KAMM.
u.E2
RES:JECES
ASSOCOATION
LORIN W. MARKHAM, President (Washington) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President (North Dakota) J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President (Arizona)
I. J. COURY, Treasurer (New Mexico)
JAMES F. SORENSEN, Pest President (California)
CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)
I c2, 1971
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
July 14, 1971
To: National and State Association Officers and all Committee members.
You may know that a Bill to establish policy for use of public lands (all lands owned by the United States, within the States) is to be heard at 1324 Long-worth HOB, beginning Monday)July 26, at 9:45 a.m. (and for as much of that week as required). The Honorable Wayne N. Aspinall, Chairman of the House IIA Committee, chairs the Subcommittee on the Environment, which will conduct the hearings. The Bill is H.R. 7211, of April 6, 1971.
You know that prospective legislation for a National Land Use policy has been heard by the Senate HA Committee. You may know there is substantial feeling that National Land Use Policy shall have to induce new Federal influences over the use of all lands -- private, and non-private. You may wonder about the National pattern to be sought by the Federal influences to develop from new land-use law. Thus, a major "thing" may be upcoming, so NWRA's ad hoc committee on prospective land use policy reported.
So, to help you to comprehend H. R. 7211, excerpts from its fifty pages are attached. Following (on page 6) is a discussion --'not of the details of the Bill, but of the "environment" within which to regard it.
DIRECTORS J. A. Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho
Chris C. Green, Kans. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont.
Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Ivan P. Head, Nev.
I. J. Coury, N.M.
Sincerely,
Bronr‘
Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Homer M. Engelh,orn, S.D. John W. Simmons, Tex.
Ed Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Oliver A. Thomas,
Findings and Purposes Sec. 2. (a) The Congress finds
that--(8) the absence of statutory guidelines and inadequacy of rules and regula-tions, coupled with the absence of long-range goals and objectives for the use of the public lands, makes it possible that the public lands may not contribute the maximum benefit for the general public at a particular time that a specific service or use is required;
(9) the absence of statutory guidelines has resulted in no provision to assure that public lands would be used so as to at least maintain if not enhance the environment of such lands and others in their vicinity;
(11) that individuals, firms, and communities depending on public lands and public land resources are, because of the absence of long-range policies, goals, and objectives, uncertain of the future while it would be in the national inter-est to provide them with some guidelines to permit planning for the future;
(12) the national interest will best be served by reversing the statutory policy of large-scale disposal of public lands,...
(15) the projected need for new cities is such that a separate effort should be made to identify and, if determined to be in the public interest, utilize public lands for such purposes;
(17) it is in the national interest to encourage State and local governments units to carry out programs that they are equipped to provide and that it is therefore in the national interest to dispose of lands for such purposes to State and local governments;
(18) there is no basis, other than historical, for distinguishing between public domain and acquired lands...
(20) proper use of public lands, either in continued Federal ownership or in non-Federal ownership, depends upon proper planning for such use and that in planning the use of public lands the uses of nonpublic lands in the vicinity of the Federal lands must also be given consideration;
(21) it is in the national interest to assure that regional, State, and local government agencies are authorized to plan the use of non-Federal lands so that the planned- use of public lands can be coordinated with them toward an ultimate objective of establishing a national land use policy.
(b) The purposes of this Act
are--(1) to provide a system for the planning of public land use that will eliminate the inadequacies and inefficiencies of existing public land policy and law;
(2) to further eliminate inadequacies and inefficiencies by establishing other administrative procedures supplementary to the planning process; and
(3) to provide technical and financial assistance to regional, State, and local governments within whose geographic boundaries public lands are significant, in order to assure the development and execution of State and local planning with which public land planning can be coordinated.
Declaration of Policy
Sec. 3. plans for the use of public lands must include provisions for enhancement of the quality of the public lands and their environs or, as a minimum, the maintenance of the existing quality of the environment on and off the public lands involved.
Definitions
(a) Public lands means any land owned by the United States within any of the States, of the United States without regard to how the United States acquired ownership of the land and without regard to the agency having responsibility for management thereof.
(k) Multiple use means...management...various surface and subsurface re-sources so that they are utilized in balanced combination that will best meet the needs of the American people now and in future generations;...and not neces-sarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output...
(m) Dominant use. (is)...the highest and best use of a tract of land... (not necessarily the use that will provide the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output), and will take precedence in the event of conflict...
(n) "Moximum benefit for the general public' neans...to achieve the policies, and the greatest number of goals and objectives set forth in this Act... This term shall be interchangeable with "net public benefit" arrived at after con-sidering both economic and noneconomic factors.
Coals and Objectives
Sec. 5. The Congress further finds and establishes that it is in the public interest, and will serve the maximum benefit (see "Definitions")...
(b) for at least the foreseeable future, (to retain) the bulk of the public lands in Federal ownership...
(d) unless public lands have been set aside.., their use shall...assure multiple use and sustained yield management;
(f) public land management programs be... in harmony with regional, State, and local land management plans developed by non-Federal agencies;
(g) consideration is (to be) given to projected increased demand for recreation, fishing and preservation of both land and resources, the preserva-tion of game and nongame wildlife; for food and fiber; including domestic live-stock, timber, minerals, and agricultural products; and for residential, com-mercial, and industrial use, including the development of self-sufficient cities or towns;
(h) incentives be furnished for the discovery and development of additional domestic sources of mineral supply, including source offshore,
(i) unless there is no overriding national need to the contrary, to main-tain community stability by continuing to make available the use of public lands...
(k) the United States shall receive payment for the use of all or any of its public lands and their resources, with an assurance that such payment will equal fair market value whenever use is accomplished for private profit unless the Congress finds that there is an overriding national need for a specific resource requiring that resource to be made available at less than fair market value.
(1) equity is afforded to each user who pays fair market value by assuring that he receives a grant assuring (I) occupancy for a period commensurate with his projected investment, and (2) equitable compensation in the event that his permit, lease, or other grant of use is terminated by the Government...
(m) equity is assured to the general public, users, and potential users by providing (1) for participation in rulemaking and (classification) procedures to... (2) (assurance),... (3) right of judicial review,expeditiously...
Administrative Proceclres
(a) Within ninety days of the effective date.., initiate formal rulemaking procedures...
(d) Prior to formulating a proposed rule.., each agency shall consult with such advisory council or councils hereinafter established...
(f) ...Public hearings shall be held on any proposed rule of general appli-cation and with regard to any rule of specific appliappli-cation unless there is a formal finding that the proposed rule will have no significant impact on the administration of the public land laws.
Advisory Boards
Sec. 7. There are hereby established advisory boards...(as)...
(a) National advisory boards: The head of each department or independent agency having responsibility for public land management shall establish and re-ceive advice from an advisory board comprised of twenty-five members...
(b) In each department and independent agency where the administration of public lands is divided between more than one subsidiary agency, the head of each such subsidiary agency shall establish and receive advice from an advisory board...
