Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />001302 <br /> <br />First, it is a voluntary group of States, working together as peers with a <br />spirit of innovation and a sense of urgency to improve cooperation among them- <br />selves in developing their waters for the mutual benefit of the entire Region and <br />for the Nation. <br /> <br />Second, and possibly of greater significance politically, this Council is <br />not committed, restricted nor accustomed to concentrating on one, two or a few <br />primary purposes or needs served by water. This Council can approach the West's <br />water problems without traditional bia s for or against flood control, irrigation, <br />municipal and industrial water supply, navigation, power, public health, quality <br />control, recreation, or even people versus fish, for that matter, although I believe <br />Mr. Robert Benchley may have been the only person who retained an unbiased <br />perspective in this regard. You may recall that he once wrote an essay on "The <br />Fishing Industry from the Standpoint of the Fish". <br /> <br />In your "Program for Action" December 1, 1965 - June 30, 1966, you have <br />clearly described the three concurrent efforts you desire the staff to pursue. I <br />have already started work on these three efforts, and have some preliminary <br />thoughts which may be worthy of your consideration. <br /> <br />(1) The first deals with economic fea sibllity and "furtherance of state <br />and local interests", as listed in paragraph one of your "Program for Action". You <br />are all familiar with that aspect of project economic analysis known as cost alloca- <br />tion. In a recently completed Federal, State and local cooperative and comprehensive <br />report on development of water resources by the U. S. Study Commission, Southeastern <br />United States, two sets of guidelines for ranges of cost allocations were evolved <br />which appear to me to be unique, simple, ba sic and worthy of the attention of this <br />Councll. You have each been furnished a set of these guidelines, which tabulate <br />the ranges of percentage cost allocations between Federal and non-Federal interests <br />for the full gamut of project purposes. The first table gives the ranges suggested <br />as policy by the Southea st U . S. Study Commis sion, and reflects the thinking of <br />the Federal, State and local interests who prepared that comprehensive study, The <br />second table gives the ranges actually used on Southeastern basins, reflecting <br />certain individual characteristics, special conditions, or unusual situations which <br />may have pertained to certain watersheds. I offer these two tables for your study <br />and discussion with your staffs with the thought that a simllar approach may be <br />worthy of consideration here in the West. Conceivably the format may be changed, <br />or such an approach might not be desirable here, but it seemed so simple yet compre- <br />hensive that I thought it worth calling to your attention. It might be one of the first <br />types of economic criteria to be considered. Obviously, this approach to cost <br />sharing raises the question as to further allocation of the non-Federal costs. among <br />many others. <br /> <br />(2) With regard to the Intensive review and evaluation of plans and <br />activities of the States and Federal government In developing current and long-range <br />estimates of water needs, it might be helpful to obtain copies of the time schedules <br />for the Framework (Type Il studies now in progress in certain Western watersheds at <br />