Calendar No. 1963
85TH CONGRESS } SENATE 5 REPORT
2d Session No. 1926
RELATIONSHIPS OF RIVER AND RELATED WATER RE-SOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS OF UNITED STATES, SOVIET RUSSIA, AND (RED) CHINA
JULY 23, 1958.—Ordered to be printed with illustrations
Mr. O'MAHONEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and Mr. CHAVEZ, from the Committee on Public Works, jointly submitted the following
REPORT
together with INDIVIDUAL VIEWS [To accompany S. Res. 248]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred Senate Resolution 248 recom-mending joint hearings on the Relationships of River and Related Water Resource Development Programs of the United States, Soviet Russia, and (Red) China, having held joint hearings, recommend that the resolution, as amended, do pass.
This report is submitted by Mr. O'Mahoney on behalf of the Com-mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs jointly, and is approved by Mr. Chavez on behalf of the Committee on Public Works.
AMENDED RESOLUTION The resolution, as amended, is as follows:
Whereas in committee print dated December 20, 1957, the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs transmitted a summary of available information on the "Re-lationships of River and Related Water Resource Develop-ment Programs of United States, Soviet Russia, and (Red) China," which on January 23, 1958, was referred to the Committee on Interior and. Insular Affairs and the Com-mittee on Public Works for joint hearings;
25966-58-2 RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Whereas testimony at joint hearings again established the fact that the United States is still the leading nation of the world in the production of hydroelectric power, nevertheless the testimony of competent witnesses on the progress of So-viet Russia's water resource development program is a stern warning that this Nation must not adopt a complacent atti-tude that would allow us to drift with a false assumption of unassailable superiority: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Com-mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the ComCom-mittee on Public Works continue the joint study and submit their find-ings and recommendations of ways and means to accelerate the development and utilization of the natural resources of the United States.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearings were held in consideration of the resolution on February 17 and 18 and May 16. Members of both committees were in attendance, together with representatives of the Department of State, Department of the Interior, the Department of Defense through the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, and the Fed-eral Power Commission. Also in attendance were representatives of the National Rural Electric Cooperative, the National Farmers Union, and the American Public Power Association.
On the basis of the testimony the following facts were developed: The U. S. S. R. has been engaged in a crash program to develop hydroelectric power, to expand its metallurgical base, and to increase production of consumer goods in the Soviet Union.
The potential hydroelectric power in Soviet Russia is reported by Francis S. Adams, Chief, Bureau of Power, Federal Power Commis-sion, to exceed that of the United States 3 to 5 times.
Although the United States in 1956 possessed installed generating capacity capable of producing 94.5 million more kilowatts of power than Soviet Russia, a fact set forth by Francis S. Adams, Chief, Bureau of Power, Federal Power Commission, only 2.5 percent of the total Russian potential has been developed compared to 23.5 percent development in the United States.
Development in Soviet Russia is conducted by the state whereas in the United States development is carried on by both private and publicly owned systems. Soviet development is carried on without respect to cost; but in the United States private capital will not
under-take
a project unless it is conservatively estimated to be productive and to be capable of operation at a profit.River and harbor development and flood control have been tra-ditionally carried on in the United States since the earliest times by the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army; reclamation by the Bureau of Reclamation has been undertaken since passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902; and broad soil and water conservation programs since 1935 by the Department of Agriculture, beginning with the Soil Conservation Act of that year and continued under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954.
RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS INCREASED DEMAND
3
Domestic and industrial use has been multiplied by modern demand to serve municipal and industrial needs. Conservation of wildlife and recreational needs have all added to the demand for water. While scientists report that the amount of water on the globe does not diminish and is more than is needed, its distribution is so inade-quate that the need for public programs steadily becomes more manifest, witness the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act sponsored by Senator Robert A. Taft and Senator Alben Barkley in 1948.
The Tennessee Valley Authority is an illustration of the extra-ordinary demand for hydroelectric power. The Atomic Energy Com-mission takes and uses more than one-half the total output of the TVA but nuclear energy has not yet been developed on an economic base. Ratio on the costs to power is not favorable. While neither the United States nor Soviet Russia has yet succeeded in making atomic energy a thoroughly practical source of industrial power, the advantage that Russia possesses by reason of the fact that it does not count the cost, makes it essential that the United States concen-trate on producing the most effective and economical means of in-creasing its developed energy. Without energy industrial progress is impossible.
WARNING IN THE COLD WAR
While the United States is still the leading producer of hydroelectric power and is still the leading industrial nation of the world and Soviet Russia has not yet outstripped the United States, its rate of progress percentagewise is a warning, against the background of the economic cold war, that this country dare not adopt a complacent attitude that would allow us to drift under a false assumption of unassailable superiority.
Testimony, documents, photographs, and maps presented during the hearings to show the sites of the new Soviet power stations and the great new transmission grid which connects them is convincing evidence that the leaders of the U. S. S. R. have, as Maj.. Gen. E. C. Itschner, Chief of Army Engineers, testified:
openly challenged us to a competition for world economic dominance. Obviously, in view of the priority given, the Soviets regard this race against us in water resource devel-opment as a key contest in this competition for world supremacy.
SENATOR ELLENDER'S TESTIMONY
Many of the witnesses spoke from knowledge gained by study but one witness, Senator Allen J. Ellender, testified from knowledge gained on three trips to the interior of Russia where he was given extraordinary permission to inspect, and even to photograph, the great hydroelectric projects under construction in both European Russia and in Siberia.
4
RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Senator Ellender was the first American to see many of these projects which he was able to see not alone with eyes of a tourist but with the eyes of the chairman of the Public Works Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. To place his observations before the members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Public Works Senator Ellender set aside his self-imposed rule against appearing as a witness before a congressional committee. In summary Senator Ellender pointed out that—in studying the relationship of resource development in Soviet Russia and the United States, there is, of course, nothing that we can do about such developments in Russia * * *. Any action taken to keep these relationships in balance must be directed toward a program of resource development [in this country] that is adequate for our needs.
GENERAL ITSCHNER'S REPORT
Another witness was Maj. Gen. E. C. Itschner, Chief of Army Engineers, United States Army whose professional career since gradu-ation from the Military Academy in 1924 has been devoted largely to public works. His testimony was specific, detailed, and inclusive, drawn as it was from the Army's intelligence mission and the Army Map Service which endeavors to keep current on these developments. General Itschner summarized his testimony with these assessments of Russian accomplishments in the various phases of water develop-ment:
In hydroelectric power development, the Soviets already approach us in total installed capacity and have individual projects under construction that far exceed any American project in capacity.
In inland waterway navigation, they have projects that rival ours and plans that probably surpass ours, though the amount of navigation on their waterways is less than that on American waterways.
In irrigation, the types of development are considerably different but the Soviet effort is roughly comparable to ours in scope. They have bigger projects than ours, and they probably are irrigating new acres at a faster rate than we are * * *
Their power equipment and engineering, in items like generators and transmission lines, are excellent, and they are superior to ours in a few characteristics.
The most remarkable fact about the Soviet water resource effort is its rate of growth * * *. Their major programs have been accomplished largely within 10 years—the bulk of them, in fact, within the past 5 years.
General Itschner concluded his documented presentation with the warning:
We cannot overlook the evidence of Soviet technical capa-bility, Soviet determination, and Soviet productive expansion revealed in their water resource programs.