(c) The head of each regional, State, district, or other local land manage-ment agency shall establish and receive advice from an advisory committee...
(g) Each member of any advisory board or committee shall be appointed for a term of four years except that, in order to assure continuity, one-half of the members appointed to the first board or committee established under this Act shall serve terms of two years...
(i) Unless specifically authorized by law to the contrary, the function of each advisory board or committee shall be solely advisory...
Regional Coordination
Sec. 8. (a) There is hereby established a Federal Public Land Use Co-ordinating Committee for each of ten public land regions of the United States...
(b) Each such regional committee shall be composed of a representative of each agency having jurisdiction over any federally owned land within the geo-graphic boundaries...
Sec. 9. ...it is necessary to provide for the establishment of an Interstate Land Use Coordinating Commission to represent regional, State, and local
govern-ments within each geographic area (preceeding)...
Sec. 10. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to finance the Federal Land Use Coordinating Committees and to assist in financing the regional Interstate Land Use Coordinating Commissions not more than $25,000,000 annually... for the operation and functioning of the Federal committees.
(c) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make grants to any State that has or hereafter establishes a land planning commission and joins or in-dicates its willingness to join a Regional Interstate Land Use Coordinating Com-mission...
Sec. 11. ...(Special for the State of Alaska) (not excerpted)... Planning Public Land Use
Sec. 14. ...that each public land management agency (must) pursue a sys-tematic program of land use planning...
(d) ...each agency shall initiate the development or review of land use plans. The objective of each land use plan shall be to classify the land involved to obtain the best net public benefit,... Management plans... will be developed for all public lands, regardless of whether such lands have previously been
'classified,' "withdrawn,' set aside," or otherwise designated... utilizing the following criteria--(not excepted) p. 36.
(3) Public lands that heretofore have been designated, classified, reserved, or set aside by administrative action for a specific purpose or multiple purposes shall continue to be managed in accordance with such action except that, unless expressly prohibited by the action establishing the unit, management plans shall provide maximum multiple use or compatible secondary uses...
(4) All lands managed under the principle of multiple use shall be examined to determine whether the area or any subareas are chiefly valuable for some par-ticular use and, if so, such area or subareas shall be zoned to indicate their highest and best uses,... Each area...having a dominant use shall be managed under the principle of multiple use with as many compatible uses being carried on as possible...
(e) Each public land management plan will indicate areas or subareas that will serve the maximum benefit for the general public in non-Federal ownership, based on the following criteria: (not excepted; see page 38 of bill).
(f) Following tentative adoption of a land management plan, the agency shall again consult with and request the views of the regional Federal coordinating committee, either the appropriate interstate commission or the Alaskan Commission, and the appropriate advisory committee;...
(g) ...no public land shall be designated for a use inconsistent with State or local zoning unless the head of the department or independent agency involved makes a formal finding that there is an overriding national need therefor.
(h) In addition to land management plans described above, each agency shall.. establish long-range comprehensive land use plans for each state and for each of the ten public land use regions...
Withdrawals and Reservations
Sec. 15. (a) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to withdraw for public purposes under Federal management, in accordance with the rulemaking pro-cedures of this Act, any portion of land under his jurisdiction not exceeding in the aggregate five thousand acres and set such land aside for a specified govern-ment use or uses... A withdrawal shall have the effect of excluding the public from all uses as specified in the withdrawal order...
(d) Withdrawals accomplished in accordance with section 9(a) shall be limited to a period not to exceed ten years except...
(e) The Congress reserves to itself authority to withdraw lands (1) which exceed in the aggregate five thousand acres in either one parcel or when one or more parcels are combined with withdrawn adjacent acreage, (2) for periods in excess of ten years, and (3) of unique value...
(g) ...the Secretary... shall, within ten years after the effective date of this Act, review all land withdrawals since January 1, 1956, not affected by statute with a program for future review at least every five years of all with-drawals made in accordance with section 9(a) of this Act. (see top of page 40)
Judicial Review
Sec. 16. (a) Any person or party who submitted views to the agency involved... may, (p. 48-line 20)... and any person suffering legal wrong because... shall be entitled to judicial review thereof...
Agency Enforcement
Sec. 17. On and after one year after the effective date of this Act, determina-tions by agencies based on any rules, reguladetermina-tions, practices, or procedures
covered by this Act shall be unenforceable unless procedures required by this Act have been followed.
Sec. 18. Subject to valid existing rights, the following statutes or por-tions of statutes, as amended, are repealed--(not excer:,teo.
Comments,
The foregoing excerpts are from 50 printed pages: obviously, these five pages of quotes are not a substitute for reading the bill. The excerpts are but highlights, keyed to the intent, to the scope and to the approach proposed for land policy.
But that which Congress intends by, and that which results from, environmental legislation are two things -- not one! To explain: Congress intended in Senate Document 97 (Year 1962), again in the Water Resources Planning Act (Year 1965), and at least six times since in other documents, that Federal-State water and related land developments be evaluated for contributions to social goals - but such still is not the Administration's procedure!
Also, National Environmental Policy -- by law -- intends that the Federal agencies use unquantified environmental amenities and values in decisionmaking. But the Office of ianagement and Budget recently instructed water and related land resource agencies to decide on one basis -- additions to the national income account!
In fact, the deviation from Congressional intent, by the Administrative
agencies, is so significant as to gain the attention of the Congressional Research Service (Library of Congress). In a prelude to 230 pages* which recite the
environmental affairs of the 91st Congress, the C.R.S. reports:
...Congress said, in law, that standards for water quality shall take into consideration uses and values for uses.
But the Administration decreed that 'receiving waters could not be degraded ... even if the resulting condition would meet standards"! As it was being conceived, in year 1966, that "no-degradation- concept was protested by this Association, without success.
Also, the Administration's failure to weigh progress toward social goals, and to use non-quantifiable benefits in decisions about water development, has been under constant protest -- without influence on actions.
And so, as the C.R.S. warned in its discussion of the 'goals" and the T7policies' of that vast packet of environmental affairs conducted by the 91st
Congress, we also warn as regards further environmental policiesa&ministration depends upon interpretation'!
Therefore, we urge you to furnish your interpretations of H. R. 7211 to Congress now, as Land Use Legislation is being shaped, so to help clarify intent of legislation which will shape the Nation.
*"Environmental Affairs of the 91st Congressuprepared by the Environmental Policy Division Congressional Research Service Library of Congress.
The above-used terms 'goals", "policies', and "shape" introduce another issue, a Big One what end-product was sought by the Environmental Affairs of the 91st Congress? What bulges in the shape of the Nation did the policies and .goals seek to remove, and what muscles are to be strengthened by the excercises to stem from those Environmental Affairs?
You will not find the shape (the end-product sought) in the C.R.S. report. Nor will you find an end-product for actions in the President's study on National Goals.*
On the contrary, it* reports that the American people have yet to decide just what sort of country they want this Nation to be. 7urther, the Report
suggests, the end-product will be conceived from "a package of policies consistent with each other ... to shape direction and balance.."
