A
PROCEEDINGS
of the
Thirty—first Annual Meeting
•
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
October 17-19, 1962
A RECLAMATION SCENE
Portland, Oregon
A Beautiful Western Reclamation Scene of fine homes and a prosperous community
that will contribute to the well-being of the Nation for centuries to come.
* **"The Nation as a whole is, of course, the gainer by the creation of these homes, adding as they do to the wealth and stability of the Country, and furnishing a home market for the products of the East and South.***"
PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT, 3RD ANNUAL MESSAGE, DECEMBER, 1903.
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
897 National Press Building
Proceedings of the
THIRTY-FIRST ANNUAL CONVENTION
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
October 17, 18, 19, 19 62
Portland, Oregon
RECLAMATION--Food and Fibre for Our Rapidly Increasing Population
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
897 National Press Building
PROGRAM
8:00 a. m.
10:00 a. m.
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
31st ANNUAL CONVENTION
Benson and Multnomah Hotels
Portland, Oregon
October 17, 18, 19, 1962
GENERAL SESSIONS
Wednesday Forenoon - October 17
STATE CAUCUSES
Empire Room
Color Film- "Gift from the Clouds" -Courtesy Union Pacific Railroad Company
10:30 a. m. CALL TO ORDER
LaSelle E. Coles, President, National Reclamation Association, Prineville, Oregon
10:35 a. m. INVOCATION
The Reverend Lansing E. Kempton, D. D. Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church, Portland
10:45 a. m. AN ADDRESS OF WELCOME
Honorable Mark 0. Hatfield, Governor of Oregon
11:15 a. m. AN ADDRESS OF WELCOME
Honorable Terry D. Schrunk, Mayor of Portland
11:30 a. m. Introduction of President Coles by Harold H. Christy, 2nd Vice-President and Colorado Director, N.R.A., Pueblo, Colorado The President's Message
LaSelle E. Coles
11:55 a. m. ADJOURN FOR LUNCHEON
12:00 noon
2:00 p.m.
2:45 p.m.
3:15 p.m.
3:30 p.m.
Wednesday Noon - October 17
LUNCHEON Grand Ballroom
TOASTMASTER --John L. Stewart, President, Oregon Reclamation Congress, Klamath Falls, Oregon
INVOCATION
The Reverend Lawrance J. Mitchell, D.D., Co-Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Portland
ADDRESS
Honorable Wayne Morse, U. S. Senator, Oregon
Wednesday Afternoon - October 17
GENERAL SESSIONS Empire Room
Presiding, James F. Sorensen, Visalia, California Director, NRA
REPORTS--STATE CAUCUSES by State Caucus Secretaries
ADDRESS
Ralph M. Brody, Chairman
California Water Commission, Fresno, California
REPORT
Water Users Committee
J. R. Barkley, Chairman, Loveland, Colorado
REPORT
Small Projects Committee
Doyle F. Boen, Chairman, Hemet, California
3:40 p.m. "Activities of the Willamette Basin Project Committee" Warren Jones, Executive Secretary, Salem
) 4:10 p.m. - ANNOUNCEMENTS
4:15 p.m. - ADJOURNMENT
Wednesday Evening - October 17
7:00 p.m. Rose City Buses leave hotels for Pacific International Livestock Exposition
9:30 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
Thursday Forenoon - October 18
GENERAL SESSIONS Empire Room
Presiding, Wayne M. Akin, Member, Agricultural Research Committee, Phoenix, Arizona
Color Film, "Operation Glen Canyon" -Courtesy Bureau of Reclamation
REPORT
Sugar Beet Legislation Committee
Earl S. Gregory, Chairman, Quincy,Washington
"Land and Water Resources--Where Do We Go From Here--Research"
Dr. Omer J. Kelley, Manager, Agricultural Research Center, Stanford Research Institute„ South Pasadena, California
10:45 a.m. REPORT
Right-of-Way Compensation Committee
Porter A. Towner, Chairman, Sacramento, California
11:00 a.m. REPORT
Legi8lative Commitwy
Harry E. Polk, Chairman, Williston, North Dakota
11:15 a.m. ADDRESS
Lt. Gen. Walter K. Wilson, Jr., Chief of Engineers, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C.
11:45 a.m. REPORT OF TREASURER
Lorin W. Markham, Spokane, Washington
11:55 a.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADJOTTRN
FOR
LUNCHEON12:15 p.m.
Thursday Noon - October
LUNCHEON
Mayfair Room, Benson Hotel
Toastmaster Marshall N. Dana, First President, N. R. A., Portland, Oregon
INVOCATION
The Reverend Laurence F. Nye, Minister, First Methodist Church, Portland
"Uniting the West for iZeclamation"
Thursday Afternoon - October 18
2:00 p.m. GENERAL SESSIONS-- --Mayfair Room, Benson Hotel
Presiding, I. J. Coury, Director, NRA, Farmington, New Mexico
2:15 p.m.
2:25 p.m.
REPORT
Land Limitation Administration Committee
REPORT
Land Limitation Legislation Committee James F. Sorensen, Chairman
REPORT
Codification Committee
Clifford E. Fix, Chairman, Twin Falls, Idaho
ADDRESS
Paul Jones, Chairman, Navajo Tribal Council, Window Rock, Arizona
2:50 p.m. ADJOURN FOR SECTIONAL MEETINGS
3:00 p.m. SECTIONAL MEETINGS
Ground Water Sectional Meeting -- Rose Bowl Room
"Optimum Use of Ground Water Storage" - Hugh A. Shamberger, Chairman, 1st Vice President and Nevada Director,
Carson City, Nevada
H. E. Thomas, Staff Scientist, U. S. Geological Survey, Ground Water Branch, Menlo Park, California
0. F. Dent, Commissioner, Texas Water Commission, Austin, Texas
,Wayne Criddle, State Engineer of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah W. A. Alexander, Member, State Water Rights Board of
California and Consulting Engineer, Sacramento, California Dr. George B. Maxey, Research Professor in Geology and
Hydrology, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Water Users Sectional Meeting---Empire Room J. R. Barkley, Chairman
"Spreading Project Water Supply to Cope with Metropolitan Sprawl" Henry Shipley, Associate General Manager, Salt River Water Users Association, Phoenix, Arizona
"Shifting of Water from Agricultural to Urban and Domestic Uses" Arlie S. Campbell, Secretary, South Ogden Conservation District, Ogden, Utah
4:30 p.m.