25966 0-58
GERMANY
HUNGARY OEN \ IA 66 64 70,000d° 100.000 150,000 3 ) / EST. 75,000 , 1CST. ,000
POLAND
EST. t-/)-100.000(3 7 '17 NA(3) 18 002 „.0 ':4‘) NA T' AT ANIA EST. 33,000 _ 32 NATURKEY
557,000 :9265.000 3
EST 705,000 111 SYRIA 180.000 42.000 ODESSA 450,000 • 312,000 NA A0
vi E N
4-4.000411 LENINGRAD 66,000 ,„.NA ,. `"12)ES-1. 240.000,- .t\---NAO7 30.000 MOSCO '-,IRAQ
SAUDI ARABIA -0( ▪ 2h0.000 -10.000 04 \\6, 25,000 16.000x NA 650.000 ROSTOV-NA-DONU 160.000,(211.96-000
1 NA Jilt 23,000WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF THE U.
5„,
120S. S. R.
I 36 160
28,000
UNITED STATES ARMY id
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
\ (2) 68,000 1)12.000 (• 3) 80,000 mURmANSK 48,000 240,000 (2) EST. 140.000 (1) EST: 60,000
54
)2 ) 260,000 (4) EST. 10,0,000 330,000 165,000 20,000 800.000 SARATOV 1,000,000 STAUNGRAD 2.300.000 LOWER VOLGA EST. i,000,o0o.01 2 5 ,0 0 0IR AN
5.01)0
400,000 28.000 SRER 540,000 It11,000 io 000c) 1 900,i 0, 00600 540,000 2,0 KUIBYSHEV let (10) 448,000 AM (1) NA (1 ) 220.000 )4) - • (3) NA ()) (?) EST. 183,000 3 0 , 0 0 0 ( 1 1 ),41 4 115,000 14,000 ANA 365,000 14 T. 28.000(1) '4) , 0 6 00(1 ) \.HELYABINSK 2 5 0 0 0 970, TASHKENT * 12000 16000O (2J 4)(2)NA AFGHANISTAN )+,„ (3) EST. 50,900 P A IV! S FRANZ JOSEF N - LOWER OB OVER 1 .000.000 150.000 120,0004-2-At '240,000(1)1ft 1,040,000(2 74:): 1'10,000 )1) Ijk(3) 29,000 49) (1) 52,000 492.00 600,000", EST. 50,000 'et (3)211U LTAI NA ( 10)CHIN
SEVERNAYA ZEMLYA LOWER YENISEY J'1 OVER 2,000,000 • °0VSEI NiC)Rv 2V.0°0 0 , 0 0 0 YENISEY -KRASNOYARSK ZAP BOGUCHANY 000 3,000.006 BRATSK o 3,840,0004--57IRK UTSK"' NEW SIBERIAN ISLANDS '60.000 STAN OVOYE NAGOR'YE 661,000 EST OVER C53 InFI ERsK 0G0
EST. 500,000 (5,10 H ROB YAKUTSK DZHALINDA 1.000.000 400:1N G 0 L I
A
LEGEND
HYDRO PLANTS IMPROVED NAVIGATION
\ Z:A 1.000.L.. K t SOV 0 1 I, I° (,)00 SUKHOTO 1 000,000 EST. 1,000,00 , BLAGOVESHCHENSK _ pOYARKOV ESI 1,u00.00G EXISTING EXISTING
UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION PLANNED OR PROPOSED PLANNED OR PROPOSED
NUMBER OF PLANTS NAVIGABLE WATERWAY
AGGREGATE CAPACITY IN KILOWATTS
(SHOWN WHERE KNOWN) IRRIGATION AREAS CAPACITY NOT AVAILABLE NA EXISTING
A
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR PLANNEDSELECTED ROAD SELECTED RAILROAD
80' 88 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 STATUTE MILES KHINGAN -0 MAGADAN
cs,
HIN A
VLADIVosTOK Ic-•;) <,^ PETROPAVLOVSK KAMCHATSKIY <<N 120' 32' 128'4z,
48' 56' 32' 64 72'RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS KHRUSHCHEV'S CHALLENGE
5,
General Itschner is not alone in this assessment of Soviet determina-tion to outproduce the United States. The challenge has been authori-tatively set forth by Allen W. Dulles, Director of the Central Intelli-gence Agency, in a speech delivered before the United States Chamber of Commerce in Washington on April 28, 1958. The speech, appro-priately titled "Khrushchev's Challenge," has been printed in the appendix of the hearings. In it, from his knowledge as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Dulles has spelled out the terms of the Soviet challenge.
"The Soviet economy has been growing, and is expected to grow through 1962," Mr. Dulles declared, "at a rate roughly twice that of the economy of the United States."
The wealth being created by this expansion "has been plowed back primarily into expansion of electric power, the metallurgical base, and into consumer goods industries," according to Director Dulles. "In these fields it was over 80 percent of actual United States investment in 1956, and in 1958 will probably exceed our own.
"In the first quarter of 1958," Director Dulles said, "Soviet indus-trial production (electrical energy production included) was 11 percent higher than a year ago. In comparison, the Federal Reserve Board index shows a decline of 11 percent in the United States," and added that in January, February, and March "the Sino-Soviet bloc has for the first time surpassed the United States in steel production.
"Certainly here we have the most serious challenge this country has ever faced in time of peace. As this challenge is very largely based on the economic and industrial growth of the Soviet Union, it is one which concerns very directly the business leaders in our country."
The facts developed by Senator Ellender, General Itschner, Director Dulles, and other witnesses reveal rapidly changing conditions in the world economy to the potential disadvantage of the United States and are, in fact, a summons to this country to devote renewed attention to the expansion of the domestic economy.
A significant measure of that expansion will include development of water resources. The hearings have indicated the need for further study to insure that water development programs undertaken to meet the demands for expansion of the domestic economy will be feasible and economically sound.
Attached is a copy of a map showing the water resource development of the U. S. S. R., prepared by the United States Army Corps of
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF SENATOR ARTHUR V. WATKINS This committee has a justifiable interest in the progress being made in water resource development anywhere in the world, and I commend Chairman Murray for ordering a committee study—later expanded into a joint committee study—on developments in Russia and Red China.
However, as the study progressed, it appeared that the concentra-tion on developments in Russia and China might give a distorted picture of progress in those countries, if comparable gains made in this country were not given equal attention.
Consequently I requested permission of the subcommittee chairman to devote hearing time to a review of recent water resource develop-ments in this country. This permission was readily granted and a hearing session was conducted on May 16 of this year.
The report of this session is contained on pages 143 to 186, inclusive, of the hearings of the two committees. In addition, I incorporated in the record, by reference, comparative studies of economic development in the United States and in Russia published by the Joint Economic Committee in 1954 and 1957. Excerpts from these studies also were introduced into the record as an exhibit on pages 274 through 287, inclusive, of the hearing record.
This record speaks for itself, but in order that this report will be balanced, I wish to summarize the highlights of this testimony in the following extracts:
Senator WATKINS. In the previous hearing sessions, I felt that some participants and reporters had gleaned the im-pression that Soviet Russia was going ahead full steam on water and power development, while we in the United States were doing absolutely nothing.
I am sure that none of my colleagues on these two Public Works Committees is laboring under the delusion, but, in order to make it clear in the record, I invited Solicitor Elmer Bennett, of the Department of the Interior, to come before us and discuss the manifold water-resource development activ-ities in that Department.
Supplementary to his remarks, I request permission at this time to introduce at the close of my remarks a summary of new construction starts and resumptions in the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation in the past 5 fiscal years.
Senator CHURCH. That summary may be included in the record of the proceedings following your remarks, Senator Watkins.
Senator WATKINS. Some people who are not members of these committees will be surprised to learn that there have been 461 new starts or resumptions of projects under these
RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
7
2 programs in that 5-year period. A total of 424 of these new starts were in the corps' civil-works program and 37 in reclamation.The latter program, incidentally, includes units of one basinwide development—the Colorado River storage project—which was approved in 1956, with multiple-project authorizations included, at a total project cost ceiling of $760 million.
