The league hopes that the Council of Advisors would explore possible ways of encouraging integrated basin development. Could the policy and procedures of the various Federal agencies be modified to promote comprehensive development rather than to impede it, which now seems to be the case? We gets this from league after league in different parts of the country. Can more encouragement at the Federal level be given to regional efforts at comprehensive planning, whether through a compact commision, a regional authority, a study commission, or an interagency committee? One of the major problems seems to be that the Federal agencies were set up for objectives that were suitable at the time the various Federal programs were started. We feel that one of the needed things, which is mentioned in your bill, would be a new look at these Federal programs to see whether the objectives are still valid or need modification. The league hopes that under this act it would be possible to take a new look at our present Federal programs to see if their original objectives are necessary in the 20th century. Take reclamation, for instance. In 1902 the Reclamation Act was passed as a means of expanding the Nation westward through the establishment of "family size farms" in the arid and semiarid regions.. What is the situation today? It is said that future water demands will tend to concentrate in relatively limited geographic areas and these areas will experience the most serious supply problems. Let's look at the arid and semiarid West. Between 1940 and 1955the 11 Western States experienced a population increase of 83 percent in comparison with the national average of 23 percent. It doesn't look as though we still need to encourage westward development with perhaps the same means we used before. The population of the 11 Western States will probably double by 1980. If this growth is to be reasonably dispersed over the region, and if serious hardships are to be avoided during drought years, intelligent planning to serve this growth must be done. A question the proposed Council of Advisers might wish to explore is whether the water in these regions might better be used for industry than irrigation? The League of Women Voters of California testified before the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources: The West's problem has changed from putting more land into production to providing water for more people, more industry, and more recreational usage. The Albuquerque (N. Mex.) Journal, November 7, 1959, which was sent us by league members in New Mexico who had attended this same conference, reported that at a State Water Resources Conference last November, Governor Burroughs of New Mexico told the delegates that 93 percent of water in the State is used for agriculture, although that industry supplies only 9 percent of the State's personal income.. Burroughs said: Municipal and industrial usage of water could be doubled by a reduction. of only about 7.5 percent in the amount of water used in the agricultural: economy. Now let's look at flood control. The Corps of Engineers have been doing an excellent job of building flood control dams and other flood control structures. However, the Connecticut leagues, those in Arizona, in Oklahoma and many other States have pointed out the desirability of further exploring flood plain zoning as an alternative to ever-expanding flood-control structures. Official figures of the U.S. Weather Bureau show that average annual flood losses have continued to mount since the 1936 Flood Control Act was passed. In spite of several billions invested in flood control, there is more damage today from floods, measured in constant dollars, than there was in 1936. Studies at the University of Chicago show that this results not. from failure of flood-control works, but from the rapidly increasing use of flood-plain areas. Federal legislation to encourage flood-plain zoning was passed in 1956 but, because of certain defects in the bill, no funds were appropriated. We think this can be explored and perhaps those defects could be ironed out. The leagues find that credit is being extended for building of flood plains, with no restriction because of possible flood risk. Once a floodcontrol project has been announced, developers begin building on the flood plain even before engineering works are started. Another one of the programs is the small watershed program. The Louisiana league told the Senate Select Committee at the Alexandria hearing: We believe that the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act is a find means of local, State and Federal teamwork. That was brought out yesterday by, I think, Mr. Bennett, speaking for soil conservation, this teamwork and working together which this program has developed. Many of our leagues have reported that aspect of it as being very good in developing a sense of local responsibility and a willingness through that participation to take part in any financing also, if they have the incentive from the Federal Government. Leagues in Wisconsin, Kansas, Indiana, and Minnesota have expressed approval of this act as encouraging local participation and responsibility. Could these aspects be saved but the program be better integrated into a comprehensive plan? The small watershed program is still another area to be reviewed to determine whether any modification in policy is needed. Many well-meaning people are firmly convinced that the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Public Law 566, amended in 1956, is the absolute answer to our water problems. We run into conservationists who seem convinced of this. Yet, volume 2 of the Task Force Report on Water Resources and Power of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, June 1955, had this to say: The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, provides for a piecemeal approach that runs counter to the trend of the last half century toward comprehensive and coordinated river development. This act encourages the subdivisions of major river basins into a myriad of small watersheds, each of which may be independently planned and developed. I have just taken up three of the programs in some detail. This all brings us right back again to the need for comprehensive planning at the Federal level, fitting the policies of these programs together, coordinating the whole planning for the country as a whole. In general we think the project by project approach, recognized 50 years or more ago by President Theodore Roosevelt as inadequate, is still inadequate. We would hope that the President's report, this annual conservation resources report, would include schedules for water resource development in accordance with the needs of each major river basin. In relatively few basins is the multiple-purpose basinwide approach seriously contemplated. No doubt the associated ideas of multiple-purpose storage project, basinwide program, and comprehensive regional development is an ideal that is hard to attain. Nevertheless, we can hope that the implementation of S. 2549 will put the ideal into reality. Here again the problem is that Federal agencies are still authorized under conflicting policy to apply different formulas to similar projects. The Joint Committee might consider whether present agencies, set up for single purposes, can succeed in planning for all uses of water, taking into account the needs of an entire basin in relation to the needs of the whole country. Another area that the league has explored is the question of cost sharing. The league believes that the Federal Government must play an important role in financing water resource development, because of the magnitude of many of the programs, the large capital investment required, and the fact that river basins do not correspond to State boundaries. However, the league believes that the State and local governments and private users which benefit from the development