"Effects of Rural-Urban Competition upon Existing Water Policies and Water Rights"
Stan Matzke, Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District, Hastings, Nebraska
- ADJOURNMENT OF SECTIONAL MEETINGS Thursday Evening - October 18 6:45 p.m. - ALL STATES BANQUET----Grand Ballroom
Master of Ceremonies Richard J. Turner, Executive Vice President, Dawson and Turner, Inc., Portland
INVOCATION
The Reverend J. Lester Harnish, D. D., Pastor, First Baptist Church, Portland
ENTERTAINMENT
By the Forest Grove Gleemen, Bruce Kelly, Director
INTRODUCTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND LIFE MEMBERS LaSelle E. Coles
ADDR.ESS
Honorable Maurine B. Neuberger, U. S. Senator, Oregon Friday Forenoon - October 19
7:00 a.m. - Rose City Buses leave Multnomah and Benson Hotels for Chuck Wagon Breakfast, Pacific International Livestock Exposition
9:15 a.m. - STATE CAUCUSES
11:00 a.m. GENERAL SESS1ONS----Empi re Room Presiding LaSelle E. Coles
Color Film - "It's Time to Irrigate" Courtesy Union Pacific Railway Company REPORT
Agricultural Research Committee George L. Henderson, Chairman Bakersfield, California
11:30 a.m. - REPORT
Wayne Criddle, President,
Western State Engineers, Salt Lake City, Utah 12:00 noon - ADJOURN FOR LUNCHEON
Friday Noon - October 19
12:10 p.m. LUNCHEON Grand Ballroom
Toastmaster Earl T. Bower, Director, N. R . A . , Worland, Wyoming
INVOCATION
Reverend Paul E. Waldschmidt, C.S.C. President of the University of Portland
"Reclamation's Biggest Year" The Honorable Floyd E. Dominy Commissioner of Reclamation Washington, D. C.
Friday Afternoon - October 19
2:00 p.m. BUSINESS SESSION
Presiding LaSelle E. Coles
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE George L. Henderson, Chairman
Bakersfield, California
AUDITING COMMITTEE E. T. Bower, Chairman Worland, Wyoming
CODIFICATION COMMITTEE Clifford E. Fix, Chairman Twin Falls, Idaho
LAND LIMITATION ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
LAND LIMITATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE James F. Sorensen, Chairman
Visalia, California
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Harry E. Polk, Chairman Williston, North Dakota
RIGHT-OF-WAY COMPENSATION COMMITTEE Porter A. Towner, Chairman
Sacramento, California
SMALL PROJECTS COMMITTEE Doyle F. Boen, Chairman
Hemet, California
SUGAR BEET LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Earl S. Gregory, Chairman
Quincy, Washington
WATER USERS COMMITTEE J. R. Barkley, Chairman Loveland, Colorado
RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE J. D. Mansfield, Chairman Yuma, Arizona
SELECTION OF CONVENTION CITY FOR 1963
ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH MAY PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE CONVENTION
GENERAL SESSIONS
Wednesday Forenoon - October 17, 1962 LaSELLE E. COLES, President - Presiding
The meeting was called to order and presided over by LaSelle E. Coles, President. The Invocation was presented by the Reverend Lansing E. Kempton, D.D., Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church, Portland, Oregon.
AN ADDRESS OF WELCOME Honorable Mark 0. Hatfield
Governor of Oregon
Oregon, Washington, and California residents in the audience and those members of your staff who have been here preparing for this 31st Annual Convention are intimately familiar with catastrophic destruction which was visited on the North Pacific Coast area last Friday evening.
The major disaster which struck our states, resulting in a terrible loss of life and Property, will long be remembered.
Columbus Day, 1962, and the night and day that followed saw countless scenes of heroism which were as equally worthy of approbation as was the feat of that great ex-plorer and his crew in 1492.
I cannot too highly commend those public-spirited citizens, government officials, peace officers and private organizations who responded to calls for assistance through-out Oregon and other stricken areas. Certainly these efforts have been as symbolic as those of the pioneers who settled the West. The frontier spirit which has characterized our people since the beginning was never more apparent than in the dark hours during and following last Friday evening's storm.
Sunday morning I was pleased to advise the nation, through all available press media, that Oregon is on its way back. I am sure a similar situation prevails in our neighboring states. Although death and damage of catastrophic proportions are evident, repairs are under way at every hand, and we are on our way to orderly recovery.
In your visits about the state, and particularly here in Portland, you will still see scars of the storm. Some of the damage cannot be repaired. Many of the countless thousands of stately trees which have helped make the City of Roses and the Pacific Northwest so attractive to residents and visitors alike are gone. Our forests have re-ceived heavy damage. Orchardists count their loss in millions of dollars.
But, Oregon's progressive spirit is on the march, and like the Phoenix which arose from the ashes, new trees, new buildings, new life will arise on the wreckage of the storm.
The scenic and utilitarian aspects of the Oregon countryside will soon again be plainly evi-dent. We will reclaim the farm lands, the fruit and nut orchards, and all that makes this area so livable.
Thus, although Oregon's Welcome Mat, the greenest in the Nation, is temporarily frayed, our hospitality is undiminished, and we are very pleased to welcome this 31st annual convention of the National Reclamation Association.
The choice of Portland as the site for this meeting is most fortunate. In convening here you not only pay tribute to an outstanding leader and Oregon resident, your president, LaSelle Coles, but you also recognize that in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest may be found some of the finest examples of the value of reclamation and soil and water conser-vation.
I am honored at the opportunity to share the speaking program with outstanding personalities in the field of water conservation and development, both in government and the private sector. The events arranged for your edification and enjoyment by the local convention committee in cooperation with your national staff should go far toward making this your most successful annual meeting.
While it is traditional that the final resolution of such a gathering expresses appreci-ation for the work of the convention committee and others, I should like to take this oppor-tunity to commend in advance your convention chairman, Marshall Dana. Marshall served as your first president and, of course, you know his leadership qualities. That his energy and enthusiasm have not diminished is evident by the arrangements he has made for your enjoyment of this convention. I hope you will join me in an expression of appreciation at this time.
I should also like to pay tribute to your president, LaSelle Coles. Long a friend of irrigation and reclamation, LaSelle has made perhaps his greatest contribution to the wel-fare of the people of Oregon and the Nation through his service on public boards and
com-mittees.
In 1953 I was in the Oregon Legislature and joined in urging a study of Oregon's water needs. This study was conducted by the Oregon Water Resources Committee and this
com-mittee's report resulted in enactment of new Oregon water laws in 1955 and establishment of the State Water Resources Board to implement these laws and to plan for the conservation and management of this priceless resource.
Mr. Coles served as a member of the original committee and since 1955 has served as a member and chairman of the State Water Resources Board. This Board, with the State Engineer, administers Oregon water law, generally recognized as the most forward -looking in the Nation. Oregon is grateful for Mr. Coles' efforts.
I should be remiss if I did not mention another man who has done so much to further the cause of resource conservation in the West. The October issue of Reclamation News
honors him as "one of the best and strongest supporters of Reclamation in the West." I am doubly pleased to welcome my fellow Governor, George D. Clyde of Utah, and join in your commendation of his great public service.
I was proud to join with Governor Clyde and other Western Governors earlier this year in seeking the support of the national administration and Congress for worthwhile Reclamation projects I know Governor Clyde's message to you will be of great importance.
Progress in Reclamation and other natural resources conservation activities is not something which occurs over night. Most legislative action has come about through the cooperative efforts of many public officials and private organizations such as the National Reclamation Association.
