4 i()1-10

0//3 itANRAC STATF IINIVFRSITY LIBRAItt.'d

W 29/15/ WATER RESOURCES PLANNING ACT AMENDMENT0-

960 

GOVERNMENT

StorageA11600 706635 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER AND POWER RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETIETH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 3058

A BILL TO AMEND THE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING

ACT TO REVISE THE AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE

ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

APRIL 22, 1968

Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

93-629 WASHINGTON : 1968
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico

ALAN BIBLE, Nevada

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota

CARL HAYDEN, Arizona

GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

LEE METCALF, Montana

THOMAS II. KUCHEL, California

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho

PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona

CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming

MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon

JERRY T. VERKLER, Staff Director

STEWART FRENCH, Chief Counsel

E. LEWIS REID, Minority Counsel

DANIEL A. DREYFUS, Professional Staff Member

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico, Chairman

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota

CARL HAYDEN, Arizona

,THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho

•

w
CONTENTS

Page

S. 3058 1

Executive communication 2

STATEMENTS

Caulfield, Henry P., Jr., Executive Director, Water Resources Council__ 11

Thompson, Sam, representing Interstate Conference on Water Problems,

accompanied by Charles F. Schwan, Jr 26

Udall, Hon. Stewart L., Chairman, Water Resources Council, as read by

Kenneth Holum, Assistant Secretary for Water and Power 2

COMMUNICATION

Ahlquist, H. Maurice, director, Washington State Department of Water

Resources: Letter to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated

April 5, 1968 2S
N.0 -•
WATER RESOURCES PLANNING ACT AMENDMENT

MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1968

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

ashington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m., in

room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Anderson, Moss, Jordan of Idaho, and Burdick.

Staff members present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; Stewart

French, chief counsel; Daniel Dreyfus, professional staff member;

and E. Lewis Reid, minority counsel.

Senator ANDERSON. The committee will come to order.

The purpose of this hearing before the Water and Power Resources

Subcommittee this morning is to take testimony on S. 3058—introduced by Senator Jackson by request—to amend the Water Resources

Planning Act to revise the authorization of appropriations for administering the provisions of the act, and for other purposes.

The bill would have the effect of removing the existing limitation

of $300,000 upon annual appropriations for carrying out the provisions of title I of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. These

funds generally cover the operating expenses of the Water Resources

Council which was established by the act.

At this point in the record we will insert a copy of the bill before

us and a copy of the executive communication requesting the legislation.

(The data referred to follows:)

[ S. 3058, 90th Cong., second sm.]

A BILL To amend the Water Resources Planning Act to revise the authorization of appropriations for administering the provisions of the Act, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That section 401 of the Water Resources Planning Act (Public Law 89-80; 79 Stat. 244) is amended to read as

follows:

"SEc. 401. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions

of this Act—

" (a ) such amounts as may be necessary to administer the provisions of

titles I, II, III, and IV: Provided, That not to exceed $400,000 annually shall

be availabe to administer the provisions of title III; and

"(b) not to exceed $6,000,000 annually to carry out the provisions of

title II: Provided, That not more than $750,000 annually shall be available

for any single river basin commission."

(1)
2

WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL,

Washington, D.C., February 2.4, 1968.

Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY,

President of the Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Enclosed is draft of a proposed bill to amend the Water

Resources Planning Act (Public Law 89-80; 79 Stat. 244; approved July 22,

1965).

We recommend that this bill be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration, and we recommended that it be enacted.

This proposed legislation would revise the authorization of appropriations for

administrative expenses in carrying out the provisions of the Water Resources

Planning Act that is contained in section 401 of the Act. Aside from changing the

sequence of the provisions of section 401, the draft bill would make only one

change in the substance of the section. It would remove the limitation of $300,000

annually from the authorization for appropriations for administering the provisions of Title I of the Act, and substitute an authorization for appropriations in

such amounts as may be necessary. The other limitations now contained in section

401 would remain unmodified.

The passage of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 has necessitated either the removal of the limitation for administering the provisions of Title I or the curtailment of essential functions. Furthermore, experience under this Act since its

enactment in July 1965, has pointed to the desirability of removing the appropriation limitation so that consideration may be given in future years to increase in

appropriations to better carry out the functions and responsibilities of the Water

Resources Council.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that enactment of this draft bill would

be consistent with the Administration's objectives.

Sincerely yours,

STEWART L. UDALL, Chairman.

(The draft bill enclosed is identical to S. 3058.)

Senator ANDERSON. Secretary Holum, I understand you have a statement. We will put your statement in the record and recognize e, you at

this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. UDALL. CHAIRMAN, WATER

RESOURCES COUNCIL, AS PRESENTED BY KENNETH HOLUM,

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND POWER

Mr. HoLum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a little surprised to

find myself before you this morning, but at the last minute Secretary

Udall, who had intended to appear personally, found that his time had

been preempted and asked me to appear in his stead. I am, of course,

happy to be here to discuss the work of the Water Resources Council

and the legislation pending before the Congress.

I am accompanied, as the Secretary would have been, by Henry

Caulfield, executive director of the -Water Resources Council. I hope

that we will be able to supply the information that you and the members of the committee require. If not, I am sure that the Chairman of

the Council, Secretary Udall, will be happy to supply the information

in case there are problems that we cannot deal with.

This is only the second appearance of spokesmen for the Water

Resources Council before the committee since the Council was created

by act of Congress in 1965 and found itself immediately involved in

the critical drought problems of the East at that time. With that in

mind, Secretary Udall had planned to discuss in considerable detail

the activities of the Council since that time.
3

I think, Mr. Chairman, it is only appropriate because I am here as

his substitute that I read for the record what he had prepared to say

this morning.

I think I can appropriately skip over the first three pages in this

oral summary. I would want to note, however, in so doing, that Secretary Udall told me when he asked me to substitute for him this

morning, to be sure and say to you and to the committee that from his

point of view, and certainly as his representative on the Council of

Representatives I share it, the Council is off to a good start. It has

accomplished, in our judgment, everything that could be expected of

an organization with such large responsibilities in such a short period

of time.

The Water Resources Council came into existence partly because of

your own concern over the relationship between the Federal agencies

and the States in the field of water resource development. I think one

of the outstanding accomplishments of the Council has been bringing

together in a closer working relationship the State agencies and Federal agencies that deal in this water and related land resources field.

The Secretary was prepared to say, and I shall say for him, that

never in our history, Mr. Chairman, have Federal-State relations in

water resources planning been as close, cordial and cooperative as

they have been since your successful conciliatory effort. One of the

effective means that has been used in achieving this cooperation is

the National Conference of State and Federal Water Officials, the first

of which was held in Denver last September and the next of which is

scheduled for Detroit in July of this year.

Having summarized the first three pages, Mr. Chairman, I shall

begin at the top of page 4 and take the liberty of reading Chairman

Udall's prepared statement to you.

In reviewing progress in implementation of the Water Resources

Planning Act, I would remind you that the act has three principal

titles:

Title I establishes the Water Resources Council and specifies its

authorities and responsibilities;

Title II authorizes the establishment of Federal-State regional or

river basin planning commissions; and

Title III authorizes matching financial grants to States for comprehensive water and related land resources panning.

S. 3058, the bill now before the subcommittee, would only affect

the authorization of appropriations for administering title I. The limitations on appropriations relating to titles II and III would remain

unchanged.

Thus I propose, first, to review briefly the Council's progress in

implementing titles III and II; and then, with regard to title I, to

discuss the progress in implementation of that title as well as the

need for S. 3058. The Executive Director, Mr. Caulfield, whose testimony is scheduled to follow mine, will go into the need for S. 3058

in greater detail.

TITLE III-FINANCIAL GRANTS TO STATES

In title III of the act, the Congress has authorized the appropriation of $5 million per year for 10 years for 50-percent matching grants

for increased activity by the States in develnning and participating
4

in the development of comprehensive water and related land resources

plans.

For fiscal year 1967, the first year of the grant program, the Congress appropriated $1,750,000 for grants to States. In the very first

year of this new program, the Council received 46 applications out of

a potential 53, and approved all 46 in accord with the provisions of

the act and the Council's rules and regulations.

For fiscal year 1968, the Congress appropriated $2,250,000. The

Council received and approved 51 applications.

