WSP01144 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CUNGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATt. further if a. State'lI program does not meet the approval of the Council the Caunell can dlacontlnue any furUler pllymentll unt.ll Buell time all the State's prograD'l 18 carried out in accordance with the council's wishes. That language appears to place the States under the direct control of the Federal Government or risk the loss of any financial assistance under the act. Mr. ALLO'IT. I can only give my own impression. I do not have an amend.. ment to that particular part of the b111. I did not have time to prepare an amend- ment or to have a studY made ot an amendment which would take care of this. However. the bill wUl go to the House. My own point of view agrees with that of the Senator from Wyoming. That I. probably .one of the weak places of the b1l1. from my standpoint. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Pre.ldent. will the Senator yield? Mr. ALLOTI'. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. ANDERSON. I thank my friend. The point I wish to bring to the atten- tion of the Senator from Wyoming Is found on page 21. under "State Pro- grams. .. Mr. SIMPSON. In the report? Mr. ANDERSON. In the bill it.self. That is section 303, wherein It is pro- vlded: The Council shall approve any program for comprehenalve ....ater and related land re~ sources planning which 18 submitted by " State, It such program- ~ and then there are set forth the qualt.. flcations. I believe It Is the intention to say that the Councn cannot capricIously toss these things aside. . Mr. SIMPSON. If the Senator wlll pardon an Interjection, that Is the sec- tion which disturbs us, because it seems to be contrary to what the Senator just stated.. It:seems to g\ve the total author- ity to the Counell. Mr. ANDERSON. It is dlfllcult to as- sume that Jt a State turned In a plan It would not be a comprehensive plan with respect to intrastate or Interstate water resources. If the plan covered those things, it would Butomatlcally mean the State would get lIB share of the money, If there were turned in some program which would not do that, the senator from Wyoming and I would not wish It paId for, anyway. We tried to say that the dlE.cre~ion of .the CouncJl to turn them down, would be . tied to the reqUirement on the States to .'do certain things. We beHeve those t.hlngs are reasonable. The Council of State Governments has examined this langua.ge c.arefully and la completely satisfied with this language. They believe Jt does exactlY that: Mr. SIMPSON. I know the CouncJl ot State Governments has. It was the statement of the CouncJl 01 State Gov- ernments with which we took issue. . Mr. ANDERSON. I am sorry: I did not recognize that. I say to the Senator from Wyoming that we tried. We carried this language to them. We tried to make sure that every State omcial examined It and Was satisfied with it. We. now have language 000871 11163 ,- missions or it could be a member of one basin commission, 88 it chooses. Mr. ANDERSON. Whichever it de.. sires. Mr. ALLOTI'. Whichever it desires. Mr. SIMPSON. I have a question which either the Senator from Colorado or t.he Senator from New Mexico may wish to answer: What is the situation with respect to river basin compacts un- der t.he purview 01 this enactment? Mr. ALLOTT. I would be happy to answer that Question If it meets with the approval of the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. ANDERSON. I shall be happy to have the Senator from Colorado answer thnt question. Mr. ALLOTT. The bUl Is clear. I .shall read Into the RECOJ..D page 2, sec- tion 3, subsection (s.) and subsection (b) of the bUl, so that the answer may be clear: Not.hing in tbiB Act I!haJ.I be eonatrued- (a) to expand or dlmln18h either Federal or State jurl&l:tlctlon, rcsponelblllt.y, or rights In the fteld of water resources planning. de. velopment, or control: nor to dlaplace, super- sede, or limit any Interstate compact or the Jurladlct.lon or reBponslbutty of any legally established joint or common agency of two. or more States, or of two or more States and 'the FederBl Govunment; nor to limit t.h~ authority of Congress to authorize a.nd fund projects; nor to lImit the use of other mech. anl8ms. II preferred by the participating gov- ernmental unite, In the water resources field: . (b) all supeJ"lledJng, modifying, or repeal- Ing existing laws appliCAble to the varloua Federal agencies which ate autborlzed to de- velop or p..rUc'pll.te 'n the