WSP04363 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

undertakings arose, each agency became involved in all. kinds of water problems but its major interest was still in the one ;function whioh it was designed to carry out. Thus, there arose a diversity of planning, and of justification and reimbursabHity standards, leading to sqme peculiar results. The hodge- podge in federal laws gave rise to differendes and inequities in treatment of different water projeots, partioularly with regard to feasibility. There developed also competition between agencies:for.the privilege of getting business, acoompanied by duplioate investigations, del~ in initiation of projects and differenoes of opinion as to how the developments should be made. . So, in 1947 two important organiza~ions initiated plans for ration- alizing federal water development laws. The National Water Conservation Con- ference proposed a commission to be established by Congress to bring about a re_statement of what national water policy ~hould be. The Engineers Joint Council, representing the five major engineering societies, suggested a voluntary organization under private auspices to do the same sort of job. In December, 1949, the Conference and Counc~l appointed a joint committee to formulate a plan and present it to Congress. However, the efforts of the oommittee were suspended when, on January 3, 1950, the President appointed a ~emporary Water Resources Policy Commission, to report on national water pol~cy. The executive order directed the Commission to make recommendations to the President with respect to water resources programs, with particular oonsideration of: (a) extent and charac- ter of federal participation, (b) appraisal of priority of programs, (c) criteria and standards for evaluating feasibility, and (d) desirable legis- lation. You will recognize the magnitude of the task and the impossibility of aay one group achieving a perfect resul~. The Commission sent out questionnaires, held publio hearings and sought statements on water problems from federal agencies, states, colleges, water organizations and individuals. It hired a professional staff and borrowed technical personnel from federal agencies. Sub-committees were assigned segments of the field and from their reports the Commission built up its final report. . Volume 1, the main report of the Oommission, entitled "A Water Policy for the American People" was submit~ed in December, 1950. It con- tained 70 recommendations. Two supplemental volumes prepared by the staff rather than the Commission contained, in Volume 2, discussion of problems in ten major river basins and possible bas~n-wide plans for development and, in Volume 3, information respecting federal and state water laws. A draft of legislation reoommended by the Commissibn to re-state and establish. national water policy has not been made public . The President apparently referred it to the Bureau of the Budget, wrich is the keeper of the Presi- dent's financial conscience. Mr. Sloan and. I are members of a 'committee of the National Reclam- ation Association to study and comment upop the report of the President's Commission. The committee prepared a rep~rt containing detailed comment upon the recommendations of the Commission. TheNRA committee met last week with technicians of the Budget Bureau who have been examining the Commission's report and draft of legislation. We attempted to lay before that group the views of people in the west arid to offer constructive criticism of the report of the Commission. -32- !