Prospective Agenda For Meetings of Board of Directors -- Annual Convention
Opening Session: 1:30 p.m. Ridpath Hotel Others: All day Monday, Oct. 20 Sunday, October 19, 1969 Possibly 'Tues. Evening,
all as Board shall determine. 1. Roll call.
2. Approval of minutes, previous session.
3. Discussion of agenda and tentative allocation of time and schedule of meetings. 4. Report from Convention Chairman, 1st Vice President, Lorin W. Markham. 5. Financial report.
6. Budget (may be deferred, pending consideration of Items 12 gi 13).
7. Report of activities by President (possibly joint session with Resolutions) and Executive Director.
8. Report from Department of Interior.
9. Determination of position for upcoming conference (Washington, D. C. Nov. 6 & 7) with National Water Commission (Bronn will provide Directors a discussion paper about one week in advance of Board meeting) .
10. Reports from any NRA Committees (Public relations, Water Uses, and others). 11. Discussion of prospective legislation, Land Limitation.
12. The Problem of Appropriations For Federal-State Water Development, and NRA future actions related thereto.
a. Attitudes about agriculture
b. Attitudes about regional development and income redistribution c. Cost-sharing implications
d. Possible Sponsorship of a "Water Development Crisis" Conference 13. Discussion of other NRA Objectives
14. Discuss forthcoming ballot on change of NRA name 15. Discuss bids for conventions, 1971 and 1972
16. Election of officers
Appendix (For review by Board members only!) 1. Abstracts from constitution and by-laws as to:
a. Election of officers and term of office b. Appointments
(1) Members of Board (2) Resolutions
(3) Other Committees
Corrections offered to latest minutes (Continued on next page)
Appendix (continued)
Changes of substance recommended in minutes of the meeting of July 1 and 2 of Denver:
1. Draft minutes, page 3, middle paragraph, beginning "The concensus of the Board...": In second sentence, beginning "Mr. Coles", strike "talk with Mr. Dominy"; replace with "consider using the services of Mr. Dominy" .
2. Bottom of page 4, last paragraph, strike all after "NRA" and substitute " ...continue to support changes in the land limitation provisions of reclamation law with particular emphasis on the Class 1 equivalency concept and the Engle formula".
3. This same point (paragraph 2, above) was commented on differently byMr. D'Ewart. He noted that the draft minutes matched his minutes; however, he wished to record that Montana is not in agreement with the concensus. Mr. D'Ewart noted that Montana favors a change from 160 acres, while also advocating "equivalency" and the Engle concept.
•
•
SALT RIVER PROJECT
P. 0. BOX 1980
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85001
October 8, 1969
H. SHIPLEY
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
" I96g
Dear Carl,
In your memorandum of September 28, subject, "The National Water Commission and NRA's Spokane Conven-tion", you requested a thinking paper to facilitate the development at Spokane of NRA's recounendations to the N.W.C. In view of the fact that the Comiaission will have reams and reams of paper reflecting the ideas of many cities, states, and water irrigation organizations on the subject of water, I would like
to recommend that the NRA take a more "militant" direction on the national water problem, in addition to submitting testimony to the Commission.
This thinking was crystallized on hearing Mr. James Smith, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, at the Arizona State Reclamation meeting.
I would recommend that the NRA consider the following: 1 - Establish a Water Action Fund (WAF) that will underwrite the services of a team of three outstanding
people in the field - possibly consisting of a Water Engineer, ?/4-1,E,,conomist, and pip Attorney - or underwrite the Western Resources
iiiTttiiite,
if they have the cap-ability, to develop a militant NRA position.2 - This fund would be obtained by levying a WAF assessment on all members and, also, approach the
chemical and fertilizer industry for their contribution for a total of about $50,000.
-2-3 - The objective of this WAF staff would be to
develop concrete examples and data that would refute the comments made by Dr. Jack W. Carlson, Assistant Director of the U. S. Bureau of the Budget and Mr. Ray Linsley, member of the National Water Commission and Department Head of Civil Engineering at Stanford University.
4 - This group would also be charged with the re-sponsibility of developing specific aims of the NRA for future guidance in the field of legislation and the
programs the NRA can initiate to carry out its objectives. 5 - After the Coirunittee's recommendations have been reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the NRA, this Committee and members of the Board of Directors should meet with the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Director of the National Water Council to dis-cuss the merits of the NRA regarding national water
policy and the fallacy of the statements being made by national leaders.
The above may be a duplication of the objectives of other Water Commissions and may not be necessary; how-ever, if water groups are not making personal contact with national leaders along those lines, I think it's the responsibility of the NRA to provide the active leadership on reclamation and water resource problems of the country.
In summary, I hope we can have less studies, fewer hear-ings, less talk, and develop an action group that will develop some basic concepts and proceed to put them into effect. I realize that this is a simplification of the
problem, which is most complex, but I also feel that we are being snowed under with gobbledygook from economists and other experts.
mg
-3-The NRA, also, should probably pass a resolution or take some action against HR 13270.
Carl, you asked for it.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. Carl Bronn Executive Director
National Reclamation Association 897 National Press Building Washington, D.C. 2004
srk
cc: Ted Riggins
This is 'HO bY AL. B.
October 18, 1969
The attached bill and explanation would supersede the present bill introduced by Senator Murphy.
The basic acreage of 160 acres has been retained in contrast to the earlier bill in which the acreage would have been increaaed to 640 acres as a maximum.
This bill has been recommended to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors for approval by its Natural Resources Committee.
This bill is also now under consideration by the Western States Water Council.
7/30/69
A BILL
To amend and supplement the Federal reclamation laws relating to the furnishing of water to excess lands.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Section
46
of the Act of May25,
1926, WA
Stat.649
as amended,43
U.S.C. Sec. 423e (1964 ed.), is herebyamended as follows: (1) by inserting "(a)" at the beginning thereof; (2) by inserting "(b)" at the beginning of the third sentence thereof; (3) by insert-ing "(d)" at the beginninsert-ing of the last sentence thereof;
(4)
by deleting from the third sentence thereof the words "one hundred sixty irrigable acres" and inserting in substitution therefor "the equivalent, as determined by the Sec-retary of the Interior, of 160 irrigable acres of class I land, or such greater number of irrigable acres as may be determined by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to Subsection (c) hereof"; and(5)
by inserting at the end of the third sentence thereof Subsection (c) reading as follows:"(c) The Secretary of the Interior shall review the acreage limitation provided for in Subsection (b) hereof
at
ten year intervals in the light of economic and technological changes affecting agriculture during such intervals and, for the purpose of applying said Subsection (b), shall increase the number of irrigable acres of class I land to the extent, if any, that he determines to be justified to maintain efficient and profitable agricultural production."Sec. 2.(a) The Secretary of the Interior, in entering into any contract under Subsection (d) of Section
9
of the Reclamation Project Act of1939,
as amended, shall include, upon request of the contracting organization, pro-visions for (1) the furnishing of water to excess lands in accordance with the requirements of Subsection (b) of Section 46 of the Act of May 25, 1926,44
Stat. 649, as amended, and (2) the furnishing of water to excess lands with-out regard to the requirements of Subsection (b) of said Section46
providedthe contracting organization agrees to pay interest on the unpaid balance of the construction costs of the project, division, or unit allocated for repayment which is attributable pro rata to furnishing irrigation benefits in each par-ticular year to such excess lands.