It is also obvious that much Reclamation activity is dependent in large part upon Congressional action and the willingness of the national administration to recognize that crops produced on lands irrigated from reclamation projects are for the most part not those presently in surplus. We need to tell the advantage of and necessity for irrigation. We need to point up the values of Reclamation from a dollar standpoint. It is well that the National Reclamation Association expend every effort to acquaint the general public With these and other facts, for our experience earlier this year indicates that a well-informed public and a well-well-informed Congress is the best assurance that we shall con-tinue to have orderly and necessary Reclamation development.
I have previously noted that such development is not something which occurs im-mediately when needs become apparent. This year we acknowledge the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and we in Oregon are reminded of the cooperative activities in which the state and the Bureau participated prior to
World War I. Some of the projects investigated at that time are only now being authorized or placed in operation. Two of these which are familiar to members of this organiza-tion are the Talent Division of the Rogue Project and the Crooked River Project, includ-ing Prineville Dam You will participate in the dedication of the latter followinclud-ing this convention,
Most of us will agree, I am sure, that these two projects and many others would not have come into being without cooperative effort and perseverance on the part of the Sponsors and other interested people.
There is need for implementation of this cooperative effort and spirit of perseverance. A major problem which, in the opinion of most of the legal minds of the West, must be
tackled with increased vigor and solved is that of securing recognition of state sovereignty in the matter of water use and control.
I need only mention the U. S. Supreme Court decision in the Pelton Dam case to indicate Oregon's consciousness of the need for an equitable solution to this problem.
It occurs to me that the type of unified approach which was symbolized in the action of the 17 Western Governors in their joint letter to Congress and the President will be demanded if we are to succeed,
As we all know, there are a number of roadblocks which must be removed prior to this intensified effort. There is need for many of the states concerned to give legal status to water uses beyond those which have been traditional Congress is now committed to assignment of benefits to fish, wildlife and recreation in the national interest. Oregon law provides for such recognition, hit it is lacking in a number of other states.
Revision of existing water laws to provide a multiple-use approach in the manage-ment of water resources at every state level would go far toward assuring success Such changes would enable the National Reclamation Association to ask and receive the cooperation of conservation groups such as the Izaak Walton League, the National Wildlife Federation and others in convincing Congress of the need for making clear the matter of states sovereignty over its waters
Inherent in such a multiple-use concept of water management and use is the need for the states to accept greater responsibility in the planning and development of these re-sources. An example is the program enunciated by the Oregon Legislature, whereby the Water Resources Board is systematically planning for the multiple-use of water in the several basins of this state. Now about one-half through, 1967 will see the entire state under a comprehensive water-use program adopted by the Board. The Board's findings have the full force of law, and no state agency may take action contrary to these findings. I would anticipate that development will follow this planning phase.
One point in the Board's programming is deserving of special comment. As you know, the 1958 federal Water Supply and Pollution Control Act authorized the use of water for pollution abatement at certain federal projects.
The question arises: Can we in the arid and semi-arid West afford to use our limited water supplies for this purpose? I am pleased to report that the Oregon Water Resources Board has taken a contrary position in this matter, holding that pollution abate ment is the responsibility of the communities and industries concerned. Pollution abate-ment is a consumptive use -- for when waters are so polluted as to demand excessive treatment prior to re-use for agriculture, livestock, or industry, it is almost as ba.d as having no water. Upstream pollution is obviously detrimental to downstream users. I therefore cannot too strongly point out the dangers inherent in recognizing water rights for pollution abatement. For this reason I have consistently urged strengthening of our pollution control law and insisted on vigorous enforcement.
In most of the Western states there is need for resolution of the matter of financial assistance to irrigation projects. In the absence of an over-all Columbia Basin account, Oregon has consistently recommended that irrigation projects be financed through a tie with a specific power project rather than to the Bonneville Power Administration as a whole. This approach has been successful, but a firm and clear-cut policy for the future should be
Finally, I would hope the National Reclamation Association might fully consider the advantages in the conservancy or watershed district approach, particularly in the instance of small project developments, so that secondary beneficiaries might partici-pate in defraying costs of projects for irrigation and other purposes. Our State Water Resources Board presently is drafting legislation on this matter for consideration of Oregon's next Legislature, and I am hopeful it will receive favorable consideration.
I know that this Convention will deal with many important matters. Those I have mentioned are among many which will demand thoughtful action and to which we in Oregon are giving great attention. In your deliberations, may you continue to be guided by the realization that the final test of resource development is in its value to the whole public and that the multiple-use approach to resource management is the best assurance that multiple-benefits will accrue.
Again, my thanks and appreciation for this opportunity to meet with you.
May you have a most meaningful convention.
ADDRESS OF WELCOME
Marshall N. Dana.
Mayor Terry D. Schrunk, Portland, was unexpectedly called out of town, so Marshall N. Dana substituted for the Mayor in welcoming NRA delegates to Portland.
Governor Hatfield, President Coles. Having been on the firing line, I know the interest that Mayor Terry D. Schrunk felt in the gathering of the National Reclamation Convention for its 31st anniversary and for the 60th anniversary of the Reclamation Act of 1902. I know that he left Portland with great regret on a mission that he hoped would bring the Olympic games to this city. I have had word since from Detroit that they are going to keep on fighting, that they will not be licked.
What I wanted to say, in lieu of the welcome that we anticipated from the Mayor, was that, as you know, we had a very hard blow. The City Administration has been Working a 25-hour day and I am sure that the absence of the City officials is due to the crisis and the welcome, I do know, is warm, is heartfelt from the City of Portland as Governor Hatfield has just conveyed it to us from the State of Oregon, and I am sure, too, that Mayor Schrunk conveys to you in absentia the warmest of welcome to the "Rose City" of Portland and our unanimous gladness that you are here now.
In my own capacity as Chairman of the General Committee on Arrangements, if there is anything in the world that we can do to add to your pleasure during the con-vention - we have been working the year around getting ready for you - we are at your service - God bless you
Harold H. Christy speaking:
Governor, Ladies and Gentlemen. First, I want to bring you greetings from Colorado and express our appreciation for the courtesy we have already been extended from Portland. Governor, I listened very attentively to a message that is food for thought for all of us. It is my happy privilege and honor, Gentlemen of the Convention, and Ladies, to present to you - it seems a little silly to some degree - a gentleman, whom some of you, probably all of you, have known for many years longer than I have, although I have worked with him for a good many years in the National Reclamation Association. This gentleman, of course, is the current president of the National Reclamation Association, is a native Oregonian, he sure claims it, and from what I hear and the evidence of our Committee, and an ad-vocate of wise conservation use of this important water resource. As you all know, he is manager of the irrigation project of Prineville; he has been very active in association
matters for many years.
Harold H. Christy, 2nd Vice President, introduced Mr. Coles.
ADDRESS
LaSelle E. Coles, President
I wish to begin my talk this year with a few words in recognition of Reclamation's 60th Anniversary. For a strong, creative movement like Reclamation, sixty is a hale and vigorous age -- an age which denotes maturity and flourishing health with no diminution of drive.
Let any who may be waiting for Reclamation to decline into its grave, take note of the fact that the passage of the decades has given it sturdy sons and grandsons in the form of
projects and project communities, as well as a number of militant collateral relatives such as our National and State Reclamation Associations, all of whom are prepared to come to its defense whenever there shall be a need.