Consistency is the character now missing in the National warehouse of law, policy, and practice for man's total environment. For environmental affairs, what is to be the focus for consistency -- National Land Use Policy?
-- from The National Water Resources Assoc. 897 National Press Building
Washington, D. C. 20004
Note! Your observations about H. R. 7211 are welcomed by this Association, or by the respective Directors on the Board. The Board meets next on August 5, at Wahweap Lodge, Page, Arizona.
*Toward Balanced Growth -- Quantity With Quality, by the National Goals ''esearch Staff, July 4, 1970.
July
7, 1971
Congressman Harold T. Johnson, Chairman Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1324 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Chairman Johnson:
It Is our desire to indicate the support of this District for H.R. 7854 with its proposed amendments of the Small Reclamation Projects Act.
I know from previous contacts with you through the National Water Resources Association that you are fully aware of the need for clarification of the
existing Act and the continuance of the program.
Expanded urbanization and industrialization in Colorado, as well as in the entire West, emphasizes the need for blanced multipurpose projects which can be developed within the Small Reclamation Projects program.
The past interest and consideration given by you and your subcommittee is sincerely appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary-Manager JRB:jb
Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation Committee on Interior and insular Affairs 1324 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Johnson:
It is our desire to indicate the support of this District for H.R. 7854 with its proposed amendments of the Small Reclamation Projects Act.
I know from previous contacts with you through the National Water Resources Association that you are fully aware of the need for clarification of the
existing Act and the continuance of the program.
Expanded urbanization and industrialization in Colorado, as well as in n the entire West, emphasizes the need for balanced multipurpose projects vuk.cX.... which can be developed within the Small Reclamation Projects program.
The past interest and consideration given by you and your subcommittee is sincerely appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary-Manager
JRB:cAfa-1:
asicrn
A
\\r/
ater )istrict _
General Manager and Chief EngineerDoyle F. Boen Deputy General Manager
Donald C. Stewart Auditor-Controller
Robert F. Anderson Legal Counsel
Redwine & Sherrill
Director of The Metropolitan' Water District of Southern California
Irwin E. Farrar
Mr. J. R. Barkley P. O. Box 117
Loveland, Colorado 80537 Dear Mr. Barkley:
24550 San Jacinto Street P.O. Box 858 .
Hemet, California 92343 Phone: (Area Code 714)
658-3155
June 29, 1971
Board of Directors
Wm. M. Kolb, President
Merlyn L. McIntyre, Vice Preident John D. Fett Floyd C. Bon,c.,,e J. Langdon 'Maxwell - Secretary Shirley J. Scott Treasurer Rogers M. Cox
The hearing before the House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on H. R. 7854, to amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act, which is identical to S.1026, has been set for July 12 and 13. It is very important that personal testimonies again be made before this Committee, as well as statements in letter, night letter or telegram form. We urge you to prepare another state--ment, if you have not already done so, similar to the statement you sent to the Senate Committee and send it to Congressman Harold T. Johnson, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 132/1 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D. C. 20515.
In view of the short notice, it is important that you send your statement immediately to assure that a good record is made on the House "side". Since the Bill is not controversial and has been studied and supported by the National Water Resources Association for several years, a short letter or telegram would be adequate to indicate your interest and support of the Program.
You will recall that, during May, 1971, we mailed copies of Senator Moss's Bill (S.1026) and included, among other things, an analysis of the proposed amendments
which are summarized as follows: (1) To continue the program; (2) To adjust for escalating project construction cost; and (3) To broaden the scope of the program to permit balanced multipurpose projects.
As you know, hearings were held on the Moss Bill (S.1026) on July 24, on the Senate "side". All of the amendments contained in the Bill were strongly supported by
the Administration through testimony by Ellis Armstrong, Commissioner of Reclamation. In addition, there were eight witnesses who personally appeared before the Committee in support of the Bill, including:
Joe D. Carter, Austin, Texas, Member of the State Water Rights Commission, officially representing Governor Preston Smith and others
Art V. Maxwell, Salt Lake City, Utah, Consulting Engineer, representing the Utah Board of Water Resources and Daniel F. Lawrence, its Director, and others
John E. DeVito, Concord, California, representing Contra Costa County Water District
Roy Young, Thayer, Arizona, representing himself and various water user organi-zations in Arizona and New Mexico
George B. Mosely, representing El Paso Water Improvement District No. 1, El Paso, Texas
Joseph E. Patten, representing Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield, Clair A. Hill & Associates; Consulting Engineers with offices in Corvallis Oregon, and Redding, California
Carl Bronn, Executive Director of the National Water Resources Association Doyle F. Boen, Chairman of the Small Projects Committee, NWRA
At the hearing, some minor changes and clarifications were suggested but no
opposition or major changes were proposed. One significant clarification recommended by Commissioner Armstrong and by Carl Bronn and me, was that under the definition of a project be added "a project have irrigation as one of its purposes."
I know T speak for the Small Projects Committee and the entire Association in thanking you for your effective response in submitting statements before the Senate Committee last week and in assisting to make an excellent record in support of the Small Projects Program.
All of the above witnesses who appeared before the Senate Committee may not be in position to make a trip to appear a second time before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and it is very important that as many others who can do so plan to personally appear and that there be a wide representation from the Reclamation States.
Every possible assistance that you can give to recruiting personal witnesses and favorable statements in the form of letters or telegrams to support H.R.7854 will be greatly appreciated by the National Water Resources Association and its Small Projects Committee and by the many water user agencies that are depending upon this program.
Sincerely,
Doyle F. Boen, Chairman Small Projects Committee
June 14. 1971
Mr. Carl Bronn
kbtecutive Director
National V. ater Resources,
Association
897 National Press Building
Washington, D.
C. 20004
Dear Carl:
I sincerely appreciate your letter of June 7, explaining the rational behind
the article which I inquired about, and which appeared in your Publication
under the title of "Heard on the Jill
.My grave concern, Carl, was you felt our Conservancy District was perhaps
improper in testifying in support of appropriations for recreation facilities
at Ilurquoise Lake. As you know, Turquoise Lake is an integral part of the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, and we feel if the total Project is to be
com-pletely functional, all elements must be completed and operable.
We have further found that working on the recreational and environmental
aspects has relieved a tremendous amount of pressure from people who
otherwise might remain totally against a Reclamation Project such as ours.
As a matter of fact. I am of the opinion the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project is
receiving less scrutiny and criticism than most other Projects, because of
the dialog which we have developed with the pure environmentalists and
conservationists.
At the same time, I can readily understand your sincere and deep feelings
regarding the outspoken opposition which such people give to Reclamation
and Corps of Zngineers Projects, which in the long run will benefit them,
such as the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project will. I do sincerely appreciate,
therefore, your taking time from your busy schedule to respond to my
in-quiry, and I shall look forward to our next opportunity to get together.
11 yonly regret is that we did not have more opportunity to visit when I was in
ashington, D,
C. on the two different occasions, testifying in behalf of
June 14, 1971
Page two
Increased appropriations.