(b) The Secretary of the Interior shall amend existing contracts for a water supply made under Subsection (d) of Section
9
of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as amended, so as to give contracting organizations the benefits ofthis section, if so requested: Provided, That an excess landholder who has exe-cuted a recordable contract as provided for in the third sentence of Section 46 of the Act of May 25, 1926, as heretofore or hereby amended, may not be relieved of such contract and be furnished water for such excess lands pursuant to a con-tract including the provisions provided for in this Act except on the basis of a retroactive adjustment and payment to the United States of the amounts that would have had to be paid under the provisions of this Act for water furnished in the past for such excess lands (lands in excess of one hundred sixty irri-gable acres prior to the effective date of this Act) of such landholder.
Sec. 3.(a) The Secretary of the Interior, in entering into contracts under Subsection (e) of Section
9
of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as amended, shall include provisions for (1) the furnishing of water to excess lands in ac-cordance with the requirements set forth in Subsection (b) of Section 46 of the Act of May 25, 1926, as amended, and (2) the furnishing of water to excess lands without regard to the requirements of Subsection (b) of said Section 46 provided the contracting organization agrees to pay rates for water furnished to excess lands which include interest on the irrigation cost allocation, less accumulated credits, which is attributable pro rata to the furnishing of irrigation benefits in each particular year to such excess lands.(b) The Secretary of the Interior shall amend existing contracts made under Subsection () of Scction 9 of the Reelamation Project Act of 1939, as amended,
-2-so as to give contracting organizations the benefits of this Section, if -2-so re-quested: Provided, That an excess landholder who has executed a recordable con-tract as provided for in the third sentence of Section 46 of the Act of May 25, 1926, as heretofore or hereby amended, may not be relieved of such contract and be furnished water for such excess lands pursuant to a contract including the provisions provided for in this Act except on the basis of a retroactive adjust-ment and payadjust-ment to the United States of the amounts that would have had to be paid under the provisions of this Act for water furnished in the past for such excess lands (lands in excess of one hundred sixty irrigable acres prior to the effective date of this Act) of such landholder.
Sec. L. Any contract not within Sections 2 and 3 of this Act hereafter made with the United States which pertains to the acreage limitation provisions of Reclamation Law shall conform to the appropriate provisions of this Act, and any such existing contract shall be amended upon the request of the contracting person or organization to conform to said provisions.
Sec.
5.
The interest rate for application under the provisions of Sec-tions 2,3
and 11 of this Act shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasuryas of the beginning of the fiscal year in which a contract under Reclamation Law is executed or amended an the basis of the computed average interest rate payable by the Treasury upon its outstanding marketable public obligations which are neither due nor callable for redemption for 15 years from date of issue, and by adjusting such average rate to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per centum.
Sec.
6.
All moneys received on account of interest payments under thepro-visions of this Act shall be covered into the general fund of the Treasury and shall not be credited to payment of the construction costs of the project.
Sec.
7.
To the extent required or permitted unaer existing law, terminationof the requirements of the acreage limitation provisions of Reclamation Law, in-cluding but not limited to the third sentence of Section 46 of the Act of May 25,
-3-1926, or of such sentence as heretofore or hereby amended, and termination of contracts executed pursuant thereto, upon the complete payment of construction costs allocated for repayment by applicable persons or contracting organizations, shall be confirmed, and in no event prejudiced, by this Act.
7/30/69
Comments on a Bill to Amend and Supplement the Federal Reclamation Law Relating to the Furnishing of Water to Excess Lands.
Section 1. Section 46 of the Act of May 25, 1926, as amended, would, in consequence of the proposed Bill, be divided into four subsections, (a), (b), (c) and (d). Subsection (b), the present third sentence of Section 46, would be amended to make the basic limit on irrigable land in single private owner-ship which may receive irrigation water from a new project, division or unit 160 acres of Class I land or the equivalent. The Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to determine, where appropriate, the acreage equivalent to Class 1 lands as on the Seedskadee (72 Stat. 963) and Baker (76 Stat. 634) pro-jects. Subsection (b) is not intended, however, to change the existing law and administrative practice regarding the attribution of landownership to persons or other entities for purposes of applying the appropriate acreage limitation.
A new Subsection (c) would provide for the Secretary of the Interior's periodic review and revision of the basic limitation of Class 1 lands set forth in Subsection (b) (160 acres at the outset) at ten year intervals to reflect the evolution of agricultural technology and economic conditions. Land other than Class 1 would be governed, as determined by the Secretary, by the equivalent of the revised basic limitation applicable to Class 1 land.
Section 2. (a) New repayment contracts with the United States entered into pursuant to Section 9(d) of the Reclamation Project Act of
1939,
as amended,43
U.S.C. Sec. 485h (d), would contain two provisions for the delivery of irri-gation water to excess lands where requested by the contracting organization. First, the repayment contract would permit the delivery of irrigation water to excess lands upon the execution of recordable contracts for the sale of those excess lands under the terms and conditions specified in Subsection (b) of the Act of May 25, 1926, as amended. This is the procedure followed under existinglaw. The repayment contract would also provide that an excess landowner may re-ceive irrigation water for his excess lands without executing a recordable con-tract upon the concon-tracting organization's agreement to pay, in addition to the construction charges otherwise determined to be repayable under existing law, interest on that portion of the unpaid construction charges proportionate to the acreage of excess lands not under recordable contracts and receiving irrigation water in each year. The formula is the same as that adopted in Section 5(c) of the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, L3 U.S.C. Sec. 422e, and on the Lower Rio Grande Reclamation Project, 72 Stat. 82, 73 Stat. 641. The option of executing recordable contracts or paying interest charges for excess lands would belong to the individual excess landowners, acting through the contracting or-ganization.
(b) The Bill would also direct the Secretary of the Interior, where re-quested, to amend existing contracts to give contracting organizations and land-owners the benefits of this section. However, anyone receiving water under a recordable contract, whether executed before or after the enactment of this Bill, could not be relieved of the terms and conditions of that contract, so as to be-come entitled to the payment of interest charges in lieu of the recordable con-tract, unless he first pays retroactive interest charges on a proportionate share of the existing construction charge obligation for each year that excess lands have received water under the recordable contract.