We have seen that proven during this past year.
Passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902 was an event of tremendous significance in this country and in the world -- for conservation as we know it is an American invention. It also marked the first national recognition of water as a basic resource worthy of con-servation and development. Up to that time the Federal Government had been interested in rivers mainly as highways on which commerce could move. With the passage of the
Reclamation Act, it began to consider them as productive assets which can help to create commerce.
In these past 60 years the Reclamation movement has given the nation 128,000 farms, which sustain more than half a million people, and support hundreds of thriving
com-munities with populations totaling more than a million. It has created stable markets and flourishing trade for the producers of the entire nation. It has produced more than $16
billion worth of crops, including the bulk of our so-called "protective foods" - - the non-surplus, year-round supplies of fresh fruits and vegetables that help make America the
healthiest as well as the richest nation in the world. It provides about 400 million gallons of water supply a year to some 200 communities and major industrial users. Its proj-ects have a total power-generating capacity of more than 5 million kilowatts. It provides recreation for about 25 million people each year, helps control floods, gives the West some of its best fishing grounds, and improves the quality of the water in many Western rivers.
It performs these services, not only at no cost to the American people, but
actually in such a way as to earn them a cash profit. The cost of power, irrigation, and water-supply facilities, which make up the bulk of the project costs, are repaid directly out of project earnings. In addition, because of its enormous wealth-creating capacity, the Reclamation movement has increased the income-tax revenues of the Federal
Govern-ment by some $4.74 billion dollars since 1940- -which is about 25 percent more than the total Federal investment in Reclamation projects since 1902. In addition, it has yielded uncounted revenues to State and local governments.
The gains and benefits are accelerating. Some of our biggest and most productive projects are relatively new and have hardly begun to contribute their output.
Yet, with a 60-year record like that, there are people who would like to bring the Reclamation movement to a halt. I must confess I do not completely understand them; but Edgar Allen Poe wrote a story called "The Sphinx" which may throw some light on their mental processes. He told of a man who woke from a nap to see a terrifying monster rushing down the hillside which stood outside his window. Paralyzed with fright, he waited for the dragon to destroy him, his town, and the countryside. Only
after he had been awake a few moments did he realize that what he had seen was a tiny insect caught on a cobweb a quarter of an inch from the pupil of his eye. I think that at least some of the people who oppose Reclamation are actually motivated by some speck of self-interest which lies so close to their mental vision that it distorts their sense of reality.
Let us shorten our sights a little, and from a sixty-year view, shift to a view of the past single year. It was a year which saw us come s-afely through a grave crisis to inspiring successes -- thanks in large part to the instant, unanimous and emphatic way in which the West rallied behind Reclamation in time of need.
The crisis, of course, arose when the Department of Agriculture issued some reports and statements which appeared, on casual view, to declare that the United States should reduce its cultivated acreage by about 50 million acres. Ill -wishers of Reclamation immediately sought to use these statements against us, and for a While it appeared that investigations, authorizations, and appropriations all might be seriously curtailed if not altogether halted for some time to come.
Senator Anderson and Secretary Freeman promptly pointed out the true meaning of the reports -- which is that there are in this country some 50 million acres of cultivated land which do not deserve to be farmed, and that this agricultural deadwood might well be pruned out so that the nation's agriculture might enjoy a more healthy growth.
However, it is hard for an explanation to overtake a misconception that has gathered momentum and is being propelled along by a good head of prejudice.
At this juncture the Governors of every one of the 17 Western States, regardless of party or politics, jointly signed a letter to the President stating their belief that a flourishing Recla-mation program is essential to the future welfare of the West and the nation. This letter was delivered in person to the President by Governor McNichols of Colorado, This was a statement that no responsible national official in either branch could ignore, and it appears to have largely undone the damage. Never before, as far as we have been able to discover has there been a similar display of unanimity of an entire large region behind a national program.
I will add that your National Reclamation Association deserves some credit. along with the 17 Governors for its part in supporting and publicizing their action. In fact, this whole incident well demonstrates the value of having Reclamation represented by a national organization in close daily contact with the National Government,
Foremost among the year's achievements was the long-sought modification of the rules for project evaluation formerly embodied in Budget Circular A-47. The National Reclamation Association has been fighting for this modification for at least ten years, and most of the time has been fighting alone. It is proper, therefore, that we should take a sub-stantial share of the credit In fact. we have been told authoritatively that the NRA's state-ment before the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources two years ago was a main factor in tipping the balance on the Congressional side of Capitol Hill,
In saying this, we do not mean to detract from the full measure of credit that is due to President Kennedy, Secretary Udall the Corps of Army Engineers, and our many friends in both houses of Congress who helped bring about the happy result. However, we do not want the important part played by our own Association, which seldom makes a head-line, to go unrecognized by the membership.
We had objected particularly to two aspects of the old A-47. One was its stipulation that the life of a project could be estimated at no more than 50 years. The other vvas its insistence that only direct measurable benefits could be included in estimating a project's worth We knew from the experience of our own projects that both these stipulations were un-realistic, and therefore unwarranted, impediments to water-resource development and na-tional growth. Both these features have now been modified, Project life can be estimated at any reasonable term up to 100 years and a reasonable estimate of indirect benefits can be included in the economic justification of a project proposal.
We hear that some people fear the new regulations may lead to the construction of un-sound projects , In my view such fears have no good grounds. In the first place, the new rules are reasonable rules. They put project justification on a sounder basis than the old ones did, and are better related to the total national interest. In the seconsplace, the public is amply protected, protected many times over, by the long and elabirrate process of check, double-check, and manifold scrutiny that any project proposal must survive in order to be built, The proposal must be investigated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and reported on after public discussion; an irrigation district or similar entity must be formed
and financed,
and
assume solemn responsibilities after thorough review; the Bureau's report must go through multiple screenings and be submitted to author ties at all levels for further review; it must then run the gamut of the Congressional procedure once to be authorized, and again for appropriations; and all this amid ftll pub-licity extended over a period usually of years, during which all aspects of the proposal can be exhaustively scrutinized. These procedures are devised to protect the public interest, and they have not been changed by the new regulations. The public in1:Li-r,-L31.: was not served; on the contrary it was harmed, by the interposition of artificial restrictions in the justification process which resulted in a distorted picture of project economics.,The past year has been most encouraging from the standpoint of project authorizations and appropriations. After years of persistent effort, the Fryingpan-Arkansas, the Navajo and San Juan Chama, and many more worthwhile projects were enrolled into the National Reclamation program. I would like to point out that 19 out of 99 Western Congressmen voted against the Mann Creek Project, Idaho, and 32 out of our 99 Western Congressmen voted against the Baker Project, Oregon.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have studied these projects and they are good projects; they ran the gamut of all investigations and were approved by the states and agencies concerned. If we in the West are opposed to good projects, how can we expect the Congressmen from the East to vote for them? We must settle our differences at home and be united, if the Reclamation program is to move forward.