The fiscal year 1969 budget request now before the Committee on

Appropriations includes $2,500,000, an increase of $250,000 over that

for fiscal year 1968. On the basis of present indications, 51 out of the

potential 53 grantees are again expected to request grants for fiscal

year 1969.

The response of the States to the title III program has exceeded

all expectations, reflecting a growing awareness by the States of the

vital importance to them of becoming more involved in planning for

the development and use of their water and related land resources.

Many States have' already made substantial progress in developing

their capability for, and in engaging in, planning. This State response,

Mr. Chairman, clearly validates your foresight in initiating some 10

years ago the proposal that led to title III.

TITLE II—RIVER BASIN CO3.11VIISSIONS

Under title II of the act, the Governors of the concerned States

unanimously requested, the Council recommended, and the President

has established to date four Federal-State river basin commissions:

for the Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes, Souris-Red-Rainy and New

England regions. Information as to date of establishment, officers, and

members of these commissions is set forth in an attachment to this

statement.

All four commissions were organized for the performance of their

functions during 1967, within the 90 days specified in the act. They

agreed upon rules of procedure, initial budgets, recommendations as

to the sharing of staff costs between the States and the Federal Government, the division of these costs between the States, and initial staff

authorizations. Subsequently, the four commissions have been developing their programs to carry out their functions as set forth in the

act. All four have now selected their professional planning directors

and, in varying degrees, have recruited other staff. Covering the

regions of all four commissions, comprehensive framework studies, the

first step in implementing section 201(b) (2) of the act, are now underway. They are being funded annually by the Congress for participation by Federal departments and agencies.

The amount of funds provided for each commission in fiscal year

1968, including the salary and expenses of the Chairman, is within a

$200,000 limitation contained in the 1968 Appropriation Act. This

limitation is substantially less than the $750,000 limitation contained

in section 401 of the act. Nevertheless, in its testimony before the

Committee on Appropriations this year, the Council did not request

reconsideration of the limitation. It sees no need to do so at this time.

Section 207 of the act provides that each commission shall recommend what share of its expenses shall be borne by the Federal Govern-
5

ment. In acting upon these recommendations, the Council has adopted

the policy, which has been approved by the Committee on Appropriations, providing that the annual Federal contribution to each commission may equal 50 percent of total operating costs. The balance is

funded by the participating States.

Governors of certain States within the Missouri River Basin and the

Ohio River Basin have requested establishment of commissions for

those basins, but the number of requests or concurrences so far, in each

case, is insufficient for establishment. Discussion of the desirability of

a Pacific Southwest River Basins Commission has occurred among

representatives of the States concerned, but no official proposal for a

commission has yet been made. Also certain States in the Upper Mississippi River region are actively considering this matter, as are certain others in the Southeast region.

The first four commissions, as I indicated, were established upon the

initiative and unanimous request of the concerned States. State initiative is most desirable and the Council has not chosen to take such

action upon itself. However, every opportunity afforded has been

taken to make known to Governors and others the method of operation of Federal-State river basin commissions, and their advantages

over other available means for Federal and Federal-State coordination and preparation of comprehensive river basin plans. As this information becomes widespread, and the present commissions demonstrate their advantages, further initiatives to establish additional river

basin commissions will undoubtedly be taken by the States.

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

The Water Resources Council, as created by title I, was composed

initially of the Secretaries of Agriculture; the Army; Health, Education, and Welfare; the Interior; and the Chairman of the Federal

Power Commission. The Secretary of Transportation was added by

the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.

Included by Council regulation, as associate members, are the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and, as observers, the Attorney General and the Director of

the Bureau of the Budget. All of these officials have substantial statutory responsibilities with regard to water. Section 101 of the act

provides that "heads of other Federal agencies" shall be requested to

participate with the Council when matters affecting their responsibilities are considered by the Council. Status as associate member or

observer enables these officials to keep regularly informed of the business of the Council and decide for themselves when matters affecting

their responsibilities are being considered.

Each of the members, associate members, and observers has named

a representative who functions with the Executive Director in the

conduct of the Council's business between meetings of their principals.

The principals meet regularly every 3 months and on the call of the

chairman. The representatives, with the Executive Director acting as a

voting chairman, meet almost every week. Decisions at this level can

be made only by unanimous agreement. Disagreements automatically

become issues for consideration by the principals. Major matters, as

93-629-63-2
6

specified in Council rules and regulations, can be decided only by the

principals.

This system of decisionmaking by the Council, which has been in

effect since November 1966, has worked very well. It has enabled the

Council to act upon many matters which clearly do not require faceto-f ace consideration by the principals. On the other hand, it identifies

sharply the areas of real disagreement. Thus, the process assures that

the matters that the principals do consider are important.

Let me mention the Council's functions, and some examples of

the Council's work relating to each function:

First function.—To maintain a continuing study of the adequacy of supplies of water and related land resources to meet

requirements, and to prepare a periodic national assessment

(sec. 102).

Early in 1967 the Council decided upon plans for making the first

national assessment, within the limits of available staff and other

resources. A report on this basis is in the final stages of Council

approval. It is now planned for publication in the next few months.

Based on readily available data, the report establishes the water

situation for a base year, 1965 identifies current problem areas and

includes projections of water requirements for larger regions of the

country. To the extent proven feasible, longrun water management

problems are identified. Conclusions and recommendations with regard

to them are being made.

Regional chapters have been prepared through cooperation of personnel of member agencies in the field and of the States. National

summaries for each water development or use function have been

prepared by member agencies. Council staff, with assistance from

member agencies, is performing the necessary central staff work.

This first effort cannot be considered a full-scale national assessment

within the meaning of Section 102. It represents all that is possible

with present analytical methods and the organization of data for

simultaneous coverage of the country as a whole, the current degree of

completion of comprehensive regional framework studies, and availability of staff and other resources. Future national assessments, to be

more adequate, will require more deliberate planning and preparatory

work over a longer period and substantially greater Council input and

other resources.

Second function.—To appraise the adequacy of administrative

and statutory means for coordination and implementation of the

water and related land resource policies and programs of the several Federal agencies to make recommendations to the President with respect to policies and programs (section 102).

Council appraisal of proposed Federal-interstate compact commissions for management of water and related land resources within river

basins, with a view to advising the President upon them, is a major

activity at the present time. The compact proposed by the Interstate

Advisory Commission for the Susquehanna River Basin in 1966 initiated this work. Subsequently, the Council has focused upon the proposed Potomac River Basin Compact, and upon generally similar

proposals for the Hudson River Basin. Substantial Council staff time,

along with that of member agencies, is necessary to assist the Council

in the development of concerted views.
7

To enable more widespread official and public consideration of such

matters, the Council prepared and published in August 1967, a report

on alternative institutional arrangements for managing river basin

operations.

Also under the heading of policy development, the Council has

initiated studies of current Federal policies with regard to the sharing

of costs between the Federal Government and non-Federal interests

for flood control and water quality investments in Federal and federally assisted projects. Its concern with flood control cost sharing

stems from its broader concern with improved flood plain management.

Its concern with cost sharing for provision of water quality features

stems from views expressed several months ago in this committee and

its counterpart in the other body.

The aim of the Council in both instances is to discover improved

cost-sharing policies that would be practicable to administer and appropriate to recommend to the President for transmission to the 91st

Congress in its first session.

As time and staff resources permit, review will be undertaken of the

experience with the cost-sharing provisions of the Federal Water

Projects Recreation Act and of other water and related land resource

Third function.—To establish, after consultation with appropriate interested Federal and non-Federal entities, and with the

approval of the President, principles, standards, and procedures

for Federal participation in the preparation of comprehensive

regional or river basin plans and for the formulation and evaluation of Federal water and related land resource projects (section

103).

The principles, standards, and procedures for this purpose that were

approved by the President on May 15, 1962, as supplemented and

amended, are considered to be in full force and effect.

The document of May 15, 1962, established the discount rate to be

used in the formulation and evaluation of water resource projects as

the average rate of interest payable by the treasury on interest-bearing

marketable securities of the United States which, upon original issue,

had terms to maturity of 15 years or more. The discount rate for

fiscal year 1968, based upon this formula, is 31/4 percent.

