STAT.E 1.•
Agric. Reearell 1.•41d LirAtation Le,.,is1: iv, AltcH,
C
COt-t.1.1.i:ES
Water Users Committee A A 0 A A A 0 K A A S • L Al S F A 0 Ji V X A 0 A A 0 A T X A A 0 A • Resolutions Tom Choules P.O. Box 551 Yuma, Arizona 85364 James H. Carter 101 Law Bldg. El Centro, Calif. 92243 Jack Ross 144 W. Colfax enver, Colo. 80202 --- ---Dean Harold E. Myers College of Agriculture Univ. of Arizona Tucson, Ariz. 85721 Robert T. Chuck .0. Box 373 ionolulu, Hawaii 96809 illiam S. Holden, Ch. daho First National
Bank Bldg. daho Falls, Idaho
83401 ack Nicholson Ellis State Bank Ellis, Kansas 67637 ohn Sayre;P.O.Box 1260 oulder Colo. 80301 :ben S. Tisdale 21 Market St. an Francisco, Calif. • Renolutloa; _ Sid Kurth
Midland National Bank Building Billings, Montana 59101 Cyrus P. Shaughnessy St. Paul, Nebraska 68873 George B. Moseley P.C. Byx 218 L4rve1ock, Novala 89419 George W. Hannett BOA 581 Albuquerque, N.M. 87103 Richard P. Gallagher P.O. Box 192 Mandan, N.D. 58554 Clarence Base Geary, Oklahoma 73040 R. J.el*Saller 1310 Mohawk St. Bismarck, N.D. 58501 1'' Harold Henigson 106 Main St. Nyssa, Ore. 97913 _ PaymOnd F. Lund P. O. Box 1 Pierre, S.D. 57501 • J. W. Buchanan
I
Lumal, 1*,?xas 79029 _,eorge L. Crookham, Jr. .0. Box 651 aldwell, Idaho 83605 0.• llo!lezirch R.C. Setterstrom Montana Power Co. 40 F. Broadway Butte, Mont. 59701Dale Bohmont, Dean College of Agriculture U.niversity of Nevada Reno, Nevada 89507
Frank. Raab 535 State Capitol Oklahoma City, Okla.
73105
110
Marvin Shearer Ext. Irr. Spc. Agriculture Hall 202 Oregon State College Corvallis, Ore. 97331 Dr. John Stone, Dir. Extension Service S.D. State U. Brookings, D.C. Dr. J.R. Johnson Southwestern Great Plains Research Ctr. Bushland, Texas 79102
F. Gerald Irvine George D. Clyde, Ch. P.O. Bo/ 809 2987 S. 2nd West St. Salt Lake City, Utah Salt Lake City, Utah'
84110 84115
Sid E. Flanagan Rt. 1, Box 205 Quincy, Wash. 98848
Karl Reroer
Pyomin6 Water Dev. Assn 48 N. Main Street Wyomin6 82832 John Goodier Wyoming Natural Resource Board !Supreme Court Bldg. !Cheyenne, Wyo. James F. Sorensen, Ch. 303 Bank of America Visalia, Calif. 93277 H. W. Van Slyke P. 0. Box 675 Rupert, Idaho 83351; _ 1eginald Knox, Jr. 95 Broadway 1 Centro, Calif. 92243 wrnham Enerson,ConStilt: .01 California St. an Francisco C lif. alph Macdonald Alt .0. Box 415 orcoran, Calif. 93212 Land Mark Etchart Glasgow,Montana John C. Buttlemen Willow Creek, Mont.
Yi/60
---John C. Buttelman Willow Creek, Mont.
59760 , 1.,•,1 10 I i Harry Martens Wessington, S. Dakota 57381 J.F. Sturrock (07 Littlefield Bldg. Austin, Texas 78701 Ralph Richards P. O. Box 127 Oakley, Utah 84055 Roger Neff Box 612 Pasco, Wash. 99201 Don Brosz Extension Division U. of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming scar Barnes U. of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming 82071 - ---J.A. Riggins, Jr. Dept. Ch.
Title & Trust Bldg. Phoenix, Ariz. 85003
_ . Porter A. Towner Chief Counsel
Dept of Water Resources P.O. Box 388 Sacramento, Calif. 95602 Glenn G. Saunders 144 West Colfax Denver, Colo. 8; 2 A. H. Nielson, Atty Box 367 Burley, Idaho 63316
Burham Enerson (Alt) 601 California St. San Francisco, Calif.
