1971 (folder 3 of 3)

(1)

NOTICE

TO: DIRECTORS!

The letter attached initiates a write-in to members of Congress, about funding construction projects.

After reading it, YOU may wish to turn it over to others for actions.

Point is, please don't just file it (unless you prefer that such letters not be written -- that option is yours, of course).

The Budget sheets with the letter probably do not tell all that you -- and others in your State -- would like to know. Your Regional offices have all the facts -- they are complex on many projects.

(2)

KYOORIA

II. (1 ;7 -1-Al I 15') 11

LF.:_,[1;\

ASSBCMON

Mr. L. E. Donegan, Executive Director Nebraska Water Resources Association 1815 Dakota Street

Lincoln, Nebraska 68502

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURY, Treasurer (Washington) (New Mexico) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President

(North Dakota) (California)JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive I)irector

(Arizona) (Washington, D. C.)

897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672

January 29, 1971

Dear Larry: (WITH ACTION COPIES TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

OF DIRECTORS)

Your letter of last week suggests (for consideration) that the Association sponsor a drive to write members of the Congress to expedite appropriations for water resource projects. You have cleared this idea with your President Don Thompson (experienced In the State Senate) and also with a senior member of the United States Congress. Your proposal contemplates that the letters:

(1) Be different, yet take into account some guidance for effectiveness. (2) Arrive in the House by mid-March, in the Senate a little later ("as

appropriation bills advance"). (3) Total about 100 for each State.

A standing objective within the Resolutions of NWRA is to achieve adequate appropriations for water resource projects. Your proposal is toward that objective, and could be managed effectively by the respective States. Therefore, NWRA President Lorin Markham and I

believe that your proposal merits trial, as outlined in this letter to you AND THE DIRECTORS. Enclosure 1 suggests some principles, and I offer the following precautions:

... In fiscal 1971, and also 1970, the Executive Branch did not permit its agencies to use all of the water resource funds actually appropriated by the Congress! ... The FY 1971 Budget of the present Administration was a limiting factor on the appropriations which many members of Congress otherwise might have so ight! ... The Appropriations Committees have heard and published volumes of test rnony by individuals, associations, State and local governments which justify constr iction in addition to that proposed in the Budgets.

DIRECTORS

J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Ed Southwick, Utah James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Al A. Schock, S.D. Joe W. Jarvis,

(3)

-2-... 'The Governments of States have not jointly proposed to the President (so far as I or others can determine) any rise in the rate of construction of works to develop water resources (although Associations have jointly urged the National Governors' Conference so to do, the pa st two years) The above precautions should guide our letters because some members of Congress are inclined to say, when urged to appropriate for water projects, "Tell your Governor! Tell your President! Have you not noticed that I wear a White Hat for water?"

'Thinldng of the precautions, one may wonder whether the effort would be worthwhile. Well, if writers can describe results from constructing faster (or harm from failure to construct faster) that tie to problems now pressing our Governments, the efforts would have impact. Should that impact not produce this session the desired actions, they still would become a piece of the total actions toward getting water care into the mainstream of Federal-State funding.

So -- Each State affiliate is urged to try your suggestion, in ways suited to its needs, while recognizing that water resource work is a national program as well as a lot of projects.

And also, enclosure 2 gives you the latest information on the Administration's Budget for the Bureau of Recla•mation. Details are available in field offices (same for Army

Engineers).

Thank you for the care taken in your effort, and for your initiative. Sincerely,

Carl Bronn CB: nlw

(4)

Enclosure to Donegan Letter

Subject: Aspects of Water Projects of National Interest General:

A great many members of Congress, while interested in water development, are also greatly concerned about jobs, health, the poor, the environment, a sound dollar, defense and other programs -- and each program has its advocates. To whatever extent water projects produce results favorable to such other programs, so the interest in water can be reinforced.

This paper offers information about "goals" now on the Nation's front burner; to whatever extent water projects can be shown to have ingredients to improve the cookery, so the chances of greater attention to water may be improved.

Jobs:

Subjugated not long ago -- as people protested that affluence is adverse to quality of life -- jobs are re-emerging as a National goal of priority. Some water projects can show high potential for employment, short and long-run. Other projects can show

that -- in their absence -- jobs would dissipate and assets depreciate. Both aspects daily gain new importance.

Pollution: Water,- Land, Air, and Outlooks

Realization of a better future for this Nation will probably require a co-ordinated national strategy for balanced population distribution, said the President's own researa staff for National goals.* Water projects which open opportunities for non-urban peopl to live outside of the megalopoli, do thereby help to avoid the adverse over-concentratioits of people now of concern to the National Goals Staff, often lamented by leaders in Congrc

*National Goals Research Staff, Report "Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality"; July 4, 1970

(5)

-2-and recently deplored by the President, himself..

Also, some water projects can regulate the flow of streams so as to avoid stagnanl pools of treated wastes, and so to help Nature further man's treatment of water while also conveying water to a succeeding use.

Lacking storage to regulate river flows, some rivers can not reach desired

qualitative standards under methods of waste treatment now practicable. On applicable projects, your project officer can describe those "clean water" benefits for you. Environment:

Congress and the President have agreed that Federal agencies shall "use unquantified environmental amenities and values in decision-making". ** What pleasure-giving aspects of the environment would be aided by your project? Amenities are now made important, even though not in the B/c ratio, by Environmental Policy.

Also, the President accepted (in signing P.L. 91-611, January 2, 1971) the intent

of Congress to consider water projects for effects other than national economic enhanc('ment. Specific objectives are "quality of the total environment, well-being of people, and regional economic benefit". A couple of years ago, NWRA offered the Congress a preliminary

check-list of project-results of national interest (attached). The kinds of results on that list fall under the objectives of P.L. 91-611, as quoted above. From it, you can present your own analyses of what your projects would do, for items now acknowledged by Congress and the President as important to the Nation.

The Bony Structure:

Jobs, pollution abatement, and pleasant living are the goals of rising Federal attention, and so they are mentioned early in this write-up. But sales of water, power and farm

(6)

-3-products are the bony structure of western water projects -- a structure difficult to build otherwise, yet a structure essential for the blood, heart and muscle of other Federal and State programs. Your personal evaluation of that structure, and what depends upon it, is a fitting complement to the technical evaluations of professional water men.

Please don't hesitate to tell your story.

Enclosure 1 -- Aspects of water projects, with drawing. Enclosure 2 -- Budget memo.

Note: As the foregoing was about to be reproduced, the mail brought us a cogent report from the Columbia Basin Development League. The League -- in working to pry out

appropriations for a long-authorized project -- found:

In conferring with Senators Magnuson and Jackson, Representative May, Commissioner Armstrong, Assis-tant Interior Secretary Smith, and other Washington, D. C. officials, the Basin delegation soon concluded that their presentation had to stress the multi-purpose impact of the Project. Emphasis must now be given to the desirability of assisting in alleviating urban problems by rural develop-ment. The appeal of the Basin Trio to release all funds appropriated for the Columbia Basin Pro-ject was presented to representatives of the Office of Management and Budget headed by Mr. Donald Crabill, Director, Natural Resources and Programs Division, and to Mr. John Whitaker, Deputy As-sistant to the President. As far as beginning construction of the East High Area is concerned our

case is based on the premise:

1. Construction now will assist in a constructive manner in solving Washington State's very serious unemployment situation.