I will pass briefly over some of the other noteworthy events of the year. In February the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission made its long-awaited report., which no doubt will furnish guidance for the rising interest in recreation as a function of water-resource development. Later in the spring, the Army and the Interior Department issued new regulations on real-estate acquisitions, in which the former Policy of taking as little land as possible in fee was reversed, The new rule s ntended to preserve the possibility of fuller development for present and future public use, Particularly for recreation; but some feel it may lead the Federal Government into activities that should be left to other interests. It would appear to this one observer that we might wait to see what experience we can learn from the new policy before seeking further alterations in this obviously complex matter--especially since the sub-ject of real-estate acquisitions is now being studied by Congress.
In May, the rather hastily assembled White House Conference on Conservation--which turned out to be largely a conference on recreation- -provided the occasion for a noteworthy address by Rep Wayne Aspinall, in which he called for a return to the basic historic conception of conservation as a policy for sustained wise and beneficial resource use, And in August, President Kennedy's non-political visit to the Oahe, San Luis, and Frying-pan-Arkansas Projects helped to focus public attention upon the great national value of Western water-resource developments.
Thus the year saw many fine accomplishments. Nevertheless, certain problems remain with us- -as always,
The old question of Federal-State relationships in the water-resource field is in a ferment. The Federal Government is participating in more functions now than would
have been thought possible ten or even five years ago Yet the role of the States has been expanding at the same time.
The explanation for this paradox lies in a growing nation-wide interest in comphensive river-basin planning, sparked in large part by the Senate Select Committee's re-port; and supported partly by the rising interest in recreational development. Truly com-prehensive planning necessarily means planning in which all interests at all levels take part: The States today are better equipped and staffed than ever before to carry out pro-grams of their own and to participate with the Federal Government in joint propro-grams The result is that Federal-State relationships are intensifying and at the same time be-coming more cooperative, more in the nature of a partnership
This to my mind is a thoroughly healthy and sound development and one that will serve the best interests of the nation's future growth. But it may conceivably require some adjustments in our own posture. Reclamation developments may have to be more closely fitted into broader plans for over-all basin development. At the same time, our proposals will gain strength from being included in programs with a broad base of support.
If this Federal-State relationship is to continue on a partnership basis; the states must get their house in order. We must have the mechanism to accept the challenge which i s ours. It is imperative that we have National legislation giving us the control of our intra-state
water so that our labor will not be lost by Federal domination,
Certain other old problems are, I fear, at best in a state of suspended animation, As the effect of this year s concerted show of Western strength wears off, we may expect the talk about agricultural surpluses to revive, and with it the problem of obtaining project authorizations It might furthermore become mingled into another problem which in my opinion deserves careful watching. I refer to the growing division between urban and rural interests- -a division which appears to be growing more bitter because of the cost of farm programs, and the way in which representation in some State legislatures is
apportioned ,
We in Reclamation have long known that it is absolutely essential for us to cultivate friendly understanding among the people of the populous Eastern States who have no personal experience of the value of our program This requires more than talk and statistics It
must be backed up by a positive display of friendly acts and by joint participation in under-takings of mutual interest. We cannot afford to be parochial in our viewpoint.
An inadequate understanding of the problems arid achievements of the Reclamation movement can lead our fellow -Americans into two kinds of error about us One is the error of complacency, the other, the error of panic,
Many Arre ricans are inclined to shrug off reports of the nation's future land and water needs They say that the future can look after itself; that America has always come out on top, and will always do so with no particular effort on any-one's part; that science will solve our problems by a succession of timely miracles; and that those who preach foresight are just calamity-howlers. Such people are the complacent ones --the ones who don't or won't
know or care about the problems that confront our country in this dangerous and strenu-ous age. They will contribute little to the solv.tion of those problems, but they may hinder others from contributing.
On the other hand are those who see nothing but gloom, suspicion, cynicism, and despair. They are indeed concerned about national problems, but their concern has in it so much fear, so much distrust of their own or others capacity for action and leadership, that they oppose positive programs through sheer pessimism. Where the complacent ones have too blind a faith in America, these others have too little faith in America. They are the panicky ones--the ones who want to halt the orderly growth of the West because of the surplus clamor—the ones without appreciation for the achievements of the past nor any sure sense of how to meet the future. Their method of solving problems is typically to search for conspiracies and scapegoats. They, too, Will contribute little to the solution of national problems, but may gravely handicap those Who do want to contribute.
When opposition to the Reclamation program is closely examined, we see that almost always it arises from one or the other of these errors, complacency or panic,
What America needs instead of either complacency or panic is a sense of urgency controlled by an attitude of steadiness. The urgency will proceed from an understand-ing of how fast our nation is growunderstand-ing, how long it takes to develop resources, and how important it is to plan now to meet the huge needs soon to come before us. And the steadiness is needed to keep our eyes fixed on the long-range prospect, and not to be distracted by transient or showy difficulties of little permanent concern,
This should be our attitude, and the attitude which we seek to induce, by precept and example, among our fellow -Americans in the months and years to come,
Thank you.
Noon Luncheon
Wednesday, October 17 John L. Stewart, Pres., Oregon Reclamation Congress
-Toastmaster
The Invocation was given by The Reverend Lawrance j. Mitchell, D.D,, Co-Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Portland, Oregon.
LAND AND RECLAMATION THE KEY TO THE FUTURE Honorable Wayne Morse
US. Senator, Oregon
Mr. Coles, distinguished guests, members and friends of the National Reclamation Association -.
I am indeed grateful, not only to my friend, LaSelie Coles, for inviting me to address this meeting, but to the United States Congress for adjourning just in time for me to keep this date.
We had some fireworks back in Washington in the closing days of the 87th Congress, It involved some important public works, including Oregon reclamation projects, but when the smoke had cleared and Congress had gone home, Oregon came out pretty well.
It is especially good to be able to report that the comprehensive multi-purpose plan for the Rogue River Valley was authorized. When completed, it will supply water to
39, 000 acres of new land and to 25, 000 acres which are now inadequately served, Although the Senate twice approved funds to begin planning the Mason Dam as part of the Upper Division of the Baker project, there were those in the House of Representatives who felt it was enough to authorize it this year and start appropriations for it in January, The House was also adamant with respect to $20, 000 the Senate had provided to continue the investigation of the proposed Pendleton project on the Umatilla River: But I intend to be back in January, requesting these funds once again, and we have good reason to believe that the Administration will be helping us,
My own personal interest in this subject of reclamation and its importance to the people of the West has been greatly stimulated by my experience with several reclamation projects in Oregon. One was the TalentDivision of the Rogue project. Progress on the Talent Division was at one time a casualty of the Korean War, and the order went out at that time to halt work on construction of public works of this kind, I paid a call on President Truman in 1951 and urged him to withdraw that order with specific reference to the Talent Division and to The Dalles Dam which was also ready for construction in 1951, In support-ing "go ahead" action I supplied facts demonstratsupport-ing that both projects, in their own re-spective ways, contributed to the strength of the nation, The President and his advisors were convinced. He withdrew both stop orders and work on the projects proceeded.
