology as related to public health.
C.E. 550 Water quality management 2-3-3.-Mechanics and kinetics of stream
`and estuary pollution. Effects of natural processes `and pollution by man. Types
of Pollutants: temperature, inorganic salts, oxygen demandin.g contaminants,
sediments, organic compounds, and nuclear wastes. Self-purification.
C.E. 551 Graduate seminar.-Required (no credit).
C.E. 552 Graduate seminar.
C.E. 561 Master's thesis.-~Oredit varies (4-6).
C.E. 601 Industrial waste water management 3-0-3.-Waste disposal problems
of various industries, causing pollution of natural bodies of water, method of
treatment, `and administrative and regulatory aspects are discussed, with ~m-
phasis on biochemical treatment processes.
C.E. 602 Engineering analysis of physiological systems 3-O-3.-Fundamentals
of human physiology in a quantitative manner, including application of mathe-
matical modeling to the study of physiological principles and approach that an
engineer shall use in working with living `system.
CURRENT RESEARCH INTEREST
The following list of subjects includes topics of current interest to the faculty.
Kinetics of biochemical oxygen demand.
Settling characteristics of biological solids.
Reaction rate coefficients of enzymatic detergents.
Oxygen uptake by dead algae.
Models of dispersions of pollution in turbulent and non-turbulent flows.
Measurement of sediment pollution.
Resistance in channel flows.
Reaction rate coefficient of biological slimes under varying conditions.
Inactivation of polio virus using various oxidents.
UNIVERSITy or IDAHO,
October 8, 1971.
Hon. SENATOR FRANK CHURCH,
U.S. Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR FRANK: At this time it has come to our attention that the Senate's Sub-
committee on Water and Power Resources of the Senate Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee is considering amendments to the Water Resources Research
Act in the form of S. 219, 5. 2428 and H.R. 10203. Our institute made a presen-
tation at the hearings of the House of Representatives on this same subject.
We understand the Senate passed similar legislation during the past session
of Congress and therefore sentiment is in favor of passage of some legislation in
this regard.
Our desire now is to join with other state institutes in supporting H.R. 10203
which sets funding level at $250,000. We feel this funding level is necessary to
PAGENO="0104"
100
keep a viable program at our university. The press of many problems, such as
the issue of Hells Canyon-Middle Snake River enhancement and protection
of the wildlife and fishery of the state, the economic well-being of rural areas
where irrigated agriculture is the sustaining support, and concern for urban
water supply in the scattered communities of our state are critical problems.
At the Idaho Water Resource Board meeting of September 24-25, Professor
Warnick appeared and discussed with the board eight major research topics
that have urgency and need for study now. These are repeated here to indicate
the extensive nature of the problems.
1. State Scenic Rivers evaluation.
2. Post audit of major project.
3. Geothermal Power.
4. Upper Snake water use.
5. Economic analysis of Jefferson County to ascertain capability to pay for
rehabilitation.
6. Methodology for computing the future depletion at the Brownlee Reser-
voir by upstream irrigation and multiple use development.
7. MinImum flows for satisfying use downstream of Hells Canyon.
8. Recharge of Snake River Plain.
(a) Effect quantitatively.
(b) Effect qualitatively.
(C) Legal considerations.
Idaho has difficulty supporting all these research areas because of its small
population and industrial base. Travel costs are inordinately high because the
state is large and travel distances great.
We believe our past performance has demonstrated an efficient and responsive
program. With regard to Section 3 subsectIon 100(b) of the H.R. 10203 we be-
lieve collaboration with leading water resource officials is desirable and only last
week Dr. Lee of the Idaho Water Resource Board spent an afternoon on the
campus discussing ways of cooperating with the Institute. This week a repre-
sentative of the Idaho Fish and Game Department will be on campus to discuss
problems.
We solicit support for H R 10203 for Increased funding of the Water Resources
Institution by you and other members of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs
Committee. Professor Warnick is ready to answer any other questions and in-
forms me that you do not feel it necessary for him to appear in person at the
hearing on October 13.
Thanks for your continued support of our institute program.
Sincerely yours,
ERNEST W. HARTtING, President.
C