2. Urban crowding and the flight to the cities will be eased by creating an ex-pected 28,105 jobs in the state and directly supporting 22,435 people in a completed East High Area.

3. The State's economy would be enhanced by converting an area capable of producing $16.6 million gross product to one producing an expected $358 million.

4.

The affected area's environment would be maintained at an acceptable level. Re-creational activities would be enhanced.

5.

Diversified farming would replace a wheat economy that is suffering from both climatical and economic considerations. There exists a five-year lag time prior to completion of the tunnel and 25 years to entirely complete the East High.

6.

The completed portion of the Project is a success in terms of production, repay-ment, managerepay-ment, etc. thus justifying full development.

(7)

Basic List

1. On the right column (Stronger) of the chart, show market place values from water, or its use (as electricity).

2. Values from water projects that can be quantified other than by dollars are entered in column on left (More).

3. Values that cannot be quantified are identified under middle column (Better). Auxilliary information

a --- Some values overlap the columns. Overlap is not, ipso facto, double-counting; results (good or bad) may be included under more than one criterion when they apply to more than one objective (objectives are not mutually exlusive).

b --- Results include both the good and the bad (gains and losses). For the "Better" column, accompanying discussions will reveal that a particular result may be valued as "good" for some objectives, but "bad" for others.

c --- Results include all significant effects traceable to the project. One might use asterisks (or other marks) to identify results which arise from applications or uses of the project* (also, see discussion "d")

d -- As to results, and their evaluation, a general rule is to include effects sought by government, and to evalue as in other programs seeking such results. (This is a "follow-the-leader" process, see footnote")

e -- Attempts to "mass" into one value the effects of either Column "More" or Colunin "Better" would not be meaningful. Sub-groupings toward particular objectives would be,

whereupon item "a" would apply.

* Example: Jobs -- temporary jobs arise from design and construction; long-range jobs arise from operating a water distribution facility; from harvesting, moving, storing, and processing potatoes (also see item "d")

** The President directed the deferment of $2 plus billions in tax revenues in Year A, $2 billions Year B, (etc.) to create jobs. The number, timing, geographical areas, income levels, states-of-training of probable incumbents are not published. Whether the jobs are a primary result (which certainly they are not), are economically efficient, or the effects of "externalities" are NOT at issue. (Yet the sums foregone in three years are about 25 times the current annual rate of Reclamation investment). So why make those points an issue for water projects?

(8)

Basic List

1. On the right column (Stronger) of the chart, show market place values from water, or its use (as electricity).

2. Values from water projects that can be quantified other than by dollars are entered in column on left (More).

3. Values that cannot be quantified are identified under middle column (Better). Auxilliary information

a --- Some values overlap the columns. Overlap is not, ipso facto, double-counting; results (good or bad) may be included under more than one criterion when they apply to more than one objective (objectives are not mutually exlusive).

b --- Results include both the good and the bad (gains and losses). For the "Better" column, accompanying discussions will reveal that a particular result may be valued as "good" for some objectives, but "bad" for others.

c --- Results include all significant effects traceable to the project. One might use asterisks (or other marks) to identify results which arise from applications or uses of the project* (also, see discussion "d")

d As to results, and their evaluation, a general rule is to include effects sought by government, and to evalue as in other programs seeking such results. (This is a "follow -the-leader" process, see footnote")

e -- Attempts to "mass" into one value the effects of either Column "More" or Column "Better" would not be meaningful. Sub-groupings toward particular objectives would be,

whereupon item "a" would apply.

* Example: Jobs -- temporary jobs arise from design and construction; long-range jobs arise from operating a water distribution facility; from harvesting, moving, storing, and processing potatoes (also see item "d")

** The President directed the deferment of $2 plus billions in tax revenues in Year A, $2 billions Year B, (etc.) to create jobs. The number, timing, geographical areas, income levels, states-of-training of probable incumbents are not published. Whether the jobs are a primary result (which certainly they are not), are economically efficient, or the effects of "externalities" are NOT at issue. (Yet the sums foregone in three years are about 25 times the current annual rate of Reclamation investment). So why make those points an issue for water projects?

(9)

I be I kir4<injlaris

_{vir, 00,}

414*

uvronmenl

MORE

Jobs. Enterprises. Tax sources. Meat, fruits, vegetables. Aquifers recharged. Diversified agri-business.

Parks, ponds and gardens.

Healthful recreation (like reservoirs

called lakes, and streams controlled.

As)1aOe

Influenced

13 j

_{Land And Water Lare}

Water Quality. Land Use Spread of population. Water recreation Control of flood, drouth, temperature Access to nature. Fish & game habitat. Noise reduction. Diet.

Societal attitudes. Family & Community

spirit.

THINK!

STRONGER

flow of $$$ from: Hydro-energy. Use of Resources. Stabilized agri-business. Enterprises. Flood reduction. Community viability. Easier access to materials. Reduction of uncertainties.

Which of the above are made more likely? Which become less likely by construction

"too little and too late"?

Which other Federal-State programs reap all three classes of benefits?

(10)

NOT FOR RELEASE OR REFERENCE TO CONTENTS UNTIL DELIVERY OF THE PRESIDENT'S F. Y. 1972 BUDGET MESSAGE TO CONGRESS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PROGRAM for the

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Fiscal Year 1972 Construction Summary

The appropriation request for construction activities of the Bureau of Reclamation for fiscal year 1972 includes $190,500,000 under the appropriation for Construction and Rehabilitation, $19,256,000 for work on the Upper Colorado River StorT,ge Project, and $331000,000 for work on the Colorado River Basin Project. The total of these three budgets is $242,756,000. NEW funds appropriated for this work in fiscal year 1971 were $216,866,000.''

The total construction program for fiscal year 1972 amounts to 266,618,000. This program will be financed by the above appropriations gic

along with $2,100,000 of non-Federal advances, $21,7121900 of prior year appronriations applied to the fiscal year 1972 program, and $50,000 of construction revenues from the Upper Colorado River Storage Project.

The new fiscal year program provides for construction on 51 projects, or separable units, or divisions of projects, including 35 classified as drainage and minor construction projects or units. The fiscal year 1972 program also provides for rehabilitation and betterment work on 11 projects.

The appropriation request provides for two new project starts: Palmetto Bend in Texas, and Tualatin in Oregon. In addition, the prior

year appropriation to be applied to the F. Y. 1972 program provides $470,000 to start construction on the Minot Extension in North Dakota.