Very sincerely,
Charles T
onason
General Manager
CLT, rnb
cc: J. Sid Nichols, President, Southeastern Colorado
V-Torn McCurdy, Secretary, Southeastern Colorado Vi
J. R. Barkley, Director, National Water Resources
Harold Ii. Christy, Past President, Nationalli'\,.ater
ater Conservancy Dist.
ater Conservancy Dist.
Association
2ES1121-ES
AMMER
(Washington) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President (North Dakota) J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President (Arizona)
(New Mexico)
JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (CalifOrnia)
CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
June 7, 1971
Mr. Charles L. Thomson General Manager
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District P. 0. Box 440 905 Hiway 50 West Pueblo, Colorado 81002 Dear Tommy:
E3
JUN 10 1971
TC
171
Thanks for your letter of May 27 -- delay in answering is caused by my having been in Spain, on a water conference, at ips,tance of Uncle Sam.
I'm glad your "first reaction was favorable" -- most readers will have only a first reaction to a report under the casual title:
"Heard on the Hill" But for a deeper view, I note:
.. it is a report, not an editorial.
.. in effect, it reports that some outdoor recreationists use impoundments (costs partly funded by irrigators) yet fight high dams.
.. the report asks -- about those dam -fighting recreationists who take advantage of impoundments partly paid for by others -- what do they really want? Such people run risks in fighting dams -4- is the implication intended -- of causing anglers on trout stream,,to be jammed elbow to belly button (the situation in Virginia, where a half-dozen high dams have been blocked for a dozen years) . Sorry -- if I was too terse. Yours is the only reaction that way.
Regards Carl
DIRECTORS
J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Ed Southwick, Utah James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D. Oliver A. Thomas, John A. Rosholt, Idaho I. J. Coury, N.M. John W. Simmons, Tex. Railroad Representative, Calif.
.011V,2, 9 197/
Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District
905 Highway 50 West Pueblo, Colorado 81002
303 - 544-2040
From: Charles L. Thomson
To:
s;, ; ch&L,
7iPli
egt-A4-
a44 344Gtvoiri.QAA46A:
04-6-4,kkd
14.ms-44-e4j.441
:
'
47-6
C'elJ
"44
6:12441
'
,
'
1;t9v .A41261
'
164
Ci?Alv
1>A41V
kA.
%de
•
l't4d
ite 447
Aodt
adh
#60.4°
--71estelLi
/cc
-EQAAkj
Mr. Carl Bronn June 14, 1971 Page two increased appropriations. Very sincerely, Charles L. romson General ager CLT/mb
cc: J. Sid Nichols, President, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. Tom McCurdy, Secretary, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. J. R. Barkley, Director, National Water Resources Association
Harold H. Christy, Past President, National Water Resources Association
',r/ Nr,e
At
ve rse c /Cc, cP 4.; c 7 c7 /e. #1.0; (d .2". #4=P erc' C'C, /7 /reit d /es/ /7 /"." 0 ,c r/ /44 c ,4. c7 C" /1 <*. >e C7 ce c:P7"e• me" ...,"""c/ir=2
(1,
HAUDONC,
MAlfER NESUPAIE..
ASSOMMONAMMO
National Press Bldg. Suite 897 • 202/347-2672 Washington, D. C. 20004die4/ ,C,cA
'
THE DAILY SENTINEL, Grand Junction, Colorado May 24Industry, Conservationists
RECD.
197
Tangle Over Gunnison Dam Plan
By FRAN BROWNELLSentinel Correspondent MONTROSE — "Gunnison Gorge -- Dam It All! Yes or No?"
That topic set the stage here Friday afternoon for a clash of philosophies between industrialist and con-servationist viewpoints — and clash they did.
The battlefield for .the verbal war-fare was a meeting of the Rocky Mountain Section of the Society of American Foresters (SAF).
About 75 foresters representing government agencies and private business , in Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota' and Nebraska attended the conference. Local chairmen were Forest Service employes David Wall-ingford and Walter Rule.
Me industrialist position was presented by Emil V. Lindseth of Denver, speaking on behalf of the Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Co. in regards to plans for devel-opment on the Gunnison River.
William Bird Mousey of Evergreen, Wilderness Society representative, ar-gued against the dam proposals.
Three components of the proposed Gunnison project by Pittsburg and s Midway were explained to foresters
by Lindseth:
— Cedar Flats Dam across the Gun-__ _ _
6/4/71 - p. 2
nison River above its confluence with the North Fork, a structure that could physically be built to a maximum height of 360 feet, and which would at that height create a reservoir with a primary storage capacity of 162,700 acre-feet.
Additionally, the dam would pro-vide the head necessary for a poten-tial 200 to 300-megawatt hydroelectric plant at its base.
— Austin Dam across the Gunnison River below the confluence of the North Fork with a maximum height of 105 feet, creating the Austin Reser-voir with a capacity of 28,600 acre-feet.
The head necessary for a potential 50-megawatt hydroelectric plant at its base would be provided by the dam; •
— Sulfur Gulch Reservoir created by a dam and dike with a capacity of 60,000 acre-feet which could provide cooling water for up to a 3,000-mega-watt thermal electric power plant.
Water filings for the Gunnison pro-posal have been made by Pittsburg and Midway and conditional decrees were entered in August, 1969, by the district court, all with a priority date of Dec. 10, 1965, Lindseth said.
No timetable has been set for the proposal, according to the speaker, and "many decisions have yet to be made before final commitments."
Economics, he said, will be the de-termining factor on "if and when" the project could get under construction.
Anticipating the conservationist ar-guments, Lindseth noted that "natu-rally this cannot be continued without coming smack up against pollution and environmental problems."
However, he challenged the Ameri-can citizenry's sincerity in their con-cern over environmental problems, charging that "the increasing demand for electrical energy is created by the very people who cry out against its bad effects."
While in agreement with the need for control of pollution on the part of industry and others, said the mining
company representative said he be-lieved the proposed Gunnison River project "could provide a step in the right direction . . . (and) could result in producing minimum dangerous ecological effects."
His thoughts along that line were not at all shared by Mounsey.
The Wilderness Society speaker held that "the gorge and this section of the Gunnison River, along with the Black Canyon National Monument, is all that remains of what was once one of the most magnificent wild canyons and rivers in the world."
In vigorous opposition belied by his soft-spoken toile, Mounsey asked, "Should we dam the remains below the Black Canyon . . . so that a group of individuals, a company, can, for a few years, make a profit — even ' though we destroy virtually forever the natural environment of the gorge?"
The bearded conservationist also challenged the need for additional power plants, questioning whether the cry for electric power is a "true and valid" need, or "a pseudo-de-mand, unnecessary, and thus a nice-to-have luxury that we can live with-out."
Mounsey warned that "earth cannot support us much longer in the style to which we have become accus-tomed.
"The absolute necessity today is to readjust our life-style to higher quali-ty rather than greater quantiquali-ty — at a level that the earth's resources can sustain."
