RECD.
JUL 1 3 1973
'MEER HS7LIPES
nissim AiIf
J. A. (TED) RIGGINS, JR., President JOHN W. SIMMONS, Trossurar (Arizona) (Texas)
J. R. BARKLEY, First Vice President MILO W. HOISVEEN, Past President (Colorado) (North Dakota)
ROBERTT. CHUCK, Second Vice President (Hawaii)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
July 6, 1973
Mr. E.F. Doncaster, Director
National Water Resources Association Roza Irrigation District
P.O. Box 810
Sunnyside, Washington, 98944
Dear Don:
This replies to your letter of July 2 about the final Report of the National Water Commission. Since the subject may interest most Directors, this letter is being mailed to each.
The final Report comprises 576 pages, small print,
cost $9.30 plus postage. Weight [without wrapping] is five pounds. One is being ordered for you, Don, as requested. A pamphlet comprising the recommendations only may be off the press soon.
As we discussed on the phone, the witnesses before the IIA Committee at the hearing of July 17 are to be Federal gov-ernment only, e.g., the Water Resources Council. The Senate Public Works Committee may join IIA, -as some members did for the NWC appearance on June 28.
Both Committees [IIA and Public Works] received copies of all testimony to NWC about the Draft Report a hell of a
slug of stuff. Considering that, I do not know whether resolutions requesting the Senate and the House "to reject" the NWC Report
are of value.
However, analyses of specific proposals or conclusions
of the Report -- sent to any member of the Congress -- could be
of
benefit, as could discussions with members in their home areas.DIRECTORS
..CONTINUED..
Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. E. F. (Don) Doncaster, Wash. J. A. (Ted) Riggins, Jr. Chris C. Green, Kans. Clarence Base, Okla. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. James F. Sorensen, Calif. Hubert G. White. Mont. Harold Henigson, Ore. Paul W. Scott
J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Homer Engelhorn, S. D. Railroad Representative. Wash. Robert T. Chuck. Hawaii Roland Westergard. Nev. John W. Simmons, Tex. Wesley 0' Ewart,
-2-As to the requesting of field hearings on the final Report, for the Congress, the views of our members seem to vary greatly. Therefore -- I am not now stating an NWRA posi-tion to Capitol Hill, as regards field hearings on the final NWC Report.
Regards,
Carl H. Bronn
NOTE: Since each member of the Board of Directors is receiving a copy of this letter, your views on the final paragraph are requested.
National Water Resources Association
November 10, 1973
AGENDA
1. Approval of latest Minutes (Boise).
2. Appointment of Ad Hoc Committee to review suit against the Water
Resources Council and to recommend actions by NWRA (See Item 12).
The Committee is to consist of: John Simmons, Chairman; William C.
Smith- JT.Bob Barkley.
3. Appointment of Committee to nominate NWRA officers to consist of:
Jim Sorensen, Chairman; Judge William C. Smith Jr.; John Simmons.
4. Hear Report of the Honors and Memorials Committee. Senator Bible
may be given award at Wednesday luncheon, depending upon his
schedule.
5. Hear Report of Convention Committee.
6. Pitch of bidders for Convention 1976 -- Tuesday, 3:30 P.M., No
floor pitch -- display booth.
6a.
Discuss time of the next Board meeting (Mid-Winter)
7. Hear Board members brief the recommendations of the National
Water Commission (familiarization) -- to be done at Monday
morn-ing Board meetmorn-ing.
..hear tentative recommendations of the Water Rights
Committee and the M&I Committee as to means for involving
- State Associations in pertinent recommendations of NWC.
8. Joint meeting with Resolutions Committee -- Monday afternoon, 1:30 P.M.
9. Report from Budget Committee.
10. Discuss briefings at Phoenix by:
..Reclamation Commissioner -- 4:00 P.M. Tuesday.
..Chief of Engineers -- 3:30 P.M. Wednesday
..Director, Water Resources Council -- Thursday meeting under
sponsorship of Texas—
e,,30
—Other Chairmen of NWRA Committees (Doyle Boen will at some
unspecified time report on Small Projects Committee).
11. Executive Committee meeting -- Friday afternoon upon conclusion
of business session.
12. Consider suit against W&C (See Item 2). This is a priority item
for Monday morning Board session.
NWRA PROJECTED INCOME AND OUTGO TO END DECEMBER, 1973 INCOME:
1. Projected Income, 1973 $78,323.18
[This figure includes dues in 1973 of $61,923.18, and the Salt Lake Convention Proceeds of $16,400.00].
2. Actual NWRA Income at End October $65,812.50
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-OUTGO:
1. For Actual NWRA Outgo to end of September, see Financial State-ment, Form II, attached.
2. Projected Outgo to end of December:
BUDGET
OUTGO PROJECTED BUDGET, 1973 PROPOSED
'74*
HIRES $34,025.00 SERVICES $23,693.76* OPERATIONS $11,391.00**
*No Inflation allowance in Prospective '74 Budget figures.
TOTAL BUDGETED, 1973 $71,481.00
TOTAL OUTGO FORECAST, 1973
$69,1_09.76***
TOTAL PROSPECTIVE BUDGET 1974*
$69,000.00
*No inflation allowance included in above.
* Exceeds Budget by approximately $457.76
$34,025.00
$34,000.00
$23,236.00
$24,000.00
$14,220.00 $11,000.00
Under-budget O1 by approximately $2,829.00
The extent of discrepancy between original amounts budgeted and forecast amounts is due primarily to reduction in Water
Life costs,
and
the very small amount spent of Miscellaneous employment, this year -- approximately $1,500.00 less than amount budgeted. Pleasesee back-up sheets for complete explanation of findings on this page.
HIRES
BUDGET 1973
BUDGET 1974
NO INFLATION ALLOWANCE
1. Exec. Director
2. Exec. Director Def. Inc.
3. Bunting
4. Crane
5. FICA
14,000 gross
9,600
7,300 gross
1,800 gross
1,200
14,000 gross
9,600
7,300 gross
1,800 gross
1,200
SUM
34,000.00
34,000.00
SERVICES
6. Editor, Water Life
7. Water Life Print
8. Water Life Mail
9. WeRx
10 Audit
11 Maintenance & Rental
12 Reproduction
13 Telephone
Local & Ans. Service
Long Distance
14 Rent
15 Postage, 1st Class
16 Press Club Dues
4,866.00
6,000.00
1,000.00
660.00
1,200.00
610.00
1,000.00
700.00
800.00
5,280.00
900.00
220.00
4,866.00
5,000.00
1,000.00
660.00
1,200.00
610.00
2,000.00
900.00
1,000.00
5,600.00
900.00
220.00
SUM
23,236.00
24,000.00
OPERATIONS
17 Supplies
18 Purchase of Equip.
19 Board Support
20 D.C. General
Bronn, Special
Taxis, lunches
21 Convention Support
22 Publications
23 Travel
President
Bronn
24 Misc. Employ.
25 Misc. & Cont.
26 Wash. D.C. Special
(Incl. Cong. Recpt.)