In 1956, I made a special appeal on behalf of another Oregon project, This time it was the Crooked River project near Prineville There was quite a controversy over the Crooked River bill because it called for a considerable part of the cost to be paid from the power revenues of The Dalles Dam, It was sponsored in the Senate by Dick Neuberger and me and was soon adopted, but trouble developed in the House of Representatives, and this time it took a special trip by Lyndon Johnson and me to the office of Speaker
Sam Rayburn to break up that log jam. I remember the late Speaker's comment to the effect that it would have been a lot easier to pass the bill in the House if it could be called something other than "Crooked River," But that problem proved temporary, and the Crooked River bill went through the House. too
However, I wish to talk with this group about land and reclamation in another con-nection, I refer to their growing importance in the field of our foreign policy. As you know, I am chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Latin American Republics Affairs. In that capacity, I have become deeply aware of the close connection between land tenure and productivity on one hand and political instability and upheaval on the other,
It has become an axiom of modern history that Communism has never come to power in the way in which Karl Marx contemplated as the final stage in social transition through
feudalism, then industrialism and finally Communism. The two important societies where Communism has come to power have been primarily agrarian, not industrial. First, Czarist Russia with its landed aristocracy, and next, feudal China with its landed war lords, succumbed to Communism, not because it was chosen by the people or embraced by them but because they had no strong objection to it. The large masses of people in those countries had nothing to lose to Communism insofar as their proper-ty and economic rights were concerned.
We know now that concentration of agricultural lands in the hands of a few people is on its way out in every predominantly agricultural country. We know that we either will help land reform come about in an orderly fashion or it will come about in a
disi-Orderly fashion. This is not true only in nations just emerged from colonialism where much of the productive land was owned by Europeans. It is also true in countries like Iran, Egypt and throughout Latin America where the concentration was domestic.
The huge public domain of the United States and its settlement in the 1800's under such historic documents as the Homestead Act saved this country from this condition.
This concentration of land ownership was a condition I observed in virtually every country of Latin America which I visited in the Fall of 1959. The great pressure of these landless people is going to cause trouble in the Western hemisphere far above and beyond anything Fidel Castro could instigate, As I told every group I talked to in Latin America: "Give me a nation with family farm ownership in the country and home owner-ship in the city, and I will give you a country where Communism has not a prayer of establishment."
The percentage of either farm or home ownership in any of these nations is still Pitifully small. About three-fourths of all arable land in Latin America is owned by 2 per cent of the people. Most of these holdings are latifundia, a feudal society of land ownership where great stretches of good land lie fallow and what little is cultivated depends on the muscle of man and animal Agriculture there is still so primitive that food production per capita is less now than it was before World War II.
Couple these facts with a fast rising population since World War II as a result of health measures and particularly as a result of a decreased infant mortality rate. The answer is unrest at best and violence and revolution at worst.
For many years, it was the policy of the United States that our foreign aid could not be used to finance land reform. I am proud to say that I had something to do with putting an end to that policy. One of the basic features of the Alliance for Progress program is the supplying of United States capital by way of loans to enable governments in Latin America to set up workable reform programs to purchase these huge estates in whole or in part. This arrangement permits these governments to sell lands to settlers on a long-term financing basis.
We have a provision in our foreign aid program for similar reform elsewhere in the world - in Vietnam, in Spain and in the Philippines - to name some of the countries involved.
Yet, a lot more than land redistribution is involved in every one of these countries. Family-f arm agriculture requires many other social institutions which too often are lack-ing in these nations.
Capital and credit, management of land, marketing, education, community services and roads are some of the elements that must go with property rights in one's own farm.
That is why I think this country must export some other institutions. They might include cooperative savings and loan leagues and some types of reclamation associations at the many places where water rights are community property.
This brings to mind some of the technical help we are extending to these nations for water control and agricultural engineering. In the dry coastal areas of Ecuador, deep wells for livestock watering, irrigation, and human consumption are not feasible due to the high salt content of the subterranean water. They have six months of heavy rainfall, followed by six months of complete drought. The most practical system of water is the impounding of surface run-off during the rainy season, very much as we do in parts of Oregon.
Early in 1958, a small scale beginning was made in the construction of farm ponds for individual farms. They proved so successful that in 1959 a large reservoir was built
to serve several farms. Nine more were built in 1960, and the practice has been spread-ing ever since.
Much of the same problem is encountered in Vietnam where a rainy season brings floods, and a dry season brings drought to most of the country. The result is a concentra-tion on rice -growing when the rain is a blessing, but barren and unused land for the rest of the year. This ties a whole people to a limited diet and a single export crop.
The challenge in Vietnam has been to control the water, to diversify agriculture by draining and storing water in the wet season and irrigating in the dry season. The progress that has already been made under the United States aid program has already enabled many farmers to plant two rice crops a year instead of one, and to grow vegetables, livestock feed grains, corn, soy beans and similar crops during the dry season.
There are those here who may wonder why I am enthusiastic about this use of foreign aid, and yet I voted against foreign aid appropriations this year. I voted against a foreign aid appropriations bill this year because too little of it is going into the kind of work I have been describing, and too much of it to military aid and other grant programs for which neither we nor the recipient could well get long range returns. I have favored loans to the nations which get them for land reform and for economic investment in the land. In 1954, only two percent of the aid program went into loans; 98 percent of it was outright grant. By fiscal 1961, the proportion was 37 percent loan, but since then the loan share has declined slightly. We have continued a highly over-inflated military aid program which includes
military aid to Western Europe. Far from needing military equipment from us, the nations of Western Europe are now in better economic condition than they were before World War II. They should be taking over much more than they have of the burden of aiding the under-developed countries.
reclama-tion and other water projects of the West. In addireclama-tion, I shall continue my efforts on be-half of a worthwhile foreign aid program. I shall continue to urge that it focus on loans and that it stress even more than it now does, the economic investment in land which in the end is also an investment in human beings.
Thank you. State Director :ARIZONA J. A. Riggins Phoenix CALIFORNIA Afternoon Session Wednesday, October 17
James F. Sorensen, California Director Presiding
SUMMARY
REPORT OF STATE CAUCUSES
Caucus Secretary
Ray Killian, Reporting
Ray Killian Phoenix
Member of Number in Resolutions Committee Attendance
J. D. Mansfield, Yuma Roger Ernst (Alternate) Phoenix
Robert T. Durbrow, Reporting
James F. Sorensen Robert T. Durbrow Visalia San Francisco
COLORADO Gordon Sheer, Reporting
Harold H. Christy Gordon Sheer Pueblo Denver
54
Harry W. Horton, El Centro 52 Frank E. Jenney (Alternate) Los Angeles
James Carter (Alternate) El Centro
Glenn G. Saunders, Denver Jack Ross (Alternate) Denver
Summary Report of State Caucuses (Continued)
State Director Caucus Secretary
Member of Number in Resolutions Committee Attendance
IDAHO Mrs. Elsie Jefferson, Reporting
Alex 0. Coleman Mrs. Elsie Jefferson William S. Holden Jerome Boise Idaho Falls
Clifford E. Fix (Alternate) Twin Falls
KANSAS Chris C. Green, Reporting Chris C. Green
Courtland
R. D. Wyckoff Carl R . Brown Osborne Stockton
MONTANA Fred E. Buck, Reporting
D. P. Fabrick Fred E. Buck J. Carter Johnson Choteau Helena Billings
Axel Persson (Alternate) Sidney
NEBRASKA Mrs. Willa Inghram, Reporting C Petrus Peterson Mrs , Willa Inghram
Lincoln 107 3 19 William C. Smith, Jr. 35 Lincoln Ainsworth
NEVADA James Shaver, Reporting
Hugh A. Shamberger Alta Thiex George Moseley 12 Carson City Carson City Lovelock
Nevada voted to increase its quota payment from $750 to $1, 000.