Section 3. (a) This subsection would provide, in substance, the same bene-fits and conditions as under Section 2 of the Bill, for new contracts executed under Section 9(e) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as amended,
43
U.S.C. Sec. 485h(e), and as supplemented by the Act of July 21 1956, 43 U.S.C.Sec. 485h-1. This existing law governs the determination and repayment of con-struction costs, as such. A definite determination of repayable concon-struction cost is frequently unavailable during most or all of the life of a contract
executed under Section 9(e) of the 1939 Act, Therefore, it is intended that contracting organizations electing to pay interest in lieu of recordable con-tracts, agree to adjust retroactively all previous payments made or due under such a contract to include appropriate interest charges when the construction cost is finally determined and allocated for repayment.
(b) The provisions and requirements of this subsection are identical to those of Section 2(b).
Section L. This section extends the benefits of this Bill to all new and existing contracts that impose acreage limitations other than those executed pur-suant to Section 9(d) and 9(e) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939.
Section
5.
The formula for calculation of the applicable interest rate is the same as that contained in the Small Reclamation Projects Act, as amended, 143 u.3,0. Sec. 422e(c), and the Water Supply Act of 3.958, 43 390b(b) (2). It contemplates a uniform basis for the determination of interest rates applicable to any repayment contract under Reclamation law.Section
6.
The meaning of this section is self-evident.Section
7.
The question of whether upon complete payout of construction costs allocated for repayment by a contracting organization or person all acre-age limitation is terminated as to such organization or person is currently at issue in United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Company, et al., No. 2483, United States District Court for the Eastern iistriet of California. This am would provide a generally applicable principle for relief from acreage limitation prior to the complete payout of construction costs. Under this Bill it is im-plicit that upon such a complete payout all acreage limitation terminates. Ac-cordingly, in the circumstances and to the extent provided by existing law, this Bill confirms termination of acreage limitation upcn complete payout,Abstract of NRA's Views on Evaluation of Water and Related Land Resource Projects
1 - National Objectives and Evaluation
Benefits exist only with regard to objectives. Therefore the selection of objectives is vital -- generally precedent -- to developing techniques of evaluation.
Objectives to be selected should include relief of poverty, regional development, and the advalicement of social -- as well as economic -- goals, according to Elmer Staats and Joseph L. Fisher'.
To borrc from the National Assessment of the Water Resources Council, objectives should include also:
(1) avoiding such concentrations of people and of development as will create complex problems of water supply, flood control, and waste disposal. (2) unlocking the use of other resources to enhance
the quality of living, and to provide -- on this higher level -- for a hundred million more people within 30 years.
2 - Equity In Evaluation
And so, the broadening of objectives -- to guide the formulation of resource projects -- requires methods for evaluation of expected results which will harmonize (or be compatible) with other Federal programs to furthering those and dependent objectives.
Continuing the present discrimination against water development through a harsher system for evaluation, risks the results sought by many high priority Federal-State programs.
3 - Grouping Results by Method of Appraisal
Evaluation toward numbers of objectives may be easier when cate-gorized by the methods of appraisal, rather than according to an arbitrary classification of the objectives themselves. Specifically:
. . . The framework proposed by the WRC is a four-element classification of objectives
a. National income
c. Enhancement of environment d. Well-being of people
. Why should one expect that any one "yardstick" would best measure all results toward both categories "c" and "d"? And certainly not just one measure for
all four categories!
. . • Grouping results according to the measuring devices best suited could be done like this:
a. Counting things (except dollars) that are readily countable.
b. Identifying changes in flow of dollars whether earned, lost, saved, or redistributed --attributable to the project.
c. Making qualitative appraisals of effects not counted in "a" or "b".
4 - Quantitative Effects
Examples of results which are "countable" in terms other than dollars -- and attributable to the design, construction, use, and results of a project -- include:
1. Number of persons whose skills are upgraded3 2. New jobs
3. New businesses 4. Larger tax base
5. Reduction of travel costs to employment, to community facilities, and to recreational areas 6. Increased flow of commerce
7. Miles of new shoreline, and areas of usable water surface
8. Units of "clean" water made available 9. Increase in fish and wildlife populations
Changes in the flow of dollars would, of course, include project revenues (as from sales of water and power, or use of facilities). Losses prevented by flood control, real savings in transportation costs, more effective control of water quality, all are measurable in dollar flows.
2-Redistribution of income -- as providing opportunity for the disadvantaged or displaced to become independent of aid programs --might be measured in dollars related to different income levels, and also by numbers of families so aided (double counting can be avoided by cross references). This breakdown at levels of income is suggested because economic efficiency itself has a double measure -- changes in number and also in pattern!
5 - Qualitative Effects
As to qualitative appraisals, some of these can be in whatever terms are used for appraising effects of "greenspans", "open-spaces", "blue rivers or other prospective outdoor land and water reservations for which facsimiles can be created by land and water management.
Qualitative appraisals should also include project worth for other than esthetic objectives. Example: The security developed through stabili-zation is in itself one of man's greatest treasures. Stabilistabili-zation needs will range from drought, flood, income, on to include reliability of power supply, or dependability of sport fishing and other recreational uses where capital is invested to raise the level of enjoyment. Other attributes of quality include flexibility, safety, and cleanliness.
As a new approach, is not the removal of constraints -- imposed on many National objectives by inadequate water resource development --a qu--alit--ative f--actor in the pursuit of h--appiness?
Many qualitative factors are additive to dollar measurements of basic "countable" results. They are subjective appraisals of the difference between the "cheap" and the "good".
6 - Designing the System According to its Use
In evaluation, displays of effects -- as matrices -- may be used to enhance understanding and also to promote comparability, especially for John Q. Public.
In evaluation, a degree of comparability of methods for kindred or dependent Federal programs is highly desirable -- comparability shortens the exercises in the Bureau of the Budget, increases the "feel" in Congress for choosing among programs, facilitates comprehension, and lessens the
hazards of neglecting a program on which others are dependent.
Certainly, the present extraordinary difference in evaluation of programs can be diminished. For example, is the nation served well --when interest rates rise -- by doubly downgrading the reported effectiveness of multi-purpose water development, while changing not a whit the "benefit" of water treatment, o,. outdoor recreation, or fish and wildlife enhancement? This is now happening, even within the same Department of our Federal government!
And -- obviously -- a system for evaluation as suggested cannot be compressed effectively into one ratio of "dollars output" to "dollars input", especially when the future is "discounted" out. Too
much more than dollar flow is involved in water conservation! And also, part of the National purpose is to provide for the well-being of man -- in his tomorrow -- rather than to discount his future for the quick and easy solution of the moment.
Even the dollar-conscious Director of the Budget insists "that economic analysis can never be the sole determinant of Budget
decisions . . in some cases economic analysis must not be . . . even a primary determinant of National policies4.
-4-'HOT' A. B. DICK
'Now Comptroller General, formerly Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget, at a resources symposium -- 1966.
"Many new programs to relieve poverty and promote regional development depend on the use and development of the Nation's water resources."
2"The fact remains that the careful planning and programming of national resources development, within the framework of general economic and social planning, can contribute greatly to the advancement of social and economic goals."
. . . Joseph L. Fisher
President, Resources For the Future, in preface to "The Water Resources of Chile".
