WSP01144 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000865 1963 , water rights controversy and that it would be drafted so it would not ad- versely affect any existing agencJes oper- ating In the water resources field. Section 3 or 8. 1111 Is a. statement snd a proposed enactment or these basic understandings and purposes. It needs to be J"ead carefuJly and understood, lor it, puts aside many of the controversial side Issues which have In the past unnee.. essarlly delayed the water. planning job. Section 3 reads as follows: SEC. 3. Nothing In thlB Act !IhaIl be con- BlrUed-(I!,) to expand or diminIsh either Federnl or State Jurlsdlctlon, responslbU1ty, or rights In tho tleld o( water resources planning, development, or control; nor to d18pJoce, Bupersede, or limit the Jurl.lldlctlon or responsibility of any Jf!gally cfltnbllshed Joint or common lIgcncy or two or more Statcs. or of two or more Sta.tes and the Fed~ eral Government.; nor to Ilmlt t.he authority of Congress to authorize and fund proJects; nor to limit the use of other mechanleDUl, If preferred by the participating govern~ mental unlts. 1n the water resources field: (b) as superseding, modifying, or repeat- Jng existing lawa applicable to the varloUl (Federal agencies which are authorlzed to develOp or participate in the development of water and related land resources, or to exer- cise licensing or regulatory functions In relatlon thereto; nor to affect the Jurisdic- tion, pOwers, or prerogatlvea of the Intern a- ttonaI Joint Comrnlsalon, United States and Canada, or of tb., International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico. 1- ( During one of the hearings on this bUl, I made the statement t.hat the long- standIng water rights controversy be.. tween the Federal Government and the States had never prevented the construc- tion of 8 project. I chn.llenged one wit.. . ness to name any project which had been forestalled by the rights Issue. He .named two, but it proved that he was mistaken on both of them. It Was. and is, my belief that if we w1l1 set the water engineers and experts from the Federal Government and the States down around a table to come up with the very best possible plan for the use of the water of a river basin, they will get the Job done without any exten- 61ve debate on rights. They deal In facts. The costs and benefits of alternative . projects and program are measurable. They will study those alternatives, com- pare them, and select the alternatives which are best for the basin Involved. Time after time, the engineers have been able to recommend projects'whlch all of the participants In some of our. major water rights battles come In and support and then go back home and start scolding each other about water rights again. We can plan. We can prepare for the development of' our water resources which wll1 be urgently needed In the next 10, 20, and 30 years, 11 we w1ll Just" suspend bureaucratic arguments Jong . enough to Sf't up a planning machinery . which will allow the engineers and the water experts to get together. The Senate Interior and Insular AJlalrs Committee, which has recommended the passage ot S. 1111, has anotller bill be- - fore It, S. 1275, which deals With the State and Federal water rights Issue. We are going to hold hearings on It and Bee If we can take at least a short step toward ~ONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA" E settlement of that dispute. I am not sure whether we w1ll be able to or not. But that dispute can be dealt with sep- arately and does not need to impede the passage of S. 1111 to get the planning Job done. Mr. PresIdent, S. 1111, before the Sen- ate today. 5tH] seeks to achieve the same purposes as President Kennedy's bill which is the implementation of recom- mendations I, 2, 4, and 5 of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources. Title I of S. 1111 establishes a Water Resources Councn composed of the Sec- retary of the Interior, the secretary of the Anny, the Secretary of Health, Edu- cation. and Welfare. the Secretary ot Agriculture and .the Chairman of the Federal Power CommissIon. Including the five major agencies which have re- sponslbUltles for water resources plan- nlng now. The title charges this Council with perfonnlng one of the Important Jobs recommended by the Select Committee on Water Resources. a biennial assess- ment of water supply and demand in the various regIons of the Nation. This is a considerably more Important function than mat'ly realize. Experience shows that It sometimes takes 20 years and longer to bring major water re- sources facUlties from the planning stage to completion. After all the planning