This is the largest single package water-resource project appropriation ever authorized. I do not recall anything comparable to this four-State program described in Russian developments reported to these committees.
These 461 newly initiated projects will be built at a total cost of $5,020,187,000. This means that, in addition to carry-ing forward a total program costcarry-ing $3,723,300,000, for the 5 years from 1954 to 1958, we have initiated new projects that will add, roughly, another $5 billion to the costs of completing and operating and maintaining the regular program in these important resource-development fields. And that, my friends, is a very considerable water-resource program.
We who are well informed on what these programs mean to the economic development of this country probably will never feel that even this imposing 5-year program is adequate—and I am one of the supporters of an expanded reclamation program—but I think we should, in all fairness, recognize what we have been doing—especially when we are making comparisons with what is being done in a competing country.
Solicitor Elmer Bennett, United States Department of the Interior: It is important that we take into account our relatively different positions with regard to water resources.
I would not want to be understood as reflecting a com-placent attitude on economic development in Soviet Russia. There can be no question but what greater stress than ever is being laid by the Soviets on the development of an economic and industrial base from which to conduct a program of economic penetration.
Khrushchev has been quoted as stating their goal to be: "Catching up and surpassing the United States in per capita production within the shortest possible historical period of time."
This concept provides both internal propaganda and the propagation of the Communist faith elsewhere.
There is little doubt of the high rate of economic growth in Russia. In 1950 their gross national product was about one-third of ours.
In 1952 it may be about one-half of ours, according to expert observers.
The committee print notes many reports of Soviet progress in the field of water development. Let us also note progress in the United States under the American way of life.
In the field of power production, despite reported large per-centage increases in U. S. S. R. production, their annual net
RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS per capital power consumption in 1956 was about 900 kilo-watt-hours, while in the United States it was about 4,070 kilowatt-hours. .
Electric power generating capacity in the United States in 1956 was more than 3 times the capacity of the U. S. S. R., and the total power generation in the United States was like-wise more than 3 times that of the U. S. S. R. (See table II.) In the United States, almost four-fifths of the generating capacity is thermal, since our potential hydroelectric capac-ity would supply only a relatively small proportion of our power requirements, even if all economically feasible hydro-electric power sites were fully developed.
It has not been the policy of the Federal Government to build thermal electric plants, except experimental nuclear plants or steam plants to firm up Federal hydro plants in the TVA region. Most of the power-generation facilities in the United States, therefore, are owned by private power com-panies, municipalities, public utility districts, or State power authorities, as opposed to complete central Government ownership in the U. S. S. R. (See table I.)
(Table I is as follows:)
TABLE 1.—United States total electric power industry, Dec. 31, 1956 Ownership
Capacity in
megawatts Annual totalgeneration 1 Total Hydro Total Hydro Privately owned utilities 91,031 10,944 • 459.0 55.0 Federal (TVA, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Bureau
of Reclamation) 18, 336 12, 135 100. 7 55.9 Municipal _ 8, 179 1,301 ZS. 0 6. 1 Power districts of State projects 2,098 1, 147 9. 5 4.9
REA co-ops 791 40 3.4 0.2
Total 120,435 25, 567 600.6 122. 1 Industrial, railroads, etc 16,562 83. 3 Grand total 136,997 683.9 1 Billions of kilowatt-hours.
NOTE.—Data from Federal Power Commission.
Mr. BENNETT. During the 6-year period, 1952-58, the power-generating capacity and the generation of electric power in both the United States and the U. S. S. R. increased significantly. The percentage increase in capacity in the U. S. S. R. was somewhat greater than in the United States. Total generation in individual years in the United States, however, ranged from between 3.5 to 3.9 times the generation in the U. S. S. R. during this period, with no significant downward trend. (See table II.)
RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 9 (Table II is as follows:)
TABLE II.— Comparison of total electric power industry, United States
and Communist Russia
Year 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 Capacities in mega-watts United States 97, 312 107, 354 118, 878 130,896 136, 996 2 146, 000 2 162, 000 2 176, 000 2 190, 000 Communist Russia Generation (billion kilowatt-hours) United States 25,250 28, 602 32,810 37,231 42, 795 463. 1 514.2 544.6 629.0 684.0 2 730.0 2 810. 0 2 880. 0 2 950. Communist Russia 119. 1 134. 4 151. 0 170.0 192.0 210.0 231.0
Annual increase in percent Ratio 1 3.9 3.8 3. 6 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 1 Ratio of United States generation to Communist Russia generation.
2 Estimated on basis of FPC forecasts.
United States 11 6 15 9 7 11 9 8 Communist Russia 13 13 12 13 9 10
Mr. BENNETT. Soviet irrigation is reported to have ex-panded, yet that country is still experiencing an inadequate diet while the United States has exportable surpluses.
The relative aridity of the U. S. S. R. places a greater importance on irrigation in that country. Most of the good land in that country is in a semiarid climatic zone. Even so, the area of irrigated land in the United States still exceeds the 11 million hectares—about 25 million acres—reported in the committee print as irrigated in the U. S. S. R. in 1956.
According to the Bureau of the Census, 29,552,000 acres were irrigated in the United States in 1955. Of this area, almost 27 million acres were in the 17 Western States, and of the 17-State total, 6,126,000 were in Bureau of Reclamation projects.
The irrigated area in the United States has increased stead-ily. In 1955 it was eight times the irrigated area in 1890. The acreage increase during the 10-year period, 1945-55, was greater than in any previous 10-year period. (See
table III.)
TABLE M.-Irrigation in United States [Area in acres]
Year 17 WesternStates Louisiana,Arkansas,
Florida 28 States 48 States 1890 3, 631, 559 1900 7, 542, 782 1910 1 10, 370, 000 1920 112, 900, 000 1930 1 14, 000,000 1935 115, 500,000 1940 17, 243, 396 699, 572 39, 862 17, 982,830 1945 19,431, 367 1, 046, 200 61,503 20, 539, 470 1950 24, 270, 566 1, 364. 300 152. 589 25, 787, 455 1955 2 26, 970, 689 1, 993, 488 587, 978 29, 552, 155 1 Estimated. Published value corrected for drought conditions, for duplications, or sup-plied for lack of detailed data.
2 Of this total, Bureau of Reclamation says its projects cover 6,126,000 acres.
10 RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Mr. BENNETT. Correspondingly, while Russia has ex-panded her inland navigation facilities, it still does not have a transportation system comparable to ours. By their own reports there appears to be underutilization of the newly built facilities as, for example, the Volga-Don Canal.
It has no highway network worthy of the name.
In the United States the transportation of goods and people is one of the outstanding features of our economy. Our highway network has no counterpart in Russia and China, yet we are embarking upon a major improvement of the system.
This will include over 41,000 miles of superhighway. Our railroad system, unsurpassed throughout the world, has approximately three times the mileage of theirs, even though their land area far exceeds our own.
United States efforts to relieve the water pollution problem finds no counterpart in Russia. We are insuring sound water conservation, while in contrast water pollution in the U. S. S. R., particularly industrial pollution, is reported to be very serious.
Municipal water supplies in this country now serve roughly 72 percent of the population with ample quantities of safe
water.
In the U. S. S. R. domestic water service is notoriously inadequate by American standards.
Between 1947 and 1956 we built in the United States over 115,000 acre-feet of reservoir capacity, a gain of 71 percent in these facilities for water conservation. These data do not include reservoirs of less than 5,000 acre-feet capacity, of which there were many. This kind of water development and conservation can hardly be viewed as laggard.