3This would include the displaced farm worker who becomes a repair man for sprinkler systems, for example. Some argue that this "secondary" effect should be excluded. The argument weakens when confronted by the high rural poverty rate, the migration of displaced farm people to centers of underemployment, and the extraordinary expense of accommodating the latter where more people compound unsolved problems of pollution.
4Statement of Robert P. Mayo, Director of the Bureau of the Budget, before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee on Economic Analysis and the Federal Budget, September 25, 1969.
'HOT" ((w) A. B. Dfai
nes 'Ara es Lelal.
•eels nis Critics
A
By Jackson Doyle
Chronic"! Correspondent
Sacramento
Governor Ronald Rea-gan's conservation-minded resources secretary, Nor-B. Livermore Jr., went
d
down to water hungry Los Angeles yesterday to de-fend his policies in general (' and his opposition to a big Dos Rios dam in particular. j. In a speech at a noon — luncheon of the Water and Power Committee of the Los •) Angeles Chamber of Com-merce — the text of which I ( was released here — Liver-more pulled no punches in\
responding to critics of his insistence that the need to protect California's environ-ment must prevail over pro-posed projects which would destroy it.This goes. he said, not only for the massive and expen-sive high dam proposed for the middle fork of the Eel. river — but recently rejected by Governor Reagan at the advice of Livermore — but also for highways that would cut through parklands or oth-erwise destroy scenic values; projects that would pollute the air or streams; and hap-hazard development around such natural assets as San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe.
SUCCESSES
And he insisted that the "preservationists" a r e on guard, in growing numbers and with growing strength. Examples of their recent successes: T h e Governor's rejection of a Dos Rios dam which would flood Round val-ley and the whole town of Covelo in Mendocino county; rerouting of freeways for es-thetic conservations, includ-ing those which would invade parks; rerouting of Junipero Serra freeway away from San Francisco's Crystal Springs reservoir; strength-ening of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Devel-opment Commission; and creation of the Tahoe Region-al Planning Agency.
Livermore quoted an
uni-dentiiied "prominent e n g neer" as telling him: "One of the troubles we are facing in these environmental prob-lems is that the will of the people is ahead of the law."
While insisting that he is "not unaware of the supreme importance of the law," Liv-ermore declared laws in this field "are not static" but "appear to be evolving as re-sult of the will of the peo-ple." Turning away from his general attitudes toward "en-vironmental integrity" Liver-more got down to specific discussion of recent ex-changes of letters between himself and three "water leaders."
"STIR"
Livermore said he had no idea his letters would cause such a "stir" adding that he "admired your leaders' zeal • in circulating them and com-menting on them."
The letters from Liver-more were in response to let-ters he received from Briga-dier General uilliam M. Glascow, chief of the South Pacific Division of the U. S. Corps of Engineers; Ira J. Chrisman of Visalia, chair-man of the State Water Com-mission, and Henry Lippitt, chairman of the chamber committee.
Among criticisms con-tained in the letters to him were "lack of respect for the expertise of your water expertise of your water lead-ers" and giving undue im-portance to the arguments of "a small group of preserva-tionists."
Livermore stressed that "preservationists" in this state ad nation are a grow-ing number, and not restrict-ed to such organizrestrict-ed groups as the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society.
Position of NRA as to
OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONAL WATER COM1ISSION
(Note: Written comments on this draft may be left in NRA office at Room 260, Ridpath Motor Inn, any time before 3:00 p.m. Friday the 24th of Oct.)
Principle tasks under the law:
This Association finds the principle tasks (remaininl after allocating to the Water Resources Council its functions of projecting water needs, enhancing water conservation, and encouraging technology) are to:
... review water resource problems.
... consider the economic and social consequences of water resources development,
... examine _impacts of development on regional growth, institutional arrangement, and esthetic values.
Review:
As to review of problems, those caused by failure to fund authorized water development projects are both eminent and imminent ... as evident in testimony to Appropriations Committees of the Congress.
As it happens, the widespread and devastating effects of decline in Federal funding of water projects is partly documented already. But to that data, analysts need add the forecasts of effects on other programs -- Federal and otherwise -- of inability to realize the benefits of authorized multi-purpose resource development. The result would be the highest-level APPRAISAL OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DELAYS IN FUNDING FEDERAL WATER PROJECTS ... a suggested first priority of the Commission.
In fact, this kind of review should long since have been furnished the Congress and the President under terms of Page 7, Senate Document 97 (which requires the
identification of the social and economic consequences of even partial failure to satisfy needs and opportunities from potential development of water and related land resources). WHY THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE WOULD BE A WORTHWHILE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION, IMPORTANT TO ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL WATER PRACTICE.
Consequences of development:
Consequences (economic, social, pleasurable) of water development may be regarded three ways, according to whatever this Nation:
... pursues as objectives, either directly or by stimulation ... seeks to avoid, either by programs or side effects
... watches over, as trends point toward upcoming objectives.
Examination of consequences against those three actions (pursuit, avoidance, surveillance) may focus attention on national objectives and goals -- on the "whys" of what can be done with resources, the "for whoms" of benefit incidence, and THUS THE INTER-RELATIONSHIPS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS INFLUENCED BY RESOURCE ACTIONS ... an examination
This i 'HOT'
2
the Commission is urged to undertake.
Reaional economic arowth
Institutional arranaements Amenqy values
The previous discussion suggested study of consequences with regard for whatever the nation proposes to pursue, avoid, or watch over. The intent of Congress is, the
Commission's charter indicates, to pursue regional growth and amenity values, and to
watch over institutional arrangements. Certainly, the prospects of adding 100 million people to burden our resources -- in thirty years -- requires the pursuit of growth
through means of accomodation. The pursuit need be intensified because of the obsolcnce
of ihysical facilities existing, and the migration of pcop1,2 to the most densely used
areas.
The enormity of the task, the risks of failure, and the rigidity of attitudes cleaving resource development into purposes -- rather than uniting it through national goals -- may call for an over-riding national policy about water and related land resources. This could be stated as a:
"NATIONAL POLICY TO ASSURE, IN CO-OPERATION WITH THE STATES, THE CONSERVATION OF WATER RESOURCES SO THAT NO MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAM SHALL BE REPRESSED EITHER THROUGH INADEQUATE CONSERVATION MEASURES, OR BY INABILITY TO ASSURE FUTURE WATER FOR ECONOMIC, SOCIOLOGIC, AND AMENITY PURPOSES."
Facilitatin and safe_guardina:
Were this Nation to adopt the Policy as stated above -- and our need to do so seems self-evident -- the Policies would have real value only if:
... Federal agencies (with the States) have the knowledge and the intent to plan and to effect projects with full regard for the Policy.
... The Congress is given planning and budgetary reports which make clear the role of the proposed conservation measures to support economic, sociologic, and amenity goals.