In his budget message this year, the President said the following:

"The Water Resources Council is developing a more appropriate

interest rate to be applied in formulating and evaluating water projects. The revised rate will be related to the average estimated current

cost to the Treasury of long-term borrowing. It will be higher than

the rate now in use for project evaluation. The new rate will be applied

to future projects in order to assure the most effective use of Federal

funds in the development of the Nation's water resources."

The Council has this subject under consideration. When it arrives

at a proposed new regulation, that proposal will be published in the

Federal Register. This will be done to solicit comment and encourage

consultation with interested parties, before the Council, acting under

section 103 of the Act, establishes any new formula for the determination of discount rates with the approval of the President.

As time and staff resources permit, the Council plans to review,

generally, the standards of May 15, 1962, as supplemented and

amended, with a view to formal implementation of section 103.
8

Fourth function.—To coordinate schedules, budgets and programs of Federal agencies in comprehensive regional or river

basin planning (derivative of section 102 (b) ).

In response to the recommendation of the Senate select committee

that comprehensive water development plans be prepared for all the

Nation's major river basins, 10 comprehensive framework-type studies

are underway. One "new start" for fiscal year 1969, that for the

Great Basin, is now before the Committee on Appropriations. Others

will need to be started later. More detailed comprehensive basin

studies are also in process in 15 smaller basins.

Interdepartmental coordination of these studies predates the act.

Greater effort is warranted to coordinate them than has been possible

to date.

Fifth function.—To review comprehensive river basin plans

prepared in the field and to transmit them, together with its

recommendations, to the President for transmittal to the Congress

(section 104).

One of the comprehensive framework-type studies, that for the

Ohio River Basin, will be ready for Council review in July of this

year. Two more detailed basin studies have been completed and are

now before the Council for review and action. This review process is

critical, not only to assure that a field study is technically sound and

to arrive at appropriate Council recommendations, but also to discover needed changes in current instructions to improve preparation

of such studies.

Sixth function,.—To carry out its responsibilities with regard

to the creation, operation, and termination of Federal-State river

basin commissions (specified in title II).

The current status of Federal-State river basin commissions has already been discussed. I will only add here that this function demands

substantial Council staff time, particularly that of the executive director, the deputy director and the administrative officer.

These six functions, together with the seventh ( which I have already discussed) , relating to the title III program, involve a very substantial body of work.

The most critical factor in the proper performance of these functions is dedicated and skilled staff work preparatory to Council deliberations. Whether deliberations are being conducted by representatives

of the principals or the principals themselves, they are most fruitful

when they can focus upon thoughtfully prepared documents, setting

forth necessary analysis of facts, clear identification of isues, and alternative courses of action that might be taken.

In a body of this kind, not all staff work for the Council should be

undertaken by the Council staff. Much staff work should continue to be

done by the departmental staffs, but this, too, requires arrangements

to be made by the Council staff. Adequate control staff work is clearly

a critical factor in the Council's performance of its function.

The Council staff now numbers 24 persons, including clerical employees. Ten of these employees work on the title III grant program.

The remaining 14, which includes the executive director and deputy

director, clearly constitute an inadequate staff input in the opinion of

the Council members themselves.

The Bureau of the Budget has concurred in this conclusion. In addition, the Bureau advised that the Council's functions would best be
9

performed if the limitation of $300,000 with regard to title I were

removed. If the limitation is removed, the President would then be

permitted to request the Congress for funds, as he believes to be necessary each year, for administration by the Council of the provisions

of the act, except as regards title III, which would retain its appropriation ceiling.

I want to say here definitely and clearly that the Council has no

ambition to have a large staff, nor otherwise have very large sums to

administer. Nevertheless, it believes with the Bureau of the Budget

that the kind of flexibility in funding provided by S. 3058 would be

highly desirable.

In closing, I would like to add a final point bearing on the matter

of flexibility. The National Water Commission bill is a major example

of bills enacted or now under consideration by the Congress which

would add to the work of the Council. The National Water Commission bill contemplates a close working- relationship between the Commission and the Council. But also,it places a clear obligation upon the

Council to consider carefully the Commission's reports and submit its

own views to the President on those reports. The increased burden on

the Council's staff with the advent of the Commission cannot be clearly

foreseen at this time, but it will be substantial. This committee, the

Congress, and the administration are expecting a great deal, and

rightly so, from this dual effort by the Commission and the Council.

If the Council is to perform its projected role, in addition to proper

performance of its present statutory duties, the administration must

have the means to respond to the Council's needs through timely requests to the Committee on Appropriations.

That concludes Secretary Udall's statement, Mr. Chairman.

I will not read the attachment to the statement but would like to

insert it at this point.

Senator ANDERSON. It will be printed at this point in the hearing

record.

(The attachment referred to follows:)

[ATTACHMENT]

ESTABLISHED TITLE II RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS

Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission

Established by Executive Order 11331 on March 6, 1967.

Federal Members State Members

Charles W. Hodde, Chairman William S. Holden, Vice Chairman and

Representatives of: Member for Idaho

Department of Agriculture Other Member States:

Department of Army Montana

Department of Commerce Oregon

Department of Health, Education Washington

and Welfare Wyoming

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Department of Interior

Department of Transportation

Federal Power Commission

Chairman, United States Entity for

Columbia River Treaty
10

Great Lakes Basin Commission

Established by Executive Order 11345 on April 20, 1967.

Federal Members

Raymond F. Clevenger, Chairman

Representatives of:

Department of Agriculture

Department of Army

Department of Commerce

Department of Health, Education

and Welfare

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Department of Interior

Department of Justice

Department of Transportation

Federal Power Commission

State Members

Fred E. Morr, Vice Chairman and

Member for Ohio

Other Member States:

Illinois

Indiana

Michigan

Minnesota

New York

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Souris-Red-Rainy River Basins Commission

Established by Executive Order 11359 on June 20, 1967.

Federal Members

Gordon K. Gray, Chairman

Representatives of:

Department of Agriculture

Department of Army

Department of Commerce

Department of Health, Education and

Welfare

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Department of Interior

Department of Transportation

Federal Power Commission

State Members

William C. Walton, Vice Chairman and

Member for Minnesota

Other Member States:

North Dakota

South Dakota

New England River Basins Commission

Established by Executive Order 11371 on September 7, 1967.

Federal Members

R. Frank Gregg, Chairman

Representatives of:

Department of Agriculture

Department of Army

Department of Commerce

Department of Health, Education and

Welfare

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Department of Interior

Department of Transportation

Federal Power Commission

State Members

Austin H. Wilkins, Vice Chairman and

Member for Maine

Other Member States:

Connecticut

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New York

Rhode Island

Vermont

Mr. HOLUM. Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest, with your

concurrence, that Henry Caulfield, the Director of the Water

Resources Council, supply his information to the committee at this

time.

Senator ANDERSON. You have a statement about the limitation of

$300,000. Do you favor taking off this limitation?

Mr. CAULFIELD. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. Go ahead, Mr. Caulfield.

Mr. CAULFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11

STATEMENT OF HENRY P. CAULFIELD, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

Mr. CAULFIELD. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you

as a witness, my first such opportunity, and to supplement the remarks

delivered by Secretary Holum on behalf of the Chairman of the

Water Resources Council in support of S. 3058—to amend the Water

Resources Planning Act to revise the authorization of appropriations

for administering the provisions of the act.

As has already been indicated, the substance of S. 3058 relates

only to title I of the act and would not change the present limits on

appropriations relating to titles II and III. In the opinion of the

Council members, in which the Bureau of the Budget concurs, the

staff and other resources available to the Council under title I is

inadequate to carry out its functions. For this purpose, the Council's

annual appropriations are now limited to $300,000 by section 401 of

the act.

Before discussing in greater detail the need for (Treater financial

resources, I believe it would be helpful to you if I discussed the

present organization and staffing of the Water Resources Council

staff and present arrangements for providing necessary inputs in implementation of the Water Resources Planning Act.

Water Resources Council staff .—Under the Council's rules and regulations, the Executive Director acts as the principal executive officer

for the Council and head of the Water Resources Council staff. He is

appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Council members.