The United States has made great efforts to protect fishery resources especially in the Columbia River Basin.
On the other hand, it is a matter of record that the Volga development and industrial pollution have done great harm to Caspian fisheries.
The United States has major programs of flood protection and control which have saved much loss of life and untold millions of dollars in property loss.
The U. S. S. R. has no counterpart programs. Instead, it takes either its losses or arbitrarily decrees flood zoning to eliminate the flood hazard.
Francis L. Adams, Chief, Bureau of Power, Federal Power Com-mission:
The table indicates that, by 1975, the total generating capacity in the United States is expected to increase from 145,700,000 kilowatts, with annual production of 716 billion kilowatt-hours, to 351 million kilowatts, with annual produc-tion of 1,631 billion kilowatt-hours.
Such an increase would require within the next 18 years, the installation of more than 205 million kilowatts of new generating capacity, plus sufficient capacity to cover any
RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS plant retirements, to meet expected load demands, and pro-vide the necessary reserve capacity.
The projections given in table 1 are those of the Federal Power Commission's Bureau of Power, made in connection with the Commission's regular activities.
It might be noted that projections made by the Electrical World and by the manufacturers of electrical equipment are 20 to 30 percent higher than those of the Commission.
Mr. ADAMS. The per capita energy production in 1957 for the country amounted to 4,202 kilowatt-hours, ranging from
i a low of 2,490 kilowatt-hours in region VI, which s the north-central region to a high of 8,667 kilowatt-hours in region VII, which is the Pacific Northwest. Based on the Bureau of the Census population estimate of 228,500,000 in 1975, and the electric energy production estimate stated above, the per capita production for the United States in that year will be 7,140 kilowatt-hours.
The latest Federal Power Commission estimates, as of January 1, 1957, place the total undeveloped hydroelectric power in the United States at about 90 million kilowatts ca-pacity, with average annual generation of approximately 367 billion kilowatt-hours. This estimate includes projects concerning which only limited data are available. Some 56 percent of the Nation's undeveloped power is in the area west of the Continental Divide, and 35 percent is in the Columbia River Basin.
Combining the undeveloped with the total developed hydroelectric capacity indicates a total potential hydro capacity in the United States of more than 117 million kilo-watts, with average annual production of some 500 billion kilowatt-hours.
Thus, approximately 23 percent of the potential hydro of the country has been developed to date.
As of January 1, 1958, nearly 30 million kilowatts of poten-tial hydro capacity was either under construction or in various stages of planning and authorization, as summarized in the following:
1. Under construction by Federal agencies as parts of multiple-purpose river-development programs, 5,800,000 kilowatts.
2. Under construction by non-Federal interests under Federal Power Commission licenses, 5,300,000 kilowatts.
3. Under Federal Power Commission licenses, but not under construction, including additional units at existing projects, 3,800,000 kilowatts.
4. Included in applications for licenses or amendments pending before the Commission, 5 million kilowatts.
5. Included in preliminary permits outstanding or in applications for preliminary permits pending before Com-mission, 4,200,000 kilowatts.
12 RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 6. Authorized for construction by Federal agencies, but not under construction, including additional units at existing projects, 5,600,000 kilowatts.
These amounts total 29,800,000 kilowatts.
Completion of the installations listed above would more than double the hydroelectric capacity in the United States. The period within which this may be accomplished cannot be determined with accuracy, but it appears likely that most of this potential capacity will be constructed within the next 20 years, possibly by 1975.
At that time the developed hydro capacity would amount to 57,500,000 kilowatts, or nearly 50 percent of the total potential hydro of some 117 million kilowatts capacity, including both developed and undeveloped.
This may be compared with the 23 percent noted above as the part of our total potential hydro that is now developed. Available information indicates that the total installed generating capacity in Russia at the end of 1956 amounted to 42,785,000 kilowatts, including 34,425,000 kilowatts of thermal capacity, and 8,370,000 kilowatts of hydro capacity. Generation in 1956 amounted to about 192 billion kilowatt-hours, of which 163 billion kilowatt-hours was generated in thermal plants and 29 billion in hydro plants.
With a population of around 200 million, the capacity per capita in Russia amounted to 0.214 kilowatts and the annual energy production per capital amounted to 959 kilowatt-hours.
These figures may be compared with the following for the United States, with a 1956 population of 168 million:
Capacity per capita, 0.816 kilowatts.
Annual energy production per capita, 4,069 kilowatt-hours. The United States energy production per capita is over four times the Russian per capita energy production.
The total estimated potential hydroelectric power in Russia has been reported as 340 million kilowatts of capacity with annual production of some 2,978 billion kilowatt-hours, which is 3 to 5 times the estimated hydro potential of the United States.
On the basis of these figures, it appears that about 2% percent of the total Russian potential has been developed as compared with 23 percent development in the United States.
RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
13
It will be noted that the United States superiority has more than doubled since 1940, having increased from 39,962,000 kilowatts in 1940, to 94,547,000 kilowatts in 1956:Kilowatts
United States U.S. S. R. United States superiority 1940 --- 50,962, 000 11,000, 000 39,962, 000 1945 - --- 62,868,000 10,700, 000 52,168,000 1950 --- 82,850, 000 22,400,000 60,450, 000 1956_ --- 137,342, 000 42,795, 000 94,547, 000
As can be seen from the table, over that 16-year period, our superiority in terms of kilowatts in excess of those avail-able in Russia has increased from about 40 million to 94 million.
The following tabulation shows the average annual growth of installed electric generating capacity in the United States and Russia from 1940 to 1956. In the last 6 years, the United States has been adding capacity at an average rate nearly 3 times that of Russia.
Average annual growth in kilowatts United States U. S. S. R. Growth in
period Per year Growth inperiod Per year 1940-45 11,906,000 2,380,000
1945-50 19,982,000 3,996, 000 11,700,000 2,340,000 1950-56 54,492,000 9,082,000 20,395,000 3,399,000
NOTE.-Maximum year (United States), 11,529,000; maximum year (U. S. S. R.), 5,564,000.
You will note, for instance, our rate has been 9,082,000 kilowatts per year dining that 6-year period, whereas Russia's has been 3,399,000 kilowatts.
Russia's maximum year, which was 1956, was 5,564,000 kilowatts; our maximum year, 1955, was 11,529,000 kilo-watts.
I might note parenthetically there that we have scheduled for the present year over 16 billion kilowatts which should be installed. That may be compared with Russia's maximum year to date of 5,564,000 kilowatts.
The accompanying chart shows a comparison of total generating capacities in the United States and Russia for the years 1940 to 1956, with projections to 1975. It shows graphically how the United States has been outdistancing Russia in the installation of electric generating capacity.
14
RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 40 35 )-30 a_ LL1 ▪ 250 -J cri 200 0 ▪ 15 Li. 100 50COMPARISON OF TOTAL GENERATING CAPACITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA UTILITY AND INDUSTRIAL PLANTS HYDRO AND THERMAL CAPACITY
PROJECTED
U.S.ANNUAL RATEMAXIMUMYEAR 1955 1936 -1975 . .11,500,00011,200,000KW.KW.