The present techniques for fixing benefits of water resource development are so different from other projects that the support role of conservation projects is more hidden than revealed. For example, in which programs other than water development --do the Agencies:
... count as costs of the program a theoretical decline in activity
elsewhere as an offset against the job training, the new job l the
larger tax base, the greater outputs caused by the Agency's program! ... propose that willingness of beneficiary to pay shall be the measure of worth (Try this on the $24 billion grant-in-aid program!)
This is .Hor ,,„,,
•
3
... automatically reduce incoming proposals as interest rates rise!
... suggest that for the program 'leach region receive from the Federal Government about What is taken from it as taxes.
This discrimination suggests that the Commission test a prospective policy such that THE FORMULATION, EVALUATION AND COST SHARING IN FEDERAL-STATE
WATER PROJECTS SHALL GENERALLY BE IN HARMONY WITH THAT EVIDENT IN OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR WELL-BEING OF PEOPLE.
Observation:
All of the suggestions of the foregoing could be carried out within the range of subjects suggested by the Commission. From the list of subjects, NRA suggests that the four following are especially adaptable to the goal of this paper: Item 30:
Item 26:
Item 22:
Item 8:
Study to provide a basis for recommendations on the social objectives which the United States should seek to attain through the development, utilization and conservation of its water resources, taking into account the desire of its people for the amenities, as well as the necessities, of life.
Study to evaluate the effectiveness of water resource development as a means of inducing economic development in under-developed regions, including its effects on income distribution.
Study of the various new techniques that have been proposed for the formulation of comprehensive plans for river basins, metropolitan or other regions, including the techniques of systems analysis.
Critical appraisal of organizational and institutional arrangements used in the planning, carrying out and management of the Nation's water programs.
This k "HOT' ( ()in
NKHONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
Dedicated to Water Resource Work
JAMES. F. 1Fi President and
California Director
303 BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING VISALIA, CALIFORNIA 93277
October 24, 1969
President, Members of the Board of Directors, National Reclamation Association
897 National Press Building Washington, D. C. 20004 Gentlemen: 897 NATIONAL PRESS B . UILDING WASHINGTON, D. C 20004 CARL BRONN Executive Director 347-2672
and Executive Director
During the 1969 Annual Convention of the Association, the Resolutions Committee had presented to it a problem which at present involves the Missouri and Columbia River Basins. This problem involves taking water from storage reser-voirs constructed by the Corps of Engineers without irrigation facilities con-structed therewith and includes both resevoirs with and without alloctionsa
I-."-A private irrigator, having a state water permit, attempting to take water out of the reservoir is required, in seeking a right-of-way permit from the Corps of Engineers for access to his water, to obtain such permit conditioned upon his entering into a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation for the payment of an irrigation benefit charge and subjecting himself to all the provisions of the reclamaltion law.
The basis of the United States position is a 1958 opinion written by
William P. Rogers, then Attorney General of the United States. The application of the orinion to the present situation has been concurred in informally by the Department of the Interior solicitor.
Assistant Secretary Smith has requested of some of the affected states that their attorneys general present a written legal opinion showing why this 1958 opinion should not apply to the present problem. We understant that a meeting among the Department, those attorneys general and representatives of some of the affected states is soon to be held in Washington.
At a meeting between the Resolutions Committee and a number of state engineers it was determined that a resoluticn at this stage should not be passed bacause it might upset the fine balance of the present negotiations.
The Resolutions Committee recommends that the Legislative Task Force of the Association make contact with Secretary Smith and request his consent to attend
the presently planned loeetings, and such other neetire,e,s as may follow, to lend the
OFFICERS
James F. Sorensen, President
Lorin W. Markham, First Vice President Milo W. Hoisveen, Second Vice President I. J. Coury, Treasurer
Carl H. Bronn, Executive Director
... continued
DIRECTORS
J. A. Riggins, Jr., Phoenix, Arizona Wesley A. D'Ewart, Wilsall, Montana James F. Sorensen, Visalia, California William C. Smith, Ainsworth, Nebraska J. R. Barkley, Loveland, Colorado Ivan P. Head, Las Vegas, Nevada Robert T. Chuck, Honolulu, Hawaii I. J. Coury, Farmington, New Mexico John Rosholt, Twin Falls, Idaho Milo W. Hoisveen, Bismarck, North Dakota Chris C. Green, Courtland, Kansas Clarence Base, Geary, Oklahoma
Railroad Representative, E. N. Duncan, St. Paul, Minn.
La Selle E. Coles, Prineville, Oregon Al A. Schock, Sioux Falls, South Dakota Guy C. Jackson, Jr., Kerrville, Texas Ed Southwick, Ogden, Utah
Lorin W. Markham, Spokane, Washington Marlin T. Kurtz, Cody, Wyoming
•
Page 2
October 24, 1969
support of the Association in the search for a resolution of this patently
unfair interpretation of the law. The purpose for such a close contact with this problem is to provide the background, if the problem is not so solved, for the adoption by the Association of a resolution and the preparation of legislation to relieve this situation. This interpretation of the law, if not resolved or corrected, may be applied to all reclamation states at a later date.
We urgently recommend that the Legislative Task Force itself be participants or observers in all of the meetings scheduled or unscheduled on this matter.