The fiscal year 1972 appropriation request for the Bureau of Reclama-tion also includes $9,975,000 for work under the loan program, which is not a part of tie above totals. This new appropriation and fll.,350,000 in prior year funds represents a total program of $114,325,000 for loans to irrigation districts. This total program will be used to initiate construc-tion on five loans, including three to be started with prior year appropria-tions; for completion of construction on one project; and continuation of construction on ten projects. The fiscal year 1971 appropriation provided funds in the amount of $8,550,000 for work under the Loan Program.

fr

407'

(74.," Z6 '/ljju'' Ce C/

(11)

NOT FOR RELEASE OR REFERENCE TO CONTENTS UNTIL DELIVERY OF THE PRESIDENT'S F. Y. 1972 BUDGET MESSAGE TO CONGRESS

BUREAU OF RECLAI,;ATION Construction and Rehabilitation

Total obligations in FY '71 may differ from "Program". For actual '71, see U.S.B.R.

Project and State

Total F. Y. 1971 Program -Fiscal Year 1972 Appropriation Request Prior Year Funds and Contributions , Program

Advance Planning- - Various States

,

$ 325,000 $ 306,000 $ 306,000

Central Valley - California 45,772,700 43,038,000 $13,400,000 56,438,000

Chief Joseph Dam, Manson Unit - Washington 170,000 1,200,000 500,000 1,700,000

Colorado River Front Work and Levee System

-Arizona-California 402,000 .. 538,000 538,000

Columbia Basin - Washington 70,372,000 102,739,000 1,460,000 104,199,000

Drainage and Minor Construction - Various States 5,885,017

3,1448,000

185,000

3,633,000

Fryingpan-Arkansas - Colorado 17,336,000 18,897,000 1,020,000 19,917,000

Mountain Park - Oklahoma 850,000 2,200,000 2,200,000

Pacific NorthwestPacific Southwest Intertie

-Arizona-California-Nevada 306,0001/ 270,000

4o,000

310,000

Palmetto Bend - Texas... 200,000- 1,400,000 100,000 1,500,000

Rehabilitation and Betterment of Existing Projects

-Various States 1,916,000

2,695,000

356,000

3,051,000

Southern Nevada Water Project - Nevada 18,300,000 720,000 720,000

Teton Basin, Lower Teton Division - Idaho 1,703,000 , 10,655,000 10,655,000

Tualatin - Oregon . 827,000E1 1,100,000

400,000

1,500,000

.

1/ Advance Planning during F. Y. 1971. 2/ Land acquisition during F. Y. 1971.

(12)

Lu

Total

obligations In FY '71 may differ from For actual '71, see U.S.B.R.

...

. Project and State

Total F. Y. 1971 Program Fiscal Year 1972 Appropriation Request Prior Year Funds and Contributions Program Missouri River Basin:

, Garrison Diversion Unit, Minot Extension

-North Dakota $ 470,000 $ 470,000

Garrison Diversion Unit - North Dakota-South Dakota. $ 10,131,000 $ 9,640,000 1,0001000 10,640,000

Transmission Division - Various States . 6,863,000 5,591,000 595,000

6

,

186,000

Drainage and Minor Construction - Various States....

3,737,500

3,009,000

Advance Planning - Various States . 837,208 750,000 200,000 950,000

Investigations - Various States . 2,0433000 3/

Other Department of Interior Agencies

-Various States 3,273,258

4/

...

Initial Underfinancing, an Undistributed Reduction

Based on Anticipated Delays -17,160,000 -17i160,000

Total - Construction and Rehabilitation 191,249,683 190,500,000 20,264,000 210,764,000 ,

Financing:

Appropriations . 186,793,000 190,500,000 . 190,500,000

Unobligated balance carried forward. .. -18,579,000 -350,000 -350,000

Ton-Federal advance. 2,238,

114

2,035,000 2,035,000

Available from prior year funds

20,834,769

18,579,000

Transfers to other appropriations -37,200 .. ... •• ...

TOTAL 191,249,683 190,500,000 _20,264,000 210)764$000

_ .

I

3/ Funds for Missouri River Basin investigations will be requested under the General Investigations appropriation — in F. Y. 1972.

4/ The various agencies in the Department will request funds for their Missouri River Basin requirements in their regular budget estimntes in F. Y. 1972, in lieu of transfers from the Bureau of Reclamation.

(13)

NOT FOR RELEASE OR REFERENCE TO CONTENTS UNTIL DELIVERY OF THE PRESIDENT IS F. Y. 1972 BUDGET MESSAGE TO CONGRESS

BUREAU OF RECLAYATION

Upper Colorado River Storage Project

„( 27 / • i/C)17: "6'1'11 /;--4 0/2/11/c‘Lii tirfs°?' 5 a dr

r fro/1/,

5 c c

Project and State

Total F. Y. 1971 Program Fiscal Year

12

2 Appropriation Request Prior Year and

Other Funds Program Colorado River Storage Project:

Curecanti Unit, Colorado $ 2,905,000 $

6,463,000

$ 197,000

$ 6,660l000

Transmission Division, Various States 2,150,000 3,0001000 3,000,000

Participating Projects:

Central Utah, Bonneville Unit, Utah .

8,934,930

8,199,000

2,031,000

101230,000

Central Utah, Jensen Unit, Utah 450,000 200,000 200,000

Lyman, Wyoming-Utah 1,2801000 50;000 . 50,000

San Juan-Chama, Colorado-New Mexico 1,462,000 369,000

1475,000

84Ll000

Drainage and Minor Construction, Various States

2,884,000

2,070,000

8o,000

2,150,000

Advance Planning, Various States .

4714,5oo

475,000

1475l000

Initial Underfinancing, and Undistributed

Reduction Based on Anticipated Delays -1,700,000 • -117001000

Subtotal - Section

5 .

20,540,430

18,651,000

31258,000

21,909,000

Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Facilities:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Utah 122,524

National Park Service, Various States .

1,862,899

435,000

L35,000

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Various

States 613,732 170,000

311o,000

5102000

Subtotal - Section

8 .

2,599,155

6o5,00o

31,o,c00

915,000

Total - Upper Colorado River Storage

(14)

OD

NOT FOR RELEASE OR REFERENCE TO CONTENTS UNTIL DELIVERY OF PRESIDENT'S F. Y. 1972 .BUDGET MESSAGE TO CONGRESS

DEaRTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PROGRAM for the

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Colorado River Basin Project Total obligations in FY '71 may differ_{from "Program". For actual '71, see} U.S.B.R.

f

Project and State

Total F. Y. 1971

Program

Fiscal Year 1 2 Appropriation

Request Prior YearFunds _Pro,ram Central Arizona Project, Arizona-New Mexico.

, ,

$13,874,341 $ 33,000,000 • ***** • $ 33,000,000

Advance Planning _(1,563,059) _(1,500,000)

(1,500,000) Navajo Project Participation Agreement

(Liquidation of Contract Authority) . (12,311,282) (31,500,000) _• _(31,500,000)

Dixie Project, Utah, Advance Planning. _. 120,288

_{* ..}

Total - Lower Colorado River Basin ₀ _13,994,629 _33,000,000 _331000/000

Financing:

Appropriations _{7,742,000 1/} _33,000,000 _.

33,000,000

Non-Federal Advances .

68,f, 000

._,

.

_.

_*

Unobligated Balance Carried Forward. . -1,200,000 2/

— * 4 •

Available From Prior Year Funds _6,767,629 _•

6

TOTALS _. _13,994,629 _33,000,000

33,000,000

1/ Includes $44,000 supplemental for pay raise.