94108 Rudy Harper 587 Oak Forsythe, ilontana Wm. C. Smith, Jr. Judge P.O. Box 27 Ainsworth, Nebraska 69210 - ---Cliff M. Jochim 1301 State Capitol Bismarck, N.D. 58501 ; William E. Berger Texas Water Rights Austin, Texas /8711
Harold E. Wallace 530 Judge Bldg. Salt Lake City, Utah
84011 Lorin W. Markham 102 W. Riverside Spokane, Wash. 99201
Tom Cahill
Atty. General's Office Capitol 811g. Cheyenne, iyo. Roger Ernst (Ros) P.O. Box 25()1 Phoenix, Ariz. 850,)2 Aiteinntes] Alit Jay R. Binghar Clerk 435 State Capitol Salt Lake City
Utah A A A 0 A A A 0 T A A ---Henry Shipley Salt River Valley Box 1980 W.U.A. Phoenix, Arizona
C Harry R. Woodward,Dir. O Game, Fish and Parks L (061) N. Broadway O Denver, Colorado
6021 Alfred Preis, State
Planning Coord. Dept. of Planning and
Econ. Development 426 South Queen St. Honolulu, Hawaii 9690,
Lynn Burris,Jr., Dir. Kansas State Park and Recreation Authority 801 Harrison Topeka, Kansas 6, 12 Pow. r Advisory Cooittec James F. Sorensen, Ch. 303 Bank of America Building Visalia, Calif. 93277 Felix L. Sparks 1525 Sherman St. Denver, Colo. 80203 Small Projects N. S. Gookin 607 Ariz. Savings Phoenix, Ariz. 85004 Doyle F. Boen, Ch. P.O. Box 248 Hemet, Calif. 92343 Laren D. Morrill,Sr. 1525 Sherman St. Denver, Colo. 80202 - ---Walter O. Watson, Jr. P.O. Box 373 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Carl Tappan State Capitol Bldg. Boise, Idaho 83712 -Kenneth Morrison Rt. 1 Higley, Ariz. 85236 Alternates R. J. McMullin (1) P. O. Box 1980 Phoenix, Ariz. Robert F. Carter
Imperial Irrigation Dist. Imperial, Calif. 92251 ---J. R. Barkley, Ch. P.O. Box 679 Loveland, Colo. 80537 James Y. Yoshimoto P.O. Box 373 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 ,lifford N. Scoresby Progressive Irrig. Dist. Iona, Idaho 83427
Robert V. Smrha
1026-S State Office Bldg. Topeka, Kansas 66603
Kenneth R. McSwain (Alt) P.O. Box 2288
Merced Irriaation Dist. Merced Calif. '5340
Alarles R. Neill
North Fork Water Cons. Dist. Hotchkiss, Colo. 81419
R (v.:. AcrtvE r(Thrcy-ro;culrivrtm-; COMA IMES 1
Power
Olt.O.00r :10croation Advisouy Coznittce
_ Hal. L. Schroeder Salt-Wahoo Watershed Div. Federal Security Bldg. Lincoln, Nebraska Dean Kastens, Adlin. State Park System 401 East Musser St. ✓ Carson City, Nevada
0101 X II A 0 A A 0 A X A A A 0 A
John A. Elliott, Dir. New Mexico State Park Comm. & Recreation P.O. Box 1147 Salta Fe, New Mexico
i/501 _ John Greenslit State Outdoor Recreation Coord. State Capitol Bismarck, N.D. 58501 Tye Bledsoe, Dir. Div. of State Parks
Resources Brd & Ping 500 Will Rogers Bldg. Oklahoma City, Okla.
L. E. Donegan 3010 Plymouth Ave. Lincoln, Neb. 68502 :van P. Head eh P. O. Box 1748
Las Vegas, Nev. 89101
— L. L. Baugh P.O. Box 1360 Albuquerque, N.M.
87103
Small Projects Water Users Committee Alternates A. D. McDermott
State Water Conserv. Board
Helena, Mont. 59601
Max Spatzierath
Toston, Montana 596431
J. R. Pringle Stan Matzke (1) P.O. Box 307 Route 2
Scottsbluff, Neb. Milford, Neb. 69861
Norman Hall, Dep. Carson City, Nevada
89701
E.M. Gregory, Ind. & Agric. Agent Great Northern RR St. Fargo, N.D. 58103 L. C. Strawn Route 4, Box 249 Tucumcari, N.M. 88401 Murray A. Baldwin 401 Oakland Ave. Fargo, N.D. 58101
Cuy N. Keith, Sec. Treas. Oklahoma Reclamation Assoc. Water Dev. Foundation
3101 Classen Bldg.
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73111.
(1) Comprise also Pollution Sub. Comm. ; OF ACfIVE 1oLICY-FOR11111,ATI1IG OW!! [1
Power
Advisory Co.wittee Small Projects Lewis A. Li his P,2rtland Chamber ,1 Corrnerce Portland, Orei,on 97264 Clayton Bushonq Federal Relations Spc. South Dakota Dept. of
Game, Fish & Parks The Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota John E. Babcock Loaer Colorado R. Auth. Texas Box 1153 Austin, Texas 76767 Robert W. Jensen 445 East Second South Salt Lake City, Utah
- ---Paul Hamilton Columbia Basin Comm. Ephrata, Washington 98823 ---Joe Bowen Box 247 Wheatland, Wyoming Harvey F. McPhail 343 State St. Room 202
Salt Lake City, Utah U. Maurice Ahlquist 1929 Forest Hills Dr. Olympia, Wash. 98501 ---John Coppes Farson, Wyoming 82932-_ M. T. Martin P.O. Box 148 Harlingen, Texas 78551 John Goodier Wyoming Natural
Re-source Board Supreme Court Bldg. Cheyenne, Wyoming
82001
;.',Iter Users Committee Paul L. House 17 S. First St. Nyssa, Oregon Alteriaates Walter C. Taylor Route 2 Rapid City, S.D. 57701 W. S. Gideon P. O. Box 1153 Austin, Texas Leo P. Harvey 307 E. First South Pleasant Grove, Utah
84062 Gale L. Sterling (1) P.O. Box 276 Ellensburg, Wash. 98926 Karl Powers (1) P.O. Box 50 Pavillion, Wyoming 82523
90Th t CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. 1429
APR 7 1967
TN THE SENATE OF TIIE -UNITED STATES
APRIL 5, 1967Mr. Moss (for himself, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CANNON,
Mr. FONG, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. MCGEE, Mr. METCALF, Mr. MUNDT, and Mr.