.4#0o'•/7
Jack F. Ross, Chairmain Resolutions Committee
Final from Committee As amended
October 23, 1969
RESOLUTIONS
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
38th ANNUAL MEETING OCTOBER 19-24, 1969 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
CONTENTS OBJECTIVES I STATEMENT
A. Total Water Resource Development (1) Multiple Use
(2) Right of States
(3) Authorization and Appropriation
PAGE
1
1
1
1
B. Legislative Program1
(1) Compliance With State Water Law
1
(2) No Taking By Seizure 2
(3) Compensation for Public Acquisition 2
(4) Acreage Limitation Modernization 2
(5) No Separation Pay 2
(6) Tax Deduction of Construction Costs 2
(7) Amend Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 3
(8) Uniform Project Standards 3
(9) Amend Title Transfer Requirements 3
C. Administrative Program 3
(1) Access to Federal Lands 3
(2) Adherence to Project Purposes 3
(3) Action on Desert Land Applications 3
(4) Administration Small Projects 3
(5) Coordination of Research and Investigation 4 (6) Public Land Law Review Recominendations 4 (7) Administration of Acreage Limitations 4 II RESOLUTIONS
69-1 New Standards for Project Evaluation 4
69-2 Resources Development Programs 5
69-3 Land Limitation Legislation 7
69-4 Bond Tax Exemption 8
69-5 Small Projects Program 9
69-6 Water Salvage and Watershed Management 9
69-7 Power Policy 10
69-8 Water Resource Council Planning Grants 11
69-9 Agricultural Return Flow Research 12
69-10 Nondegradation 12
69-11 Prototype Desalter 13
69-12 Inter-Basin Transfer Study Criteria 13 69-13 Amendment of the National Labor Relations Act 14
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE
1969
Jack Ross, Chairman Tom Cahill, Clerk
Arizona Tom Choules, Box 551, Yuma 85364 (602) 783 8811 (Alt) Roger Ernst, Phoenix
California James H. Carter, 101 Law Bldg., El Centro 92243 (714) 352 2821 (Alt) Fedrick Bold Jr., 1017 MacDonald Ave, Richmond
Colorado Jack Ross, 802 Capital Life Center, E. 225 16th (303) 244 4401 Denver 80203
(Alt) John M. Sayre, 1200 American Nat'l Bank Bldg. (303) 255 5475 Denver, 80202
Hawaii Robert T. Chuck, Honolulu
Idaho Roger D. Ling, PO Box 623, Rupert (208) 436 4717 Kansas Perry L. Sweat, Smith Center 66967 (913) 282 6033 Montana Sidney P. Kurth, Suite 805 Midland Bank Bldg. (406) 252 0501
Billings 59101
(Alt) D. Keith Williams, Box 2538, Billings 59102 (406) 252 0591 Nebraska Cyril P. Shaughnessy, 710 7th St., St. Paul 68873 (308) 754 4492 Nevada Norman Hall, Carson City
(Alt) J.E. Sturrock, 715 Griffith Ave, Las Vegas 89104 (702) 384 4966 New Mexico George Hannett, Box 1849, Albuquerque 87103 (505) 243 9777 (Alt) John F. Arfman, Box 581, Albuquerque 87103 (505) 243 6796 North Dakota Richard P. Gallagher, Mandan
Oklahoma Ray Trent, 4409 SE 27, Del City 73115 (405) 677 1726 Oregon Harold Henigson, 106 Main St., Nyssa 97913 (503) 372 2268 (Alt) George H. Proctor, 208 Main St., Klamath Falls (503) 882 4436 South Dakota Raymond F. Lund, Water Resources Conlin., Box 1,
Pierre 57501
(Alt) John T. Loucks, Box 751, Rapid City 57701 (605) 343 0550 Texas J. W. Buchanan, Box 935, Dumas 79029 (806) 935 6401
(Alt) E. W. Easterling, San Jacinto Bldg., Beaumont
Utah F. Gerald Irvine, 1407 West North Temple,Salt Lake(801) 521 4611 Washington H. Maurice Ahlquist, 1929 Forest Hill Dr, Olympia (206) 943 1185 Wyoming John T. Goodier, 210 W. 23rd St., Cheyenne 82001 (307) 777 7284
STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
In order to promote the development, control, conservation, preser-vation and utilization of the water resources of the reclamation states, to work for the continuation of the services and the coordination of the federal agencies dealing with these water resources, to cooperate with and assist such agencies in securing prompt authorization, appropriation of funds and construction of those federal projects which meet with the approval of the states and localities affected, to assist the reclamation states and water users thereof in the economic development and operation of water improvements and the integration of their activities with federal agencies, to preserve the rights and interests of the reclamation states in their water resources, and to promote the adoption of legislation in furtherance of, and to oppose legislation detrimental to these purposes, the following statement together with the current resolutions express the objectives of the National Water Resources Association which shall be diligently pursued by its officers, executive director, staff and other authorized representatives.
A. TOTAL WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT. We reaffirm our support of the basic principles of reclamation which, among other things, provide for:
(1) Integrated multiple use development of our water resources under repayment terms consistent with sound business principles and the encouragement of individual initiative and responsibility. (2) The inherent right and obligation of the people of the
reclama-tion states, with or without the assistance of the federal government, to develop fully their water resources within the framework of applicable interstate compacts and the water laws of the respective states,
(3) Authorization of and adequate appropriation for projects which will develop, control, conserve, and utilize total water resources. The Board of Directors and the officers of the National Water Resources Association shall conduct a public information program and support research programs which will clearly inform the public of the great contributions reclamation and water resource development make to human needs, including food, recreation, sanitation, power, social progress and high quality en-vironment, and to the overall strength and needs of our nation.
B. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM. We urge the enactment of legislation which would:
(1)
Compliance with State Water Law
require that in the taking and use of water the federal government, its agents, employees, licensees and permittees comply with all
applicable state laws and regulations governing the appropriation, distribution, control or use of water, whether such water originates on
No Taking By Seizure
federally owned or controlled lands or elsewhere; (2) abrogate the principle of seizure and require that
private property needed for federal use be acquired by contract, purchase or condemnation proceedings in all instances;
(3) require that when land in a reclamation project is taken for public use, compensation for the taking must Compensation include payments which will adequately fund the repay-for Public ment obligation for construction charges and operation and Acquisition maintenance costs allocable to such land, together with the
costs of modifying or relocating water facilities made necessary by such taking;
(4) modernize the application of the principle of acreage Acreage limitation so as to conform to the changes in agri-Limitation cultural economics which have occurred since 1902, by, Modernization among other things:
No Separation Pay
Tax Deduction of Construction Costs
Amend Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(5)
(a) increasing the basic acreage limitation from 160 acres to a realistic figure, with provision for review and increase whenever economic changes warrant it,
(b) releasing land from acreage limitations upon payment of interest or other appropriate consideration (Engle formula), and
(c) applying the class 1 equivalency concept;
provide that upon the transfer of irrigation works from a governmental agency to a water user entity, such entity would be relieved from paying the costs of "separation pay" for employees of the former governmental operatiLg agency; (6) amend the federal income tax law to authorize the deduction
by water users as an operating expense of all assessments or taxes paid to water user entities for construction of water use facilities in which the water users do not acquire any interest or right of ownership;
(7) amend the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act" (Public Law
90-542) to give proper recognition to the principles of: (a) multiple use,
(b) recognition of water rights, and
(c) designation of a river only after an indepth study of alternative uses and after approval by the affected states;
-2-Uniform Project Standards
(8) result in uniform project development standards applicable to all federal water development agencies, including a requirement that
all survey and investigation costs be consistently classified as non-reimbursable; and
Amend Title (9) remove the title transfer security requirement Transfer from Public Law 84-130 and replace it with Requirements the property acquisition assurances required P.L. 84-130 by Public Law 84-984.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM. To best serve the public interest, we:
(1)
Access to Federal Lands
urge the Secretary of each federal department responsible for federal lands to permit
normal, reasonable access to such lands consistent with the needs of preservation, maintenance, construction or reconstruction of water facilities;
(2) oppose any administrative change in land use
Adherence to or development which will impair the general economy Project dependent upon utilization of reclamation
Purposes project land or its repayment capability, unless such change be approved by the affected water user entity;
Action on (3) urge the Department of Interior to process Desert Land desert land entry applications to final Applications decision promptly;
Administration Small Projects
(4) urge the Secretary of the Interior, in
administering the Small Reclamation Projects Act and small reclamation projects program, to:
(a) continue the simplification of procedures and the adoption of reasonable requirements for the expeditious and inexpensive pro-cessing of loans.