1,300.00
400.00
800.00
600.00
1,200.00
1,000.00
100.00
1,300.00
3,000.00
2,000.00
920.00
1,600.00
1,000.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
1,200.00
1,000.00
100,00
1,300.00
3,000.00
1,000.00
920.00
0.00
SUM
14,220.00
11,000.00
,
,
INCOME
Projected NWRA Income for 1974:
1. Quota by States
$54,024.00
2. Miscellaneous (includes Railroad contributions)
$5,400.00
3. Convention Proceeds -- Phoenix
$9,576.00
TOTAL PROJECTED INCOME $69,000.00
DATE
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
B97 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004
c21/0
‘77-
72
HOMER ENGELHORN JOHN SIMMONS BOB BARKLEY
September 28, 1973
The enclosed Draft will be delivered
to the South Dakota Water Development Assn.
by me on October 31 -- just before Gil
Stamm.
The audience may be particularly
sensi-tive to whatever I say because I believe .
they feel that the, National Association has
not
made an effective case for continuedFederal irrigation subsidies.
Gentlemen, I welcome your comments. Sincerely, Carl H. BrOnn sgb DATE SIGNED 1,1,1.1111111N', 111 1 , 1 '. , 1111, 1:1 f11,,J ,A,1111 1,11, Ifl
DRAFT NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
IRRIGATION -- WHO PAYS?
Let's start with three Facts and one Conclusion: FACTS:
(1) Whether or not to develop irrigation is primarily a decision to be made by landholders.
(2) Exceptions occur when the landholder asks other people to help pay his irrigation costs.
(3) When taxpayers at large help pay local irrigation
costs, they gain the right to join in the decision-making. CONCLUSION:
From those facts one could conclude that
--...In joint decision-making, the preferences of the
general taxpayer ought to be weighted somewhat in accord-ance with his share of the cost.
Those three facts and a conclusion about public preferences are -- to me -- the essence of the recommendations about irrigation in the National Water Commission Report(1).
Nevertheless, some witnesses before the National Water Commission believed that the Report recommended "no further irrigation". Not so, as Chairman Luce reminded witness after witness.
Rather, the Report recommended an end to Federal subsidization of irrigation, that is, an end to:
...subsidization by not charging interest;
..CONTINUED.. (1) "Foremost in the Commissioners' minds is the importance of insuring
that public policies accurately reflect public preferences." --Page IX of the NWC Draft Report.
•
-2-...subsidization by "diverting" power revenues to pay costs allocated to interest;
...subsidization by making non-irrigators pay more than irrigators.
Stated differently, Chairman Luce's positions are: (1) he does not give a damn whether there is or is not more irrigation, provided the irrigators pay the full costs, and environmental effects are con-sidered. (2) His view reflects the current public preference.
On that basis, where do you stand as regards the NWC recommendations on irrigation?
Maybe you question: "Who is the "public"? How fully is the public informed about its interest in subsidized irrigation?"
One answer is:
...Elected officials are the "public" in these kinds of decisions.
...Officials are informed through the project reports of the agencies, plus the Environmental Impact State-ments.
Are you, I and other advocates that Federal irrigation be charged only what the irrigator can afford -- are we as informed as is official-dom about
"Irrigation -- Who Pays"?
Let's check out our knowledge through a discussion last year on the Senate floor by Senator Bellmon, from the Reclamation State of Oklahoma.
Senator Bellmon said: "Using only six percent interest, the
-3-landowners will repay directly only $320.00 per acre."
About another project then under consideration by the Senate, Mr. Bellmon said in effect
--.."On irrigation project "Y", the landowners will pay about 28% of the initial construction cost. Does that sound pretty good? Add interest at only 6%, and the per acre subsidy over fifty years is more than $4,000.00!"
That spokesman for a public of a Reclamation State questions whether such projects ought to be built. So does the Department of Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget. Do you?
Reasons why such projects should be built were offered by me in a panel at St. Paul, several years ago. A fellow panel member -- an official of OMB -- replied:
.."Whether Carl is right about the public interest will
be demonstrated in the use of general revenue-sharing funds. If the Governors put those funds into irrigation projects --OK -- but will they?"
Last month, the President of the Western State Engineers said: .."Now the States are getting general revenue sharing funds. Will those funds replace the Federal subsidy for irrigation projects?"
From this, let's draw another conclusion:
...The issue of "who pays" for subsidized irrigation is coming closer to home!
NEW RULES:
Senator Bellmon said also: "Rules as to project criteria and repayment are incredibly complex, devoid of logic, distort planning,
-4-and obscure the decisions which Congress must finally make." Further, he advised:
.."I hope the Interior and other Committees will give serious consideration to the Report of the National Water Commission."
The Secretary of Interior took the Report seriously; he instructed the Water Resources Council to propose new rules for cost sharing. The Council, I forecast, will use a principle of "willingness-to-pay" to determine the value of water uses, and also as evidence of that value in cost sharing.
New rules for cost sharing will be proposed to the Congress this year, according to President Nixon. Meanwhile, no requests to authorize new Reclamation projects have been made to Congress by the Administration. COST SHARING AND VALUES:
New rules for cost sharing, as I testified to the Water Resources Council in January of 1969, are bound to be illogical, if not preceded by:
(1)-clarification of the Federal motives for joining States in water resource management;
(2)-better portrayal of the prospective results from water resource management, as related to regional and national ambitions.
Neither of those two basics was firmly tackled by the National
Water Commission. Result -- the Commission's theme that "water project services should be determined by measuring the consumer's willingness-to-pay full costs" is no more than a belief, or philosophy.
-5-Whatever the cost to develop that theme -- one of 7 themes per-vading the Report -- it is worth nothing.
Why nothing?
Nothing at all because
(1)-The Report does not test the theme. The theme of
"willingness-to-pay" could have been tested by apply-ing it to projects sponsored by State Governments, and then weighing the RESULTS thus forecasted alongside the ambitions of the States!
(2)-That theme was offered *-- for nothing -- to the Senate IIA Committee seven years ago, when the bill for a National Water Commission was being heard on Capitol Hill.
But now, you can argue, cost sharing goes to the Water Resources Council for study. And the Council published on September 10, 1973, a clarification of Federal motives, and also the standards for portraying results.
TRUE -- but in my view, as a professional analyst, the new system merits the description Senator Bellmon gave to the old system -- it dis-torts planning and confuses the decisions which Congress must finally make!
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS:
Further to distort planning, and to confuse decisions, is the Federal Environmental Impact Statement.
You may recall that under the National Environmental Policy Act signed in January, 1970, each agency of the Federal Government must
1
*by Professor Ray K. Linsley, who subsequently became a member of the Commission
...assess environmental impacts of proposed actions which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Such assessments are called "E.I.S."'s. The E.I.S. for the pro-posed Alaska pipeline cost more than five million dollars, and would crowd Dr. Elliot's famed five-foot bookshelf. Shove those Impacts, alongside a feasibility Report, plus appendices, at the public and its elected representatives! Are those really aids to better decision-making?
ROLE OF NWRA:
So what is NWRA going to do about all this? What have we done? Before E.I.S.'s were required, before the Water Resources Council wrote ten million words about "objectives", before the National Water Commission spent $5.5 millions to espouse its philosophies, NWRA could see the writing on the wall: "Kilroy is coming".
So, during the winter of 1968-69, we devised a new "framework" for water policy. That February -- 1969 -- we explained the framework to the IIA Committees of the Congress.