TowEn) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To provide for an investigation and study to recommend a general
plan to meet the future water needs of the Western United
States.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representa-2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3
SHORT TITLE
4
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Western
5United States Water Investigation Act of 1967."
6
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND DEFINITION
7
SEC. 2. (a) Congress hereby recognizes that assuring
8 adequate water for urban and rural areas of the Western
9 United States has become a problem of such magnitude to
II
RECD.
'
2
1 the welfare of the States therein, individually and as a region,
2 and to the Nation, as to require an overall examination
3 by the Federal Government acting in cooperation with the
4 States and river basin commissions, or other planning
5 organizations.
6
(b) For the purpose of this
Act--7
(1) the term "Western United States" includes the
8
States lying wholly or in part west of the ninety-seventh
9
meridian; and
10
(2) the phrase "river basin commission or other
11
planning organization" means a river basin conunission
12
established pursuant to the Water Resources Planning
13
Act for a river basin or basins located in whole or in
14
part within the Western United States, and
Federal-15
State interagency committees or similar planning
16
groups.
17
INVESTIGATION AUTIIORIZED18
Sm. 3.
(a.) The Secretary of the Interior
(herein-19
after referred to as the "Secretary") is authorized to make a
20 full and complete investigation and study for the purpose
21 of recommending a general plan to meet the future water
22
needs of the Western United States.
23
(b) In carrying out such investigation and study the
3
1
(
1
) shall give consideration to (A) establishing
2
reservoir systems, (B) establishing conveyance
facili-3
ties between river basins and other sources of supply,
4
(C) pollution control, (D) desalinization, (E) weather
5
modification, (F) means for more economical storage,
6
conveyance, and re-use of water, (G) cost
participa-7
tion by the States and subdivisions thereof and by other
8
local interest, and (H) such other matters as he may
9
determine;
10
(2) shall consult and coordinate his activities with
11
the Water Resources Council and other Federal agencies
12
having water planning authority, river basin
commis-13
sions and committees, and appropriate State agencies in
14
the Western United States;
15
(3) shall observe and be guided by principles,
16
standards, and procedures established by the Water
Re-17
sorffees Council;
18
(4)
may use the services and facilities of any
19
agency of the Federal Government, in accordance with
20
agreements between the Secretary and the head of such
21
agency; and
22
(5)
may use the services of any other Government
23
or private agency in accordance with contracts or other
24
arrangements.
4
1
REPORT
2
SEC. 4.
The Secretary shall prepare a final report of
3 such investigation and study, together with his
recommenda-4 tions, and shall, not later than thirty months after the date
5 of enactment of this Act, submit for their comments and
6
recommendations copies of such report to the Water
Re-7
sources Council and other Federal agencies concerned, each
8
river basin commission or committee, and the Governor of
9
each State in the Western United States. Not later than
10
three years after the date of enactment of this Act the
See-n retary shall submit such
report
to the President and the
Con-12
gress, together with such comments and recommendations
13
as have been submitted to the Secretary with respect to
14
such report.
15
LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION
16
SEC. 5.
Nothing in this Act shall be
construed-17
(1)
to authorize design planning in the detail
nec-18
essary to obtain construction authority;
19
(2) to affect either State or Federal jurisdiction
20
in resources management and control; or
21
(3) to
extend or limit the authority of the Water
22
Resources Council or river basin commissions and
23
committees.
1
APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED
2
SEC. 6.
There are authorized to be appropriated such
3
amounts as may be necessary to carry out the provisions
4 of this Act.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK E. MOSS (D-UTAH) UNITED STATES SENATE
APRIL 5, 1967
SUBJECT: WESTERN UNITED STATES WATER INVESTIGATION ACT OF 1967.
Mr. President, I introduce for myself and Senators Bennett, Bible, Burdick, Cannon, Fong, Inouye, McGee, Metcalf, Mundt and Tower, a bill to authorize an examination of the water supply in the western reclamation states.
In my opinion, this bill would not duplicate, but would supplement the water studies proposed in other pending legislation and the work now under-way in established agencies.
The water problems in reclamation states are peculiar to those states, and a survey directed specifically to them is long past due. Because many of these problems are common to all, and because these states are likewise bound together by numerous social and economic similarities, it is both
practical and feasible to examine the reclamation states as a single region. There are many advantages to an examination of an entity of this type. We would not be dealing with a river basin set off by natural boundaries. Neither would we be studying a vast and varied national area delineated by political boundaries. Instead we would be concentrating on a piece of real estate of intermediate size which includes a number of river basins, and in which man made boundaries are less formidable because of the affinity of interest. This would permit Federal and state planners to integrate concepts and effects of local water management, and to conceive and examine -- in coordinated efforts -- the broader alternatives for water supply.