NEW MEXICO I. J. Coury, Reporting
I. J. Coury B. L. Baugh Hubert Ball Farmington Albuquerque Albuquerque
Summary Report of State Caucuses (Continued)
State Director Caucus Secretary
Member of Number 'n Resolutions Committee Attendance
NORTH DAKOTA Vernon S. Cooper, Reporting
Milo W. Hoisveen Vernon S. Cooper Richard P. Gallagher Bismarck Bismarck Mandan
R. J. Sailer (Alternate) Bismarck
OKLAHOMA Vernon Bailey, Reporting
Frank Raab Vernon Bailey Clarence Base Oklahoma City Geary Geary
OREGON Jack Hoffbuhr, Reporting
14
14
LaSelle E. Coles Jack Hoffbuhr Harold Henigson 33 Prineville Ashland Nyssa
SOUTH DAKOTA Harry Martens, Reporting
Arthur Svendby Harry Martens Lemmon Wessington
Raymond F. Lund Rapid City
TEXAS T. R. Galloway, Reporting
Guy C. Jackson, Jr. T. R. Galloway Anahuac
James F Flynn 39 Beaumont Waco
UTAH T. W. Jensen, Reporting
Ralph A. Richards Oakley
T. W. Jensen Salt Lake City
F. Gerald Irvine Salt Lake City
Harold E. Wallace (Alternate) Salt Lake City
Summary of State Caucuses (Continued) State Director WASHINGTON L. W. Markham Spokane Caucus Secretary Member of Number in Resolutions Committee Attendance
John A. Richardson, Reporting John A. Richardson
Olympia
WYOMING Karl Powers, Reporting
H. Maurice Ahlquist Touchet
G. L. Sterling (Alternate) Ellensburg
Earl T. Bower Karl Powers 0. E. Bever, Powell Worland Pavillon Marlin Kurtz (Alternate)
Cody
49
10
TRENDS -- AND THE LACK OF THEM — IN WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT Ralph H. Brody, Chairman
California Water Commission
I hope you will forgive me if, during the course of my talk, I relate to matters in California, simply because I am more familiar with California problems. Furthermore, what I am about to say are my own thoughts.
New trends in water resource development, policy and legislation have developed in recent years. These trends have evolved for a number of reasons. Projects are becoming larger and
more expensive, and the rate of Federal investment must, in these times of high budgets, remain fairly constant. Second, the expanding population and development in the West make the
invest-ments of more dollars in water resource development imperative. These factors, in turn, re-quire us to examine more closely what alternatives exist in raising additional funds for reclama -tion development. Our increasing domestic, municipal and industrial needs for water require new concepts or revisions of old ones. I would like to discuss these trends with you. In addi-tion, I would like to suggest for your thought and consideraaddi-tion, some of the weaker aspects of the methods in which the events are developing. Finally, I would like to mention some of the instances in which I, at least, consider there to be an absence of important and necessary trends.
At the risk of being considered boastful, I find it necessary to mention several of the prog-ressive events which happened to have originated in my own State of California. For example, I cannot resist pointing out that in our State we have embarked on a Federal-State cooperative effort which has never before been achieved or, so far as I am aware, attempted. This has oc-curred in connection with the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project. In this instance, the
For tabulation showing total attendance from each State, see "Attendance" on page indicated in Index.
State of California, as a part of its $2 billion water program (a signal achievement in itself), has entered into a construction and operating partnership with the Federal Government. Each governmental entity, Federal and State, will invest its own portion of San Luis Dam and Canal at a combined cost of some $500 million. As a matter of fact, the State's share of the cost will be 55 per cent as compared to 45 per cent to the Federal Government. Each will serve its own respective service area and each will effect a large savings in cost, as a result of joint construction, over what such costs would have been had each gone its own independent way.
Such joint action is significant not only because it necessitates the construction of only one set of physical works instead of two, with a resultant great saving in money, but also for the reason that under the joint operation, there can be considerable savings in, and more effective use of, the water. It is important too because, in these times of high national budgets, there is no question but that projects become more attractive to Congress when State or local agencies indicate some measure of self-help at the same time they are seeking assistance from the Federal Government.
I believe it is worthwhile to refer back to Governor Hatfield's remarks this morn-ing in which he said that unless the States and local agencies and organizations, such as this, indicate some measure of self-help and self-interest, that we can only expect some-one else to come in and do the job, we must accept that entry with the conditions that are attendant with that kind of entry upon another people and the Federal Government.
I know it is true in California, and I am reasonably certain it is so in other States, that we do not view with optimism, nor should we, the possibility that the Federal
Government will do the entire job in the field of water resource development. Nor can local agencies perform the entire task that is needed to be completed by themselves. It is only possible to meet our needs in California, and in many other parts of the West, if we have development by local agencies, by the Federal Government, and by the states involved.
This kind of progress is a major step forward and I hope the beginning of a trend Which will ultimately bring about Federal legislation which will provide the criteria, standards and the mechanics for the joint financing, construction, and operation of pro-jects by the Federal Government, on the one hand, and state or local agencies on the other. If such partnership programs are desirable, and they are, then the failure to enact such legislation, and a continuation of consideration of these cooperative efforts on a project-by-project basis, can only lead to delay, confusion, and perhaps even harmful results.
Another area of Federal-State cooperation was covered in an Act of the California Legislature passed in 1945, in the field of flood control activity and multi-purpose devel-opment. This Statute, entitled "California Water Resources Law of 1945" provides a standardized procedure for the development and participation, by the State, in Federal flood control projects. Provision is made in the Act for a contribution, required under
Federal law to be paid by local beneficiaries, by the State of California of the costs of land, easements, and right-of-way necessary for flood control facilities. Here, again,
is an example of where a continuing program of State participation serves as an incentive to the Congress for the construction of much needed works. And again, it is a further step in the encouragement of multi-purpose development.