Those present were intrigued by that framework. But the Committees had too many other problems to do anything with it...considering also a strong view that devising such a framework is a responsibility of the Executive -- not the Legislative. And the Executive, in turn, thought the Council and the Commission could do better -- which they should have
Maybe they did, but they also gave us more recommendations than we can cope with. But to try to cope, NWRA's Directors, Resolutions Committee, and some other Committees are preparing for joint actions about the NWC Report. Those actions will bring YOU in -- you State
-7-Associations. The nature of the actions will be determined in early January.
Meanwhile, YOU may want to imagine yourselves in the place of
Governors and Members of Congress. Confronted with demands for spend-ing more $billions than can be raised -- except by continued debasement
of the dollar -- what kind of information, and what theory of cost sharing for water projects, would help you to make better decisions with a $250 billion dollar Budget confronting YOU.
NW RA CFBronn 8/28/73
MEMORANDUM
TO: RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, and CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
FOR: STUDY
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE STATUS OF THE SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTIONS (As of August 28, 1973)
Objectives of the National Water Resources Association (The following is a shortened and updated draft of objectives)
To promote comprehensive and coordinated management of the water and land resources of the Reclamation States, the objectives of this Association are:
(1) Wild-life Use (2) Frame-work for Develop-ment (3) Compre-hensive Actions (4) Inte-grated Hydro-Power * *
Integrated and multiple utilization of water developments* under repayment terms consistent with governmental and business principles and the encouragement of initiative and responsibility. Acceptance of the right and the obligation of people of all States to develop - with or without the assistance of the Federal Government - water resources within a framework of interstate com-pacts, the water laws*V the respective states, and such Federal laws' as apply.
The authorization of, adequate appropriation for, and timely utilization by the Executive Branch of appropriated money for projects to develop, control, conserve, and utilize TOTAL water resources.
The use of project water for genetr tion of hydro-electric power subservient to, and supportive of (on reclamation projects) other beneficial uses. In this, we recommend
(a) As regards electricity from a proposed recla-mation project, that the Secretary of
"developments" replaces "resources" because repayment applies to the former, not the 13tter.
"Federal laws" added to State water laws because the former have - and will increasingly have - effect on development of water resources,
Page 2
the Interior, E-ft the orttset of the planning and thereafter: constitute an advisory
group from the affected areF,., consisting of reoresentatives of ?coal and state water 3gencies, investor-ownef. utilities, consumer r.wned utilities; and a;Jpro,-;iriate Federal
agencies, to provide :1.anning and operations. (b) That electricity from reclamation projects
be marketed to provide for full multi-purpcse do. lopment, considering the marketing of other power within the project market area and
also repayment requir.azients. Feeral hydro-electric facilities should be deslgned con-structed and operated to assure efficiency on an integrated basis with private and public Dower suppliers having primary responsibility in the area,
(c) That construction of Federal transmission facilities include only such lines as are essential to the marketing and exchange of Federal* power and energy. Adequate facili
ties of other power suppliers, Public or ,rivate. should not be duplicated unless
the entity providing such facility fails to assure satisfactory se7vice at a reasonable price,
(d) That the utilization: either directly or by exchange, of reclamation power for reclama-tion project pumping facilities have priority over all other uses.**
Further. we recommend that
--(5) The Federal government, its agents, employees. Corn- licensees and perhlittees comply with all appli-pliaLce with cable state laws and regulations governing the State Water appropriation, distribution, control, or use of Law water, whether such water originates on
federal-ly owned or controlled lands or elsewhere,
"Federal" replaces "recl-aiiii-On"-EeE-ause—the principle includes :Dower from Corps projects as well.
This could be dropped because it is covered in opening statement under (4)
Page 3. (6) No Seizure (7) Compensa-tion for Public Acquisi-tion (8) (9) Access to Federal Lands (10) Adherence to Project Purposes
Private property needed for Federal use be acquired by contract, purchase or condemnation proceedings in all instances.
Compensation for land in a reclamation project taken for public use include payments to fund the repayment obligation for construction charges and operation and maintenance costs allocable to such land, together with the costs of modifying or relocating water facilities made necessary by such taking.
Acreage limitations be reviewed* for practica-bility considering changes in agricultural economics which have occurred since 1902 or by considering especially:
(a) the effects of raising the basic limit of 160 acres.
(b) the results anticipated were acreage limita-tions lifted upon payment of interest or other appropriate consideration (Engle formula), and (c) the need for universal use of the Class 1
equivalency concept.
The Secretary of each Federal Department responsi-ble for Federal lands permit reasonaresponsi-ble access to such lands consistent with the needs of preserva-tion, maintenance, construction or reconstruction of water facilities.
Administrative changes in project land use or development which would impair either the general economy dependent upon utilization of reclamation project land or its repayment capability, be first approved by the affected water user entity.
(11) The Department of Interior process desert land entry Desert applications to final decisions promptly.
Land Appli cation.
(12) DJTartments and agencies of the Federal Government responsible for water resource development minimize duplication of investigation, research and other work and also disseminate adequately the information developed.
"Reviewed" substituted for "modernization" applied as a hedge pending results of NWRA studies of NWC report.
Page 4.
(13) The Department of Interior release project lands *Adminis- from acreage limitations upon repayment of reim-tration bursable project costs allocable thereto.*
of
Acreage Limitations
(14) Any studies for the Inter-Basin Transfer of Water be in accordance with the annex attached.
Annex to Item (14)--
Inter-basin (a) that all present and future water needs of Trans- the states within the basin of origin, and fers related development costs in connection
therewith, including but not limited to irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, flood control, power, navigation, recreation, water quality control, and fish and wildlife preservation and enhancement be considered in making such studies;
(b) that such studies shall include and insure preservation of compact allocations of water; (c) that the rights of states to water derived
from inter-basin transfers shall neither imply nor establish a priority of right to such waters as against the states within the basin of origin and if future needs of such states require it, provision shall be made for termination of the exportation of water or replacement thereof by substitution; (d) that the costs of water development in the
states within the basin of origin shall not be greater than would have been the case had there never been an export from those states under any such study;
(e) that concurrent studies shall be carried on in conjunction with the states which would receive imported water to determine whether such state or states, as a condition precedent to authorization for the importa-tion of water have put, or within a reasonable time will put to beneficial use all water
This could be dropped, since (8) denotes a study of limits on all Reclamation -- authorized and pipeline.
Page 5. (15) That Outdoor Values (1) (2) Environ-mental Impacts and Project Support
which can be made usable within the area to be benefited by such importation, all in keeping with recognized feasible water use and conservation practices.
the Board of
Directors--support research and direct a program to inform the public of the contributions from irrigation and other developments to human needs, quality of environment, and the overall strength of our Nation.
establish a record on environmental impacts of water resource developments; publicize
the record; and use it in the defense of water resource projects, including presentations to Congress, Legislatures, and other agencies toward authorization, funding and operating meritorious works.
Page 6.
FACTORS AFFECTING RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 71-2: Release of Appropriations
The issue between Congress and the President over the latter's impounding appropriated funds is receiving sub-stantial Congressional attention and also is in Court.
..For example, a Court has ruled that funds appropri-ated under the Water Quality Act must be "made
available"; results of this and applications other-wise are to be determined. However, one study shows that of 26 impoundment cases decided by the Federal Courts, the score is:
..16 District Court cases and one appellate court have ruled impoundment illegal;
..6 cases were dismissed after release of funds; ..2 were dismissed for other grounds;
..one court upheld impoundment.