, / .\/:./. / / //•„ I, / cl• k 44 A 1... .1. • 04, / /45.0 b • i J (1/ -k-. A4,7 COAC) c) •-) / Cr'1/4\ e' / ,ON / 0) / 0. Qf / 6 ., ...„Kk(tV V •c° %, /4Z: • / CO• • /,.• o 4 .,•''S0C. Ig' I/ 4)S cke \e3 k OTAL ik-S , I 1 IN• , 1 Sk NS 1 t 9 NGCC1 k uo‘ e...-•-‘e, -c:, t I l ANNUAL U.S.S.R. MAX. II I ATE 4,930,00010V YEAR 1956 Illtitt.i - 5,600,000±CW 1940 45 50 55 YEAR 60 65 70
As shown in the lower curve, if Russia is to catch up with the United States by 1975, it must install new capacity at the unprecedented rate of 16,200,000 kilowatts annually, or at a rate more than 4 times their actual rate-3,399,000 kilowatts—during the 6-year period 1950-56, and nearly 3 times their maximum annual rate of installation (5,564,000 kilowatts) during that period.
Mr. ADAMS. I do not know the reason why they [Russia] have only recently started extensive hydroelectric develop-ment programs, but it appears from information given by General Itschner in his testimony that they have planned
RIVER AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
15
now, either existing, under construction, or planned, some-thing on the order of 25 million kilowatts of hydro.
So they are now moving to an emphasis on hydroelectric development. Just how fast that 25 million kilowatts of capacity may come in, I don't know, but it appears that it might take a 10-year period for full development of the tremendous projects described in that testimony.
I would expect for the future, for some years yet, the emphasis in Russia will be on waterpower.
Senator WATKINS. They certainly have been rather slow in that development until very recently.
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; that is correct. I think these figures would indicate that.
George R. Phillips, Chief, River Basins Branch, Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture:
Soil Conservation Service records show that, as of Decem-ber 31, 1957, technical assistance had been furnished by that agency through soil-conservation districts in the planning and construction of various measures and practices for water conservation and use. Included were over 885,000 farm ponds, nearly 22,000 small irrigation reservoirs, and over 45,000 farm sprinkler irrigation systems.
Technical assistance also was furnished in planning and applying improved irrigation water application and manage-ment practices on over 12,775,000 acres of irrigated farmland and improved drainage on over 20 million acres of farmland. As of May 1, a total of 852 applications for Public 566 watershed planning and construction assistance had been received in Washington from local groups.
Of those, 351 in 46 States and Hawaii had been authorized for planning assistance, of which 83 in 36 States had been authorized for actual operations.
Also, a report on March 21 on the new Great Plains conservation program showed that since December 1957 about 1,565 farmers and ranchers either had signed con-tracts or filed applications for participation.
Senator WATKINS. Mr. Phillips, that is a very fine paper on the way the development of soil and water conservation in the United States is being taken care of under the De-partment of Agriculture.
Do you know whether Russia has anything comparable to our water development under the Soil Conservation Service small watershed program?
Mr. PHILLIPS. According to the information we have there is nothing of that sort.
Advance aimminE
of ter 3tudios.. ...
Cureoanti...
0000000
00000
Smith Ferk... * .0...
Pine River
***** 555 55
.01,410- 4141, *********** a * 40 ,100raspy
Oftray ***** .1..94,404.fo•Central
*****
Hammond...
***** 4,e
ass 00 ,11Vass46 878
40,000
63,394
105,601
74,109
30,067
23,174
329,515
310,549
5,347
10,000
103,303
•
Procta
in NI,. 485 -
0.1.
Funds
ea1100044boo0....1,41**00...4,41 ,1004W, San
Juen-Chewe...
Navajo Trrigation...
0.450, 4104140.41,04.4•400*****
0
1
Rabbit
*****
0
Eagle
0
3mn ligwels...
Ots11410o0•040,41•4000, 411400dl0
West 311VidI. a asas a a as a s a a ***********
1142,000
Battlement 4asa....
414,0900000•Ire0414041, 4110s00
Towichi Creek....
gest River...
Ohio
401,114+4,41,4,1,04,.41004,rn allooloweasm.•104,01111**41, 5.05 464104100041000041400 ,110fornitIand 144saa•.•.• ...••••...••••
Bostwick
Orend
...
Dallas Croak
••••...
0.401,11140.4004/04,41,000001,Salrerr.Pet
Reok....
*****
Fruit :)rowers 1.4tension•.•••••...•••••
Yellow
nublette (Dialisain Division)...
0
33,100
56,0°0
0
0
4,609
up,
CI1X)
4,778
33,200
0
28,010
95 037
3 Y)
8,000
moon
0....(Indian 5ervice contemo4atiL
5/0,100 in nupplomental
appropriation)
VOLUME VIII
-Legislative Digest
OFFICE OF SECRETARY-MANAGER • 897 NATIONAL PRESS BLDG. • WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
Number 32 --- Au ust 28 1958
LAST ISSUE FOR 1958
This will be the last issue of the LEGISLATIVE DIGEST for 1958.
At the present time we are working an a Legislative Summary in which we hope to list
and summarize all of the most important legislation which has been before the Congress, as well as the action taken on such legislation.
We are also working on a Progress Report which is actually a report on the progress and accomplishments which have been made towards the objectives set forth in the reso-lutions which were adopted at the last annual meeting in Phoenix, November 6-8, 1957. RECLAMATION TREATED WELL BY THE CONGRESS
The 85th Congress, Second Session, was very friendly to Reclamation in many respects. This is very encouraging in view of the unusually serious problems which were requiring the time and the attention of the Congress. These included: (a) the Russuan sputnik which forcibly brought to the attention of the Nation the fact that we were confronted with a very difficult situation and at the very least, a long cold war which threatens to tax the strength and the resources of the country; (b) the business recession which forced millions of people out of work and left numerous communities in dire circum-stances; (c) the Lebanon and middle East crisis which for a time at least, threatened the peace and stability of the world. Then, too, this was an election year and it was only natural that the members of Congress were anxious to adjourn early.
In Appropriations, 10 new starts were approved. However, one of these--Burns Creek--which was approved by the Appropriations Committee subject to authorization, was not
authorized by the Congress.
Most of the projects already under construction were granted funds sufficient to carry them through the fiscal year in fairly good shape, although there may be one or two exceptions.
Four Small Project Loan Applications totaling more than $9,000,000 were approved and allowed funds in the Appropriations Bill.
The only serious and perhaps damaging reductions in appropriations were in the am-ounts allowed for General Investigations. The sponsors of the Garrison Project in North Dakota and the Oahe Project in South Dakota, will undoubtedly be disappointed in the reductions that were made there.
The Senate had approved $2,400,000 for Missouri River Investigations but the Con-ferees reduced the funds for that purpose to $2,000,000.
Saliniti_Control
One of the most important legislative proposals to be enacted into law was S. J. Res.
135 (Anderson & Others) which authorized an appropriation of $10,000,000 for the
(over)
e-Legislative Digest -2- August 28, 1958 establishment of not less than five experimental demonstration plants for the purpose of carrying on research studies and investigations in an effort to find an economical method for the conversion of sea water or brackish water to water suitable for mining, indus.1 trial, agricultural and other beneficial uses.
Authorizations
There were quite a number of authorizations, although none of them for very large projects. They included: the Pecos Water Conservation Project in New Mexico and Texas; the Mercedes Construction and Rehabilitation on the Lower Rio Grande in Texas; the
Greater Wenatchee Reclamation Pumping Project in Washington; Gray Reef Dam and Reservoir as a part of the Glendo Unit in Wyoming; the Prosser Dam on the Washoe Reclamation Pro-ject in Nevada; the Red Willow Irrigation Dam and Reservoir as a unit of the Missouri River Basin Project in Nebraska; and the authorized study by the Secretary of the Interior as to the feasibility of a plan to provide water service from the Central Valley Project to four 41mialailailoglail Counties in California.