COMMON PROBLEMS
Sections of almost all of the reclamation states -- often a major part of them -- face serious problems because of erratic precipitation. The pattern is much the same -- scanty rainfall during the warmest season, and heavy rainfall in the mountainous areas least adapted to settlement. Moreover, much of the runoff from these high mountain areas is depleted by bright sun-shine and a dry atmosphere. These factors make it difficult to use Western water resources for our national welfare.
-2-But a great deal has been done to unlock their wealth for the West, and to employ it as a sound base for wider settlement and expanding populations, In 1902 the Congress enacted the declamation Law, and the people of the
West responded magnificently to it. To date they have pledged to repay directly 90 percent of the Federal capital costs of important water resource development which has taken place. In addition, the people themselves have risked billions of dollars in collateral facilities to employ the water on site. The most likely sources of western water have now been developed, or are scheduled for development. Yet both the uses of water and the number of people dependent upon it continue to multiply. Migrations from the east have sent more than 3 1/2 million people into the reclamation states during the fifties alone. The migrations are continuing in the sixties. It is expected to increase by two thirds before the century turns. In spite of the galloping demand for more water, the West faces proscription both of sources of water and sites for power projects which could make more water Projects feasible. There is a growing feeling that the nation can "afford" to lock up in perpetual preservation in wilderness areas and national parks and other preserves --more and --more of our western lands. aybe we can afford to lock some of them up, but the very fact that such thinking continues to crop up nationally indicates that we need to move ahead quickly with a full survey of western water uses, needs and potentials.
CAREFUL PLANNING
Some of our western water problems are aggravated by our water practices. For example, when we increase withdrawals of water for con-sumption, we decrease the flows available to dilute the pollutants carried by the stream. The Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water Pollution Control says frankly: "Westerners must strive harder and plan even more carefully than elsewhere in the United States to achieve an adequacy of water supply."
-3-We are striving harder, and in evidence I could cite you costs of planning and development by the Western States and their lesser agencies. But, as the Secretary states, we must not only try harder, we must also "plan more carefully." And to plan more carefully we must relate concepts for the respective Western River Basins to each other and to the reclamation states as a whole. We must avoid making mistakes, and we must plan on a broad scale which will be in the best interests of all of the people in the region. Such planning would in turn facilitate a national evaluation of our resources as envisioned by the Senate in its Document No. 97.
ON A BROADER BASE
In making this examination we should, of course, make full use of the careful planning now underway within each river basin of the West. The states and Federal agencies are collaborating in projections of basin needs, and in basin-wide concepts of the potentials of storage, watershed manage-ment, river regulation, and the transportation of water. To enlarge that collaboration into regional guides -- guides to be examined by the Congress before detailed planning for construction moves too far ahead -- would be beneficial to all. It would integrate the results of basin work, as it becomes available, and help us to develop regional concepts. It would permit broader alternatives, and do so at the formative stage of the planning.
The question naturally arises -- is it really necessary that we enlarge from a basin to a regional concept? I think it is. Alternatives of Water
Management, published by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences in 1966, contains this statement:
"Although the drainage basin provides a coherent hydrologic unit for water control, it is not necessarily or even usually coincident with the ap-propriate social, political, or economic region within which society functions."
Other professional planners also advocate examining water and land resources in bites larger than river basins, but sMaller than the entire nation. In his book Natural Resources for U. S. Growth, published by Johns Hopkins Press in 1964, Hans Hi Lansberg says:
-4-"For many purposes the river basin is the best unit of area to use in considering water situations. In this study, however, much larger units are used. This is because demand must be projected as well as the more easily calculated prospects of supply. The uncertainties of projecting popula-tion, patterns of industrial growth, and other elements of demand for
particular areas are enormous; and the smaller the area, the greater the hazards. On the other hand.., the use of such very large areas inevitably blurs the analysis... National projections would conceal nearly all of the troublesome problems. But nation-wide estimates are of interest in making certain comparisons of trends in different kinds of water use.
REGIONAL ANALYSIS -- BUT BY WHOM?
Let us agree then, that concepts being developed within the basins of the West should be examined also in the larger environment of the reclamation states. This leads to the question: "should such regional concepts be de-veloped by the liTater Resources Council, or perhaps by the National Water
Commission, rather than by a working-level body?"
The first Session of the 89th Congress passed, and the President approved, the Northeastern United States Water Supply Act, and did so after the Water Resources planning Act became law. This action, strengthened by more substantial funding of the Northeastern Act by the Second Session of the 89th Congress, justifies two conclusions:
(1) When groups of rivers rise from opposite sides of water sheds, planning on a broader base than is authorized to River Basin Commissions is desirable.
(2) Authorizing such planning by a federal agency, out-side of the direct jurisdiction of the Water Resources Council, but tied to its principles and criteria, has the sanction of both the Legislative and the Executive branches of our government.
However, this principle of federal-state regional planning was initiated when the establishment of a National Planning Commission seemed far less likely than it does now. Would the duties of the Commission include the integration of basin work into concepts for groups of basins?