The conservationist urged that "any claim that ,increased coal mining activity and another dam in Gunnison . Gorge will be even a partial panacea for this part of the Gunnison valley
must be eyed with great suspicion." In a morning session Friday, forest-ers went on record as demanding that power plants in the Four-Corners area meet pollution standards and that any lands used for coal mining be restored.
Code 140
Washington Office
Department of the Interior
DATE
FRIDAY, June 4, 1971
WATER NEWS Magazine, Sacramento, Californi May 1971
Gc:iscrs anti Loasos
LifiSiatiCi7 arid itnith,111011tati011
SeUd;i3,41iiai
Roscurces Studiod
Geothermal resources: what are they, can we put them to use and, if so, how? The Department of the Interior is proposing to launch a $15 million, 5-year program to study these and other questions, as reported in the first article in this series, which appeared last month.
The US production of povver from geothermal energy is a relatively new development. Pacific Gas & Electric Company built a sMall geothermal generating plant at The Geysers in Sonoma County in Northern .California in 1958. It has expanded its generating capacity at The Geysers from 12,500 kilowatts initially to 82,000 KW today. By the end of this year, according to information which PG&E presented to the House and Senate Interior Committees in 1970, it intends to have a capacity of 192,000 KW. With two
addi-tional 55,000 KW units scheduled to go on the line in 1972, the PG&E Geysqrs plant will have a capacity of 302,000 KW next year.
In subsequent Washington testimony on August 7, 1970, to the Senate Interior Committee, PG&E stated, "With Magma Power Company, Thermal Power Com-pany, and Union Oil Company of Cali-fornia, who joined Magma-Thermal in 19i37, it has been agreed to install an additional 300,000 KVV of capacity in the period 1973-75 as additional (geother-mal) steam is proved. Further generation will be. added subsequently as steam is
proved:1
The US Geological Survey reported in January that more than 40 development wells had been drilled in the Geysers area thei-e is an estimated potential for mo!-e then a million KW of geothermal en-n.?,/ e,.,31:..•!) can be generated into elec-tric;1.-y there.
he,s noted in the past that there eic:r-e than 12,OCO geothermal sites in the United .--)tates, mainly in the West, "porLcularly California, Nevada_Oregon, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming and Colorado." The largest. areas, and therefore the ones which would appear to be the most likely for development, are The Geysers, Casa Diablo and Salton Sea in California; Pyramid Lake, Brandys,
Beowawa, Steamboat in Nevada; the Valles in New Mexico; Klamath Falls in Oregon and Boise in Idaho.
Competitive Energy
Because geothermal energy is competi-tive with other types of energy and appears to have some environmental ad-vantages over fossil fuels and nuclear energy for power where geothermal en-ergy is available in the West, and because most geothermal areas are on federal or state lands, the federal government last year and the states of California and New Mexico in 1967 enacted SS -II leas-ing laws.
Legislation
The federal law, PL 91-581, was signed by the President and became a statute on December 24, 1970. It provided that the, Secretary of Interior must determine the federally-held lands and lands on which the federal government has reserved its interest in geotherrnal resources that are Jnown geothermal areas within' 120 days after the act went into effect. The deter-mination was made by USGS, which VIZ'S
wI rking ovr-rtirne literally to get the job done by April 22, the deadline under the act.
Asistant Interior Secretary Hollis Dole, in charge of mineral resources, and As...isiant I n ter ior Secretary Harr ison,
more readily adaptable to acfministrative agency regulation and corrtrol.
Jim
8
1971
At the same time, this administrative control serves to provide a consistent public policy and a uniformity of result and rationale in the resolution of similar issues, which might not be the case should. the matter be subject to the scrutiny of the numerous federal district courts in the nation.
In the field of environmental control, Rill said, the subject is frequently so complex that it is not readily susceptible to an all-or-nothing, guilty-or-no-guilty solution upon which court decisions or-dinarily rest.
Last Resort
The problems of protecting the e ronment are not given to panaceas or easy solutions that are dependent upon the fortuitous circumstance of any individual S. at a particular time to file 'a lawsuit. Environmental problems are sS lved by the gent efforts of ad istrative agencies — such as our regional and state water and air quality control boards.
If it is thought necessary to provide access to our courts in the event it is found that administrative agencies are not doing their jobs, then, by all means, such access should be limited to a responsible state official who is ans‘..verable to the voters. Such legal action, however, should be instituted only after all administrative remedies have been exhausted. The court should he looked to only as a last resOrt.
Legislation that is pointed in this direction has been introduced in the 1971 Legisleture. SB 618, by Senator Robert J. Lagornersino (R-Ventura), establishes the office of the Attorney General as the proper agency to act on behalf of the people of California. in preventing con-duct harmful to the 11111 I..
NA-OUNA
[A
1 :
'-‘1 .... Lb:,
IA\
11 \\.L-1' ,.
ASSECIJAITEK
Board Letter
LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURY, Treasurer (Washington) (New Mexico) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President
(North Dakota)
JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (Califoinia)
J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. C.)
3 7977
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
May 21, 19 71
AN OPPORTUNITY
The House Subcommittee on Public Works Appropriations is interested in the impacts of recent rates of funding for the water resource projects of the Bureau and the Corps. To help collect data on projects of interest to NWRA members, an article along the lines of the enclosure will appear in Water Life, to be printed next week.
ACTIONS ELSEWHERE
The House Subcommittee has requested the Bureau and the Corps to report the impacts of the Administration's holding in reserve part of the 1971 Appropriations so those effects need not be included by NWRA.
YOUR INVOLVEMENT
About the Water Life article (enclosed), Board members may be asked for (or may take the initiative in providing) guides as to how to report to this office, for referral to the Committee, the impacts of underfunding. No official guides are available, but the following may help:
. 1. Base, or beginning point.
Assume that funds for "new starts" could have been provided the ., first fiscal year after authorization (unless local interests could not have been ready with the required assurances). Consider the past five years, only, as to funding opportunities not realized.
2. Economic impacts.
a,, Generally, the inflation of construction and real estate costs might be described in years (rather than dollars) -- since the percentage for each year might be debatable, and the general rise is recognized. But unusual costs
DIRECTORS
(land subsidence; highway reconstruction over land to be acquired;
J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Ed Southwick, Utah James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D. Oliver A. Thomas, John A. Rosholt, Idaho I. J. Coury, N.M. John W. Simmons, Tex.
extrordinary relocation or resettlement problems) could be reported in dollars (alternatively the condition may be deseribed where dollar costs are not known, or are not readily available). b. Losses of revenue -- One kind yields from investments previously made that are lost because the authorized work was not completed (as an irrigation cost allocation to a dam and reservoir in being, but
the frrigation works deferred).
c. Losses of income opportunities -- Some economic losses may be deszribed by narrative; for instance, successive years of underfunding may have caused some businesses to close, or others to decide not to expand or not to enter the areas. Facts about such conditions are significant, even if not translatable in dollars.
