WSP07146 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RAPHAEL J. MOSES and the eleventh state joined to protect its interests in both direction. The Council operates on the same veto policy as does the Security Council of the United Na- tions. In external matters, unanimity is required. Only will free and frank discussion prevail when each state, no matter how small, knows it can avoid being out-vo.ted or overridden. One who reads the Principles, Standards and Guidelines may well wonder how two intelligent, dedicated committees, meeting almost monthly, could take almost two years to agree, but if the same reader could have observed the almost undisguised hostility evident when the committees first met, the reaction would be "How far they have come!", instead of "How far they have yet to go!" To me, it is better that the committees differed among themselves strongly and then resolved those differenoes than it would have been for them to have accepted the first draft without serious consideration. The "Statements of Principles, Standards and Guidelines" referred to earlier were hammered out by days of argument, out of which grew realization of the mutual problems and concerns of all of our western states, and there is no participant in those negQtiations who is not a wiser and more know- ledgeable spokesman for Western water rights as a result. We have made one public expression, other than our annual reports to the Western Govern- ors' Conference. At the hearing held at Spokane by the Public Land Law Review Commission on September first of this year, our executive committee member from Montana, former Congressman Wesley D'Ewart, presented a position paper approved by our entire Council, setting forth a common view on the 160 acre limitation, on wild rivers legislation and on federal-state water conflicts. We hope to make more and more meaningful appearances whenever ,we can reach agreement. It appears to me that another area where agreement should not be difficult to reach is with re- gard to the level of federal approprations for water resource development, particularly with reference to the level of appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation. Although California and Texas have already inaugurated substantial programs of state con- struction of water projects, and other Western states either have authorized or are considering state construction proposals, the level of federal resource spending remains the most important factor in western water resource development, and will continue t9 be the most important for several years to come. I am sure that you are all aware that this level of federal spending is not presently adequate. The least expensive projects were built long ago, and tlje projects now authorized cost much more than they used to, not only because of inflation, but also because they are larger and more complex. What you may not realize is that reclamation's share of the federal budget is shrinking, shrink- ing at a time when literally dozens of worthwhile project's, already authorized, cannot be inaugurated because of lack of funds. In October I had the pleasure of being on the same program in Lincoln, Nebraska as was Carl Bronn, the executive director of the National Reclamatioil Association, who spoke very effectively on this subject. I am indebted to Carl for the facts and figures I am about to give you now. You may have heard them before, but they bear repeating. None of us are insensitive to the financial demands of the Viet Nam war, and if money alone would end it, we would support any expenditure. But I am not talking about competition between de- fense money needs and reclamation money needs. Water resource funding is declining while other non- defense spending spirals upward. Welfare and health costs are rising 210% over the :same period that reclamation funds rise only -44-