-3-(b) follow the legislative intent of the Act by providing for the collection of interest for municipal and industrial uses and for excess lands, and
(c) work with this Association and Congress to clarify the application of the Act to municipal and industrial uses in the project area;
(5) urge all departments and agencies of the Federal government responsible for water resource develop-Coordination ment to devise standards and procedures to eliminate of Research or minimize duplication of investigation, research and and basic work common to them, and to disseminate Investigation information developed by them to the public at
reasonable cost;
(6) urge the Public Land Law Review Commission to Public Land Law predicate its conclusions and recommendations for Review Commission land management on the availability of water Recommendations resources and the rights to their use as they may
be acquired pursuant to state law; Administration
of Acreage Limitations
(7) urge the Department of Interior to release project lands from acreage limitations upon repayment of reimbursable project costs allocable thereto.
RESOLUTION NO. 69-1
NEW STANDARDS FOR PROJECT EVALUATION
WHEREAS, on December 24, 1968, the Water Resources Council issued in the Federal Register a revised formula for the determination of the discount rates to be used in the formulation of water and related land resource projects and those higher rates have worked to the detriment of a number of projects previously considered economically justified; and
WHEREAS, the Water Resources Council, in recognition of the fact that current practices for the evaluation of benefits of water and related land resource developments are inadequate, has instituted measures to review and revise evaluation procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Water Resources Council is now in the process of developing evaluation techniques and procedures to implement the broad principles set forth in the June 1969 report of its Special Task Force, which report recommended to the Council that it issued a new statement of evaluation standards and procedures and set forth principles that recognized broad benefits flowing from water resource projects in four categories of national objectives identified as a national income account, a regional account, an environmental account, and a well-being account.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Water Resources Association that:
1. It endorses the basic principles of recognizing the broad benefits that flow from water and related land resource projects as contained in the June 1969 report of the Special Task Force;
2. To give the principles meaning, evaluation procedures should be formulated promptly which recognize and account for the broad range of benefits created by water and related land resource projects which result in an equitable allocation of project costs among appropriate account categories of national objectives;
3. To the extent practicable, these same principles and
evaluation procedures should be applied to other federally financed programs.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be
transmitted to the President of the United States, the Water Resources Council, and appropriate members of the Congress.
RESOLUTION NO. 69-2 RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, the objective of the Association is the complete and
efficient multiple purpose development of the land and water resources of the West; and
WHEREAS, a sound water development program is dependent in large measure on continued and coordinated funding, investigation, planning, research and construction programs by the several Federal and state agencies concerned with water resource development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Water Resources Association:
1. That the officers of the Association are directed to support before the Congress requests for sufficient appropriations and to seek funds from other sources to:
A. Implement research on the formulation and the use of multi-purpose water resource projects contributing to high-priority national purposes, which in addition to previously recognized values, include alleviation of
poverty, enhancement of environmental quality, oppor-tunity for outdoor recreation and encouragement of more favorable population distribution.
B. Permit the several federal and state agencies and commis-sions to continue progressive and uninterruped investi-gations, planning and construction programs in consonance with the needs therefor.
C. Accelerate programs of research and development for
revegetation, watershed protection and restoration, range improvements and physical improvements of private lands and national forests so as to improve water yield and conservation and control erosion.
D. Continue the snow surveys and stream flow forecasting. E. Permit prompt and continuing acquisition, publication
and distribution of basic data respecting both stream flow and ground water resources throughout the nation. F. Permit completion of standard topographic mapping of
the United States.
G. Continue research, investigation and action programs which will accomplish a better understanding of the problems and interrelationships of water supply, quality, distribution, conservation and reuse as related to proper land husbandry and human needs, including ground water recovery and recharge. H. Accomplish completion of the land capability inventory.
I. Provide for collection and dissemination of basic meteoro-logical data.
J. Continue and expand research in weather modification, water desalinization and water quality management.
K. Provide for the control and eradication of noxious weeds and insects on federally-controlled lands.
2. That the administrative expenses of federal agencies conducting cooperative programs with Lite states be charged only to the extent of
the amount specified by agreement or in proportion to its contribution to such program; and that the work to be undertaken by such federal agencies in the name of cooperative programs be restricted to those specified by the
cooperating agreement.
-6-RESOLUTION NO. 69-3 LAND LIMITATION LEGISLATION
WHEREAS, the Reclamation Act of 1902 applied primarily to under-developed and unirrigated public lands; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to prevent land speculation, the delivery of project water was limited to no more than 160 acres of irrigable land in a single ownership; and
WHEREAS, under modern farming practices a farm within that limita-tion usually cannot be competitively or economically operated to provide full employment and income sufficient to maintain a reasonable standard of living within the farm areas in the reclamation states; and
WHEREAS, the original Reclamation Act of 1902 has been amended to permit supplemental water deliveries to lands already irrigated; and
WHEREAS, Federal Administrative Agencies have proposed to impose acreage limitations in areas which would be in conflict with local reliance upon contracts with the Federal Government and the long standing announced policies of the administrative agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Department of the Interior has announced plans attempting to apply land limitation policies in ground water basin areas receiving only supplemental project water; and
WHEREAS, the Department of the Interior now asserts the continuing applicability of acreage limitation in a reclamation project where the agency contracting to pay the reimbursable costs thereof has fully repaid all such reimbursable costs, thus controverting a basic concept and interpretation of reclamation law which has been repeatedly recognized and ratified by Congress and has existed and been uniformly applied and relied upon since
the passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Water Resources Association that this Association opposes the principle of land limitation except as it may apply to projects for undeveloped, unirrigated areas; and to such projects uniform principles should provide:
1. That the land limitation provisions of the Reclamation Act
be modernized by legislation which would recognize the difference in types of farming and crop production and which would provide for flexibility in acreage found to be needed for feasible and economic farm units.
2. That such legislation provide that the limiting acreage for a
farm unit be determined for each project or unit of a project by the Secretary of the Interior, and the state, through its authorized officer or agency, and the agency contracting to repay the project costs.
3. That any legislation amending the land limitation provisions shall not be retroactively applied to areas now exempt from such land
limitation provisions.
4. That legislation be supported to provide for the payment of an interest component for irrigation costs allocated to ownerships held in
excess of the applicable limitation, as an alternative to the execution of a recordable contract.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that legislation be passed to provide for relaxation of the acreage limitation provisions in supplemental water supply projects for established farming areas; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Association strenuously opposes the attempts by the Department of the Interior to change the basic concept and interpretation of reclamation law heretofore uniformly applied and relied upon and recognized by Congress, whereby upon repayment of the project costs allocated to irrigation for lands in a particular area, such lands are
relieved from acreage limitations; and
BE LT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the criteria for determining eligibility und,r reclamation law for new or existing projects shall be that each individual be entitled to the limited acreage whether held individually or in
co-ownership; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Association opposes any attempts by Federal Administrative Agencies to impose acreage limitation in areas not otherwise subject to said limitations, without consent of the affected
contracting entity representing the affected district or area; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the acreage limitation wherever applied shall not in any event be made applicable to any ownership of land by a state or any political subdivision thereof including municipal entities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the President of the Association continue the Land Limitation Committee.