(15)

February

8, 1971

Dr. J. R. Johnston

U. S. Department of Agriculture

Soil and Water Conservation Research Division Southern Plains Branch

Bushland, Texas 79012 Dear Mr. Johnston:

Your suggestion of Dr. Don Hervey for the Colorado member of NWRA Research Committee is quite satisfactory.

I do not believe that an additional nomination is necessary. Sincerely yours.

J. R. Barkley Colorado Director JRB:Jrn

(16)

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES January 26, 1971 L. W. narkham 5524 S. Garfield Spokane, Wa. 99203

akCD.

To All Association Directors and please pardon the informality of this gang approach, but I an in a tine bind, and besides I an levy.

Dr. J. R. Johnston is orranizinr his Comrlittee on Research and kcriculture and mould like your concurrence in naming a Connittee member from your State. 'le has sugr;osted members for the Committee Qs the enclosed list shows. as letter to no gives this explanation:

"I have prepared a table, showing states and possible members of the ,-,esearch Committee, and providinr- space for ;irectors of each stet- to make additional suggestions. • . You mill note that I have inserted a name for each state and, in a few instances, indicated a second name. Then there is a third

column for other nominations by Directors of the various states. Also, please note that in Texas I have shoun myself and Dr. J. R. aunkles • • . I mould

hope that Dr. lAinkles might serve on this committee even though I also represent the Texas moup on the Comnittee . I suggest that you send this table to the Directors of the various states, asking then to suggest other people if those listed are not satisfactory. • . I do hope that we can get the Committee composed at an early date . . "

Apparently the next move is yours. Will you please mrite Dr. Johnston

approving one or both of the men he has suggested for your State, and making an additional nomination if you are so inclined. In case you do not agree with the Ilan, or men, proposed from your State, don't hesitate to so advise Dr. Johnston, but at the OROS time nominate another for the Comnittee, if you believe he can be an asset to it.

Dr. Johnston's address is U S D A, Soil and '."41ter Conservation Research Division, Southern Plains Branch, Rushland, Texas 79012. Please write him

soon.

In writing Dr. Johnston, will you please make a copy and send it to Carl

Bro.= in Washington? Also, if you write to me in the month of February, please make a copy for Carl and mail it to him. Janet and I will be traveling

in California And Arizona for the next five maks, and our mail might be slow in catching up with us. Carl will know how to reach me, in ease something urgent transpires.

(17)

Suggestions for Research Committee of NWRA

State Nominations

Arizona Loyd E. Myers Harold E. Myers

California Dr. Ray Lanier Dr. J. H. Snyder Colorado Dr. Don Hervey

Hawaii Takeo Filjii

Idaho Dr. Marvin Jensen Cal Warnick

Kansas Dr. Hyde Jacobs F. W. Smith

Montana

-Dr. J. A. Asleson

Nebraska _{Dr. Norm Rosenberg} _{Howard Ottoson} Nevada _{Dr. Dale Bohmont}

New Mexico Hoyt Pattison G. W. Thomas

,

North Dakota Ralph Harmon

-E. B. Norum _{_}

Oklahoma Forrest Nelson

Oregon Marvin Shearer

South Dakota V. I. Myers J. R. Wiersma

Texas _{J. R. Johnston} _{J. R. Runkles}

Utah J. M. Bagley

Washington Mel A. Hagood

(18)

T

4,fc.* ete,r

PHA

7

ASSOCUTOON

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURY, Treasurer (Washington) (New Mexico)

RECD.

B 1 171

MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (North Dakota) (California)

J. A.' RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. C.)

January 28, 1971

The Committee For the Spring Board Meeting (Copy to President Markham, "en route") Subject: Arrangements

1. Enclosed is a draft letter to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. If Messrs. Coles and Riggins would furnish their criticisms of it to Mr. Barkley, his decision to me will stop, modify, or implement the proposal.

... one alternative would be to expand the scope to include top officers of Rivers and Harbors Congress and Water Resources Association, but that would probably be practical only on Friday, March 190 (Presently, the Board is scheduled to adjourn on Thursday.)

2. I prepared a letter to Acting Secretary Russell asking for a session with the Board to hear the New Secretary's views about water, but asked advice (Topside Interior) about submitting it, or waiting for the new Secretary to be on Board. Advice was to wait. You were sent copies of the letter Jan. 26. A new draft to Rogers Morton is enclosed.

3. Chairman Aspinall responded yesterday to Mr. Markham's request for time with him and Chairman Johnson. The earliest Mr. Aspinall could arrange to meet is 9:15 a.m., St. Patrick's Day. This would give us half-an-hour; more, if the Committee should not schedule a meeting. (House Committee organization, including approval of rules, is forecast to be slow this year)

4. Chairman Aspinall also agreed yesterday to "sponsor" (this is necessary to our use of the Rayburn facilities) a reception, the evening of St. Pat's Day (Wed., March 17). Sid McFarland recommends we start that at 5:00 p.m.

. . How would you view our suggesting to Mr. Aspinall that he (or perhaps he and Bizz Johnson) might consider announcing the reception, in co-operation of NWRA, to honor the new Secretary of Interior? (seems appropriate, though complicated, since Mr. Morton is out of the IIA Committee, and -- reportedly -- was "favored by the Chairman for the Cabinet past two years ago)

DIRECTORS

J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Ed Southwick, Utah James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley. Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Al A. Schock, S.D. Joe W. Jarvis,

(19)

-2-5. So far, I have not caught up with Dan Dreyfus toward developing a proposal for Mr. Markham to make to Senator Jackson for a meeting (Target is 11:00 a.m. Wednesday).

6. While the Commissioner of Reclamation was out West, Helen blocked out 3:00 p.m. Wed. (St. Pat's Day) for time with him, and I carried a letter over there, and handed it to Pete. *

7. Room and Board - a new factor.

The junior exec at Quality Motel who secured us a Board meeting room came personally to our office to state he had been over-ruled; the Board room would cost us $50. a day.

We rechecked options (like Washington and Congressional Hotels). Then I negociated with Quality Motel's Chief of Food and Fuss. I withdrew our need for Wednesday (to allow for meetings elsewhere, and visits to members of Congress, and for reception). We agreed to:

... dinner for the Board on Monday, March 15 at 7:00 p.m. (we have the room from 2:00 p.m. -- it will be ready earlier)

... lunch the next day, Tuesday, March 16 (room is available 9:00 to 5:00 -- except during luncheon set-up)

... breakfast on Thursday (room is available all day)

... no charge for room, available as stated --- but food prices are not cheap (menus enclosed). Number of meals must be decided 48 hours in advance, but I guaranteed only to encourage Board members to come; a minimum was not set.

If you think this is not worth a try (I assure you it is a hell of a lot cheaper than Carrol Arms), give me the word and I'll try to wriggle out.

If we "stay in", you might wish to invite John Rhodes to join us at one of the eating functions.

8. What else would you like? 9. Travel schedules:

Lorin has departed Spokane, to journey through Calif., and spend some time in Arizona. By the 5th of February he will be in Sun City, care of Mrs. Victor Bjerklund, whose street address we are tweceive.