-5-Only when the National Water Commission -- expiring after a life of but five years -- has submitted its concluding report will this country really know how the Commissioners interpreted their mission. My careful reading of the bill, and my re-examination of the discussion when S. 20 was passed by the Senate, leads me to believe that the Commission has a higher mission than the nuts-and-bolts work of Western water planning. Rather than integratin{ regional plans, the Commissioners -- appointed by the President, and re-porting to him, and through him to the Congress -- must: (1) come to grips with fundamental questions; (2) study programs conceived by others; (3) review anticipated problems and make such projection of water requirements as may be necessary. They must do all this at the highest level. They will be a new body, beginning behind the starting line, with only a five-year tenure. If they are required to direct the integration of planning guides and concepts at regional levels it will detract from their national mission and defeat their objectivity in reviewing programs.
THE "WESTERN" BILL
And so I turn to details of the Western United States Water Supply Bill. It is patterned after the Northeastern Water Supply Act. The major differences in the pattern are:
(1) The Western States share a history of central administration through reclamation laws; the Northeastern States do not. (2)
( 3)
The Western bill specifically limits the scope of work to the outline of broad alternatives. Studies in detail re-quired to authorize construction would be prohibited. The Northeastern Act grants very much more authority.
The Department of the Interior -- comprised of many offices and bureaus administering natural resources-- would be responsible for the Western study. This not only would centralize control over the greater number of participating federal agencies, but also place responsbility for the work on the Cabinet officer who heads the Water Resources Council. The Northeastern Act merely authorizes planning in accord-ance with the Water Resources Planning Act.
(4) The Western proposal authorizes contracts for private in-vestigations as well as Federal -state studies. This would provide an amalgam of both private and public thinking at the working level.
tflb
-6-.
Both the Western proposal and the Northeastern Act retain considerable control by the Congress, promote tight coordination in the field, and safe-guard doubly the consideration of the views of each state. They do all of these to a greater extent than the Water Resources Council does, or the
National Water Commission would do, when established. And both will pro-vide a regional analysis which will facilitate national assessments to both the Council and the Commission.
A final point about the regard for the States in the Western proposal: Repeated attention is given to participation by the States. There are specific safeguards in Title II A requiring that the report must discuss values to the respective States, as well as systems for the basin and region wherever the difference is significant.
In concluding, I quote again from Alternatives for Water Management: "We need to know more about the regional effects of water development.
Regional water resource development may promote relative economic growth or decline as well as population re-distribution."
Certainly we agree on the need to know more about regional effects. The issues are whether it is practicable to find out more, and whether this Bill offers the best available means to do so. I urge that the test be given through your enactment of the "Western United States Water Supply Act of
1967."
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from Utah in sponsoring the Western United States Water Investiga-tion Act of 1967.
A comprehensive survey of water uses, needs, and potentials in the reclamation States is long overdue and will pay great dividends in the future.
Examination of the reclamation States as a single entity will allow consideration of social and economic factors, popula-tion projecpopula-tions and industrial devel-opment forecasts, all of which can be difficult on a smaller level.
The bill is visionary in all respects. As the Senator stated, migration to the western States will only increase in the future, making a study of the reclama-tion States as a single entity even more justified. It calls for cooperation with the States, river basin commissions, and other planning organizations.
I hope the measure will receive prompt consideration by the Senate.
TODAY'S LOOK AT DESALINIZATION
AND WEATHER MODIFICATION
Remarks of B. P. Be;Iport, Chief Engineer of the Bureau of
Reclamation, before the National Reclamation Association,
Honolulu, Hawaii, November 15, 1967.
I am pleased to be on this panel today. It has been some time
since a Chief Engineer has had the opportunity -to address your
con-vention and I am honored by the invitation.
It is also gratifying to tell you what is being done to develop new
sources of water before our existing supplies are entirely depleted.
You NRA members need no reminder of the critical state of this
dwindling resource.
Today there is new hope that offers promise of developments to
relieve this situation.
As you know, many schemes and plans have been advanced to
augment our water supplies and sources. Of these, we feel two are
especially promising: Desalting ocean and inland brackish water, and
modifying the weather to obtain managed precipitation from our
"rivers of the (y."
We at the Bureau of Reclamation are proud to have a very active
part in the research and development of both exciting programs. Our
approach is through the marshaling of the experience and specialized
skills of all scientific and engineering catajories in the Bureau.
The Bureau is in a unique position to assist in the two new
operational phases which are sure to follow. Added to our research
and development capabilities are years of experience in the
construc-tion and operaconstruc-tion of large water resources structures. This
knowl-edge will be drawn upon to plan the storage and movement of the
large quantities of water that will accrue from the exploitation of
water from both the oceans and the skies. Also our more than
200 existing reservoirs have capacities that can store augmented
flows on many western watersheds.
Today, without dwelling on technical details, I would like to
dis-cuss the progress and the states of the arts of desalting the vast
water resources of the oceans and underground inland seas and of
tapping the rivers of the skies.
Before describing the Bureau's participation in these two water
resources programs, let's briefly touch on that natural
phenomena--the hydrologic cycle--upon which both desalting and weaphenomena--ther
modifi-cation are based.