A Georgia case involving highway, water quality, and educational funds is heading for the Supreme Court. ..A Joint Committee of the Congress
to cope with impoundment.
is developing actions
..Thus, I see no need to continue this resolution, considering also the Association's stated objectives [especially #(3)].
Resolution 71-4: Indian Trust Counsel Authority
..A bill to create this authority (S. 1339) is part of a seven-bill package introduced March 22, 1973 by Messrs. Jackson, Fannin, Abourezk, and others, on request of Mr. Nixon.
The Senate held hearings May 7-8, with Assistant Secretary KyItas lead-off witness. Testimony is not yet published.
Executive sessions are not presently scheduled. The House has taken no action.
If Directors and Resolutions Committee propose that we contend--personally with the House Committee--that this bill
Page
would "duplicate and overlap", rather than provide the objective legal aid sought by the Administration and other witnesses,
we should either select a witness competent to withstand
questioning about our view, or the NWRA sponsor of this position should contact me.
Resolution 71-5: Rainbow Bridge
The Department of the Interior preferred that NWRA not become involved as Friend of the Court.
Subsequently, a lower court ruled against Interior, but was overturned on appeal. The appellate ruling was not
unanimous. One expert considers that the dissenting opinion would be considered very carefully by the Supreme Court, were the issue to be taken there, and could result in reversal.
My personal view is that this resolution has served its purpose.
Resolution 71-6: Westwide Water Plan
This Association, because of conflicts between duties in Washington, D. C. and the dates of meetings for the Advisory Committee to the Plan, has not regularly joined
in the study. However, I have personally discussed the study with Wally Christensen and Warren Fairchild several times. I have repeatedly written them that the study would not aid development should it not contain a rationalization for a Federal subsidy of irrigation--which it may not.
I have a further concern that topside in Department of Interior, and also the Office of Management and Budget, will use the Western Plan to reinforce views of the National Water Commission on irrigation and cost-sharing, unless the Plan justifies Federal subsidy for irrigation--which it may not.
The program of the Phoenix Convention does not include discussion of the Westwide Plan, nor of irrigation. The Westwide Plan will be completed this fiscal year.
Altogether, I see no purpose in continuing this Resolution for 1974.
Resolution 71-7: Environmental Class Actions
Hearings by the Subcommittee on Environment, Senate Commerce Committee on the Administration's bill S. 1032 were held early in 1971; however, the bill was never reported out of Committee. A similar bill, S. 1104 [again an Admin. bill] was introduced in the 93rd Congress. Hearings were held this April--with no further action.
Page 8.
Resolution 71-10: Land Limitation Legislation
NWRA's past President Sorensen continues as Chairman of the Land Limitation Committee. However, any effective actions by this Committee are tied to criteria for cost-sharing and for Federal subsidization of irrigation.
I consider that the Association's views on land limita-tion should await a prospective determinalimita-tion of views about cost-sharing with subsidization for irrigation. Such views may develop from studies to be recommended by the Resolutions Committee and the Board at or before Phoenix.
Further, see objectives #(8).
Resolution 71-11: Water Salvage and Watershed Management The environmentalists continue to attack channelization of all sizes. Effective answers require project-by-project analyses. It may therefore follow that a statement of "support for reduction of water losses - as by seepage, evaporation and transpiration and for better overall water control
-so to reduce erosion, floods and channel migration -" could replace Resolution 71-11; such statement could be in the Objectives, item (16).
Resolution 71-15: Small Projects
Through the work of Milo Hoisveen, additional authorities for Small Projects, Corps of Engineers, passed the House and the Senate last year. However, the measure was vetoed by the President.
Additional authorities we desire are in current House and Senate bills. The House is holding action on its bill pending the outcome of deliberations about special language; such would return to Congress certain authorities for project formulation and evaluation now vested in the Administration.
Further, the Directors are arranging that NWRA's Small Projects Committee will maintain surveillance over our
interests in small projects for the Corps as well as for Reclamation.
I believe that this Resolution has served its purpose.
But,if Doyle Boen has a draft bill ready by Phoenix, a statement of support would be desirable.
Page 9.
Resolution 71-16: Water Storage in Wilderness Areas
The Association has a long standing practice that any sponsor of a Resolution which proposes legislation must submit a draft of legislation which he considers would do the job.
This practice has been neither followed nor its concept repudiated, as I have often discussed with the Resolutions Committee. Again, if a sponsor cannot lay out the elements of a draft bill which would satisfy his needs, it becomes very difficult to do so otherwise.
I h -(we developed contacts with the office, Chief of Forest iervice 7 on this issue and do note further that -again this year - we are not inviting the Chief Forester to speak at our Convention..
Resolution 71-17: National Labor Relations Act Amendment The National Labor Relations Act does exempt agricultural labor. So far as is reliable, informal conversation with an official of the National Labor Relations Board indicates that the Act is not used in regard to negotiations of quasi-public organizations engaged in distributing agricultural water.
I suggest that the sponsor of this Resolution provide a Draft Bill,
Resolution 72-1: Land Use Planning
Three of the objectives stated in this resolution are specifically included in the bill which passed the Senate; objective No. 2 is not specifically included, but probably covered by a number of provisions for comprehensive coordina-tion of Federal policies and programs.
The House version is still being marked up. I think we shall be reasonably successful insofar as concerns the final report of the House Committee. Whether Resolution 72-1 needs to be re-enacted depends upon the status of Land Use Legislation at the time of the Convention.
Resolution 72-2: Salinity Control
The results of actions by the Brownell Committee are still undetermined.
As to the final paragraph of Resolution 72-2, at this time I am uncertain as to "salinity control policies as may be approved by the States". Can Directors and Resolutions Com-mittee members inform me of State actions?
Page 10.
Resolution 72-3: Dam Safety
The Corps of Engineers has not been provided money to carry out the program for safety inspection, as visualized originally by the Public Works Committee
As an alternative, the Corps has questioned the States as to the problems visualized by the latter, and their capa-bilities. The results of the survey will be reported to the Congress this fiscal year.
Since the views of the States will have been assembled and reported, I think that the real sense of this resolution has been satisfied.
Resolution 72-4: Association Financing
Individual members of the Resolutions Committee will have had the opportunity to have appraised the attitudes
of the respective States in local conventions, on the issue of increased quotas. From here, I see Arizona, Hawaii, and
Nebraska as most likely "uppers" this year. Of course, the Utah group topped all records on returns to the National from a Convention.
Resolution 72-5: New Standards for Project Evaluation As to the prospective standards to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, I wrote the Chairmen of the
Interior and Insular Affairs Committees; each was requested to ask the Secretary not to issue new standards until he had weighed their prospective impact. I cited provisions of the law (NEPA) which require that such impact evaluation be
made, and distributed for public comment, before implementation. Neither Chairman answered the letter. Staff at both places
c-,id not accept my arguments.
Subsequently President Nixon approved the issuance of the new standards, and the Water Resources Council is preparing to issue them.
While I expect that the standards shall not legally
apply to projects already authorized by Congress, the Adminis-tration could select projects from existing backlogs and refer them to Congress, suggesting concurrence in reviewing such projects under the new rules. (Dept. of Interior publicly stated an intention to seek additional non-Federal cost-sharing on backlogged projects.)