Sat. morning (30th) I fly to Chicago to meet Sat. afternoon with Water Executives

Associated. Sun. noon begins the WRA meeting, at which Jim Smith talks (Monday). Tues., Wed., and 'Thurs. I will be in Cincinnati for InterState Council on Water Problems.

(20)

-3-Hotels are:

Conrad Hilton Hotel, Chicago Illinois -- Depart Feb. 2 a.m. for Cincinnati Sheraton-Gibson Hotel, Cincinnati, Ohio

I return here:

Late afternoon Feb. 4

In February, I will be in Denver for the Colorado Water Congress on the 17th -- at which time Bob and I can go farther than this letter into Spring board. Will be in

Dallas February 23. Sincerely, earl Bronn CB: nlw Enclosures 0"

* Commissioner Armstrong just telephoned and we agreed 3:30 St. Pat's Day to meet with him. I will seek Jim Smith's help toward getting Secretary earlier that afternoon. Jim will be in Chicago for the event as noted in par. 9.

(21)

QUALITY MOTEL - CAPITOL HILL

BREAKFAST

CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST: Juice, Danish, Coffee $1.50

FULL BREAKFAST:

Choice of: Orange Juice

Orange and Grapefruit Sections

Grapefruit, Tomato or Pineapple Juice Fresh Melon in Season

Chilled Half Grapefruit

1. SCRAMBLED EGGS with BACON or SAUSAGE (Ham 25¢ extra) 3.25

2. FRENCH TOAST with BACON (50 guests or less) 3.25

3. EGGS a la KING on PATTY SHELL 3.25

4. BROWNED CORNED BEEF HASH with POACHED EGG (50 guests odess) 3.50

5. CREAMED CHIPPED BEEF on TOAST 3.50

Cold Cereal with Cream or Milk — 50¢ extra

Toast Breakfast Rolls

Jelly Marmalade

Coffee Tea Milk

All prices are subject to 16% gratuity and 5% D. C. sales tax Guarantee must be received 48 hours in advance

Hotel will prepare 5% above guaranteed figure All prices are subject to change

(22)

V.

QUALITY MOTEL- CAPITOL HILL

LUNCHEON

Chilled Vegetable Juice .50 Half Grapefruit in Season

Supreme of Fresh Fruits .85 Potage du Jour .6u

1. PHILADELPHIA MIXED GRILL with CHICKEN LEG 3.75

2. CHOPPED SIRLOIN STEAK, MUSHROOM SAUCE 3.75

3. FILET of SOLE AMADINE 3.75

4. BROILED SWORDFISH STEAK 3.75

5. POT ROAST of BEEF with GRAVY 4.25

6. BRAISED TIPS of BEEF over NOODLES (and one vegetable) 4.25

7. BAKED SUGAR CURED HAM HAWAIIAN 4.,

8. BRAISED SHORT RIBS of BEEF JARDINIERE 4.75

9. BONED DOUBLE BREAST of CHICKEN MADEIRA 5.25

10. BREADED VEAL CUTLET MILANAISE 5.25

11. QUALITY SWISS STEAK CABARET 5.25

12. LONDON BROIL, MUSHROOM SAUCE 5.75

13. ROAST TOP SIRLOIN of BEEF au Vin Rouge 5.75

14. BREADED FANTAIL SHRIMP 5.75

15. RIB EYE STEAK BORDELAISE 6.50

16. PETITE FILET MIGNON 6.50

VEGETABLES: Delmonico, Snowflake, Oven Browned, Duchess Potatoes

String Beans, New Garden Peas, Broccoli Mimosa, Buttered Whole Kernel Corn, Glazed Carrots

SALAD: Garden Green Salad (254 extra if taken in addition to two vegetables) (Choice of two vegetables or one vegetable and salad)

DESSERTS: Ice Cream Roll, Chocolate Sauce Chocolate Eclair •

Assorted Ice Cream or Sherbet with Wafer

All prices are subject to 16% gratuity and 5% D. C. sales tax Guarantee must be received 48 hours in advance

Hotel will prepare 5% above guaranteed figure All prices are subject to change

(23)

QUALITY MOTEL - CAPITOL HILL

DINNER

Supreme of Fresh Fruits Chilled Juice

Consomme Chilled or Hot) Vichysoisse

Seafood Remoulade in Scallop Shell S1.50 extra

Jumbo Shrimp Cocktail 81.50 extra

Tomato Madrilene, Toasted Almonds $ .50 extra

1. ROAST MARYLAND TURKEY with DRESSING 5.75

2. ONE HALF ROAST CHICKEN, BUTTER-HERB SAUCE 5.75

3. BROILED SWORDFISH STEAK 6.00

4. BROILED HAM STEAK HAWAIIAN 6.50

5. BRAISED BEEF au VIN ROUGE 6.50

6. ROAST SIRLOIN of BEEF au Jus 6.75

7. BONED DOUBLE BREAST of CHICKEN on SLICE of VIRGINIA HAM 7.00

8. TOP SIRLOIN STEAK 7.50

9. WHOLE BONED ROCK CORNISH GAME HEN, stuffed with Wild Rice 8.00

10. ROAST PRIME RIBS of BEEF 9.50

11. INDIVIDUAL SIRLOIN STEAK (New York Strip) 9.50

1 9. INDIVIDUAL FILET MIGNON 10.00

VEGETABLES: Duchess. au Gratin. Rissolees, Baked Idaho, Candied Sweet Potatoes

Peas with Mushrooms, Broccoli Mimosa, String Beans Amadine, Grilled Tomato SALAD: Mixed Green, Chiffonade, Hearts of Lettuce. Hearts of Romaine

DESSERTS: Apple Pic with Cheese, Assorted Pie, Ice Cream or Sherbet with Wafer, Ice Cream Snowball with Chocolate Sauce

All prices arc subject to 1W ty,ratuitv and 5";, D. C. sales tax Guarantee must be received 48 hours in advance

Hotel will prepare 5% above guaranteed

figure

All prices are

subject to change

(24)

skESOö

'01NA

MDCOITOON

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President (Washington) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President (North Dakota) J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President (Arizona)

I. J. COURY, Treasurer (New Mexico)

JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (California)

CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)

January , 1971

The Honorable George P. Shultz

Director of the Office of Management and Budget Executive Office Building

17th and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Shultz:

Your discussion on Channel 26 the evening of January 26, was impressive -- a marker.

Thus, this letter seeks an opportunity for the Board of Directors of this Association to hear, from you, the Administration's views of Federal reorganization and of income

sharing. Your providing us also a view (by a specialist if preferred) of the Administration's mission for water resource development would be appreciated -- but that is only an adjunct of this request.

One may wonder why a ranking officer of our Administration should consider investing thirty minutes to talk to but twenty men. Well

--The Board of Directors of NWRA represents eighteen western State associations, non-profit, each comprised of conservancy districts, irrigation districts, water resource groups, and community leaders. The latter include members of State Resource Boards, State

engineers, advisors to the Western States Water Council, and officers of the Inter-State Conference on Water Problems. Their joint efforts are towards balance in resource actions, by government and its citizens.