Legislative Enactments
There were only two general legislative enactments including the authorization to pay moving expenses when land owners or tenants are required to move because of the ac-quisition of their lands for public works, and a bill authorizing a Variable Repayment Plan.
Resources Review Commission
Another bill approved by the Congress was S. 846 (Anderson & Others) providing for the appointment of a National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which authorizes a study and report by the Commission upon the outdoor recreation resources of the public lands and other land and water resources of the Nation.
Fish and Wildlife
A bill that was strongly supported by the fish and wildlife interests and by the Governors of most of the States would provide that "wildlife conservation shall receive equal consideration with other features of water resources development programs." Ir-rigation and Reclamation interests are inclined to look a little bit askance at this Act since it does not contain a provision requiring compliance with State Water Laws, although it does relate to both construction and operation and maintenance of projects.
There were also several other legislative enactments including the approval of several repayment contracts and interstate compacts, as well as approval of a number of rehabilitation and betterment proposals.
Bills Which Failed to Pass
There were two rather critical bills before the Congress on which Hearings were held but no action was taken. Both of these bills were opposed by NRA in the form that they were presented to the Congress. They were S. 4028 (Humphreys) - To authorize Wilderness Preservation System Areas; and S. 3114 (Neuberger) - To authorize the establishment of
the Columbia River Development Corporation. It is reasonable to expect that similar bills will be introduced in the next Congress.
APPROPRIATIONS FOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
On pages 3 and 4 of this DIGEST, you will find tabulations showing Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation as agreed upon by the Conference Committee.
Digest -3- August 251 1958 140#10101IATIONS FOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AS APPROVED BY SENATE AND HOUSE CONFEREES
TITLE II-DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Amendment No. 7: Appropriates $4,556,000 instead of $4,365,474 as proposed by the House and $5,252,000 as proposed
by
the Senate. The conferees on the part of both Houses are in agreement that none of the funds provided are to be used for studies of the Middle Snake Basin.Amendment No. 8: Strikes out language inserted by the Senate. Amendment No. 9: Provides that $3,831,000 of the funds appro-priated under the General Investigations heading shall be derived from the Reclamation Fund, instead of $3,640,474 as proposed by the House and $4,427,000 as proposed by the
Senate.
CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION
Amendment No. 10: Appropriates $148,018,000 instead of $138,986,141 as proposed by the House and $153,347,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conferees are in agreement that the funds provided under this heading are to be distributed as follows:
State and project Budget esti-mate, 1959 Conferenceallowance
Arizona:
Colorado River front work and levee system 8275,000 California:
Central Valley project:
Exclusive of Trinity River division 81, 786,099 1, 786,099 Trinity River division 41,472,901 41, 472,901
Santa Maria project 1, 629,000 1, 629,000
Bolan° project 1, 081,000 1,081,000
Ventura River project 10,058,000 10,058,000 Colorado:
Collbran project 4,618,000 4, 618,000
Idaho:
Little Wood River project 1,000,000 1,000,000 Palisades reregulating dam and powerplant
(Burns Creek) 500,000
Montana-North Dakota:
Fort Peck project 2,000,000 2,000,000
Nevada-California:
Washoe project, Prosser Creek Dam and
Reser-voir 800,000
New Mexico:
Middle Rio Grande project_ 3,628,000 3,628,000
McMillan Delta project 225,000
Oklahoma:
Washita Basin project 6, 500,000 8, 000,000 Oregon:
Crooked River project 1, 000,000 1,000,000
Rogue River project, Talent division 9, 500,000 9, 500,000 Wapinitia project, Juniper division 95,000 95,000 Texas:
Lower Rio Grande rehabilitation project,
Mercedes division 500,000
San Angelo 500,000
Utah:
Weber Basin project 5, 273,060 5,273,000
Washington:
Columbia Basin project 10, 000,000 10, 000,000 Wyoming:
Eden project 615,000 015,000
Shoshone project 501,000 601,000
Drainage and minor conistruetion 2, 584,000 3, 124,000 Rehabilitation and betterment of existing projects_ 2,603,000 2,603,000 Subtotal (exclusive of Missouri River Basin) - - 105,924,000 110, 784,000
OPLe&is1ative Dizest,
Missouri River Basin project: Ainsworth unit, Nebraska
Bostwick divigion, Nebraska-Kansas Farwell unit, Nebraska
Frenchman-Cambridge division, Nebraska glendo unit, Wyoming
Helena Valley unit, Montana Owl Creek unit, Wyoming Transmission division Webster unit, Kansas
brainage and minor construction Investigations
Other Department of the Interior agencies Subtotal, Missouri River Basin
Grand total, construction and rehabilitation _
Less: Anticipated slippage in 1959 Total appropriation 1, 790, 000 3, 800, 000 11, 000, 000 2, 538, 000 1, 192, 000 9, 988, 000 1, 218, 000 560, 000 2, 000, 000 8, 000, 000 Agat 25958 10 100, 000 1, 790, 000 750, 000 8, 800, 000 11, 000, 000 2, 538, 000 1, 192, 000 9, 884, 000 1, 218, 000 721, 000 2, 000, 000 2, 238, 000 37, 086. 000 143, 010, 000 3, 000, 000 140, 010, 000 38, 231, 000 149, 015, 000 3, 000, 000 146, 015, 000 •
The conference committee feels that the I3ureau of Reclamation should continue its efforts to renegotiate the contracts for repayment on the Columbia Basin project. The basic concept of the reclamation law is that water users should repay the Government in accordance with their ability to repay. It is better that this policy be applied to all projects. In addition to the amount proyided for the Columbia Basin project, up to $1,000,000 of additional funds may be applied if such funds are available.
With respect to the Glendo unit of Missouri River Basin project, the conferees are in agreement that up to $700,000 of the funds allocated to this project may be used for the Gray Reef Dam and Reservoir.
Amendment No. 11: Provides that $85,000,000 of the appropriation under this heading shall be derived from the reclamation fund as proposed by the Senate instead of $85,500,000 as proposed by the House.
Amendment No. 12: Reported in disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to insert Senate language
providing that none of the funds appropriated shall be used for the Prosser Creek Dam and Reservoir or the Gray Reef Dam and Reser-voir until authorized by law. The motion will delete language pre-cluding the use of funds for payments to the Crow Indians as author-ized in Senate Joint Resolution 12.
LOAN' PROGRAM
Amendment No. 13: Appropriates $5,434,000 as proposed by the Senate instead of $4,800,000 as proposed by the House.
GENERAL AbMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Amendment No. 14: Appropriates $4,039,000 instead of $3,914,000 as proposed by the House and $4,164,000 as pr3posed by the Senate.
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN FUND
Amendment No. 15: Appropriates $68,033,335 as proposed by the Senate instead of $67,173,585 as proposed by the House. The con-ferees are in agreement that the funds appropriated under this heading are to be allocated as follows:
State and project
Colorado River storage project: Flaming Gorge unit, Utah
Glen Canyon unit, Arizona-Utah
ictotkjo unit, New Mexico Tedsismission division
*Gunge planning
Oittitatal Part $11ting proisetii
Oita projadi ,clisiefado
6htral Utah Projeet, Vernal unit, Utah Total, Upper Colorado River Basin fund_
-Budget elitinaate, 1469 $10, 500, 000 49, 000, 000 7, 000, 000 205, 000 770, 000 Conference allowance $10, 098, 335 47, 960, 000 7, 000, 000 205, 000 770, 000 67, 475, 000 66, 033, 335 1, 000, 000 1, 000, 000 67, 475, 000 68, 033, 835
Legislative Digest
OFFICE OF SECRETARY-MANAGER • 897 NATIONAL PRESS BLDG. • WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
VOLUME VIII - No. 31 August 14 1958
RECLAMATION BUREAU ANNOUNCES PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1959
Enclosed is a copy of the Bureau of Reclamation program for the fiscal year 1959. We have had copies reproduced and thought that the information contained therein would be of interest to you.