RESOLUTION NO. 69- 14 BOND TAX EXEMPTION
WHEREAS, it is essential that public entities have viable means of financin necessary facilities through the sale of bonds bearing low interest rates; and
WHEREAS, existing law exempting interest of such bonds from
taxation has provided such entities with a ready market for financing such facilities; and
WHEREAS, denial of tax-exempt status to public entities would tend
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Water Resources Association supports the continuation of the tax-exempt status of bonds issued by public entities for necessary facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be transmitted to appropriate members of Congress.
RESOLUTION NO. 69-5 SMALL PROJECTS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Small Reclamation Projects Program has been an outstanding success and the present Administration has adopted reasonable, workable interpretations of the provisions of the Act relating to municipal and industrial water users; and
WHEREAS, experience in the administration of the program indicates growing need for Federal assistance in multiple purpose projects involving municipal and industrial water where irrigation is not the primary purpose; and
WHEREAS, the continuing problem of adjusting both the maximum loan limit and the maximum size of projects eligible under the Small Reclamation Projects Act, brought about by escalation of project costs since the Act was passed in 1956, could be solved by amending the Act so that it would directly relate those limits to the cost index for construction of similar projects;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Water Resources Association that:
1. The Secretary of the Interior be urged to continue to consider the legislative intent of the Small Reclamation Projects Act in processing applications for loans involving municipal and industrial uses and excess lands to enhance the workability of the Program to meet the ever-changing requirements of multipurpose projects.
2. The Association work with the Secretary of the Interior and members of Congress for the immediate enactment of legislation to amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act which would:
a Provide for multipurpose projects in which either irri-gation or municipal and industrial uses may be the primary purpose.
b. Provide that the maximum limits of the size of project and amount of loan eligible under the Act be directly related to the cost index for construction of similar projects to adjust for escalation since the Act was originally passed in 1956.
RESOLUTION NO. 69-6
WATER SALVAGE AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
WHEREAS, federal water conservation and salvage programs for
channelization of river, phreatophyte control and national forest watershed management can significantly increase water yield for beneficial uses; and
WHEREAS, water delivery capacity of constructed works is impaired by sedimentation, which in many cases could be eliminated by river channel-ization and bank stabilchannel-ization; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of such channelization, bank stabilization and phreatophyte control is to:
(1) effect water salvage by reducing waste and uneconomic uses of water for side channels, ponds, swamps and by improved drainage,
(2) reduce erosion and transported sediment thereby stabilizing stream conditions and improving water quality,
(3) improve efficiency of water deliveries to downstream users, (4) decrease flood hazard to improved areas,
(5) protect developed lands adjacent to river channels and (6) create other benefits; and
WHEREAS, some of these programs have been curtailed by the reduction or withholding of funds, and by the opposition of single-purpose preservationist groups.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Water Resources Association that the respective secretaries of the departments affected are urged to continue and expand such river water salvage and watershed management programs, and Congress is urged to appropriate funds adequate to insure their timely completion.
RESOLUTION NO. 69-7 POWER POLICY
WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the National Water Resources Association to promote themaximum development, conservation and utilization of the water resources, such purpose requiring that every effort be made to achieve the multi-purpose use of water; and
WHEREAS, although the use of water for generation of hydroelectric power must always remain subservient to other beneficial water uses, development of the current and projected reclamation program relies heavily on the use and sale of such power and energy; and
and
WHEREAS, the energy contained in falling water is a valuable resource,
-WHEREAS, water resource development plans involving the generation of hydroelectric power in connection with other water uses, have created problems involving the rates for the sale of project power, the preference provisions of reclamation law, and the construction of transmission facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Association, over a period of many years, has studied the problems of hydroelectric power as related to total water resources development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Water Resource Association recommends the following:
1. To meet problems before they develop into unnecessary conflicts
where the generation or transmission of electrical energy from a proposed reclamation project is involved, the Secretary of the Interior, at the outset of the planning and continuously thereafter, constitute an advisory task group from the affected area, consisting of representatives of local and state water agencies, investor-owned utilities, consumer-owned utilities, and appropriate federal agencies to provide proper liaison in the formulation of optimum plans for development of water and power resources.
2. That electric power from reclamation projects should be marketed in a manner which will provide for maximumpotential multi-purpose water resource development, giving proper consideration to the marketing of other power within the project market area and to project repayment requirements. Federal hydro-electric facilities should be designed, constructed and operated in the most efficient manner possible, including operation on an integrated basis with the thermal generation of the private and public power suppliers who have primary utility responsibility in the area.
3. That the present policies regarding construction of federal transmission facilities to include only such lines as are essential to the marketing and exchange of reclamation power and energy be endorsed. Adequate facilities of other power suppliers, public or private, should not be duplicated unless the entity providing such facility fails to assure satisfactory service at a reasonable price.
4. That the utilization, either directly or by exchange, of
reclamation power for reclamation project pumping facilities shall have priority over all other uses.
RESOLUTION NO. 69-8
WATER RESOURCE COUNCIL PLANNING GRANTS
WHEREAS the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 was passed to help meet the rapidly expanding demands for water by encouraging the construction, development and utilization of water and related land resources through
coordinated and cooperative efforts; and
WHEREAS that Act recognized the need for increased state participa-tion in water and related land resource planning and authorized the appro-priation of $5 million annually to assist states in their planning efforts; and
WHEREAS the states have demonstrated their initiative and needs for increased grants by constantly overmatching the funds available; and
WHEREAS the present executive budget request allocates only $2,350,000 for such grants;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Water Resources
Association that Congress be urged in this and subsequent years, to appropriate the full amount authorized by the Act.
RESOLUTION NO. 69-9
AGRICULTURAL RETURN FLOW RESEARCH
WHEREAS, the National Water Resources Association, recognizing the need for water quality standards required by the Water Quality Act of 1965, acknowledges the complex problems of maintaining and improving the quality of agricultural return flow water; and
WHEREAS, economically and technically feasible solutions to such problems need to be discovered so that the use of land and water resources for agricultural purposes may continue without impairment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Water Resources Association urges increased funding on the local, state and national levels for research to discover economically and technically feasible methods by which agricultural chemicals, organic and other materials may be removed from agricultural return flow water or the volume of such substances reduced to levels compatible with other, successive uses of the same water.
RESOLUTION NO. 69-10 NONDEGRADATION
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to abate, control and prevent pollution of the nation's waters; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Walter Quality Act of 1965, established the statutory framework for
abating, controlling and preventing water pollution and rightfully recog-nized that the states have the primary responsibility for controlling and preventing water pollution; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 1968, after all states had completed their hearing procedures and submitted their proposed water quality standards, and the standards of many of the states had been approved, the Secretary announced that no state water quality program would be approved if it did not provide that any waters in the state of higher quality than the established standards must be maintained at such higher quality unless it is affirmatively demonstrated to the state authorities and to the Secretary