The Board convenes in Washington, D. C., March 15, in the afternoon. From then through March 18 (except March 17) the Board would assemble at time and place of your convenience. Or, we would be honored were you to join us at dinner March 15, luncheon March 16, or breakfast March 18 (on Capitol Hill, the Quality Motel, the Council Suite).

Meeting with you to hear more about President Nixon's Driving Dream would help to spread the understanding of his purpose and his plan. We do hope that you can arrange it.

DIRECTORS J. A Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho

Chris C. Green, Kans. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont.

Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. I'. an P. Head, Nev.

I. J Coury, N.M.

Sincerely,

Lorin W. Markham, moo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Al A. Schock, S. D. John W. Simmons, Tex.

President

Ed Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Maikham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Joe W. Jarvis,

(25)

NA-ERIA_

ASSMIA-gail

The Honorable Rogers C. B. Morton The Secretary of Interior

U. S. Department of Interior Washington, D. C. 20240 Dear Mr. Secretary:

897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672

For the past three decades, the Board of Directors of the National Water Resources Association has been accorded the benefit of meeting with each newly-appointed Secretary of the Interior. Your knowledge of natural resource programs, and their increasing importance to an enlarging and mobile population, cause our Board to be especially interested in a meeting with you.

This letter seeks a meeting in mid-March, when the Board convenes here in the

District of Columbia. The Board is available at your convenience from 2:00 p.m. March 15, until 4:00 p.m. March 18, except for Wednesday the 17th (for which other audiences are being sought).

While you know of the National Water Resources Association, organized in 1932 as the National Reclamation Association, I offer these facts about it, today:

Our affiliates in the eighteen western States comprise conservancy districts, irrigation districts, State-wide water-resource organizations, and community leaders from all walks of life. Individual members include advisors to the Western States Water Council, and officers and committeemen of the Inter-State Council on Water Problems, which in turn is advisor to the Water Resources Council.

The Directors would like to hear the views of the Secretary about the coming water resources program of the Department. Of critical interest are views as to the adequacy of the current ratio of annual new construction investments to the total of authorized Reclamation projects.

DIRECTORS

J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Ed Southwick, Utah • James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Al A. Schock, S. H. Joe W. Jarvis,

(26)

-2-This request for a meeting is early. We realize that March schedules for the Secretary may not be worked out for some time. But we do believe that water care --and the influence of NWRA for it -- would be served by the Secretary's meeting with the Directors.

Sincerely,

Lorin W. Markham President

(27)

pou ,0 ,C1 1". \44,_{s.,...!!!0111•}

NA-11aNA

ASSMETOON

To: Directors, NWRA

January 27, 1971

Subject: Dues Structure (No. 2 in series for agenda of March Board meeting)

An active member in the Wyoming Water Development Association states his views of current dues structure in a letter to Director Kurtz. Marlin proposes the Issue for the March Board meeting.

Excerpts from the member's comprehensive letter (to be available in full at the Board meeting) are quoted below; the chart he prepared is attached. An abstract of earlier Board disscussions of relationships between quotas and irrigated acres follow the excerpts:

EXCERPTS (in briefed form):

(1) A motion was passed that the Wyoming Water Development Association not pay any increased annual dues to NWRA until an equitable system among the 18 States is adopted ..."

(2) Providing a rise of 18.5 %, in total dues, but basing quotas on current population and irrigated acres, would result in a distribution as shown on the enclosed chart..." (3) The use of population data takes into account benefits other than irrigation, and

also the spread of benefits from irrigation .. only a small percentage of jobs lies in agriculture, as compared with industry and commerce.

POINTS FROM EARLIER BOARD DISCUSSIONS ( a personal interpretation):

The effort of the national association, and the interests of the States in water and related land resources, do include both legislation of broad scope and also the practices of many Federal agencies. Such broad interests do tend to relate to population strengths.

However, the part of the population who can be depended upon for financial support to an association tend to be segmented, rather than to represent a balanced State cross-section.

DIRECTORS J. A. Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho

Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Ivan P. Head, Nev.

I. J. Coury, N.M.

Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Al A. Schock, S.D. John W. Simmons, Tex.

Ed Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Joe W. Jarvis,

(28)

-2-For example: In some States the centers of population believe that they can get their water (M & I) on their own, and that Federal programs for works to be built in the countryside simply divert government money from urban problems. Also, the strength of many so-called conservation associations who oppose water structures lies often in the most populated areas.

Although NWRA's work to clarify principles which now impede water development does benefit S.C.S. and the Corps, local and national organizations other than NWRA are

more closely identified (even though we may think they should not be) with benefits from S.C.S. and the Corps. Significance: in States like Texas and Oklahoma, many water people _tend to assess NWRA's work only by the construction program of USBR in their States.

For their population, that ain't much, and getting financial help for NWRA runs head on into money needs for NASCD, the R & H Congress, WRA, and a slug of river basin organization oriented to water construction other than USBR . (This ,Yone reason why such States keep looking for merger of Associations)

Further, neither population mass nor total irrigated acreage measures the fundamental interests of many States in Federal actions, nor even in a majority of State actions, about water resources. Specifically, low population States like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming produce massive amounts of water, to which their irrigated acreage has low ratio. Interests allocated according to population and present irrigation would not serve them at all! Other low population States like North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas (low when people already benefitted by a network of Corps' reservoirs is substracted) have a lot of water moving through, water which States with a "more people potential" might like to have.

The named States thus have an intrinsic interest in water and land which could hardly be apportioneeaccording to mixes of population and of land developed for a single purpose. Such States have opportunitycto measure their intrinsic interest by helping to make viable an Association wherein a State:Jow population with vast resources untapped, has exactly equal voice on the Board, and in Committees, alongside a State with thirty times the strength in people; or, another State has exactly equal voice with a State now having one hundred and twenty-five times the irrigated land:

The intrinsic interest of States in water and land -- as resources for humans -- may be gauged by the effort the people of the respective States make through association whereili each State has equal voice,. This does not mean that sharing in tasks is not subject to regulai review -- it means only that interests are deep, and measures are complex.

Carl Bronn

(29)

.

ANNUAL DUES PAID BY 18 WESTERN STATES TO NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION - PRESENT AND PROPOSED (Proposed Dues based 50% on ,the State's Population and 50% on Irrigated Acres)

lg. WESTERN STATES POPULATION 1970 CENSUS PRELIMINARY IRRIGATED ACRES 1964 PRESENT • ANNUAL DUES PROPOSED ANNUAL DUES ARIZONA 1,753,000 1,125,000 $ 3,300 $ 1,848 CALIFORNIA 19,715,000 7,559,000 $ 8,424 $ 16,566 COLORADO 2,178,176 2,690,000 $ 4,219 $ 3,360 HAWAII 748,500 144,000 $ 1,000 $ 512 IDAHO 698,257 2,802,000 $ 2,640 $ 2,678 KANSAS 2,222,000 1,004,000 $ 1,320 $ 1,991 MONTANA 682,133 1,893,000 $ 3,003 $ 1,920 NEBRASKA 1,468,100 2,169,000 $ 2,167 $ 2,560 NEVADA 481,893 825,000 $ ,1,500 $ 935 NEW MEXICO 998,000 813,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,194 NORTH bAKOTA 611,648 51,000 $ 1,794 $ 360 OKLAHCNA 2,500,000 302,000 $ 1,320 $ 1,560 OREGON 2,056,000 1,608,000 $ 2,248 $ 2,406 SOUTH bAKOTA 657,100 130,000 $ 1,440 $ 451 TEXAS 11,000,000 6,385,000 $ 1,836 $ 11,033 UTAH 1,051,810 1,092000 $ 2,500 $ 1,452 WASHINGTON 3,352,000 1,150,000 $ 4,198 $ 2,703 WYOMING 332,000 1,571,000 $ 1,980 $ 1,471 TOTAL 52,505,617 33,313,000 $ 46,389 $ 55,000

(30)

To:

ASSEIrOni.