3. Social impacts.
Numbers to show impacts, as upon: jobs, businesses, population, or segments of population (like 20-30 age bracket; college grads; high school grads); recreational opportunities; tax base; flow of commerce;a11 are numerically descriptive of important impacts.
4. Other impacts.
Impacts not readily fitting into those listed above; generally, these will be descriptive (but sound). For example, a new sewage treatment plant becaomes inoperable because river flows are too low to carry away the treated effluent (and an upriver dam, authorized years earlier, could have been at a stage to have released the necessary water). That states an important impact, even though no more translatable into dollars benefits than is the Water Quality Program!
5. Identification.
The name of the project, year authorized, funding status, sponsor, and author of the paper make a good heading.
6. Length.
One or two pages can tell the story for this kind of report. USES OF REPORT
I do not know the uses the Subcommittee will make of the reports. Conceivably, the reports would provide a base for:
... Presenting to the Executive Office of the President a bi-partisan picture of the range of important impacts caused by funding policies of past five years (policies of both political parties).
the effects from under-funding of the one big Federal program which employs B/C ratio as a veto, and/in thisi discounts the future at compound interest rates!
... Helping members of Congress relate the far-reaching effects of water resource development to programs which accelerated spending, even as construction in water projects was cut-back.
EPielesk/e
Carl Bronn
IMVACTS
by Lorin W. Markham
President, the National 7;later Resources Associatio
"riave you studied the impacts of delayed construction?" asked Chairman Joe L. Evins of the witness for the American Public Power Association. That question was asked on May 17 in Washington, D. C., at hearings for Public Works appropriations for Fiscal Year 1972. Congressman Evins, of Tennessee, was presiding as Chairman of the Public Works Subcommittee.
Chairman E7inc understands that t'rK, 1.hipacts of delay ill boiUing water projects ,are of great concern. He was interested in my report of a study showing that
delays on just four projects underway by the bureau of Reclamation aIr=41 had lost $125 -hillions to the public by March of 1969. He was aware of the concluding lines of my testimony last year to the Appropriations Committees:
"We hope your Report will recommend an appraisal of the social and the economic consequences of current rates of construction".
While the Congress did not call for such a report, Chairman Evins now offers you the opportunity to bring your appraisals to his attention. Therefore, I urge you to examine -- with regard to youlauthorized water projects, not completed --all of the impacts of budgetary constraints. Reports of impacts on project costs; on community, industrial, and individual planning; losses from drought, flood, ground water subsidence; losses through opportunities foregone, stated in monetary or non-Ltionetary terms, are desired.
Send your reports (as quickly as practicable) to the National ater Resources Office at a7 National Press Building at Washington, D. 20004. NW&A will
Mr. Charles L. Thomson, General Manager
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District P. 0. Box 440
Pueblo, Colorado 81002 Dear Tommie:
The enclosed communication from Carl Bronn came in yesterday. It occurs to me that you might make use of his good office as suggested in the portion of Lorin Markham's letter which I underlined.
By radio news last evening, I note that Larry Sparks had commented on the real need for increasing the Fry-Ark construction funding. Thus, the timing appears to be such that Bronn could give you a boost with such backup data as you can give him.
Best of luck! Sincerely, J. R. Barkley Colorado Director JRB:jm Enc.
Mr. Felix L. Sparks, Director Colorado Water Conservation Board 102 Columbine Building
1845 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Larry:
Enclosed is a copy of a note to Tommie Thomson and a copy of the Carl Bronn memo to which I referred.
If you feel that Carl's suggestion has any merit, 1 am sure he would be pleased to have you use his services for the Colorado projects you wish to aid.
Sincerely,
J. R. Barkley Colorado Director JRB:jm
2 1 la 77 rr5) Mr. Ed Southwick 1483 Wall Ave. Ogden, Utah 84404 Dear Ed:
HAIICEM
ufiti
b,•,
u
ASSBCIIATIEK
LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURY, Treasurer (Washington) (New Mexico)
MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (North Dakota) (California)
J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. C.)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
May 19, 1971
This confirms our telephone conversation today whereby you so kindly agreed to manage the arrangements for the summer Board meeting.
The Executive committee selected Lake Powell (for dates see following), a selection which pleased officials of the Department of Interior.
The general schedule provides Board business all day Friday (August 6) and Friday evening if necessary. In addition:
... We would like for you to arrange on Thursday, August 5, a visit to the power plant site about which Department of Interior is subject to Court action through the environmentalists.
... For Saturday (August 7) we would like arrangements for members to visit the Rainbow National Bridge, where again environmentalist are seeking court actions.
A block of 22 rooms is to be reserved tentatively.
I would hope, Ed, that your letter to members of the Board and Chairmen of the principle committees (addresses enclosed) could include information on flights into Page, as well as providing for member responses for reservations at Page, and their ability to participate in the tours.
To alert members of the Board, and others, to the fact that you are "bossing" this operation, each is receiving a copy of this letter.
DIRECTORS
J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Ed Southwick, Utah James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore.
Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D.
Oliver A. Thomas, John A. Rosholt, Idaho I. J. Coury, N.M. John W. Simmons, Tex.
Rll/1iJcPri)
in)
r\ULi
L1'
oRIA_
lir))
ssEmArillom
1 ,Mr. James L. Ogilvy, Manager Board of Water Commissioners 144 W. Colfax Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Jim:
(Washington) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President (North Dakota) J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President (Arizona)
JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (California)
CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
May 4, 1971
Information from Bob Barkley has been "processed" and so this is a good time to drop you a line.
• While thanking you for accepting the chairmanship of our new Municipal and Industrial Committee, I note that we also look to you for advise about who can aid the Committee's purposes.
In this regard, Cliff Atkinson of the American Water Works Association already has written you that William Kowalski and he will meet with you in Denver this June.
You may also wish to determine if Henry Graeser, Director, Water Utilities Department, Dallas, Texas, is willing to serve. Texas NVVRA Director John Simmons has nominated him, subject to your approval and Henry's acceptance.
Bob suggests that a representative from the Pacific Northwest is desired. I have talked with LaSelle Coles, Director from Oregon, and he may soon have a suggestion for you.
For the Southern California area, the Metropolitan Water District would surely be interested. There is either Bob Will, here in Washington, or Warren Butler; Warren is a member of its Board and regularly attends our meetings. However, a copy of this letter to Past President Sorensen suggests he telephone you, to select a California member.
DIRECTORS
J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Ed Southwick, Utah James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Al A. Schock, S. U. Joe W. Jarvis,
From industry, Gerry Geist (Vice President for Public Service Company of New Mexico, P. 0. Box 2267, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103) is widely known. He is alternate to I. J. Coury, as NWRA Director from New Mexico, and you nay have a fuels man right in Denver.
For coordination with other water uses, Mr. Markham appoints Henry Shipley, Chairman of Water Uses Committee, as Ex Officio member of M & I.
Jim, this ist give),Mr. Markham official sanction to any of the names and sources suggested. If they match your ideas, and accept your invitation, they are in!