Actually, the idea of converting salt water to fresh water is
almost as old as civilization itself. Centuries ago Aristotle taught
that, "Vapor produced from sea water, when condensed, is no longer
salt." Much later, in 1791, Thomas Jefferson issued instructions to
United States merchant seamen on the construction and operation of
a sea water distillation device. And as for coaxing precipitation from
the heavens, the legendary rainmakers of all civilizations have plied
their trade for centuries.
So, while not recognizing the hydrologic cycle as we understand
it today, people of all the ages dreamed of increasing their supplies
of fresh water from the skies and from the oceans. An amazing
correlation exists between man's ability to progress or even survive
and his ability to utilize the hydrologic cycle. Civilizations have
prospered or perished accordingly.
Until now, however, the cycle's supply of surface water in
rivers and lakes, together with wells and springs and normal
pre-cipitation, had to suffice in this country.
Today, as we are too painfully aware, new dependable water
supplies must be found where needed and at places of our own
choosing. Water supplies for the future must come from not two
but from all four interrelated sources in the hydrologic cycle, not
only from our hard-pressed streams, lakes and ground-water
aquifers, but from the oceans and atmosphere as well. The
poten-tials of each must be studied, developed, and integrated to meet the
water requirements of any particular region or locality. The
pros-pects are good, but I also caution that as with any scientific
pur-suit, breakthroughs aren't reckoned in weeks or months. The cost
in time and money is high--but the prize is worth it.
Of the two dissimilar but related efforts--weather modification and
desalting--let's consider the two in that order, separately.
Weather modification is a broad term. It may apply equally, not
only to increasing precipitation from the atmosphere, but also as a
device for hurricane modification, lightning and hail suppression,
fog and severe local storm control. In the context of Bureau work,
we are now using the term "precipitation management" which more
realistically describes our "cloud seeding" research and development
efforts.
How does cloud seeding work? Cloud droplets form in areas of
rising air currents. As the air moves upward into lower pressure
surroundings aloft, it expands and cools. Upon reaching the
dew-point temperature, liquid droplets form (just as water condenses out
of the air onto the outside of a glass of iced tea). As the cloud
droplets are lifted still farther, their temperature falls below freezing,
yet they remain in liquid form, that is, they are supercooled.
The cloud droplets, which condense on microscopic condensation
nuclei, are so small that they fall exceedingly slowly. For precipitation
elements the size of raindrops or snowflakes to form, about a thousand
cloud droplets must unite. This can occur when supercooled liquid
cloud droplets and water vapor freeze on ice crystals.
Formation of ice crystals is the key to the precipitation process.
Nature, frequently inefficient, usually doesn't provide an ample supply
of nuclei upon which ice crystals will form. Cloud seeding
tech-niques make up the deficit, thus assuring the necessary formation
of the crystals.
The ice crystals then grow at the expense of the surrounding
supercooled cloud droplets, become snowflakes, and descend. If the
temperature is above freezing at the earth's surface, they melt and
become raindrops before reaching the ground.
The United States annually receives precipitation averaging
30 inches or 5 billion acre-feet of water. The net amount after
evaporation and transpiration is 1,300 billion gallons per day or
7,000 gallons per person per day. This would be adequate now and
for some time in the future except that this quantity is not
pre-cipitated at the times or places needed.
Not only is precipitation distribution irregular, population
distribution is poorly related to it in the continuing migration to
major metropolitan areas and the Western States. These population
trends in western growth accent the acute demands on already short
water supplies in many areas. For example, Phoenix, Arizona, is a
city in a severely deficient water supply area, yet has one of the
highest growth rates in the nation.
Ironically, according to a report of the United Nations' World
Meteorological Organization, in an average week in _My the
atmos-phere carries 15 million acre-feet of water over the dry State of
Arizona. Put another way, in some years this is more than the
total annual flow of the Colorado River, upon which Arizona and
parts of six other states depend for much of their water.
Obviously, this does not offer an automatic solution of Arizona's
water problems through precipitation management because atmospheric
conditions are rarely right in July for large-scale precipitation
operations.
How, then, are we proceeding with our research and development
program, which we term Project Skywater, leading up to operational
precipitation management? About 90 percent of the Bureau's
atmospheric research is conducted through contracts and agreements
with other Federal agencies, universities, and private meteorological
firms. The policy is to take research where the knowledge and
capabilities are and maintain only a Bureau staff of scientists and
meteorologists for efficient program management.
At present, Project Skywater's field experiments in 11 Western
States, laboratory research, and other investigations are progressing
through 19 contracts with 12 universities, 3 private meteorological
firms, a State agency, and 7 agreements with other Federal agencies.
Additionally, special reports and consulting services have been
acquired from 8 of the nation's leading scientists and engineers.
Also, to coordinate efforts and to benefit from mutual experiences,
the Bureau's Office of Atmospheric Water Resources has working
arrangements with other agencies involved in weather modification:
the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Atmospheric
Research, National Aeronautical and Space Agency, Bonneville Power
Administration, and the Department of Defense. Equipment is shared,
research proposals reviewed, technical information exchanged, and
scientific advice furnished through these arrangements.
The programs are presently confined to the Western United States,
and administered by the Office of Atmospheric Water Resources at the
Bureau's Denver Engineering and Research Center. Our Office of
Atmospheric Water Resources predicts reliable cloud seeding operations
in selected areas of the Upper Colorado Basin by 1972.