From Capitol Hill, I hear that the Public Works Committees are examining alternative means for preventing, at least
temporarily, the effectuation of WRC's upcoming rules.
Page 11.
Resolution 72-6: Energy Resources
The Nixon Administration is proposing a DENR and related organization to intensify research on all aspects of energy production. Congressfalso considering other measures -research and conservation - to improve the supply and use of energy.
This resolution has served its purpose, I suggest.
Resolution 72-7: Residency Requirements
Do the Resolutions Committee and the Board consider this an appropriate time to promote legislation to repeal the residency requirements of the Reclamation Act? If
not, this could become a resolution asking State Associations to collect facts on residency practices, with views on
practicability of changing the law.
Resolution 72-8: Recycling and Return Flow Research Capitol Hill seems fed-up with research desalination as an aid to re-use, but will consider a prototype plant.
EPA is concerned with area-wide water quality improve-ment, including desalination, and is developing approaches. We shall have an EPA official - plus Casey and Dreyfus at Phoenix; buttonhole them for information of interest.
While this resolution may no longer be necessary, you might like one for investigations to determine practicability of the objective and the goals of the Water Quality Act.
aesolution 72-9: Environmental Impact Statements
Were NEPA followed, as I interpret it, new project proposals would include all the elements of environmental
impact statements. Correspondingly, impact statements for old projects would include economic benefits.
To get the foregoing requires case-by-case work with the agencies and EPA, with occasional thrusts from members of Congress.
Perhaps this Resolution could be exchanged for a simple statement in objectives "That Federal agencies weigh the
impacts of proposals on the TOTAL environment, giving due care for productive harmony".
Page 12.
Resolution 72-10: Natural Areas
This requires a draft bill, as discussed in Resolution 71-16.
Resolution 72-11: Bond Tax Exemption
Municipalities are now selling tax-free bonds to finance water treatment facilities for industry! It seems to me that "we have gone as fur as we can go"!
Resolution 72-12: Prototype Desalter
Commissioner Stamm reported to us that the cost estj)rates of a proposed prototype desalter have escalated, implying
that practicability may be questioned.
Perhaps the sponsor on the Resolutions Committee would wish to determine from the Bureau current estimates of the likely costs per unit of water, at the most feasible site, for a prototype before recommending this Resolution to the delegates.
Resolution 72-13: Weather Modification
It is my understanding that weather modification is now being financed by prospective beneficiaries.
Congress has been financing sky water research for about 20 years. Res. Corn. may wish to consider whether or not the Association should urge continuation of research; if so, on what scale?
Resolution 72-14: Geothermal Research and Development Has this aim matured into a general objective? Are energy-oriented enterprises ready to proceed even without an
augmented Federal research program? How much Federal effort is enough for NWRA needs?
Resolution 72-15: Extension of Time, National Water Commission I requested the extension of time, which Chairman Luce
rejected. Later I testified to the National Water Commission, using a paper which had been reviewed by the Executive
Committee. Actions being taken otherwise, jointly by the Board and the Resolutions Committee, fulfill the aims of this resolution.
Page 13.
Resolution 72-16: Small Projects
In general, applications for loans are considered for all purposes applicable to the Reclamation program, except only that irrigation must be one of the purposes.
The House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee refused to go along on a flexible maximum for the size of loans.
It is my understanding that the Act does permit the program to meet changing multi-purpose water needs.
I suggest the Res. Corn. consider a revised resolution somewhat as follows:
Initial Draft of a prospective Resolution No. 73-X: Loan Program for Small Projects
WHEREAS, the loan program for Small Reclamation Projects has been an outstanding success and projects in the approval pipeline approach the amount of funds authorized, irriyet i n im==n±=±±==primnry n*e.--; and
WHEREAS, Federal legislation causes water supply agencies to confront new problems of water quality, and packaged
"quantity-quality" improvements are increasingly in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, costs of planning, construction, and of land have risen rapidly,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Water Resources Association that:
The loan program for Small Projects related to reclamation law be updated to:
(1) Raise limits of loans from $10 million to $16 million;
(2) Raise the total authorization by $150 million; (3) Provide that construction to meet the qualitative requirements of Federal law, as regards water and related land, shall be eligible for loans at the five-year running average interest rate for municipal lands for water quality improvements.
PROGRESS ON MAJOR LEGISLATION HOUSE* SENATE* ..,i.m
NATURAL RESOURCES 93RD CONG.
[As of August 6 Recess]
Issued by: National Water Resources Association Introduced , Hearing . c)4 % • E 0 ci r---Floor Action ' Introduced Hearing . sa4 f24 • E o L) F — Passed I—Conference SPONSOR & REMARKS TO AUTHORIZE STUDIES in certain streams, S. 28 1/4 t
MOSS, Ref. to agencies for rep Clarify U.S. interests
Apple Creek Feasibility Study S. 1896 5/29 BURDICK, YOUNG; No action
Rural Water Survey to provide grants H. 5541 1 ROBISON; No action taken.
Hood-Clay Unit, CVP Feasibility studies H. 6576 4/4 X
93-382 Succeeding 3 bills -inc. intoH.6576; awaiting a rule - Hou,s McGee Creek, Okla.; Feasibility studies H. 6831 4/11 X
93-382 X X X
CAMP; reptd. unfavorably by Dept. Interior
Moorhead Unit, Pick-Sloan Project, Mont-Wyo.
Feasibility Studies, H. 7820 5/73 X
93-382
Unfavorable MELCHER, RONCALIO; Int.rept.
Geary Project, Okla. Feasibility studies H. 8074 6/73 X SAME CAMP; Int. reptd. favorably
1/4 1/3 HANSEN & MCGEE; Repts.
re-quested, no action taken. TO AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION
olecat Bench, Shoshone ext. Mo. River S.197 & H. 215
Days Creek Dam, Ore. flood protect. S.225, H.460 1/4 HATFIELD;P.W.Com.; No action
Water Resources Dev. Act '73 & River Basins
Mone-tary Auth. Act. S. 603 1/29 X
BAKER; const. repair, & pre-serve public works on rivers & harbors for nay. & flood con
Mirage Flats, const. supplemental wtr. supply S.989 X 2/26 CURTIS, HRUSKA; No action
Nueces River Reclamation Project,Tx. S.1294, H.584 3/20 3/19 4 TOWER; No action
Marlas-Milk Unit, Pick-Sloan, Mont. S.1358 X 3/26 MANSFIELD & METCALF;No action
American Falls Replacement Dam, Id. S.1529,H.6782
4/10
4/10 X 93-223
X CHURCH & McCLURE; Ref. to IIA Corn. of House, no hear. schd.
Pollock-Herreid Unit, S.D. S.1577, H.8411 6/6 4/13 ABOUREZK & McGOVERN;No action
Garrison Bank Stabilization, S. 1616 4/17 X BURDICK, YOUNG; Hearings on
4/30 and 5/3. No further act.
Olalla Div., Umpqua Project, Ore. H. 456 1/3 DELLENBACK, No action.
Peripheral Canal, Delta Div. CVP, Calif. H. 642 1/3 HOSMER; Rept. requested Int.