should share the cost in relation to benefits received and ability to pay. The league believes this is one way to insure that projects are undertaken on the basis of real need and are carried out efficiently. We believe that a careful appraisal of the reimbursement policies of the different programs could well be made by the proposed Joint Committee on Resources and Conservation, of the Senate and House. For example, we find that the Federal Government pays a much higher percentage of the cost of flood control projects if done by the Corps of Engineers than if it is done under the small watershed program. Should reimbursement policies be made consistent, contingent on substantial local contribution, and on adequate flood plain zoning? Similarly for irrigation projects, the costs borne by users vary widely, depending on whether done by the Bureau of Reclamation where the reimbursement is all spelled out and is included in the act, or by another agency in connection with a flood control project. Many leagues have come to the conclusion that such inconsistencies are a major obstacle to orderly development. The league believes that the use of incentive payments by the Federal Government to stimulate local expenditures for water programs is sound and effective. From all parts of the country leagues have reported that the grants-in-aid used in the pollution control program, in operation since 1956, are successful in getting local communities to put in operation since 1956, are successful in getting local communities. to put in sewage treatment plants. We understand that the Southeastern U.S. Study Commission plans to submit to the President in 1961 a preliminary proposal for the Federal Government to set up a grants-in-aid program to develop water and land resources in the four Southeastern States on a cooperative basis. The study commission is also proposing a development loan fund to encourage the establishment of State or interstate agencies to undertake river basin development. A number of our leagues favor further exploration of this development loan fund idea for resource development as a possible useful means of financing. In conclusion, there are many questions which could be studied. I am just indicating a very few of the type of questions which I think must be considered at this time. How much water resource development do we need? In what areas will industrial growth have to stop unless new sources of water are found? What areas, now underdeveloped, could absorb large parts of the growing population if water supply can be increased, or made available for other types of use besides agriculture? How is water use related to crop surplus, to the plight of the marginal farmer? How are we to find the recreation areas necessitated by metropolitan growth and increasing leisure time? Can our water needs be met in combination with developing recreation areas and the preservation of our fish and wildlife and our forests? Can recreation also serve as one of the main sources of income for the scenic, less settled areas of the country? Is the trend toward larger contribution by the Federal Government for water development sound or unsound? What distribution of costs will be most effective in helping the country meet its natural resources needs? What are the international implications of water resources? The many decisions which will be made in the water resources field will come more and more to involve choices between its use for various purposes. These decisions are political ones, and will be made at the local, State, regional, and Federal levels. The League believes that much more information must be available at all levels if the country is to make wise decisions. We hope that this legislation, if passed, will set up the machinery for providing the Executive, the Congress, and the public with the needed information. Thank you very much for giving the League of Women Voters an opportunity to present this statement to your committee. Senator LONG. Thank you, Mrs. Whittemore, for your very comprehensive statement submitted in behalf of the League of Women Voters. It will be very helpful. In addition to the statement for the national officials of the League of Women Voters that has just been presented so ably by Mrs. Whittemore, a number of the State organizations of the League of Women Voters have filed testimony with the committee. In accordance with Senator Murray's request, those statements will appear in the record at this point. A considerable number of other communications from other units of the League of Women Voters will be printed in the appendix to the hearing. (The statements referred to follow :) Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: AUSTIN, TEX., January 27, 1960. I am sorry not to have been able to send you in time for your committee hearing a comprehensive statement of the extent of interest and support for S. 2549 which is present throughout our State. Our studies in Texas revealed a remarkable unanimity of agreement that proposals incorporated in the Resources and Conservation Act of 1960 are vital to the welfare of all our citizens and are long overdue. Be assured that local Leagues of Women Voters are letting their Congressmen know of their support and giving their considered reasons for such opinions. Mrs. HORTON WAYNE SMITH, President, League of Women Voters of Texas. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF COLORADO, INC., Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I regret that the League of Women Voters of Colorado will be unable to testify in regard to S. 2549. However, we should like to present for the record the portion of our testimony before the Select Committee on National Water Resources which indicates strong support of the principles embodied in S. 2549. We feel that it offers great potentialities for formation of a coordinated national policy on water and the other natural resources of the United States. Sincerely yours, SALLY THORNILEY, President. THE CITIZEN'S ROLE IN WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT TESTIMONY BY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF COLORADO BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES, U.S. SENATE, PRESENTED BY MRS. D'ARCY MCNICKLE, IN DENVER, COLO., NOVEMBER 20, 1959 The League of Women Voters of Colorado, which I serve as State water resources chairman, is pleased to have the privilege of appearing at this field hearing of your committee. Having listened to our State officials, members of our research institutions, and representatives of various areas of Colorado, you may be interested in hearing from a group of citizens who share with the previous speakers concern for the State's water resources. Our organization is dedicated to the proposition that a democracy cannot thrive without the active participation of informed citizens. And in no area of government is an informed citizenry more essential than in water resources. As members of the League of Women Voters of the United States, we have been studying some problems of the Nation's water resources over the past 4 years. In addition, Colorado league members have been working for nearly 3 years on the water problems of our own State. We undertook this program because it seemed to us that, judging by our own knowledge, most citizens of Colorado have very little understanding about the water resources of their State, how they are used, and how central they are to the whole future development of Colorado. We began by preparing a kind of primer on water in Colorado, which is before you. I should like to submit this pamphlet for the record. On the basis of our work during the past several years, I shall speak briefly today on what the Colorado League of Women Voters feels might be some useful considerations in national water policy. Then I shall indicate some aspects of our State and regional water problems which have significance for national |