As indicated, the program was developed at the annual Bureau of Reclamation con-ference which ended August 1 at Santa Fe. Present at this concon-ference were repre-sentatives from each of the Bureau's seven regional offices, reprerepre-sentatives from the office of the Chief of Engineers, Denver, and heads of the various divisions of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Washington office. The Alaska District was also represented at the conference.
Without doubt one of the problems which was given major consideration at this conference was the impact which the appropriations for the current year as approved by the Congress will have upon the Budget requests by the Bureau of Reclamation for fiscal year 1960.
It will be noted that the largest single item in the program is for the Colorado River Storage Project, totaling $67,349,000.
ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS
You have no doubt all been informed either by radio or newspapers that Congress will probably not adjourn until some time late in the week ending August 23rd.
This being an election year, the members were naturally anxious and quite hopeful that adjournment would come earlier this year, but the problems which confronted the Congress this year have undoubtedly been as difficult and far-reaching as at any time during the past decade.
APPROPRIATIONS
The conferees on appropriations for public works are scheduled to meet this afternoon (Monday, August 11). It is possible that an agreement will be reached at this meeting and a report released as to the recommendations.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTIVITIES ON RECLAMATION BILLS
During the past ten days there has been considerable activity on the part of the Committees of the Congress on legislation pertaining to Reclamation. A number of bills, particularly small authorization bills, have been moving forward, and it is anticipated that most of these bills will be acted upon before adjournment.
Legislative Digest -2- August 11, 1958 After the 4.djournment of Congress we expect to get out a rather complete summary of all legislation pertaining to Reclamation which was either acted upon or given serious consideration. We also expect to prepare a progress report showing the accomplishments relating to the objectives set out by the various NRA resolutions adopted at the last annual meeting.
In the meantime, we are reporting herein on the progress that has been made upon some of the Reclamation bills that are pending before the Congress.
Bills Cleared for the President:
To permit desert land entries of disconnected tracts of land which, in case of any one entryman, form a compact unit and to not exceed 320 acres.
S. 4002, To authorize the Grey Reef Dam and Reservoir as a part of the Glendo Unit of the Missouri River Basin Project.
5.3469, Relating to the Arch Hurley Conservancy District, New Mexico. Bills reported to the Sen:te:
8.4088, Authorizing a repayment contract for the Heart Mountain Irrigation District, Wyoming.
S. J. Res. 190, To authorize approval of the report by the Department of the Interior relating to Red Willow Dam,
S. 337, To establish rules of interpretation governing questions of the effect of Acts of Congress on State laws (Similar to H. R. 3).
S
.
3643, Authorizing construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation and San Juan-Chama Projects, New Mexico.S. 1887, To authorize the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project, California. SMALL PROJECTS
The Senate Committee adopted a resolution approving a Small Projects Loan of $2,780,000 to the Roosevelt Water Conservation District, Arizona.
REPORTED BY THE HOUSE
S. J. Res, 135, Providing for the construction of a full-scale demonstration plant for the production from sea or other saline waters, of water suitable for agricultural, industrial, muncipal, and other beneficial consumptive uses.
H. J. Res. 585, To authorize service to four California Counties from the Central Valley Project.
H. R. 1289, To authorize the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project. S. 4009, To authorize an increase in appropriations for the Washoe Project.
§,_2/148,
Relating to land limitations, Seedskadee Project.House Concurrent Res, 301, To approve the report by the Department of the Interior on Red Willow Dam.
iegislative Digest
OFFICE OF SECRETARY-MANAGER • 897 NATIONAL PRESS BLDG. • WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
VOLUME VIII - to. 30 Auaust 1 1958
VARIABLE REPAYMENT BILL ON MS WAY TO THE PRESIDENT
The variable repayment legislation, H. R. 8645 (Aspinall), has been passed by both Houses of the Congress and is now on its way to the President.
This legislation was intreaeced at NRA request in response to Resolution #32, adopted at Lincoln, Nebraska, in 1955.
This legis/atiop would provide, "that the general repayment obligation shall be spread in annual instaliments**** over a period of not more than 40 years" or such
longer period of years as may have been approved by the Congress exclusive of any develop-ment period.The legislation would permit a variation in repaydevelop-ment based upon the
ability of the Water Users on a year by year basis without extending the time of re-payment.
The bill would also provide that the benefits of a variable repayment plan may be extended by the Secretary to any organization with which he contracts or has contracted for the repayment of construction costs allocated to irrigation on any project undertaken by the United States.
The variable repayment plan has been embodied in a number of projects authoriz-ing enactments durauthoriz-ing recent years includauthoriz-ing particularly the followauthoriz-ing: Crooked River, Oregon; Little Wood River, Idaho; Rogue River, Oregon; Ventura, California; Washita, Oklahoma; Washoe, California and Nevada; and Foster Creek, Washington.
In other words, this legislation would sikapiy authorize by general legislation that which has previously been done on a project by project basis.
FISH AND WILDLIFE GIVEN GREATER PRIORITY
A bill just passed by both Houses of the Congress H. R. 0138 (Boykin), Senate Report 1981, House Report 2182, amending the Ca-Jrdinatton Act, is designed to pro-vide a more effective integration of a ash and wildlife conservation program with Federal water resource developments. le would authorize such agencies of the
Government as the Bureau of Reclamation,
ad
the Cor f I.;egineers, to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service before and during the building of Federal water de-velopment projects. The bill would also amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act requiring similar coordination between the agencies of the Departmentof Agriculture and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Senate Committee Report 1/1931 states that, "The bill enjoys especially en-thusiastic and widespread support. Every one of the 48 State Governors, or their authorized representatives, had expressed general endorsement of an earlier version of this bill according to the Secretary of the Interior."
States Water Law Provision Deleted
Senator Watkins had a stmilarbiU., S. 3723, befate the Commttee (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce), except that Senator Watkin's bill contained pro-visions intended to require compliance with and recognition of States Water Laws.
Legislative Digest -2- August 1, 1958 The provisiees in Senator Watkin's bill, appearing in two different p14.,ces, and which was deleted from the bill ae A:proved, was worded as follows
"Any acquisition, withdrawal, administration, or transfer of water, w4ter resources, or water rights necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be accomplished in accordance with the water laws of the State or States in which such aetion is taken."
The Interior Department endorsed the bill, but recommended that the above provision referring to State WIter Laws be deleted. Following is the comment on this provision which appeared in the Interior Department report
"S. 3723, which has been introduced following our report on S. 2496, cont.4ins the suggested amendments
that
we transmitted to you with our report. However, it includes also two new subsections, on page 11, lines 7 through 11, and on page 13, line 23 through line 2, page 14, dealing with the matter of eoliance with State water laws along the lines of S. 863, 85th Congress. This Department in the past has re-commended the enactment of legislation similar to S. 863, and we so reported to the chairmae, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, by our letter of March 20, 1956, on S. 863 of the 84th Congress. We recognize, however, that there is considerable difference of opinion concerning such legislation. We recommend, therefore, that the controversy over S. 863 and simil r bills not be injected into the consider,Ation of the proposed legislation to amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordin,etion Act. Accordingly, we urge that the Congress consider S. 863 separately. If enacted, that legislation would of course, have the general application that its terms prescribe.For th foregoing remsons, we recommend that S. 3725 be enacted in the form transmitted withour report on S. 2496. We recommend that S. 3725
be amended" so as to delete the State Water Law provisiOns. ARIZONA SMALL PROJECTS LOAN BEFORE CONGRESS
An application for a loan of $2,780,000 to the Roosevelt Water Conservation District in Arizona, pursuant to the provisions of the Small Reclamation Projects Act, has been submitted to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the Congress.