These programs are for increasing precipitation in the headwaters
of river basins rather than on local terrain. The target areas
selected to date have been invariably on Federally owned lands. We
seek targets of a place and time of our own choosing.
The expected new water would be available as increased runoff
into streams and reservoirs. Eventual production costs of $1 to $4 an
acre-foot are anticipated for the additional water with possible benefits
ranging from $5 to $50 and higher per acre-foot.
A source of Project Skywater's magnitude would, of course,
require even greater development of our rivers and streams for
conservation purposes than in the past. A limiting factor on most
darn, reservoir, and control works is the availability of water.
Increased precipitation will likely come in areas where the most snow
and rain have fallen in the past for--and let me emphasize this
point--you simply cannot make rain out of a clear sky but can only
trigger new storms or augment existing ones when cloud conditions
are right.
Project Skywater is only one part of the national program in
weather modification research. Fog control, lightning and hail
suppression, severe local storm control, and hurricane modification
are other aspects conducted by various other Federal agencies. All
programs, as well as basic research in weather modification conducted
by the National Science Foundation, are coordinated through the
Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences which reports
to the President's Science Advisor.
Now let's look at another phase of the hydrologic cycle as source
of new water supply—desalination of sea and inland brackish water.
By the way, the term for the process of getting fresh water from salt
water has undergone a complete evolution in the last few years. It
has gone from desalinization or demineralization through desalination
and now the accepted simpler more expressive word is desalting.
By the year 2000 the estimated daily water consumption in the
United States will be 830 billion gallons but with only 515 billion
gallons available from conventional sources. One very promising
and certainly the biggest source to meet this impending shortage is
the ocean.
What greater potential source of fresh water exists than in the
oceans and seas that occupy 71 percent of the globe's surface and
contain an estimated 329 million cubic miles of water, or 97 percent
of the water on this planet. Complementing this potential source
are the ancient inland seas trapped under vast areas of the continents,
with an untold and undetermined quantity of brackish water.
In this country, Congress established the Office of Saline Water
in 1952 to coordinate and
Isexpan
esalting research. At that time,
the cost of converting
water to fresh water was approximately
•salt
$5 per 1,000 gallons. Today the cost in many areas is approaching
$0.30 per 1,000 gallons and promises to go much lower with the
advent of dual-purpose nuclear power-desalting plants.
Six short years ago, the press was hailing the imminent
con-struction of desalting plants, both inland and coastal, in various
parts of the world. By the end of 1965, 566 land-based plants, each
with a capacity of 25,000 gallons or more per day were in operation.
By January 1 of this year the figure had risen to approximately
660 plants
-The desalting program began in 1954 with a modest annual budget
of $175,000. This effort had grovvn to $26 million in fiscal year 1966
following the President's instructions in 1965 to push research "as if
you knew you were going to run out of drinking water in the next
6 months."
How does desalting work? Sea water contains 35,000 parts of
total dissolved solids per million parts of water, the largest percentage
is sodium chloride, or plain table salt, with lesser amounts of a
variety of other chemicals. The less saline or salty brackish water,
widely distributed in the ground throughout this country and the
world carries from 1,000 up to 35,000 parts of solids per million
parts of water. The standard for potable, or drinking, water is
500 or less parts of dissolved solids per million parts of water.
While many methods are available, basically desalting is an
artificial process of removing the salt from salt water and leaving
fresh water, or, in reverse, a process of removing water from the
salt. The distinction is important.
The flash distillation process, of the many considered, is most
promising so far for large-scale sea water desalting. Used in a
dual-purpose nuclear power-desalting system, it appears to be the one
most likely to produce the lowest cost fresh water. Here, in a
multistage, flash distillation operation under various conditions of
temperature and pressure, the water is removed from the salt. The
cost of desalting will be relatively low because the heat used is a
by-product in the generation or electricity from nuclear power.
One stipulation, however, is imperative with this statement: That
this desalting process be the adjunct of a nuclear powered electric
powerplant to provide the thermal requirements as a by-product at
a relatively low cost. An early plant of this type went into operation
at San Diego in 1961, with a capacity of one million gallons per day,
and was later dismantled and moved to Cuba when fresh water was
shut off from the Guantanamo Naval Base.
The first large commercial desalting plant to employ this system
is a joint venture of various Federal agencies and private firms.
Scheduled for construction by the Metropolitan Water District off the
coast of Southern California, this plant is a prime example of the
flash distillation method. Here sea water conversion will eventually
result in fresh water production of 150 million gallons per
day--water for 3/4 million people--with generating capacity of 1.8 million
kilowatts--for the needs of 2 million people--from the nuclear
powerpiant.
Construction and accessory materials to be used in large-scale
flash distillation plants will be subjected to severe physical and
chemical punishment from extremes of pressure, temperature, and
salinity.
Solutions to the problems arising from these extreme conditions
are being sought at the Bureau's Denver Engineering and Research
Center, through agreements with the Office of Saline Water, under
every imaginable condition anticipated in operating flash distillation
plants.