Is. done. alter aU the blue prints for a dam have been completed and Congress hBB actually authorized the first money to start work on a. dam, It sometimes takes 6 to "1 years just to construct the access roads, excavate. drill foundations, bore water tunnel8 and finally erect the struc- ture that wlll impound a river's waters. It Is too late to start the planning and COIl8tructlon of a dam after a water shortage is upOn a city. It must be done years in advance. It Is.. .consequently essential that we know years In advance when demand Is going to exceed the supply under different stages of develop- ment. A second major tWlctlon ot the Coun- cn-and a very Important one In some major areas-Is to assess the effeCt that the Individual river basin plans will have on other regions in the Nation. The Mississippi River BasJn has been treated for Federal wa.ter planning and development purposes as six different basins in the past. It has been treated as. a Lower Mississippi" River Basin. the Tennessee, the OhJo, the Upper MIssJs- 'slppt River Basin. the Missouri Basin, and the Arkansas-Red-Whlte River Basin. Water management in the Tennessee Valley effects water flows In the lower Mississippi below Cairo, nl., as does water management In the Ohio. Irrigation In Montana. and North Dakota efl'ects the amOWlt of water flowing past Vicksburg. Miss. It Is necessary that there be a Federal agency making certain that In Inst.ances Uke the MissiSSippi basin that the plan for one of Ule six segments does adversely efl'ect others. A second example of Interbasln rela- tionships which must be watched Is In- terbaslD exchange of water. Some of these are Intraata.te.. as In California, 22121 where it Is planned to divert waler from humid northern CaHrornla areas to arid southern California. Some Instances are Interstate, such as diversions from the Colorado River to the Missouri and Ar- kansas Ri ver basins. A third major task of the Water Re~ sources Council has already been under- taken on an ad hoc basis. We needed a new statement ot Federal principles. standards and policies to provide Federal water agencies with a common guide for Justification and plannlng of water proJ- ects. President Kennedy asked Ute four Ca.binet members In the proposed Coun- cil to meet on an ad hoc basis and prepare such prinCiples and standards, to replace the old a.nd unPopular standards In Budget Circular No. 97. This Job has been successfully accomplished. B. 1111 directs the new Council to keep this work current, to develop common cost alloca- tJon practices and to encourage voJun. tary coordination of the Federal OOv~ ernment's water planning and develop- ment activities. Title n of the bill is where the prInci- pal debate has occurred. It prOVides the pattern for the Federal-State River Basin Planning CommissIons. Under S. 1111 the Federal Govern- ment and the States wlll each appoint . and pay their own representatives in any commission. The Federal and State people w1ll meet as representatives of autonomous Wlits of government. The . Commissions will be truly Federal-State, not Federal Commissions to which the .Presldent has appointed people intended to represent the view point of the dif- ferent States. The Federal Government and the States will share In the budget. Since preparation of the best plan for the development of the water and re- lated land resources of a river basin requires a .determinatlon of the best al- ternatives based on the facts involved and it Is not a pOlitical question which can be settled by voting, no provision Is made for voting In the Commissions. In Instances where the engineers and experts finally disagree on what is the best plan: then the C;ommlssions wIU report to the PresJdent and the Gover- nors. and through them to the legis- lative bodies, on the alternatives. Con- gress ultJmately has to authorize the projects. It wm not be WlU&ual it we have to JUdge occaSionally between al- _ temative DroJects. It wlll be unusual to Judge between alternatives where the engJneerlng facts and the antJclpated. results of the alternatives have been . Clearly defined and we know the exact .nature of the choice we are makJng. The Advisory Commission on Inter.. governmenta.l Relations on which three distinguished. members of this body serve with dlstlnctlon-Senators ERVIN MUNDT, and MUSltIE-has approved thia new type of commission with some en.. thusiasm. The Commission includes representa- tives of the execuUve branch of the Federal Government, Senators. Repre- sentatives. Governors. State legislators, mayors, county omcla18, and Private cit- Izens. The members of the COD1D1lsston, with.. out any dissents. agreed to a report on