Consumnes River Div., CVP, Calif. H. 653 11/3, JOHNSON;Rept. requested Int.
American Canal, El Paso, H.2924 1/24 WHITE; No action
Santa Mar arita Pro ect, Cal. H. 3023 1/26 VEYSEY; No action
East Side Div. Allen Camp unit, CVP, Cal. H.4677 2/22 SISK, MATHIAS & KETCHUM. No
action.
ts.
-2-HOUSE* SENATE* *Action Completed r.,,,...,,,,,, . ... ,-,,,,A_—,,, Introduced Hearing . 4-) Q.4 E 0 0 Floor action ro 0 0 o --1 -P H Hearing • 4-) --i •• 0 Passed cp 0 0 4-4 0 0 SPONSOR 93RD CONGREC_S Continued.. & REMARKS 1/12 MAGNUSON;
establishes a Fed. Power R& prog. to..reduce environ. impacts & develop clean en-ergy sources. No action. TO PROVIDE FUELS]
Electrical Energy Production, S. 357
Surface Mining, S. 425, H. 6603 X 1/18 X JACKSON; regulatory bill;
began mark-up 4/30, not yet completed.
Power Plant Siting, Admin. bill -- "Electric Facilities Siting Act of 1973" . S.935 and
H.R. 4874 X 2/21
JACKSON, FANNIN; would as-sure environ. protection while facilitating constrn. of pwr. sply. facilities. Ref. to full IIA Com. No ac R&D in Fuels and Energy, to include technologies
for coal gasification & geothermal steam dev. S. 1283, H. 6602
X 3/19
JACKSON, et.al; Ref. end Mq7 to EPA & other agencies tor repts. No further action. National Fuels and Energy Conservation Policy,
S. 2176 7/13
JACKSON et.al; estab. an Office Energy Conservation in D.Int. No action yet. ...
1/4
MOSS; referred to Subcom.on Pub. Lands, IIA Corn. No act TO MANAGE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT)
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act amend, to designate segment of Colo.River in Utah as part of system. S. 30
Land Use Policy Planning & Assistance Act, S.268
: x
.1....,,
1/9 X.
93-197 X
JACKSON et al; passed Sen. 6/21, amended. Sanctions
dropped. Pub. lands provi-sions not included in S. 263 are featured in House Corn. Prints currently being mark ed up. No House bill as yet
HOUSE* SENATE* *Action Completed PROGRESS ON i'3R LEGISLATION
r0 (L; o rd 0 $-4 1-1 olio -H 00 ° -or, r.,4 Cr , c..) Floor Action Introduced Hearing . 4-J Q4 o P4 • E 0 Q ;Passed w u o 0 4—I 0 U SPONSOR 93RD CONGRESS Continued.. & REMARKS '
TO MANAGE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Contd.
2/7
MUSKIE; would add Title VI to Wtr. Qual. Act requiring permit prog. for States. No action.
Environmental Protection Permits; Arend Federal Water Pollution Control Act, S. 792
Natural Resource Lands, Management & Protection,
Development and Sale, S. 1041 2/28 X JACKSON, FANNIN; heard byfull Com. 3/9 -- no action
since. Public Works Project Prohibitions, prohibit any
projects on lands designated for parks, rec., etc. unless such lands are replaced by lands of like
kind. S. 1368 3/26 CASE; No action taken
National Environmental Policy Act, amend. 5. 1668 WEICKER; would balance
en-vironmental w/ econ, & social considerations. Int. unfavor. River Basin Waste Treatment Authority Act, S1877
these authorities would include a rep. from EPA. 5/23
HUMPHREY; Ref. to P.W. Com. No further action taken. National Environmental Data System Act -- to
est-ablish an environ, info network at cost of $6 millions over 1974-76. H.36
1/3 DINGELL; recommenaea by
Dept. Interior Water and Related Land Resources Policy Act.
would provide guidance for benefit-cost
determina-tions of agencies involved. H. 1687 1/9 WRIGHT; Int. unfavorableNo further action.
Hells Canyon, Snake National River H. 1890 1/11 SAYLOR; No action taken.
Extend Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, H. 4864
would extend Act 5 years & increase appropriation
from $17 to 37.6 millions. Also add new rivers. 6/73 X
X X Ao Com. Rept. to
date. No act. scl-id. Department of Energy and Natural Resources Act
H.R. 9090, S. 2135; Administration bills
6/29 X 7/73 HOLIFIELD; DENR would absorb
functions of Int.,Colps, SCS, and Water Resources Council. Hearings began July 24. No
further action before recess some
HOUSE* SENATE*
*Action Completed
PROGRESS ON MAJOR LEGISLATION
Introduced Hearing .4-) Q, w r24 • 5, U Floor Action ro . w u ro o H z:5-) -i ni CI) . -P Q, c) Z • 0 Passed Conference SPONSOR
93RD CONGRESS REMARKS&
Continued..
AISCELLANEOUS EILLS O. INTEREST J
Flood Control Act of 1973, S. 606, H. 4904 X 1/29 X,
93-6
X RANDOLPH; replacement for bill vetoed last year by President Provisions identical. House held hearings; no further act
Small Reclamation Projects Act, amend. S.1307 3/20 STEVENS; No action.
Council on Environmental Quality Appropriations
S. 1379, H. 5931 3/29 X X 3/29 X
93-126
X BAKER, RANDOLPH; Now PL 93-36 Saline Water Appropriations, 1974; S. 1386, H.5464 3/12 X
93-208
X 3/27 X
93-222 X JACKSON, FANNIN; Now PL 93-51 will increase approp. from $2,500,000 to $9,124,000. Water Resources Planning Act, amend. S.1501, H.6338
[Appropriations bill] 3/29 X 93-266 X 4/6 X 93-174 X JACKSON, FANNIN;Now PL 93-55. FY 74-75 -- approp. of $3.5 million for WRC.
Deauthorization of Corps Projects, S. 1827 6/73 CASE; deauthorization of Cor',proj. required if Cong. has NOT appropriated funds for 8 or more years. No action. Excess Lands, H. 641; To raise the limitation on
size of Reclamation ownerships to 640 or more acres 1/3 HOSMER; No action yet.
Reclamation Lands Authority Act, H. 1100 1/3 ROYBAL; administer laws
per-taining to excess lands. No action. Int. unfavorable. Closed conduits and Fencing, H. 2923; Fed.
cost-sharing in promoting public safety thru elimination of open canals by converting to closed conduits & fencing.
1/24 WHITE; No action.
Appropriations for Dept. Ag. & environment. &
con-sumer programs, including EPA approp. H.R. 8619 6/73 X 93-275
X 6/73 X 93-253
X WHITTEN; Passed both houses, cleared for President.
Public Works Appropriations, 1974, H. 8947. recom. $372 mil. for BuRec; 196 mil. for const. & rehab. This is $73 mil. below last year but $18 mil. over Budget est. for 1974.
6/73 X 93-327 X 6/29 X 93-338 X X EVENS; Now P.L. 93-97 - as of. 8/16. [Conf. Rept. 93-409] Indian Trust Counsel Authority, S. 1339, legal
counsel on "nat'l resources rights".