Among other duties, the Council's rules and regulations provide that

the Executive Director shall insure that "the quality of the work of

the staff in its studies, reports and in other assignments is high, that

the professional integrity of its personnel is respected, and that its

overall perspective and independence of judgment * * * is appropriately maintained within the context of the interagency, intergovernmental and other staff collaboration that is both necessary and

desirable 

The personnel 

in fulfillment 

selection 

of 

policy 

the purposes 

established 

of the 

by 

Council 

the Council 

"

calls for a

"balanced ticket" as between professions pertinent to water and related

land resources matters; as regards prior Federal agency affiliations;

as well as Federal service in comparison to experience in State or local

government, private enterprise and university teaching and research.

My training is as an economist and my prior experience in Government in the natural resources field was in the Department of the Interior as well as in research outside Government with Resources for

the Future, Inc.

The Deputy Director, Reuben Johnson, is a civil engineer with 24

years' experience in the Corps of Engineers. His most recent corps

assignment, before coming with the Council, was Chief of the Planning Division, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific, at San

Francisco.

The Assistant Director for Planning and Research Adviser, Parry

Steele, is an economist with 31 years service in the Department of

Agriculture. Prior to joining the Council staff, Mr. Steele was Chief of

the Natural Resources Economics Division of Agriculture's Economic

Research Service. He has long been associated with water and related
12

land resource planning, both in the field and in Washington and in

1952 he was Assistant Executive Director of the President's Missouri

Basin Survey Commission.

Parenthetically, I would like to point out here that Mr. Steele, in

his role for the Council as research adviser, is a member of the Committee on Water Resources Research of the Federal Council for Science

and Technology and Chairman of its Work Group on Research iii

Support of Water Resources Planning. In this role he brings knowledge from the water research community to the Council and makes

that group aware of needed research from the point of view of the

Council.

The Assistant Director for State Grants, Dr. Harold G. Wilm, has

his professional training in forestry and watershed management. Dr.

Wilm came to us from the State College of Forestry, Syracuse University, where he was associate dean. Previously, for some 7 years, he

had been commissioner of conservation and chairman of the Water

Resources Commission of the State of New York.

The Assistant Director for Policy and Legal Adviser is Philip M.

Glick. Mr. Glick most recently has been a lawyer in private practice

for some 13 years. Previously, he had extensive experience as a legal

officer in the Department of State, Department of the Interior, and the

Department of Agriculture. He is widely known as the author of the

Standard State Soil Conservation District Act—largely followed by

all 50 States in authorizing the establishment of soil conservation

districts.

Parenthetically, I would like to point out here that Mr. Glick in his

role for the Council as legal adviser advises on all legal problems arising under and relating to the Water Resources Planning Act.

The other profer.sional members of the Water Resources Council

staff are similarly varied in their professional training and experience.

I would like now to go into the staff work and how it is organized.

Work preparatory to exercise of Council's functions, other than

under title III.—Work preparatory to exercise of the Council's functions, other than under title III, is largely conducted at the present

time within the context of three administrative groups: The Planning

Committee, Policy Committee and a Task Force on Institutional Arrangements for River Basin Management. Representatives of member

departments and agencies serve on each of these groups and their chairmen are, respectively, the Assistant Director for Planning and Research Adviser, the Assistant Director for Policy and Legal Adviser,

and the Deputy Director.

To advise the Council in connection with its functions on a more

technical level, and to provide needed technical coordination among

departments and agencies, the Council sponsors four technical committees whose members largely are employees of member departments

and agencies and are named by them: Hydrology, sedimentation, economics, and vector control—the last relating to disease-bearing mosquitoes. The chairmanship rotates among the members. For these

technical committees the Council now provides only a place to meet,

modest consultant and clerical services and in some instances meets

modest requirements for reproduction of their technical bulletins and

reports.

In December 1967, for example, the Council published a uniform

technique for determining flood flow frequencies. Lack of uniformity
13

on this technical subject has long caused confusion among Federal,.

State, and local agencies. The Council's Hydrology Committee, composed of 10 top hydrologists within the Federal Government assisted

by two outside consultants, did an outstanding job in producing this

greatly needed report which the Council adopted. Other work of this

nature is underway in the technical committees.

Now, I would like to discuss briefly the various functions of the

Council, but under the heading of the organizational arrangements

that I have set forth.

In performance of work preparatory to exercise by the Council of

four of the functions identified by Mr. Holum, the Assistant Director

for Planning and Research Adviser and the Planning Committee are

now assisted by three WRC professional staff members.

The first function noted was the national assessment, and our work

on that has already been explained to you. I would only like to add

here that the Council could only afford to allocate one man-year of

professional time, in addition to the part-time contribution of the

Assistant Director, to this major and important task.

If it were not for the nonreimbursible loan of personnel and technical and editorial assistance, from member agencies, preparation of

most chapters in the member agencies and in field groups, in which

State personnel also participated, and defrayal of costs for drafting

of charts and maps and for printing by the member agencies, publication in the near future of the First National Assessment would not

be possible under present fiscal arrangements.

The Council anticipates that research undertaken under auspices

other than the Council will provide markedly improved technical

methods of preparing national assessments in the future. Also, because

our first effort has shown clearly that substantial improvements are

needed in the Nation's water use data, the Council has already organized a work group, aided for a short time by two outside consultants,

to make a preliminary investigation of this important problem.

In addition to a modest number of permanent WRC professional

staff for this function in future years, temporary professional and

editorial help funded by the Council, plus funds to hire computer

time to make necessary analyses, will be needed during the next period

of assessment preparation.

Third function—Establishment of planning principles, standards

and procedures: Secretary Holum on behalf of Secretary Udall,

already has noted our work in this area today. Approximately onefourth man-year of professional WRC staff time, in addition to the

part-time contribution of the Assistant Director, is now devoted to

to development of principles, standards and procedures—and this has

had to be confined to flood plain planning analysis. Fortunately, as

Chairman Udall indicated, the principles, standards and procedures

approved by the President on May 15, 1962, as supplemented and

amended, are in full force and effect.

Background staff work on the matter of discount rates, which

Chairman Udall discussed, is being performed almost entirely by the

Council's economics committee.

A very few highly qualified professional staff members could enable

the Council to make very worthwhile and substantial progress in the

conduct of this function. Work of this type could make a very substantial contribution to improved planning in the field.
14

Also, I might add in this connection that training of planning personnel—both Federal personnel in the field as well as State professional personnel—could contribute substantially to improved planning. Shortage of adequately trained personnel appears to be the chief

stumbling block at the present time facing State agencies in developing their competence with the aid of title III funds. A number of

these agencies are utilizing the training provisions of title III to

help themselves in this regard. Federal agencies of course, have authority and funds for training their personnel. And the universities,

speaking through the universities Council on Water Resources, have

expressed their ability and willingness to make their contributions in

this regard. Ne-vertheles, there is need for a sharp focus to bring these

efforts together and to effectively match a competent supply of personnel with the potential demand. The Council has been thinking of its

appropriate role in this situation as one of a catalyst and coordinator.

No action has yet been taken because of preoccupation of staff with

other important matters.

Fourth function—Coordination of comprehensive planning schedules, budgets and programs: Chairman Udall's statement also indicated in his testimony the 10 large-basin comprehensive framework

studies and the 15 small basin more detailed comprehensive studies

that are now underway.

Budgets for comprehensive studies coordinated by the Council are

formulated initially in the field by the appropriate Federal-State coordinating group in each area. Each such field-coordinated budget is

then reviewed and approved by the Council and submitted to the

Bureau of the Budget for its consideration when acting upon the individual budgets of each participating department and agency. During the life of a study, each budget is reviewed annually in accordance

with general guidelines of the Council by the field coordinating group

with a view to proposing any necessary reallocations of effort or other

adjustments. For example, the coordinated budget for the ColumbiaNorth Pacific Comprehensive Study is now reviewed each year by the

new Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Proposed chancres

are considered and approved by the Council and then submitted to

the Bureau of the Budget.

The aim of this coordination process is to avoid duplication of effort

between the several participating Federal departments and agencies,

to achieve a balanced planning effort in terms of their respective responsibilities and capabilities, and to assure so far as possible that all

related planning adds up properly and that the total makes sense. The

aim also is to avoid duplication with State and other non-Federal

planning activities and to identify specific inputs that non-Federal

entities are able to make to these studies. These inputs are now supported, in part, by financial grants from the Council provided under

title III of the Water Resources Planning Act. As contemplated by

that act, comprehensive river basin studies coordinated by the Council

will increasingly include planning aimed toward desirable non-Federal

actions in addition to Federal projects.