RECLAMATION BILL PASSED BY THE SENATE
S. 3448 - To amend the /and limi,tation provisions of the Federal Reclamation Law pertaining to the Seedskadee Project in Wyoming, was psssed by the Senate.
SALINE WATER
• The House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee is meeting in executive session today (Friday, August 1st) to consider S. J. Res. 135 - To provide for the construc-tion by the Department of the Interior of a full-scale demonstraconstruc-tion plant for the production, from sea or other saline waters of weters suitable for agricultural, industrial, municipal and other beneficial consumptive uses.
APPROPRIATION BILL
The Conferees on the Public Works Appropriation Bill, H. R. 12858, held one meet-ing some time ago. The Committee is expected to meet again about the middle of next week. There is considerable difference with respect to "New Stigrts" between the Senate and the House bills, the Senate having approved About 6 more "New Starts" than were approved by the House.
Legislative Digest
OFFICE OF SECRETARY-MANAGER • 897 NATIONAL PRESS BLDG. • WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
VOLUME VIII - No. 29 July 25, 1958
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS REPORTED
The Interior and Insalar Affairs Committee concluded the consideration and amending of H. R. 594 (Chenoweth) to authorize the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, and ordered a clean bill incorporating such amendments, reported to the House.
Congressman Wayne Aspinall (Colorado), Chairman of the Subcommittee which has been conducting Hearings on the bill during the past several weeks, is reported to have expressed doubt that the House Rules Committee would consider the project for floor action this late in the rvIssion.
The Committee approved the project by a vote of 19 to 4, those voting against the pro-ject being Congressman Craig Hosmer (California); John R. Pillion (New York); James B. Utt (California); and J. Ernest Wharton (New York).
The above mentioned action by the House Committee is an important step towards ul-timate passage of the legislation and will undoubtedly be encouraging to the long-suffering farmers of the Arkansas River Valley in Southeastern Colorado. However, there are at least two big hurdles yet to overcome: 1st, Approval of the Rules Committee and 2nd, A favorable vote by the House.
LAND LIMITATION HEARINGS PRINTED
The Hearings on Land Limitation Legislation, which was held before the Senate Subcom-mittee on Irrigation and Reclamation on April 30th, have been published. A copy of these Hearings will be mailed to you by Senator Clinton P. Anderson (New Mexico), Chairman of the Committee.
SENATE COMMITTEE REPORTS
The Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee has reported favorably upon the following bills:
H. R. 8645 (Aspinall) - To provide for a variable repayment plan for the repay-ment of construction costs on Reclamation projects.
S. 3448 SBarrett) To provide for liberalizing the land limitation provisions of the Federal Reclamation Law relating to the Seedskadee Reclamation Project in Wyoming.
The Committee also approved the following:
A Rehabilitation and Betterment Program for the Sun River Reclamation Pro ect in Montana.
Legislative Digest -2- Jul 25 1958 HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORTS
The House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee has reported favorably upon the following bills:
S. 3469 (Anderson) - Relating to the Arch Hurley Conservancy District, New Mexico.
§_,±2s22_2ELtcl_syj_do'mahone
- To authorize the Gray Reef Dam and Reservoir asa part of the Glendo Unit of the Missouri River Basin Project, Wyoming.
The Committee also approved application for loans for the following Small Reclama-tion Projects:
South Davis Coun,ty Water Improvement District, Utah. Bountiful Water Subconservancy District, Bountiful, Utah. Walker Irrigation District, Nevada.
HOUSE ADOPTS LEGISLATION RELATING TO: FEDERAL VS. STATE LAWS
The House, by a vote of 241 to 155, after a very prolonged and often heated debate, adopted a bill which deals with the extent to which an At by Congress shall occupy a field in which such Act operates. The bill, as introduced by Congressman Howard W. Smith of Virginia, is as follows:
"No act of Congress shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such act operates, to the exclusion of all State laws on the same subject matter, unless such act contains an express provision to that effect, or unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such act and a State law so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand
together."
Several speakers indicated that such an Act if adopted, might clarify the States Water Rights question, although the legislation was not intended to cover that parti-cular problem. This bill was introduced by Mr. Smith during the time of the wave of resentment which followed in the wake of two important decisions, the Nelson decision and the Hanson decision. In the Nelson case, the Supreme Court ruled that Federal anti-subversion laws had preempted the field to the exlusion of State enactments. In the Hanson case, the Supreme Court held that Federal legislation relating to railways had nullified State right-to-work laws in the area. The contention is that the Supreme Court has attempted to read into the Acts of Congress, language and meaning that the Congress never intended to put there.
SENATE COMMITTEE HEARS PROS AND CONS RE: WILDERNESS AREAS More Hearings Later - Probably in West
The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs heard approximately 25 witnesses, and received at least an additional 25 statements setting forth the arguments both for
and against the National Wilderness Preservation System Bill, S. 4028 (Neuberger and Others) on Wednesday, July 23rd. In addition to the statements, there were also numerous letters and telegrams received, all of which were made a part of the record.
Witnesses strongly urged that Hearings be held in the field and it appears to be the general consensus of the Committee Members, that more Hearings will be held and that some of them undoubtedly will be held in the West.
Legislative Digest Jul 25 1958 Three Senators, including Senators Bennett and Watkins (Utah), and Barrett (Wyoming), who appeared as witnesses and submitted statements were strongly opposed to the creation of wilderness areas as proposed in S. 4028., Senator Bible stated that he had received a letter from Hugh A. Shamberger, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for'the State of Nevada, suggesting that Hearings should be held in the field.
Statements were presented on behalf of both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior.
Edward C. Crafts, Assistant Chief, Forest Service, USDA, stated that, "the Depart-ment (of Agriculture) recognizes wilderness to be a proper and desirable use of a national forest." He also stated that the Department of Agriculture recommended three principle changes in the bill:
1. All provisions with respect to the establishment of the national wilderness preservation Council should be deleted.
He stated that the Council would have no real powers and would impose record keeping, paper work and expense, further, that the Council would be concerned solely with wilder-ness preservation, which is only one of numerous recreational type uses of the national forests.
2. Primitive areas now in the national forests should be temporarily included in the wilderness system but should remain there only if the Secretary of Agriculture, within 15 years, determines them to be predominantly of wilderness value.
3. Measures needed for the control of forest insects and diseases should be permitted on national-forest areas in the wilderness system without required Presidential authorization,
He stated that the bill would be desirable, insofar as the national forests are con-cerned, if amended as recommended.
George Abbott, Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, presented a statement on behalf of the Department and also the Department Report on the bill. The Report recow mended Congressional legislation at the earliest practicable date--during the present Congress if feasible, in order to accomplish three objectiVes:
1. That wilderness and allied values be given greater recognition, and rightful place in the statutes relating to management, development, conservation and use of Federal lands and associated resources. 2. If the Congress concludes that such existing areas, ,(wilderness,
wild, roadless and primitive) or portions of them should be formally covered into wilderness and related classification at this time, action having that purpose should establish a procedural pattern for similar future enactments.
3. Enabling legislation should spell out precisely what procedural steps should be taken at the course of arriving at such
designations.
Also, a number of minor amendments were proposed.
"S. 4028" he said, would give "appropriate recognition, place and stature to wilder-ness and associated resources in the total Federal National Resources Program." We sup-port this as a desirable objective.