More recently the California Legislature, in 1959 and 1961, authorized and approp-riated some $13 million for underwriting local participation in Black Butte and New Hogan Dams in our State now under construction by the United States Corps of Engineers for flood control and conservation. In these situations these were flood control projects ur-gently needed but for whose conservation benefits the local agencies were not yet ready, nor in a position, to contract. The State of California and the Federal Government
entered into an agreement whereby the State provides assurances for the reimbursement to the Federal Government of the reimbursable irrigation costs in the event local inter-ests do not pay. Had it not been for this important State legislation, only two choices would have been available. There could have been a delay in the construction of the pro-jects with a resultant delay in the providing of vitally needed flood control, or there could have been immediate construction of single-purpose flood control projects when most sen-sibly and economically they should have been multi-purpose in character. The State and Federal cooperation made it possible to have a third choice which eventuated in immedi-ate construction of a multi-purpose facility. In this area, too, the trend should be
followed through broadly. The Congress has just enacted new Omnibus Public Works legis-lation authorizing some $2.5 billion for projects, many of which will be multi-purpose in character. It would seem to be desirable for Federal legislation to be enacted which would set forth the criteria, mechanics and objectives for comparable underwriting or coopera-tion by state agencies in order to proceed more rapidly with the authorized projects.
A further chapter in Federal-State cooperation, although again on a project-by-project basis, was manifested in Federal legislation authorizing a contribution by the Federal
Government for the flood control benefits of a series of multi-purpose reservoirs to be con-structed in California on the Toulumne River jointly by the City of San Francisco, the
Modesto, and the Turlock irrigation Districts. Appropriations for the Federal share of the flood control costs of two of these reservoirs have been made and the dams are now
com-pleted. Funds for the third, the one million acre-foot Don Pedro Reservoir, are being re-quested in the 1964 budget. Following these precedents, a similar authorization for Federal participation in the flood control features of the gigantic Oroville Reservoir, being con-structed as a part of the California water program to which I have referred, was approved and the first appropriations have just been made.
In connection with this type of activity, where there is a contribution by the Federal Government to the local agencies, we have encountered one problem which typifies the neces-sity for some patternizing of this kind of activity. Most of the local projects are financed on the basis of revenue bonds. The Federal government in making its contribution for the flood control benefits to the local agency does so on an annual budget basis as construction proceeds. But the difficulty arises that in the financing by revenue bond issues that, without the assurance and with the dependence upon annual appropriations for the disbursement of the flood control allocation, it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the revenue bond financing. So that we do have the principle involved of the Federal government making the contribution for this worthwhile activity and at a savings to the Federal government, but, at
the same time, the impediment of the mechanics which are involved in the Federal con-tribution in making that concon-tribution being a deterrent to the construction of the project itself.
Additional Federal funds for similar purposes have been appropriated for the Comanche Reservoir of the East Bay Municipal Utility District on the Mukolumne River, Nacimiento Reservoir on the Central California Coast, and an authorization for payment of such funds has been made for the Merced irrigation District development on the Merced River. Another example was on the Russian River of California where the county agencies paid for the water conservation benefits including stream flow maintenance. An interesting feature of this arrangement was a provision whereby the benefici -aries were permitted a so-called discount for cash in advance.
Under this latter concept, flood control can be achieved and, at the same time, the water resources of the State can be more fully developed by State and local agencies, With a resultant large saving to the Federal Government.
We have seen that legislation has been enacted which provides for State contribu-tions toward Federal construction and, conversely, Federal contribucontribu-tions towards State and local construction. It would seem again that a general legislative pattern could and should be developed which would simplify the approach to, and encourage the develop-ment of, similar cooperative effort in the future throughout the United States.
When we speak of the modernization of Reclamation concepts, we must also pay tribute to the recent revamping, as announced by President Kennedy, of the standards of economic evaluation of projects. This is one of the most forward looking steps taken in recent years in this field. The recognition that our Reclamation investments are perma-nent and that the period of evaluation can now be as much as 100 years, has been long in arriving. Water users today see many of our dams even more effective than when they were planned and built 60 years ago. We are now able to have projects planned with con-sideration given to the fact that the physical works will be here and functioning through the 21st Century, In addition, the new evaluation and allocation procedures,which recog-nize associated water uses to a fuller extent, will aid in development of broader multiple-use facilities without requiring the farmer to assume and pay off the mortgage for the total development.
These Federal steps and trends which I have described are highly desirable, and in particular the others that have occurred throughout the West: However, they have not gone far enough in that, for the most part, they have been developed and authorized, as I have said, on a piecemeal and project-by-project basis rather than under a general legislative pattern. It occurs to me that it is extremely undesirable to handle these im-portant matters on a "hit and miss" basis. It has involved going to Congress frequently in an effort to secure changes in law and policy on reclamation programs and flood con-trol activities on a local basis when the problems are common throughout many of our states and should be governed and resolved under a consistent policy and procedure. The fact of the matter is that the problems which we face today, for the most part, are not new but, rather, that the policies and mechanics under which we operate are old. We seem to be operating to a large extent with 19th Century policies and legislation to solve
20th Century problems, If we are to continue the gains of the past 60 years under the Reclamation program with traditional national and local benefits, we must stand back and
make a careful review of some of its underlying policies and mechanics to see if they meet our present day problems and needs.
If my thesis is correct, that such an examination would reveal outmoded concepts, those concepts should be revised to meet current needs and current physical situations. It could make it unnecessary for us to approach our water resources development needs on a catch -as-catch-can basis, if we consider it necessary and desirable to change those concepts and policies and bring them into a new perspective, then we can approach the development of new projects upon a sound economic and engineering basis. At least, we in the presenting, and the Congress in the consideration of, our projects will realize
more closely what the "rules of the game" are. In the time remaining, I would like to refer to a few situations as being more illustrative of what I mean.
A typical example of what I at least consider to be an outmoded concept of our Reclamation law is that portion of it which provides that the service of water for domes-tic, municipal, and industrial needs shall have a subordinate or secondary status to that of irrigation. This kind of priority in terms of project construction and operation was developed at a time when an effort was being made to develop the West as an agri-cultural area.
Sixty years ago when the basic Reclamation law was enacted, we would have con-sidered the area of the 17 Western states as a depressed or underdeveloped area „ It has a population of only 10 1/2 million, or 14 per cent of the National total,
Two-thirds of this Western population was rural. We were largely producing timber, miner-als and farm produce for the Eastern markets.
And now in the same area we have 32 1/2 million people with less than one-half of them rural. Instead of producing 7 per cent of the manufacturing output, we produce 16 per cent of the values added by manufacturing. We have some of the most rapidly growing states, in population, and the states with the largest per capita personal income and cash farm production. We have the world's largest bank and several related bank holding companies, so that we are no longer dependent on the East for capital. One of the 11 Western states, which I am too modest to name, before the year is over will be-come the most populous state in the Union. And with all of this development, our
metro-politan areas have grown at a fast pace. This is a tribute to Reclamation development, but one must take heed of the fact that our metropolitan areas and their water needs just cannot be considered of lesser importance to irrigation. The concepts under which
Reclamation law were based should be re-evaluated in the light of our changing economies and circumstances.
Our agricultural economy in the West is dependent to a large degree upon our own growing municipalities and industry. Continued growth of our cities and towns is depend-ent upon water to the same extdepend-ent that agriculture is dependdepend-ent upon that basic commodity. Water is required for urban as well as rural economy and populations. Water develop-ment is necessary not only to people land but to keep it peopled.