Only 1 man-year of the Council's professional staff time, in addition

to the contribution of the Assistant Director, can now be devoted to this

important work. A modest increase would pay for itself several times

over in better planned studies and coordinated budgets.
15

In this connection I would also like to mention another funding;

problem. All comprehensive planning studies require economic projections well into the future for the basin or basins that they cover, to

provide a basis for determining long-run water and related land resource resjuirements. Predating the Council, arrangements were made

for consistent professional preparation of necessary projections

through the joint effort of the Office of Business Economics of the

Department of Commerce and the Economic Research Service of the

Department of Agriculture. The funds in support of this effort become

charges upon the appropriations of the several other Federal agencies

participating in the studies. The Council's periodic national assessments also require such economic projections for a base year covering

all regions of the country. No decision has yet been made, but the

Council has under consideration alternative means to finance preparation of these projections in the future that might be more efficient and

less cumbersome. One of these alternatives is for the Council itself to

provide the necessary funds to meet the marginal costs of OBE—ERS

in preparing the required projections out of appropriations made

available to it. Without change in the authorization of title I funds,

this alternative is not possible of adoption.

Fifth function—Review of comprehensive planning studies completed in the field: Mr. Udall's statement also included where we stood

on this matter, with one large study coming in in July, and as I indicated here, two studies already before us from the Council for the

Sabine River and Pascagoula River Basin. For this effort, at the

present time, we only have three-fourths of a man-year of professional

staff time devoted to this work. As the studies now underway in the

field are completed, increased staff time must be devoted during fiscal

year 1969 and subsequent Tears to this very important fifth function.

Now, I would like to shift to the functions associated with the Assistant Director for Policy and Legal Adviser, and the Policy Committee. In performance of work preparatory to exercise by the Council of its second function—policy development—the Assistant Director for Policy and Legal Adviser and the Policy Committee are now

assisted by only one WRC professional staff member.

As has been pointed out to you, the Council has initiated studies of

•current Federal policies with regard to the sharing of costs between

the Federal Government and non-Federal interests for flood control

and water Tiality investments in Federal and federally assisted projects. "The aim of the Council in both instances," Secretary Udall said,

."is to discover improved cost-sharing policies that would be practic-

:able to administer and appropriate to recommend to the President

for transmission to the 91st Congress in its first session." Also, he

noted that review will be undertaken to the extent permitted by the

availability of time and staff of experience with the cost-sharing provisions of the Federal Water Projects Recreation Act and other water

and related land resource legislation.

I should like to add to these tasks the work the Council is undertaking in considering proposed legislation, both that which is initiated

in the Congress and that proposed by the executive branch to the

Congress. The Council has been highly selective among the many

legislative proposals that it could consider, and has confined its consideration largely to those that relate to two or more Federal depart-
16

ments and agencies. The proposed Flood Insurance Act, currently

before the Congress, is an example of a bill on which the Council

usefully worked before the administration's report was transmitted

to the Congress. Besides the Department of Housing and Urban Development which would administer the flood insurance program, certain

of the provisions of the bill relate to the work of the Departments

of the Army, Agriculture, and the Interior.

Of necessity, of course, the Council must consider proposed legislation that would involve an addition, I might even just say a change,

to its own functions. For example, S. 2564, now before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, provides that the Atomic Energy Commission, prior to determining whether or not a license for a nuclear

powerplant shall be issued, shall request the advice of the Water

Resources Council regarding "the compatibility of the proposed facility with any comprehensive, coordinated joint plan for water and

related land resources development which has been approved for a

region, river basin, or group of river basins in which such facility

is to be located."

The Council's legislative reports, like those of all Federal departments and agencies, are cleared with the Bureau of the Budget before

they are transmitted to the Congress. Thus, the role of the Council in

this field does not infringe upon the longstanding role of the Bureau

of the Budget. What the Council usefully adds, in my opinion, to the

process of consideration within the executive branch is face-to-face

interdepartmental consideration in an effort to identify oversights,

improve clarity, and overcome any interdepartmental disagreements.

Such useful face-to-face consideration is not normally a part of the

clearance procedure of the Bureau of the Budget.

Because the Assistant Director for Policy and legal adviser is now preoccupied for half his time, at least, with the next matter I will discuss, with title III, and with other legal matters, his professional

input to policy development along with that of his one professional

assistant is clearly inadequate to meet the Council's needs.

To make up for this present deficiency, the Council has called upon

staff in the several Federal departments and agencies associated in its

work to perform necessary staff work. Such assistance will always be

useful and desirable. Necessary competence on particular matters might not otherwise be possible to procure. Nevertheless, greater WRC

professional staff is clearly required.

Next, we shift to the Deputy Director and the Task Force on In- stitutional Arrangements for River Basin Management.

Institutional arrangements for river basin management, as has been

noted, also come within the Council's second function implementing

section 102(d) of the act. In addition to his duties of assisting the Executive Director in overall management of the WRC staff and of shar- ing with him and the administrative officer and Council secretary, the

staff burden relating to the Council's sixth function—responsibilities

regarding creation, operation, and termination of Federal-State river basin commissions, the Deputy Director is Chairman of the Council's

Task Force on Institutional Arrangements for River Basin Management. He is assisted in this role by the Assistant Director for Policy

and legal adviser.

You will recall in Chairman Udall's testimony, at the present time

we are making an appraisal of proposed Federal-interstate compact
17

commissions for management of water and related land resources

within river basins. He mentioned in this regard the proposed compacts for the Susquehanna, Potomac, and Hudson River basins.

Presumably, the establishment of concerted basic policy views within the executive branch on this subject will not require substantial concern by the Deputy Director indefinitely. Nevertheless, our intensive

experience with problems in connection with river basin compact negotiation and consent legislation, as well as Federal representation in connection with existing compacts, has raised questions about the adequacy of present Federal attention and the need for greater Federal

continuous focus.

I would like to summarize the effect of what I have said in financial

terms.

To summarize, the total WRC professional staff now available to

perform all of the work outlined to you this morning under title I of

the act is eight men. This number includes the Executive Director, the

Deputy Director, and the legal adviser who, along with the administrative officer and Council secretary, must also involve themselves as

required with the financial grant program of title III.

For fiscal year 1968 the Congress appropriated $290,000 in support

of the Council's six functions under title I. The budget proposal for

fiscal year 1969, now before the Congress for consideration, totals

$311,000. The increase over fiscal year 1968 is due solely to the initial

impact of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 and increased operating

costs. If the present ceiling of $300,000 is not lifted, a cut in present

staff work will be unavoidable.

The President's budget for fiscal year 1969 indicated that additional authorizing legislation would be proposed. By letter of February 24, 1968, the Chairman of the Water Resources Council transmitted to the President of the Senate, draft authorizing legislation,

indicating that the Bureau of the Budget had advised the Council that

enactment of the draft legislation would be consistent with the administration's objectives. S. 3058 embodies the provisions of the draft,

as submitted.

In closing, I would just like to reiterate a statement in Chairman

Udall's statement to you "that the Council has no ambition to have a

large staff, nor otherwise have very large sums to administer." To

have such, in my personal opinion, would tend to defeat the purpose of

the Congress in establishing the Council. Nevertheless, I also believe

that the financial resources now available to implement title I are

clearly inadequate for proper performance of its appointed role and

that the kind of flexibility in funding provided by S. 3058 would be

highly desirable.

The Water Resources Council, as indicated by the testimony that

you have heard this morning, has made substantial progress toward

achievement of those things that you, Mr. Chairman, the committee

and the Congress would appear to have had in mind with the enactment of the Water Resources Planning Act. With your continued

support I am certain that the Water Resources Council can accomplish much more that is both useful and important, and within its

appointed role, for the benefit of the American people.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. You are asking for a raise in the

limitation of $300,000.
S

18

Mr. CAULFIELD. The proposal before you, sir; would remove the

limitation of $300,000.

Senator ANDERSON. How much of a burden is that now? You do not

have enough money?

Mr. CAULFIELD. Pardon me?

Senator ANDERSON. You are $11,000 short?