I do thank you for taking on this task, and state that Mr. Markham is looking forward to receiving the charter you intend to prepare.
As to standing practices, this Association (as with many others) is unable to finance expenses for committee work. This also is a factor important to members who agree to serve.
CB: nlw
1
cc: J. R. Ba ley, I. J. Coury, • J. F. Sorensen, Henry Shipley Sincerely,
QUOTA RECAP BY STATES April, 1971
STATE Unpaid quota QUOTA Paid In
1970 1971 1971 * ARIZONA r 0 4,000. CALIFORNIA -5.00 2,424, 1,760. COLORADO 0 4,800. ) 6, HAWAII 0 1,075. 500. IDAHO 0 3,340. KANSAS 0 1,320. MONTANA 5,000.00** 2,000. 1,000. NEBRASKA -123.00 3,000. 235. NEVADA 2,230.00 1,500. 3,730. NEW MEXICO -100.00 2, 000. 1,600. NORTH DAKOTA -306.00 2,500. 833.33 OKLAHOMA 2, 334.*** 1, 320. OREGON -61.50 3,000. SOUTH DAKOTA 720.00 1, 440. TEXAS -569.00 4,000. 6.00 UTAH -12.00 2,500. WASHINGTON 26000 4,800. 24.00 WYOMING 0 1,980. 6.00 Sub-total 10,310. 52,999, 9,700.33 Misc, Contr. 1,140.50 5,40C. 4818.0,0 Convention 11, 300 . Total 11, 450.50 59,699. 14,5184,33 (,,3,707.50 49,170,67 RECD. FAID IN BALANCE APRIL 4,000. ( :i7. 5(2) 6,659. 4,794, 575. 3,340. 1,320. 4,000. (30.00 2,672. (1..,600‘,) 300. 1,360,67 3, 659. 2, 9,V .50 2,160. 3,425, 2,488, 9 , 3 74 . 1,974, (2, 507.50\i 48, 039.17 @ Q,-200, ) 1,140.5A:8o Vez C On) (11;316 .90)
1970, Montana paid $1, 000. on $3, 000. quota and nothing on a $3, 000. arrears of
Dec. 1969. '"In 1970, Oklahoma paid $300. on $1320. quota and nothing on a $1320. arrears of Dec. 1969.
cii this, Y3200 is arc-earo for 1.4 ()_,
'E
sEsouecej, 4tt. 4'41, • L, MEMO:HrliDNAL
S:111L,d5:1:ES
MSOVIAlrEIOR
LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURT, Treasurer
mg,
I 1 7 1971
(Washington) (New Mexico)MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President JAMES F. SORENSEN, Fast President (North Dakota) (California)
.1. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. C.)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING . WASHINGTON, D. C. 2000. (202) 347-2672
May 13, 1971
Board of Directors, Committee Chairmen, and State Associations 1. CONVENTION
a. The CONTACT letter of April 7, 1971 sought (as Item No. 4) comments on
the kind of convention desired from Dallas. Replies have been very few (but carefully prepared); principle points are within the framework, attached.
b. So that convention speakers can be approached soon, please mark up the outline and return it promptly. Mark it any way you prefer to show dislikes, likes, and better ideas -- please mark and return quickly (envelope enclosed).
c. Ground rules are these only: •
--Dates November 3, 4, & 5 are fixed (hours are not)
-- Luncheons obviously cannot exceed three (but could be two)
-- The All-States Banquet on Thursday night will not have a serious speaker -- So-called workshops might be programmed more than one at a time. d. An innovative suggestion from a Thinking Man on Capitol Hill is to set Thursday afternoon for small informal discussions of the speeches of Wednesday and
Thursday morning. This would require a room for each speech (caucus rooms might
be available). The proposal would be to explore each speech while the subject is fresh, and also to develop knowledge of each others ideas. The latter is said by some to be
the biggest value of conventions. Comments on this as a final item of page 4 are 2. QUOTAS & COSTS
A quota sheet through April 28 was mailed you on May 5. Cost sheet and financial statement through first four months is enclosed.
Any speed-up in State payments is helpful in that it would defer withdrawals- from Savings account.
3. SUMMER BOARD MEETING
The Board of Directors will meet August 6 and 7 at either Page, Arizona or
DIRECTORS J. A. Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho
Chris C. Green, Kans. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont.
Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Ivan P. Head, Nev.
I. J. Coury, N.M.
Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSalle Coles, Ore. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D. John W. Simmons, Tex.
Ed Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Oliver A. Thomas,
Farmington, New Mexico. The Board will soon receive instructions as to hotel registration and other matters.
Carl
FINANCIAL STATEMENT End April 1971
F unds Checked Out
• This Month Cumulative
People:
Total (including taxes) 3,580.18 12,210.57
Things and Services:
Total (includes rent, tel., supplies, etc.)
811.54 2,991.97
Operations
Total (includes Water Life, postage, travel, etc.)
2,264.60 7,605.52
SUM 6,656.32 22,808.06
lank Balances as of end of April
Riggs National Bank, Executive Directors Account 8,345.60
Riggs National Bank, Treasurer's Account 3,118.68
•
E
'
ER ESA
ASS
RCES
IMMER
MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President (North Dakota) J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President (Arizona)
JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (California)
CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
Y 1
4 1971
CONTACT !
With Washington, D.C. What Is Being Done
April 27, 1971
Public Works Acceleration
A. On April 22, the House passed a three-part bill(1) H.R . 5376 -- that would authorize:
1 -- $2 billions to be allocated by the President to stimulate public works investment to create jobs in heavily distressed labor market areas.
2 -- $1.945 billions for loans and grants for planning and construction in redevelopment areas.
3 -- $1.545 billions for development of Appalachia.
B. The proposed legislation may offer western water interests some opportunity to accelerate construction of water facilities (if the Senate accepts the bill and the President does not veto it). Although the bill does not refer to the projects developed by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, or the S.C.S., experts on the Hill intend that some of those projects qualify. (See paragraph "C").
(1)
Not to be confused with the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, S. 31, q.v. CONTACT! of April 7, 1971, page 3, right column. S. 31 has been passed by the Senate and was reported favorably by a House Committee on April 27,
DIRECTORS
J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Ed Southwick, Utah James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Al A. Schock, S.D. Joe W. Jarvis,
To help you relate your public works proposals to the bill, it is highlighted in the following:
C. Title I -- Public Works Acceleration Act: This amends the P.W.A . Act of 1962, especially to BROADEN ELIGIBILITY criteria for both FEDERAL and LOCAL projects. The new program permits Federal financing up to 80 per cent of costs, and up to 100 per cent if a community has exhausted its bond and tax base (this is discretionary) and:
...is for "basic public works", like storage, distribution, and treatment of water (and sewage) that can be completed in a short period of time -- 12 to 18 months -- (See below) and which are in:
(1) Redevelopment areas, or economic development
centers and areas designated by the Secretary of Commerce as suffering from substantial unemployment (for the pur-pose of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965), or
(2) Areas designated by the Secretary of Labor as having 6 per cent or more unemployment for at least 6 of the pre-ceding 12 months, and
(3) Where projects can be started quickly once the engineering and financing arrangements are completed; one year after contract is let is the target time for construction period.