3/22 X JACKSON; No further action
C.H.Bronn Draft 8/2/73
0 k)
Item A.: Item B.: U6 1973
ELABORATION OF ITEMS OF THE TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR THE SUMMER BOARD MEETING
Routine
This should include:
..Recap by each Director of two things:
1. The amount of funds he plans to have paid in by the end of 1973, and
2. His view of the Association's capabilities for 1974.
Further, I would suggest that the Directors discuss whether their objectives for the Association really do require any greater income in 1974 than in 1973.
Item C.:
Phoenix Convention:
Before a review of the state of planning, one could list the items not resolved so the Directors will be consider-ing solutions as they hear the plans that are firm. Items not resolved include:
1. The THEME (See memorandum to Program Committee of July 27 - "The Third Way";
2. Possible participation by the Environmental Protection Agency (See WeRX, July 9, page 4);
3. The nature of workshops or similar items for the afternoons of Wednesday and Thursday;*
4. The program Friday morning before the "coffee break".
5. Special honors to members of Congress, especially at All States banquet.
6. Special honors to NWRA members, as old life members; new life members; memoria.
Item D.:
Review the "contractual" letters offered the last Board meeting by John Simmons.
* See also Item E, Final par., plus WRC on page 3.
CHBronn
draft 8/2/73
Item E.
-2-National Water Commission:
One concern is whether or not the Board wishes to urge members of Congress to hold field hearings on the final report of NWC. This spring the members did desire field hearings because: NWC's hearings on the draft report
were held to be biased and argumentative. However, a hurried telephone poll which I made about a month ago (and furnished to Senate IIA staff) indicated that the majority from whom I had gotten opinions considered that field hearings are not desirable.
Should the Board not desire field hearings, is a Washington hearing on the report to be recommended to the Congress?
Item F.
..The NWC recommended the restructuring of the Water Resources Council. This raises a question as to whether NWRA favors:
1. Restructuring the Council as recommended by NWC, or
2. Transferring the functions of the NWC to the Secretary of the Interior, as in the DENR bill, or
3. Leaving the NWC as it is.
..The tentative Phoenix program would discuss the NWC on the morning of Thursday with Dan Dreyfus of the Senate staff as featured speaker. The Board may wish to consider whether a workshop on NWC on the afternoon of Thursday is desired.
The Water Resources Council
The WRC has requested the authority of the President to publish revised principles and standards. These would virtually eliminate from national policy the use of regional benefits; these also would raise the interest rate to 6-7/8%,
CHBronn
Draft 8/2/73 WRC continued
-3-..I have written both IIA Committees, suggesting that they ask the President not to approve the principles and standards until adequate environ-mental impact statements have been issued and studied. However, I assume that the revisions will have been published by the time of the convention. Therefore, the following is open for discussion by the Board:
..Should th,-1 revised principles and standards be discussed at Phoenix?
.. Also, changes in cost-sharing are being con-sidered by the Council as related to the NWC report. I suggest--on the advice of an
Assistant Commissioner of Reclamation--a workshop on cost-sharing to be held Thursday, November 15, in the afternoon (workshops of lesser importance could be held for persons not interested in
cost-sharing).
..NWRA may wish to adopt a view as to the future of the Water Resources Council (see Item E.).
National Land Use Policy
It is probable that John Rosholt, as Chairman of
our NLUP Committee, will report to the Board his views on the legislation passed by the Senate and being developed by the Environmental Subcommittee in the House.
Item H.
Department of Energy and Natural Resources
NWRA has refused to support previous bills to establish a Department of Natural Resources. The Board may wish to
cuss the proposed DENR (see "Water Life" for July). Our views on this should take into account prospective national land use legislation, our interests in several aspects of energy policy, and also specifics of DENR (see questionnaire on page 2 of "Water Life -for July, attached).
CHBronn
Draft 8/2/73
-4-Item I.
The proposed Public Works Ap2ropriations bill for 1974 has now been passed. Congressional delegations and the press will have informed the States of projects funded. I will have at the Board meeting the Conference Report should there be questions.
Item J.
Backlog of Water Projects
The backlog will be discussed by Commissioner of Reclamation, Gilbert Stamm, on Friday. The item is
inserted for Thursday's agenda should there be questions before hearing the actions to be outlined by Commissioner Stamm.
Item K.
Friday morning
Contrary to our usual practice, I have not provided Commissioner Stamm with a list of items to be discussed. His knowledge of what is happening and what is about to happen, and his understanding of our Association's needs, and interests, indicate that he should be given full range in selecting items for the briefing. Since 2-1/2 hours are allowed there should be ample time for discussion and questions.
Friday afternoon
The items saved for Friday are considered less important so that members who need to return home that
afternoon will have, nevertheless, covered the governing issues. Brief discussion of the items on Friday afternoon's list follows:
(a) I will outline such measures as we are taking in Washington to reinforce joint aims of our Association, the Water Resources Congress, the National Waterways Conference, and the American Waterways Operators. Board members may wish to outline what is being done at
State level with these and other organizations interested in water and related land resources development. Further
CHBronn
Draft 8/2/73
-5-I have asked Director Hubert White to discuss the proceedings of regional water meetings which he attended in July. In this he may be assisted by Vern Fahy of North Dakota.
(b) Westwide Water Plan. Fiscal year 1974 provides the last significant funding for the Westwide Water Plan. The guidelines for thus curtailing the study will be discussed by the Bureau of Reclamation at Phoenix on the afternoon of Wednesday, November 14, in a workshop. Board members will be asked to nominate experts from their States who can participate with USBR in a discussion of the plan.
(c) Environmentalism. This is designed to be a review of the effects on our objectives of the so-called environmental movement. This review is aimed at determining whether more specific action can be taken by NWRA either alone or with others.
(d) Long-range plans for NWRA. I suggest this be a preliminary discussion to determine whether or not the Board and the Resolutions Committee should jointly discuss, at Phoenix, long-range planning for the Association.
(e) Open. This is provided for subjects as desired by the Board members.
, '41Y Mr. 106 Nyssa, Oregon Dear Hal:
ES:ACES
ASSMATEN
Hal Henigson Main Street 97913CChairman, Water Rights Committee)
[Copies to: Mr. T. R. Riggins, President Mr. John Rosholt, Water Rights Corn.
Roland Westergard, Water Rights Corn.] J. A. (TED) RIGGINS, JR., President
(Arizona) J. R. BARKLEY, First Vice President (Colorado) ROBERTT. CHUCK, Second Vice President (Hawaii)
897 NATIONAL PRESS WILDING
January 18, 1974
JOHN W. SIMMONS, Treasurer (Texas)
MILO W. HOISVEEN, Past President
(North Dakota)
RECD.
JAN 2
4 19 74
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
Mr.
-Mr. Jack Ross, Legislative Committe // Mr. J. R. Barkley, Pres. Elect-NWRA/v/
Last year, NWRA chose to take no action about S. 28 Water Rights bill of 1973], or - otherwise for our objective of assuring compliance with State water laws. Mid-year, the publication of the final report of the Nation'al Water, Com-mission brought the issAle c again to the attention of the Administration and the Congress.
Meanwhile, actions stemming from the Eagle case in Colorado were to be watched as indications of current Federal policy about quantification.
This letter suggests that the NWRA Committee on Water Rights may wish to report to the Directors, in March, its views as to actions appropriate for CY 1974.