Mr. CAULFIELD. At the present time, in terms of 1969, but we feel

that in terms of the future sir, the President should be in a position

to be able to request more. It is not just the technical question of the

$11,000 needed in terms of the 1969 budget, but further, the point

that we have attempted to make in analysis of the Council's functions,

is that we just do not have the critical minimum of staff needed to

perform well the functions that Congress set out for us in the Water

Resources Planning Act.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Jordan?

Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had hoped the Secretary would be here to help me orient myself

to some of the programs that are going on here. First, let me say I

approve wholeheartedly the work that is being done by the Water

Resources Council under this act.

As you have indicated, Mr. Secretary, under title II, several river

basin commissions have already been established at the request of

the Governors of the concerned States. Such a commission has been

established for the Pacific Northwest, under title II of the act—the

Pacific Northwest Basin Commission—and it is operating very effectively. Mr. Charles W. Hoddy is chairman. The vice chairman is

William S. Holden. He is also a member for Idaho.

Under the provisions of this act we are going forward in the Pacific

Northwest, at least, with a comprehensive river basin plan. Repeatedly throughout your statements, both of you this morning have

emphasized the need for comprehensive planning studies that require

economic projections well into the future for the basin or basins that

they cover in order to provide the basis for determining long run

water and related land resource requirements.

I am leading up to a question now because I cannot understand how

the Department in one instance can recommend thorough research and

investigation of land and water resources and on the other hand come

out with the wild rivers bill that completely counteracts the effect of

the long-range studies that you recommend here.

In my State, for instance, the Department insists on including the

Salmon River as a wild river, thus guaranteeing that this wholly

Idaho River, which drains 30 percent of the water resources of my

State, shall leave the State undiminished. You do not give time for the

effects of these studies to be taken into account, for the great research

that is already being set up and being implemented under this act to

become effective. You prejudge the results and would determine, without the economic study that you have advocated here, that certain

rivers will be so dedicated and removed from further study by the

Wild Rivers Act.

Now, I would ask you, Mr. Secretary, in the instance of a conflict

between making a thorough investigation, research joined in by the

States and Federal Government with respect to the best uses for the

waters of the river basin an(l related land resources, and a preemptory

z
19

judgment on that river that sets it aside, that guarantees that it be

used for a single purpose use alone, where does the Department stand?

For study or for the preemptive use of a river for a single purpose use

before the studies are completed?

Mr. HOLtTM. Senator Jordan, that is an excellent question and I

share with you the wish that Secretary Udall were here to answer this

for you. It may well be that he will want to supplement my answer for

the record.

I think, however, that the two proposals are consistent. As far as

the work of the river basin commissions is concerned and the comprehensive planning, it has also been recognized that we were going to ga

ahead and make decisions while this planning was going on. This

committee has on occasion, with my enthusiastic support, authorized

the construction of certain projects, and I think the planning is consistent with the attention of the Congress and the administration ta

the establishment of these commissions. I think it is also consistent

with that principle that we make other decisions as needed, and that

the wild rivers legislation does deserve careful consideration by the

Congress.

Senator JORDAN. Would you agree with me that, where there is a

conflict, it would be well to pause and give some consideration to a

thorough research and study of the water resources and the related

land resources that might be developed with the use of that water?

Mr. HOLUM. I am always in favor of studies, Senator Jordan. I

would cite a case where I am more intimately familiar, the Potomac

River, where after consideration, and I hope the Congress will in the

near future act favorably upon it, the Department and the administration have recommended the creation of the Potomac National River,

safeguarding this important riverway from Great Falls to Cumberland. But, I do think we have to make some decisions on current

projects while these studies are going on, and certainly I know that

Secretary Udall shares with you your enthusiasm for the work that

Chairman Hoddy and his group are doing in the Pacific Northwest.

I think the Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission is off to an

excellent start and that they are going to do a splendid job in the

Pacific Northwest.

I do not think the enactment of the wild rivers legislation is inconsistent with that effort.

Senator JORDAN. Well, I am sure it is, Mr. Secretary, and if you will

indulge me sometime in a private conference I will show you exactly

how it is in conflict with what you are proposing here. If the Salmon

River is included in the wild rivers bill, I see the end of the road. We

do not need to go into all of these studies that you are talking about

here because we will have dedicated our remaining water supply to

a single-purpose use. We would just as well withdraw from the studies

that go forward in the Columbia Basin. We will not need to study our

water resources any more. You have already reached a judgment for

us ahead of the studies that we hoped we could make.

Mr. HOLUM. I will be very happy, Senator Jordan, to have your

views and I shall carry them back to the Secretary as you expressed

them.

Senator JORDAN. He knows them already.

Senator ANDERSON. I think you ought to ask Secretary Udall.
20

Mr. HoLum. I shall do that.

Senator ANDERSON. There is a conflict and we might as well face it.

Mr. HoLux. I shall do so.

(The information requested is as follows:)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Washington, D.C., April 25, 1968.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I am pleased to respond to the matter raised by

Senator Len B. Jordan in connection with Assistant Secretary Kenneth Holum's

testimony before your subcommittee on April 22, 1968.

Senator Jordan indicated he believes there is a conflict between the comprehensive planning program conducted under the provisions of the Water Resources

Planning Act (Public Law 89-80) and the proposal to designate certain wild or

scenic rivers in accordance with pending legislation.

The comprehensive study now being directed by the Pacific Northwest River

Basin Commission has, as the basic objective, the formulation of a framework

plan to provide a broad guide to the best use or combination of uses of water and

related land resources of the region to meet foreseeable short- and long-term

needs. Consideration will be given to development and management, as well as the

preservation of resources. These studies were initiated in 1966 and are scheduled

to terminate in 1971.

From the inception of the comprehensive study program in 1963, it was understood that no moratorium was declared on ongoing water resources programs.

The preparation of comprehensive plans has not deterred the submission of individual project reports to the Congress or the construction of projects in the

regions under study.

In my view, the proposed scenic rivers legislation is quite compatible with the

comprehensive study program, in that one of the goals of such legislation is to

highlight those rivers known to have outstanding attributes worthy of preserving

in their natural condition. This is in consonance with objectives of planning set

forth in Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, 2d Session, "Policies, Standards,

and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans for Use and

Development of Water and Related Land Resources."

Senator Jordan specifically mentions the Salmon River in Idaho as being an

example of a conflict between the comprehensive studies and the scenic rivers

program. While I appreciate his views, I believe there are adequate data developed by a specific study to justify scenic river status for segments of the Salmon

River. This stretch of the Salmon is one of the finest scenic rivers in the United

States. As you know, the Salmon River was included in S. 119 passed by the

Senate on August 9, 1967.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to supplement the record on this

matter.

Sincerely yours,

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Moss?

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I understand it, you are willing now to retain the ceiling on

title II and title III as provided but wish to have no ceiling of

expenditure at all on the title I functions.

Mr. HOLUM. That is correct.

Senator Moss. Do you consider it wise to abandon the ceiling

entirely rather than just ask for an increase of ceiling?

Mr. HoLum. Senator Moss, that is the decision as I well know that

the Congress always makes, but the Congress will have the opportunity, through the appropriations process, to review the requests of

the Council for funding under title I. I think that our experience

has demonstrated the good work that the Council has done up to

STEWART L. UDALL,

Secretary of the Interior.
21

now, but it is a little difficult to predict what the funding requirements are going to be and what the needs are going to be on the part

of the Council. I would like to suggest, as the legislation does, that

no ceiling be imposed but that the Appropriations Committee continue

to review these items as carefully as they have in the past.

Senator ANDERSON. Will the Senator yield?

Senator Moss. Certainly.

Senator ANDERSON. Will you try to submit these actual figures?

If the personnel cost is just changed by $11,000, why do you not ask

for that much ceiling on top of what you now have?

Mr. HoLum. Principally because, Senator Anderson, and I think

the Director, Mr. Caulfield, has done an excellent job of explaining

it, and my own experience as the Department's representative on the

Council has clearly indicated, that we not only need additional authority for funds to take care of the pay increase but the Council does

need modest increases in its staff to do its work adequately.

Senator ANDERSON. Suggest exact language. I think it would be

much better if you would.

Senator Moss. I noticed in both the Secretary's testimony which

you presented, and that of Mr. Caulfield, there was a disclaimer of

any desire to have a sizable staff, that is, a large staff, but nevertheless,

we are confronted with going from a situation where we now have

a ceiling to one of no ceiling at all, and I think you can see the political

problem that that might present in persuading the Congress that this

is a necessary thing to do. It would be so much simpler and more

logical if you just increased the limitation amount. That is the only

reason I raise this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOLUM. I understand.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Burdick.

