Laserfiche WebLink
<br />33 <br /> <br />depends on such a strengthening oI State effort--and such commis- <br />sions should encourage this kind of effort. All levels of interest <br />within each State have an oPl??,rtunity to apply themselves to this <br />challenging ta sk--to strength~n:' their own State "V;ater organizations <br />and programs. There may be a role the Water Resources Council <br />can play in such a building program, other than through Title II <br />and Title III, but this is presently not clearly known. <br /> <br />2. Strengthening State A bility to Implement Plans <br /> <br />A need is expressed for a strengthening of the States in their <br />ability to implement plans and programs and the need to appraise <br />the adequacy of Federal assistance programs to meet these needs <br />as provided in Section 102(b). The funding levels of many coopera- <br />tive Federal programs are presently inadequate to meet the expand- <br />ing role of the States in water monitoring and management programs. <br /> <br />3. The Planning Partnership Must be Equal <br /> <br />In recognition of the fact that the differences between the problems <br />to be solved in resource management and the funds and people avail- <br />able to address the problems is continually increasing; all agencies <br />and individuals, Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental, are <br />reminded that a cooperative coordinated, joint and positive effort <br />as opposed to negative, competitive and uncoordinated attempts to <br />stop plans and agencies must be our goal. <br /> <br />If water planning is to be coordinated, it needs to be on an equal <br />partnership basis. This means a strong, respected Federal-State <br />partner ship; a strong, re spected river basin commi s sion-State <br />partner ship; and a strong, re spected State -local-private partner ship. <br />Each of these partnerships must work both ways to be effective. <br /> <br />4. P. L. 89-80 Funds are Inadequate to Assure this Planning Partnership <br /> <br />While the general provisions of the Act are appropriate, funds avail- <br />able over the past five year s have been beneficial but insufficient. <br />The $5 million fund authorization is unrealistically low to pre-vide <br />for meeting the complex planning needs of today. It should b~ <br />doubled and the 10-year limitation on the funding authority should <br />be removed. The Water Resources Council rules and regulation. <br />need revision to permit greater flexibility in the use of Title III <br />Iunds by the States. Suggested is a review of the need aspects in <br />the formula for distributing Title III funds. A minority view found <br />that Title III funds are not the answer to State participation in a <br /> <br />0687 <br />