D. Title II -- The Public Works and Economic Development Act Amendments of 1971: This extends authorization from June 30, 1971 to June 30, 1973 for loans and grants of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965; this is done:
...under revised and added technical criteria for designation of areas eligible for financial assistance under the Act, including areas where the Secretary of Commerce finds:
..a large concentration of low-income persons; ..rural areas having substantial out-migration; ..substantial unemployment;
. °an actual or threatened abrupt rise of unemployment due to the closing or curtailment of a major source of employment; or
o asevere economic distress due to the occurrence of a natural disaster.
...and the Area submits an acceptable proposal for an over-all economic development program,which does not have to be a broad
and detailed program.
...under conditions where planning and programming are of longer range than under "C" preceding.
E. Action!
Wherever the broadened criteria seem to apply to water storage or distrib-ution projects of concern to you, a letter stating your interest could be addressed to a United States Senator -- since the Senate soon will receive the bill. Stating factually the likely effects on jobs would help your Senator appraise the worth of the bill, and provide also a better basis for the Administration's review (should the bill advance to President Nixon).
"Looking ahead to the 1970's . . . we shall see
‘". . . 3.5 million more Americans, each of whom will on the average produce and consume one-third more. ". . . virtually all of this increased population and economic activity will be located in metropolitan areas, mostly in suburban rings . . . (whereas)
".. . half or more of the counties in fifty states have either not grown at all or have lost population during the last decade . . .
". . demands for hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping are increasing by some multiple of population, income, and mobility growth . . .
". . . overall the nation should move through the 1970's without serious handicap because of materials . . . (but) the same observation cannot be made with regard to resource and commodity supplies, especially food. in other parts of the world . . . nor can it be made for this country in regard to what is called quality of environment . . .
. we shall need to improve the ways in which benefits
and costs are related . . . without falling into the trap of thinking that all benefits and all costs can be translated into dollars amounts."
Said in Washington
About Rural Redevelopment and Revenue Sharing a. Topside, the Administration and the Senate
On April 23, 1971
Three members of Mr. Nixon's Cabinet met in open hearing with a Senate Subcommittee, of new purpose. Chaired by Hubert Humphrey, aided by western Senators CURTIS, DOLE and BELLMON, with Secretaries CONNALLY, ROMNEY and HARDIN as witnesses, the group described the ills of population imbalance, and the potential from the sharing of Federal revenues.
The Subcommittee (on Rural Development, out of Agriculture and Forestry) intends to:
..."come to grips with parity -- social and economic parity in small-town America ! "
The Cabinet members propose:
... to make Federal funds do more for rural areas by binding revenues returned with less red-tape, and stipulating more local options in use !
The Subcommittee and the Cabinet members found:
0 0 • the programs in the National cupboard are not
preventing imbalance -- overcrowding causes physical pollution and social unrest; elsewhere,
land and space are under-utilized.
... the movement of people adverse to their longer-range interests proves that policies need change. One change overdue is to make rural areas more attractive. How to do that is the issue.
To hear how local people would create attractiveness -- parity -- Senator Humphrey's Subcommittee will travel the land. First, the Subcommittee hears advice from three wise men of Mr. Nixon's Cabinet -- men who managc so rp.u,-;1
of Federal policy. Of the three, two also have been governors of great States (as was Subcommittee member BELLMON).
The three Cabinet members, speaking in succession and freely answering questions, advised:
.. °continue to use Uncle Sam as central tax collector, but send money back home; send it under broad guidance, wrapped in less red-tape than that of about 400 programs which require a million civil service processors.
•,in a general package, place $5 billions, for "assistance to hard-pressed States, cities, towns, and counties --both rural and urban".
...in a Special package, wrap $11 billions, through 6 cate-gories consolidated from 130 grant programs.
...assure that no recipient shall get less money than now; allow more freedom in where, how, and when to use that money!
If YOU are interested in more that was discussed in that three-hour session --including the observations of your Senators, CURTIS, DOLE and BELLMON who stayed till the buzzer sounded -- write Chairman Hubert Humphrey, Subcommittee as cited, for the transcript of hearings.
In any case, be ready when the Subcommittee travels to your State, to show how water and related land resource deVelopment creates more, in a better way, and builds the strength to sustain the gain!
-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-from The President's Message Delivered Before a Joint Session of the Congress, Jan. 22, 1970
"For the past 30 years our population has also been growing and shifting. The result is exemplified in the vast areas of rural American emptying out of people and of promise -- a third of our counties lost population in the sixties.
"The violent and decayed central cities of our great metropolitan complexes are the most conspicuous area of failure in American life today.
"I propose that before these problems become insoluble, the Nation develop a national growth policy.
"In the future, government decisions as to where to build highways, locate air-ports, acquire land or sell land should be made with a clear objective of aiding a bal-anced growth for America.
"In particular, the Federal government must be in a position to assist in the building of new cities and the rebuilding of old ones.
"At the same time, we will carry our concern with the quality of life in America to the farm as well as the suburb, to the village as well as to the city ... We must create a new rural environment which will not only stem the migration to urban centers, but reverse it..."
Said and Done
By The House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and its Subcommittee
on Irrigation and Reclamation
About Amendment of the Water Resources Planning Act, to provide more funds (H.R. 6359; S. 1398).
On April 27, 1971
After a hearing and an oral report by the Subcommittee, the Full Committee agreed to report a proposed amendment to the Water Resources Planning Act to
authorize up to $1.5 millions annually for the administrative expenses of the Council. , The funds would be used to administer:
...Title I -- operations of the Council
...Title III -- financial assistance to States.
The higher ceiling (it is now $900, 000) would permit expansion of Staff, and better field surveillance. The FY '72 Budget proposes $1.381 millions more than the law allows.
During the hearing, members of the Committee questioned WRC Director Don Maughan about progress toward better evaluation of water resource projects. Subcommittee Chairman Bizz Johnson, Full Committee Chairman Wayne Aspiriall, and members HOSMER, McCLURE and CLAUSEN together SPOKE THE NEED TO CONSIDER ALL BENEFITS FORECAST FOR PROPOSED WATER DEVELOPMENTS, and to begin doing so quickly. The delay in adopting new procedures -- requested by Committees of the Congress nearly three years ago -- was considered too long.
Director Don Maughan stated the interests of the Council itself; seven meetings have been held since February. He forecast issuance of prospective criteria before the end of May. The proposals will be published for comment, and a hearing will be held, before new criteria for evaluation become effective (this fall, perhaps).
(Note -- the legislative proposal before this hearing is not concerned with the amount of money furnished the States, for planning. Budgeted amounts are less than authorized.
NWRA has recommended to Appropriation Committees the full $5 millions for State planning grants).