Further, I have arranged for an informal "brainstorming" on the subject with Roland Robison, of the Solicitor's
Office, Department of the Interior, for the afternoon of Tuesday, March 12. Mr. Robison is the Associate Solicitor for Energy and Resources.
Copies of S. 28 are being furnished you and others of your Committee.
Enclosure DIRECTORS
J. A. (Ted) Riggips, Jr. James F: Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo.
Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho
Chris C. Green, Kans. Hubert G. White, Mont.
Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Roland Westergard, Nev. Jerry D. Geist, N. Mex.
Sincerely,
C rl Bronn
Executive Director Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D.
Clarence Base, Okla. Harold Henigson, Ore. Homer Engelhorn, S. D. John W. Simmons, Tex. Edward I+ Southwick, Utah
E. F. (Don) Doncaster, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Paul W. Scott
Railroad Representative, Wash. Wesley D' Ewart,
93o CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S.28
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JANITARY 4, 1973
Mr. Moss introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To clarify the relationship of interests of the United States and of
the States in the use of the waters of certain streams.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representa-2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That, subject to the exceptions stated in section 5, the
4
withdrawal or reservation of surveyed or unsurveyed lands
5of the United States, heretofore or hereafter made, shall
6not affect any right to the use of navigable or nonnavigable
7water acquired pursuant to State law
either-8 ( 1 )
before the establishment of such withdrawal
9
or reservation, or
2
1 reservation, unless, in the latter event, a Federal statute, or
2 an officer of the United States authorized to make such a
3 withdrawal or reservation, shall have filed an application for
4
withdrawal and caused to be published in the Federal
Regis-5
ter a notice of such withdrawal, including a statement of the
6
purpose, quantity, and priority date of the water right
re-7
served to the United States or otherwise established under
8
its own laws, and the filing of such application shall have
9
antedated the initiation of the conflicting right under State
10 law: Provided, That if such withdrawal or reservation shall
11 be made otherwise than by an Act of Congress, it shall not
12
become effective until sixty days after it shall have been
fur-13
to the Governors of affected States and published in
14
the Federal Register and transmitted by the head of the
15
department having jurisdiction of the lands affected to both
16
Houses of Congress (counting only days on which both
17
Houses are in session) .
18
SEC. 2. Any right to the diversion, storage, distribution,
19
or use of water which the United States or those claiming
20 under the United States assert to have been established under
21
the laws of a State shall be neither greater nor less than
22
those accorded by the laws of that State to uses of water by
23
others than the United States (including the State itself) in
24
like circumstances, and shall be initiated and perfected in
25
accordance with the procedure established by the laws of that
3
1 State: Provided, That this section shall not affect Indian
2
rights or any authority which the United States may have to
3
establish water rights under its own laws, heretofore or
here-4 after enacted.
5
SEC. 3.
No vested right to the diversion, storage, or use
6
of any waters, navigable or nonnavigable, acquired under the
7
laws of a State and recognized by the laws in force as of the
8 effective date of this Act in that State as being compensable
9
if taken or used by or under the authority of the State, shall
10 be taken or used by or under the authority of the United
11 States without just compensation. "Vested right" shall mean
12
either (1) an appropriative right initiated in accordance with
13
the general laws of the State applicable to the appropriation
14 of water rights, which has been exercised either by the
com-15
mencement of actual diversion, storage, or use of water, or
16
by the commencement of construction of works for such
pur-17
poses, and which is thereafter maintained with reasonable
18 diligence in the completion of such works and application
19 of water to such purposes, or (2) a riparian, overlying or
20 pueblo right, to the extent that such laws of the State
recog-21 nize such rights, or
(3)
a prescriptive right or any other
22
water right to the extent that water has been put to
bene-23
ficial use.
24
SEc. 4. If works hereafter constructed by or under the
25
authority of the United States impair or interfere with the
4
utilization of any right to the diversion, storage, or other
2
use of water which is vested and compensable under section
3, and if agreement with the owner of said right as to the
3
4
compensation due for such impairment or interference has
5
not been reached by the time of the initial interference with
6
such right, the United States shall initiate and diligently
7
prosecute proceedings to condemn the same under
appro-8
priate Federal or State laws of eminent domain. If it shall
9
fail to do so, no statute of limitations shall apply against a
10 suit by the injured party against the -United States for
com-11 pensation for such impairment or interference in a Federal
12
court of competent jurisdiction; but nothing in this Act
13
shall authorize an action to enjoin such impairment or
inter-14
ference, if such an injunction action could not be maintained
15
in the absence of this Act.
16
SEC.
5. Nothing in this Act shall be construed
as-17
(1)
modifying or repealing any provision of any
18
existing Act of Congress relative to acquisition by the
19
United States of rights to the use of water pursuant to
20
State law;
21
(2)
permitting appropriations of water under State
22
law which interfere with the provisions of international
23
treaties of the United States;
24
(3) amending, altering, or repealing any provision
25
of any law which limits the acreage in single ownership
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
1,3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
State law, (f) any preference accorded by Federal or
21
State law to any public agency with respect to electric
22
power.
23
SEC. 6.
This Act may be cited as the "Water Rights Act
24
of 1973".
5
that may be served with water made available under the
reclamation law;
(4) affec'ting, impairing, diminishing,
subordinat-ing, or enlarging (a) the rights of the United States or
any State to waters under any interstate compact or
existing judicial decree, (b) any obligations under the
trust relationship, or otherwise, of the United States to
Indians or Indian tribes, or any claim or right owned
or held by or for Indians or Indian tribes, (c) any water
right heretofore acquired by others than the United
States under Federal or State law, (d) any right to any
quantity of water used for governmental purposes or
programs of the United States at any time prior to the
effective date of this Act, (e) any right of the United
States to use water which is hereafter lawfully initiated
in the exercise of the express or necessarily implied
au-thority of any present or future Act of Congress or State
law when such right is initiated prior to the
acqui-sition by others of any right to use water pursuant to
93D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S.28
A
BILL
To clarify the relationship of interests of the United States and of the States in the use of the waters of certain streams.
By Mr. Moss
JANUARY 4,1973
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
itfv(EW OF NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION REPORT -- "SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS" October 16, 1973
Recommendation 5-22 -- "Primary responsibility for the provision of municipal industrial water supply should remain with non-federal public entities and private enterprise." This recommendation is a good one in that it maintains the control of water supplies at the State and local levels where they can more favorably react to the needs of each locality.
Item B -- "Agencies of the executive branch should encourage cities and other non-federal public entities to operate their water systems on a utility basis. Revenues of which should be sufficient to cover all costs." This in concept is good. However, it does not recognize the indirect benefits which accrue to the areas as a whole and to the federal segment of the government due to the increased tax base. Increased valuations of property and increased gross national product which result from efficient operations of water systems produce an indirect bene-fit to society as a whole which should not necessarily be financed by the direct user.
Item C -- "Except for water used on interstate carriers, the responsibility for enforcing any drinking water standards established by the Federal Government should be discharged from the States and their political subdivisions." This
recommendation appears to be good. Enforcement will be much more flexible and tailored to the requirements of the various areas if conducted at the local levels. While uniform drinking water standards throughout the nation as estab-lished by the Federal Government might be good, there's some question as to whether a uniform federal standard could be applied in arid states where water of the quality defined in the federal standards might not be available.