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I arrived late and I will defer my

cross-examination and read the testimony very carefully.

Senator ANDERSON. I do hope you will try to answer the points

that Senator Jordan made.

Mr. HOLUM. I certainly shall.

Senator ANDERSON. The Secretary ought to answer himself.

Thank you very much.

Will you answer four or five questions now?

Mr. VERKLER. The ones that are on the paper.

Senator ANDERSON. The staff of the committee has prepared Some

questions and I wish you would read the question and supply the answer to it. Read the question, please, and then supply the answer.

Mr. HOLUM. "The Director of the Water Resources Council has testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee that future editions

of the national assessment might require greater staff input. Is it possible to predict the magnitude of the necessary expansion of the Council's staff at this time?"

Mr. CAULFIELD. As I indicated in my statement with regard to the

"national assessment," the way I conceive of the staffing problem is

that we need a very few people—my present judgment is three professional staff people who are all the time in the employ of the Council—

working on national assessments during the period of preparation, intensive preparation, as well as developing the methods and developing
99

the work and improving the plans for national assessments in the interim between the intensive peak periods. And then, we need enough

money to hire temporary staff, consultants and computer time in the

periods of intensive activity to come out every 2 or 3 years—whatever

•the requirements are—to come out with a periodic national assessment.

Now, we have a continuing problem of funding for the national

assessment as well as the peak problem, and that is the problem we

have in financing in this particular activity.

Senator ANDERSON. You could specify jobs and could not specify

dollars. I think you ought to try to put in the proposal exactly what

you really want.

Mr. Hourm. The second question is, "In reviewing principles,

standards, and procedures for the planning of water resource projects,

such as the appropriate interest rate, the Council utilizes committees

and work groups composed of personnel from other agencies. This

insures the consideration of the various problems and viewpoints of

the agencies involved, but it fragments the research and administrative

support among staff personnel of those agencies who are not directly

responsible to the Council. Will additional administrative and lower

grade technical support be necesasry to facilitate the performance of

this function?"

Mr. CAULFIELD. If I get the thrust of the question properly, I would

say that the need for the staff of the Council is because we do not have

what I referred to before, as a critical minimum of staff. We have to

call upon the agencies too often for doing, literally, staff work for

the Council. This is not to say that the agencies should not participate,

and even including staff work, in the work of the Council. I think it

is highly desirable that they do so. Otherwise we would get a divorce

between Council staff and the agencies. We are not seeking that, because I do not think you can have an effective Council without intimate

relationship between the staff of the departments and the staff of the

Council.

The point is that the Council needs additional administrative and

lower grade technical support—I would say really the problem is one

of higher grade professional support, grade 14's and 15's, with the

necessary secretaries, and so forth, to go with that. The type of work

that grades 14 and 15 perform in professional activity is the critical

element in the staff work for the Council.

I hope that is responsive to the question.

Senator ANDERSON. No. 3.

Mr. HOLUM. Question 3, "the comprehensive river basin studies are

participated in by a number of Federal agencies. The total budget for

the effort is reviewed by the Council, but portions of the funds are included in the budget requests of a number of agencies which come before different appropriations subcommittees. The situation is further

•complicated by contractual arrangements and fund transfers among

the agencies involved. Is it advisable in the future to consolidate some

part of the comprehensive river basin funds under the Council's

budget request?"

Mr. CAULFIELD. We, the Council and the Bureau of the Budget, have

not given consideration to the question of whether the appropriations

for comprehensive river basin studies should be made to the Council
23

for suballocation, although various people have mentioned the possibility of it. One of the problems has been in the past that—back before

•the time of the Council—that the Administration endeavored to consolidate these budgets so that there would not be money transferred between agencies, and so that each agency would ask for its own funds.

The Congress did not see fit to go along with that Administration

proposal a couple of years ago. The Appropriations Committee did

not see fit to go along with that effort, that simplification of the budget

process.

This was some years ago, about 5 years ago or so. So, we have the

present procedure of having the budgets go to the Congress the way

the Congress wanted them to go but trying to have the coordination

within the executive branch so that the budgets which are to go to the

individual committees will be coordinated and will make sense as a

total.

Now, I would not care to offer an opinion on the exact question,

namely, whether the Council should have this money appropriated

to it and then distribute it, as it were, to the agencies, without more

reflection and discussion in the Council. That would be a major change

in our whole structure of appropriations. The Budget Bureau would

be very much concerned with that. It would be difficult for me to offer

an opinion at this time on that direct question.

Senator ANDERSON. You may not like what the Congress has done,

but do you not think you ought to follow what the Congress has done?

Mr. HOLUM. Pardon me?

Senator ANDERSON. The Congress has laid out certain requirements

here. Why should not the Congress be your guiding light?

Mr. CAULFIELD. Well, it is, sir, and that is how we are acting now.

This is the way we understand the budgets are handled, by the several Subcommittees on Appropriations of the House and Senate; and

we present a coordinated budget. We have a single document which expresses the coordinated budget as a whole.

In my testimony before the House Public Works Committee on

Appropriations this year, for example, I presented to that subcommittee the coordinated budget for all the comprehensive studies, even

though the money that is in that budget for, say, the Department of

Agriculture, goes before a different subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, and likewise in the Senate. But there is one

committee, namely, the Committee on Public Works, that the Council

goes before which sees the budget as a whole.

Now, exactly how that subcommittee handles itself in relation to

the other subcommittees, both in the House and Senate, I am not, of

course, aware or competent to discuss.

Senator ANDERSON. Question No. 4.

Mr. HoLum. "In general, what other organizational problems have

been noted in the Council's experience thus far?"

Mr. CAULFIELD. I think I have covered that pretty well in my statement.

Senator ANDERSON. I think you have.

Mr. CAULFIELD. I do not know exactly how to amplify that at this

point. I think we have singled out the chief problem. We have not

come before the Senate committee lightly with this bill. "We have
24

waited until we were sure of what we needed. I tried to identify the

critical problems. We feel this appropriation ceiling is a critical problem. We feel we really need to come before you with this matter of

appropriations under title I. We will again come before you, I am sure,

when we can identify other critical problems that are presented by

the act.

Senator ANDERSON. Last question, No. 5.

Mr. HoLulu. The fifth question is the hard one. "If the committee

should decide to retain an appropriation limitation on title I activities, what is the order of magnitude of the increase which would be

necessary to provide for desirable organizational and budgetary

changes within the foreseeable future as well as the immediate pay

raise?"

Mr. CAULFIELD. I think the answer to that question, sir, is that I

would have to furnish the answer later. This could not be given without consultation with the Bureau of the Budget, and if the committee

wishes, I will undertake to do that, consult with the Bureau of the

Budget and arrive at an answer for the committee.

Senator ANDERSON. I think you can testify if you want to without

the Bureau of the Budget, but I will respect your feeling.

Mr. CAULFIELD. This is a money matter, sir.

Senator Moss. That is what I was concerned about in my question,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HoLum. If I could sum it IT, Mr. Chairman, and I think the

Director has answered the questions appropriately, I think both the

Director and the departments involved share what was contained in

Secretary Udall's statement, an interest in Council staff, that it not be

large, that it not deal with a great magnitude of funds and that the

departments themselves be intimately involved, but I think it is critically important, and I think I can speak to this with some authority

because I represent the Department on the Council of Representatives,

that the Council have an adequate staff so that they can hear the views

and the problems of the agencies that are members of the Council and

prepare, for the Council's consideration, critical analyses of the problems that I identified, and do the central staff work.

Senator ANDERSON. As Senator Moss pointed out, you ought to

specify how much you want and not have an open figure.

Mr. H0LtTM. Yes.

(The information requested is as follows:)

An authorization ceiling that would meet the presently foreseen needs of the

Water Resources Council could be provided by amending Section 401 (a) of S.