897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING

REM F E 5* 1 717 4 I. J. COURY, Treasurer (New Mexico)

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672

January 27, 1971

John Simmons (Dallas Convention Host) Pat Head (Las Vegas Convention Host)

Info to all other Board members as a probable item for March meeting of Board. (Note: this is No. 1 of a series of letters to relate to the March Board meeting)

Subject: Package vs options for costs of annual conventions, and other convention matters (1970 and 1971)

The enclosed copy of a resolution of the Ft. Randall Conservancy Sub-District objects to the package luncheon requirement which the Board voted for the Las Vegas Convention. The District would accept manadatory registration for but one event, the All States Banquet. Apparently no objection to a registration fee of $25.00 is made.

This letter suggests the "package” requirement be considered at the Board meeting. Further, Mr. Head might review for us his experience in "dickering" for cut-off time and for guarantees on meals, as well as the extent of waste from requiring people to buy tickets not used. Pat personally managed these matters, and his experience will help weigh the theories.

This advance notice may provide opportunity for other Board members to check attitudes of State officers as to package options preferred, and also as to the kinds of speakers to be sought. You recall that our speakers pay their own expenses to address us -- even hotel bills -- and receive no honorarium. You know also that many people use the convention to work with officials whom they otherwise would have to seek out in

Washington.

For an interesting exampl of how others saw us at our last convention see the news clip alongside (from the Candaian Water Resources Association publication entitled Reclamation

7

--DIRECTORS

J. A. Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Ca)if. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho

Difficulties For NWRA

The National Water Resources Associa-tion of the United States (not to he con-fused with the American Water Resources Association) is felt to be in a bit of a bind.

It used to be called the National Rec-lamation Association. Its chief purpose was to promote water projects in different

r.s.-r-swerasercuelemaila.

parts of Western U.S. It changed its ne. to broaden its appeal, but its purpose mained essentially the same.

Now that there is a virtual freeze major new projects, because of tight rr ey and the cost of the Vietnam war, association is finding it harder to nr; tam n its cohesion and vigor.

1.1. Coury, N.M.

(31)

MINUTES

FT. RANDALL CONSERVANCY SUB-DISTRICT SPECIAL MEETING - DEC. 9TH

WEDNESDAY - 10:00 A.M. MITCHELL, SOUTH DAYOTA

Resolution of Disamroval

Following disappointment and dissatisfaction over some rather_.0 unusual arrangements that had been made, concerning registration fees charged as a basis for attendance at the 39th Annual meeting of the National Water Resources Association in Las Vegas, Nevada, - Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Larson that the following

resolution be adopted by the Ft. Randall Sub-District Board:

"We, the directors of the Ft. Randall Conservancy Sub-District take this means of expressing our disapproval of a plan followed at the 39th annual meeting of the National Water Resources Association, held in Las Vegas, Nevada, November 17-19, whereby three luncheon tickets were included in a registration fee of $45.00. This fee was mandatory whether or not a registrant was able to take advantage of any of the luncheons. We believe it to be contrary to long,

established principles of the National Water Resources Association, that of encouraaing attendance at the annual convention of ,the

Association. Normally, the current registration fee is $25.00.n Motion carried.

In further evaluating luncheons as such, it was the consensus of opinion that all luncheons should be dropped, which would provide an opportunity for delegates to meet in groups of their choosing, to discuss what appeared most pertinent to them.

One exception was suggested. The annual banquet which has been a tradition since the inception of the NWRA, should be con-tinued.

RC & D Progress Report

Mr. Leonard Nelson reported that the laying of the pipeline from the power house to the area to be served in the Platte Creek

(32)

1 ,

RECD.

AN 29

Tr•••• RES0/./

ISSOC tT

The Honorable Fred J. Russell The Acting Secretary of Interior U. S. Department of Interior Washington, D. C. 20240 Dear Mr. Secretary:

January 25, 1971

We were pleased to observe your being seated at the speaker's table today, at Governor Reagan's interesting Press Club meeting, and also at the recent Press Club address by Mr. William Ruckelshaus.

Mr. Secretary, during the past three decades the Board of Directors of the National Water Resources Association has been accorded the benefit of meeting with each newly-appointed Secretary of the Interior. This year, the Board will assemble in W..shington, D. C. on the afternoon of March 15, to remain here through Thursday March 18. The afternoon of March 17 would be an ideal time for the Board to meet with the Secretary, but of course we will accommodate to his schedule (except for Wednesday morning, March 17, when meetings with the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the Conress are expected).

The Directors would like to hear the views water resources program of the Department. Of to the adequacy of the current ratio of annual the total of authorized Reclamation projects.

of the Secketary about the coming critical interest are views as new construction investments to

Should the Secretary have, in March, information about prospective Departmental reorganization, our Board would be of assistance in explaining the proposal "back home". Our home organizations (in the eighteeen western States) comprise conservancy districts, irrigation districts, State-wide water-resource organizations, and community leaders from all walks of life. Our members include advisors tothe Western States Water Council, and officers and committeemen of the Inter-State Council on Water Problems (of the National Governors' Council).

..continued..

DIRECTORS

J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Ed Southwick, Utah James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Al A. Schock, S. D. Joe W. Jarvis,

(33)

-2-This request for a meeting is early. We realize that 'larch schedules for the Secretary may not be worked out for some time. But we do believe that water care -- and the influence of NWRA for it -- would be served by the Secretary's meeting with the Directors.

I

/ /

J1

T

-

Y

_{a, /}

Ldrin W. Markham President

(34)

RESOURe 42.‘'

MrOUR._

ASSECMON

The Honorable Ellis L. Armstrong Commissioner of Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

U. S. Department of Interior Washington, D. C. 20240 Dear Mr.Commissioner:

January 25, 1971

The Board of Directors of this Association will convene in Washington on the afternoon of March 15, and remain through Thursday, March 18. We would be grateful for the privledge of meeting with you, for an updating of information you gave us at Las Vegas.

Should that be impracticable, we shall arrange a time at your convenience, except: We are seeking meetings with the Chairmen of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees on the morning of Wednesday, March 17, and with the Secretary of Interior on the same afternoon as with you. I shall of course keep you

informed about any word from the Office of the Secretary.