deve10pment of . water and related land rf!SQurces. or to ex- ercise licensing or regUlatory functlona In relation thereto; nor to aJrect tbe Jurllldic- tlOb, powers, or prerogatives of the Interna~ tlonal Joint CommlSlllon, United States and Canada, or of the Int.ernatlonaJ Boundary and Water CommJsslon, United BtateB and MexIco. J.' .., . It is my understandIng-and I am sure it Is the absolute Intent of the author ot the b11l-that nothing In the bUl ca.n, tn any way or in any manner, modify any present eXisting State law with respect to water, or can modify any exJstlng. com... pact or agreement between the States with regard to water. Mr. SIMPSON. Does the Senator Irom New Mexico concur in that under- standing? . Mr. ANDERSON. I concUl' completely wJth what the Senator from Colorado has said. This language haa been picked up and repeated In the report. Immediately ahead of it appears the following language: Avoid any attempt to adjudicate or alfeot State and Federal authorities oyer water and related. land rellOuree.s, 01' to d.lapla.ce an,. eatabllahed agenclea, or In a.ny way alter ex. Istlng 1nterata.te and State-Federal Blra.nge~ ments or compacts, 8uch IL8 the Colorado River compact wlth Jta upper and lower Colo. . rado Bnaln dlvlalons. We went out of our way to be sure to be understood, In exactly the way the Senator from Colofado he.s stated It. Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator (l'om New MexiCO and the Senator from CO)Orado. I wonder if I Play now intrude aome Questions-not objections, but quest\on&-wlth respect to the State of Wyoming because we are involved In SO many of these compaeIB It Is vital to us, as I know it Is a)so to the State of Colo- rado and other Western States such as Idaho and Montana. I have not been able to check my ob- Jectlons to the bill. If the Senators from Colorado and New Mexico will indulge me and try to answer a question, perhaps they could give me the benefit of their experience. I raise the follOWing QuestJon first ot all: One oC the mO!t Important of theae rnl~ slonl!l would be a provLslon that wherever a river basin has been divided Into 8ubbllBln!l by an act of Congreaa or by an Interstate compact to which Congress hne given ItB con.. aent, each auch subbasin shall be treated all a. separate river basin Cor the purposes oC this act. That Is on page 99 at the hearings. The Senator from Colorado has ade-. quately answered that question. Read- ing further: This! 8uggel!lted change to S. 1111 would provide better planning. coordination on those particular rIver baslna which encom- pass dUferent reglon8 where the phyalcal, economic and social conditions of the upper baaln S~tes may be vaatly dltl'erent from those of the lower basin States. Then I raised the question of national resources: The procedure by which a river basIn com. mission Is eata.bllshed could be strengtbened by making provisions by which a majority of the Statea In a given river boaln would have to be In concurrence on the estabUah- ment of such a commission. . Is that taken care of in the bJIl? Mr. ALLOTT. To answer the Ques- tion 01 the Senator from Wyoming, we are really operating backwards at th18 moment. An amendment will be offered which will contain the la.nguage which was read by the Senator fl'om Wyoming, or similar language for the same PUt- .'pose, as suggested by the Governor of Wyoming and by the Senator from WyO- ming,. as well as by Governor Love of .Colorado and others. I shall offer that amendment. Mr. ANDERSON. The language I read a moment ago from the report spe- Cifically pointed to the Colorado River eompaet. and .the'\. pointed to the Up- . per and Lower Colorado River Basin to . show that we had a subbasin. We are not going to disturb that sItuation either. That is why I am prepared to accept the amendment which the Senator from Colorado wUl o1fer. We fully concur that the protections for the subbasins should remain. Mr. SIMPSON. I know that the Sen- ator from New Mexico is desirous to have the legislative history disclose these points. I have one additional question which gives us considerable concern. Perha.ps the Senator from Colorado could tell me if he will propose an amendment with respect to the following language: Ot.her aapecta whleh are at gr~a..t <<)nee1'n .are the procedures by which the State's ft. nanclal aaalstance allotment will be com. pUted under title III. It appeals that the Council will determine tbe need fot - com. ptehenal:ve planning and the Dee<l1or Anan- 01.1 BMlstance of any particular State .nd 22127