3058, as follows:

" (a ) not to exceed $1,500,000 annually to administer the provisions of

titles I, II, III and IV: Provided, that not to exceed $400,000 shall be available to administer the provisions of title III; Provided Further, that not to

exceed $1,100,000 shall be available to administer the provisions of titles I,

II and IV after the expiration of title III; and"

This ceiling could provide for a total of 42 permanent positions. At present, 10

of these positions relate to the administration of Title III and only 14 positions

(8 professional and 6 administrative and clerical) to administration of the other

three titles, making a present ceiling total of 24 positions. Thus the ceiling would

provide an additional 18 positions (10 professional and 8 administrative and

clerical) for administration of Titles I, II and IV.
•

25

The presently estimated salary cost annually of 42 positions, including

foreseeable salary increases 

Other estimated costs are:

Consultants (including fees for members of advisory bodies) and

temporary personnel, other than for national assessment 

$741,

25,

652

000

Office operating costs 

National assessment (authorization for extra costs in year of preparation for temporary employees, reimbursable services of

agencies, computer time,and printing) 

Economic projections (for transfer to Commerce's Office of Business Economics and Agriculture's Economic Research Service.

At present $600,000 annually is being transferred for this purpose from several Federal departments and agencies. If appropriations were made to Council, such several transfers would no

longer be necessary. It is now believed that future marginal

costs for this work should be less than in the past) 

258,

200,

250,

348

000

000

Overhead costs in relation to Federal-State training 25,000

Total 1, 500,000

It is now anticipated that the additional staff work of the Water Resources Coun.

cil, occasioned by establishment of the National Water Commission, would be able

to be absorbed within the above authorization ceiling.

Senator Moss. I would like to ask one more question of Secretary

Holum.

Reading Secretary Udall's testimony, you indicated that the Council

is now reconsidering the formula for the cost of money for water

projects. I would like to know if you can give us any interim report

on that. This concerns me. I thought that legislatively we would finally

come to the place where that formula was settled and I am a little

surprised to find it is now under review to be changed and, as you

quoted the President's message, the rate will be higher for the cost

of money hereafter.

Mr. HOLUM. Senator Moss, the President, in his budget message to

the Congress, did call for a reconsideration of the discount rate used

in evaluating projects and the Council is in the process and I would

like to underscore that what the President referred to is the discount

rate used in evaluation of projects.

The Council has that responsibility under the Water Resources

Planning Act and by direction of the President. They have that under

consideration. They have only had, up to this time, preliminary discussions, but as Secretary Udall's statement noted, the act requires

that arrangements be made for an appropriate consultation with all

interested agencies before any 'final decision is reached by the Council or the President, and Secretary Udall's statement says that one

of the methods that will be used, at least, is publication in the Federal

Register prior to the time of decision.

Senator Moss. If there is a proposal to change the formula, will this

apply all across the board on all water projects whether they be flood

control or reclamation or water supply, no matter what?

Mr. Howm. Yes; Senator Moss, as it relates to project planning or

project evaluation.

Senator ANDERSON. You must all remember that some years ago we

learned that the Hoover Dam could not even have been built with

the interest rate then proposed. Better be careful, I think.

Mr. HoLum. We are well aware of the fact, Council members are,

that this is a matter of critical importance.
26

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much, both of you for appearing.

Mr. Thompson, we are glad to have old friends back.

STATEMENT OF SAM THOMPSON, REPRESENTING INTERSTATE

CONFERENCE ON WATER PROBLEMS, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES

F. SCHWAN, JR.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Senator Anderson, it is good to be back

about a subject that we both love and are very much interested in..

I have with me this morning Mr. Charles Schwan, a member of the

Council of State Governments staff here in Washington.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Sam

Thompson. I am a member of the Mississippi Board of Water Commissioners. I am appearing here today, however, on behalf of the

Interstate Conference on Water Problems, of which I am a past

chairman.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, the Interstate Conference on Water

Problems consists of official representatives of State government who

have special responsibilities for or interests in water problems. Participants include water resources administrators, attorneys general,.

legislators, and State representatives on interstate water resources

agencies.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, a proud chapter in the history of

the Interstate Conference on Water Problems was the part it played

•in developing what was enacted ultimately as Public Law 89-80. the.

Water Resources Planning Act. We had the privilege of participating

with you and other members and staff of the Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs in bringing about the enactment of what we regard

as a piece of landmark legislation in water and related land resources

conservation, development and utilization, and in Federal-State.

relations.

Our interest in this matter did not abate with the passage of Public.

Law 89-80. Indeed, to the extent it might have done so, the intent of

the law would not have been fulfilled.

Taking up matters in reverse order, we understand that both for

the current fiscal year and for the next, of 53 eligible jurisdictions, 51

have received or are applying for grants to assist them in developing

comprehensive water resources plans under title III. This year requests

exceeded appropriations. It is already evident that the same will be

true for next year. We regard this grants-request relationship as evidence of at least two things. First, it is evident that title III was a

wise enactment. Congress recognized a need for improving the State

capability to plan for its water and land resources. Second, the States,

similarly aware, have reacted enthusiastically and overwhelmingly

to meet this need supported in part by Federal grants-in-aid.

The need for title II river basin commissions and the response of

the States to the opportunity to participate with representatives of

appropriate Federal agencies in basin-wide planning have been amply

demonstrated, Mr. Chairman. There are now four active commissions,

and, we understand that serious consideration is being given to the

formation of five more.
27

Evidence of the continuing interest of the States in and of support

for the concepts of the Water Resources Planning Act may be adduced

from the National Conferences of State and Water Officials. The first

such conference was held in Denver last September. The second will

convene in Detroit in July. In Denver, in addition to the Federal representatives present, 48 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rica

were represented. We hope to do as well in Detroit.

Mr. Chairman, the State interest in title I, the subject of this hearing, although indirect, is very great. We cannot ignore the significance

to us of the duties assigned to the Water Resources Council by sections

102, 103, and 104. Among other things the Council is required to prepare a biennial assessment "of the adequacy of supplies of water in

each water resource region * "." It must "maintain a continuing

study of the relation of regional or river basin plans and programs to

the requirements of larger regions * "." It is directed to establish,

"* * * principles, standards, and procedures for Federal participants

in preparation of comprehensive regional or river basin plans and for

the formulation and evaluation of Federal water and related land

resources projects * * *." Finally, the Council is required to review

river basin plans and make recommendations concerning them.

There are major responsibilities that the Congress has seen fit to

place upon the Water Resources Council. At the State level, we are

cognizant of their magnitude and of their significance to the States. We

do not have to go beyond our selfish interest to urge that you amend the

authorizing legislation for title I to permit an appropriation in excess

of the current ceiling of $300,000. We are informed that the appropriation for the current year is $291,000, and to meet the mandate of the

Federal Salary Act of 1967 would require an additional $11,000. In

itself, the latter would break the ceiling. Increased operating costs, we

are told, accounts for the balance of $10,000.

Mr. Chairman, this is a modest request—perhaps too modest in view

of the Council's responsibilities. Indeed, if the overall fiscal situation

ever eases, we should urge that your committee and the Committee on.

Appropriations consider increasing support for the entire effort represented by the Water Resources Planning Act. So far as the other ceilings established in title IV, and continued by S. 3058, we support their

continuance for the time being.

To sum up, we support S. 3058 and respectfully request that the Subcommittee on Water and Power and the Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs report the bill with the recommendation that it do pass.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. You have been a

good friend up on Capitol Hill many long years. We are glad to have

you here this morning.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Moss?

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not have any questions, Mr. Thompson, but I do wish to welcome you before the committee again. It is always good to have you.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Burdick?

Senator BURDICK. I want to thank Mr. Thompson for his testimony.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. The committee has received a letter from H.

Maurice Ahlquist, director of the Department of Water Resources of
28

the State of Washington in favor of this amendment. It will be included in the hearing record at this point.

(The letter referred to follows:)

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES,

Olympia, April 5, 1968.

SENATE INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE,

Washington, D.C.

(Attention Senator Henry M. Jackson).

DEAR SENATOR AND MEMBERS OF THE INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTER:

The Director of Water Resources, acting under authority of Chapter 242, Laws of

1967, for and on behalf of the State of Washington, concurs with the amendment

provided in S. 3058.

We sincerely hope that action by your committee will be favorable.

Very truly yours,

H. MAURICE AHLQUIST, Director.

Senator ANDERSON. This finishes the hearing unless there are other

statements to be made.

If not, the hearing is concluded.

(Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the hearing was concluded.)