It is probable that some members of the Board will seek your advice about particular State problems. Once the Board meeting is set, they will probably correspond directly with you.

cigett-eep eohs,

DIRECTORS J. A. Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Roshult, Idaho

Sincerely, , Lorin W. Markham President

Afiti7s) qic/ Plat-4-44wq

I. J. Coury, N.M.

rYl

(35)

AVM

JAN

2 E

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

5524 S. Garfield Spokane, Wa. 99203 January 19, 1971 Re: Program for Spring Board Meeting.

To Chairman Bob Barkley and Committee Members LaSelle Coles and Ted Riggins Hi Fellows:

Trying to keep up with Carl Bronn and the instructions coning out of the Las Vegas meeting, have me sort of minded . . . and I'm quite sure I have missed doing a dozen things I should have been doing.

But, I'm taking it for granted that you are in agreement that the selected dates of March 15 - 18 are the proper dates for the Spring Board meeting. Also, that you have all the go-ahead you need to plan the

meeting. Without checking the minutes of the Las Vegas Board meetings, I recall the strong recommendation that we allow plenty of time to work on Association programs and problems.

I raised the question the other day with Carl about the practicality of inviting one or more of our Committee Chairmen to meet with the Board. He could see some of the hazards, and so can I. If any of them are

invited and attend, something worthwhile must result, otherwise they will feel their time is wasted. In case Carl mentioned my suggesting the committee chairmen attendance possibility to you . . . I have no feeling about it. Forget it, unless you see some advantage in it.

I suspect Bob that you will have a good opportunity to go over program plans with Carl since he is in Denver this week. I think all of us have about the same ideas of the issues, programs, or problems

(whatever you call them) that need major consideration. There should be no difficulty in agreeing on agenda items for the business sessions.

If you have reason to contact me any time between January 28 and March 2, Carl will know how to reach me. Janet and I will be in Arizona and California most of that time. We are scheduled to be in Sun City February 5 - 12, and I am booked on the Colorado River Tour, February 23 - 27. I will call you Ted Shortly after our arrival at Sun City in case your Committee has questions.

Thanks for handling the program assignment. Sine r

(36)

P. 0. Box 679 Loveland, Colo. January 25,

1971

Mr. Lorin W. Markham 5524 South Garfield Spokane, Washington 99203 Dear Lorin:

1 have your letter of January 19 in regard to the spring meeting of the Board. I can answer quickly as follows:

1. The dates are satisfactory.

2. Like you, I have no strong feeling about Committee Chairman attendance. However, I do agree with you on the possible hazard of time waste.

3.

You indicated the probability that I could agree on agenda with Carl during the week of his Denver visit -- which 1 gathered from your letter was last week. I heard nothing from him.

4. No additional suggestions have come from Riggins or Coles.

Re your letter of January 20 on fund raising, I agree that the effort should be made and the firms assigned to me ere satisfactory. Both are apparently in a state of organizational flux since both were involved In mergers not too long ago. However, I think I can find someone appropriate to thread the way in.

Sincerely,

J. R. Barkley Colorado Director CC: Carl Bronn

(37)

NA-LrINA

MIX:ER `2ES2U

SMErlION

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURY, Treasurer (Washington) (New Mexico) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President

(North Dakota)

REM,

AN

2 5 1q71

JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President

(California)

J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. C.)

897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672 L. W. Markham 5524 S. Garfield Spokane, Wa. 99203 Mr. J. R. Barkley P 0 Box 679 Loveland, Colorado Dear Bob: Januar , C, 1971

I'm still trying-. to find the formula for collecting the money we need to finance the special study of the National Land Use Policy legislation, and its revision to make it a constructive rather than a regressive measure. I have gone to John Budd, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Burlington Northern, and he has several of his officials checking the legislation and its impact. Ultimately, I believe we will get help from hin, hut in the meantime we should be building the biggest part of the fund from other sources.

And, this is where you come in . . . I hope.

As you recall, the Directors at Las Vegas listed firms that have a major stake in water resource development. Of course, there are many others, hut the list is e p]ac-.. to star. These firms should be contacted, and encouraged to contribute t1000 or $2000 each to the special project fund. Obviously, the request will have to be made by the right man, probably a prestige guy who has easy access to a senior executive of the prospect firm. Very possibly, it will take a different prestige guy for each firm. I'm asking. each Director to find the right contact, the right prestige guy for each of the firms I've sort of arbitrarily assigned him from the list. The list and assignments are enclosed. After you locate your contact you will, of course, have to sell him on making the pitch . . . initiating the request for the money.

If you don't like the idea at all, let me knoI, quick. If you don't think the firms assigned are the right ones for you; and there are others on the list you think you can do a better job with, swap with the Director who has the firms you want. If you want to tackle other prospects, not on the list, Bless You, hut nlease let me know who they are. Also, keep in mind your efforts shouldn't hurt the income of State Associations. I will work with the railroads and the power companies of the Northwest, unless you want to approach one or more of they.

To let you know how I approached the Burlington Northern, I am enclosing a copy of the first page of my letter to Y1-. Budd. I am also enclosing excerpts from John Rosholt's letter describing the threat posed by the legislation, and

DIRECTORS

J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Ed Southwick, Utah James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Al A. Schock, S.D. Joe W. Jarvis,

(38)

*2

his suggestion of the task force we need to cope with it.

Here's how Carl Bronn thinks the job can be done: "Just how would you guys spend the dough?

Establish a man in D. C. to stimulate interest in studying the ramifications of S.

3354 _--

together with the known views of witnesses uho testified about it --- so to comprehend its importance --- to collect and collate the studies __- then to conceive alternatives, and to test them with the cooperators --- compress the results into a packet, and deliver it to Capitol trill."

To protect the early donors, in the event we fall on our face, I suggest we set a minimum goal of $25,000. If we don't reach it, we should agree to return their money to the ones who have given.

So • • 41 think it over . . . but please decide quick, whether in your opinion

we can really give this proposal a solid trial. In writing me your decision, please send a copy of your letter to Carl Bronn so he can keep a record of the firms

being contacted.

• rely,

cfrt`' rt/

Lorin Yarkha!T encl.

(39)

Bob Barkley: Clarence Base: Bob Chuck: LaSelle Coles: I. J. Coury: Milo Hoisveen: Marlin Kurtz: Ted Riggins: John Rosholt: John Simmons: Judge Smith: Jim Sorensen: Ed Southwick:

DIRECTORS PRELIMINARY FIRM ASSIGNMENTS

Great Western Sugar Company

Ideal Basic Industries, Ideal Cement Division Certain-Teed Products Corporation

WeyerhausPr

Bechtel Corporation

Kaiser Engineers, Kaiser Industries Corporation Allis Chalmers

Georgia-Pacific Johns Manville

Shell Chemical Corporation Deere: John Deere Company

DuPont: E. I. DuPont DeNemours Company

Standard Oil Company, Chevron Chemical Company White Motor Corporation, Euclid Division

General Electric Westinghouse Boise-Cascade Morrison-Knudson Brown & Root, Inc. H. B. Zachry Company J. I. Case Company

Monsanto Chemical Corporation Caterpillar Tractor Company International Harvester J. R. Simplot Company U & I Sugar Company