The Bureau of Reclamation, working jointly with the Office of
Saline Water, and the Atomic Energy Commission, has studied siting,
sizing, and economics of large nuclear desalting plants. The Bureau
was assigned the task of obtaining information on present and future
project water and power requirements and preparing designs and cost
estimates for site development, sea water intakes and distribution
systems. Designs and cost estimates for reactors and evaporator
plants were made by Oak Ridge National Laboratories under the
general direction of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Office of
Saline Water.
We turn now to another aspect of water desalting, a vast source
of new supply, the brackish waters of the ancient seas and other
salty waters trapped underground in large areas of the United States.
Conversion of brackish water to fresh water requires somewhat
different methods and equipment than does conversion of more highly
concentrated salt sea water to fresh water. Basically it's the same
idea--removal of salt from the water or water from the salt.
Again, under contracts with the Office of Saline Water, the
Bureau has a very active part in this program. In addition to our
laboratories at Denver, we established a field testing station in 1961
on a farm near Longmont, Colorado. This is an area with unusually
severe saline ground and water conditions, so bad in fact that farmers
were obliged to haul water from town taps, until the availability of
Colorado-Big Thompson Project supplies.
Two desalting methods are under investigation at this farm:
electrodialysis and reverse osmosis. It's not a question of
workability--each is based on long-established chemical and physical
principles--but a question of fresh water production costs. The key
features of both processes are the organic membrane each employs
and the energy input required to consummate the process.
Initially, electrodialysis testing equipment was installed at the
farm. This process removes salts from brackish water by separation
through special membranes under the influence of electric current
and is a very complicated process I won't attempt to explain. This
testing program seeks the solution of critical *problems in the process,
leading to more economical desalting of brackish water.
The electrodialysis process has been used since 1962 in an Office
of Saline Water demonstration plant at Webster, South Dakota, designed
by the Bureau of Reclamation, an installation with a capacity of
325,000 gallons per day of potable water. Here, with a four-stage
operation, Webster raw water is reduced from 1,600 parts per million
to 550 parts of dissolved solids per million.
Reverse osmosis, another complicated desalting process for
brackish water, very promising because of certain advantages in low
operating and materials cost over other methods, is under extensive
study at the farm and in the Bureau's Denver laboratories. Both
reverse osmosis and electrodialysis depend on membranes to separate
the salt from the water, but in the former, only mechanical pressure
rather than electric current is required. Bureau engineers have
recently installed reverse osmosis equipment in a test facility at
Roswell, New Mexico. The reverse osmosis process, also, has
possibilities for desalting of sea water where a low cost heat source
is not available.
There is an interesting sidelight in desalting efforts: While our
obvious concern in this country in desalting water is to obtain fresh
water, the reverse is true in Japan which has a serious shortage
of salt for domestic, industrial, and fishery uses. The Japanese
are after the salt rather than the fresh water!
Before concluding, I shall mention a specific agreement the
Bureau has with the Office of Saline Water, one which will be of
considerable interest and importance to the water users and
irrigators at this convention.
The agreement calls for extensive studies by the Bureau into the
value of desalted water for irrigation as a dilutant for a more saline
natural water source. Use of less mineralized water should permit
more effective reuse of water downstream and improve quality for
municipal and industrial purposes. The reduction of the mean
concentration of the soil solution would produce benefits which
might include a shift of the cropping pattern from high-salt-tolerant,
low income crops to low-salt-tolerant, high income crops. It would
also contribute toward higher yield levels for the same crops.
The results of this investigation will also be useful and applicable
in the United States-Mexico Joint Desalting Study agreement, signed
in 1965, between the United States, Mexico, and the International
Atomic Energy Agency to study and meet the electric and water needs
of the region north of the Gulf of California by means of a
dual-purpose nuclear power and desalting facility. It will also serve in
a wide range of problems and circumstances elsewhere.
Earlier I emphasized that the ultimate solution of the country's
water problems--to put water where, when, and in the quality and
quantity needed—rests in the complete correlation of existing water
resources with the potential water resources of the oceans and the
skies.
Now I would go one more and final step and tell you that in the
quest for complete mobilization of our total resources we are not
relaxing for an instant in other research and development work
likewise vitally related to existing and potential water supplies. For
example, we at the Bureau constantly seek to improve water quality
and water management practices, to reduce water losses from
evaporation, evapotranspiration, and seepage. These efforts, together
with those involving the betterment of Reclamation works, add up to
some 200 research and development projects in the field and at the
Denver laboratories.
I invite you to visit us at our Engineering and Research Center
in Denver where our research and design engineers will be glad to
discuss their water resources developments and studies with you.
Again, I express my pleasure in having this opportunity to be
with you today.
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION 36TH ANNUAL CONVENTION
Hilton Hawaiian Village Hotel Honolulu, Hawaii
November 12-17, 1967
TENTATIVE CONVENTION PROGRAM
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 11
TRAVEL DAY -- Beginning of arrivals from Mainland
C < 55 c,2),J
Cv. fa,;
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 12
Registration 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
NRA Board Meeting 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Committee Meetings 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Aloha Cocktail Party 6:00 - 8:00 p.m.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13 State Caucuses
Opening and Welcoming Addresses
GENERAL SESSION
Panel of Speakers -- Hawaiian Water Use and Development Luncheon and Keynote Speaker
Committee Meetings and Field Trip
4 Z/C / // Evening - Free TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14 8:00 - 9:30 a. m. - 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. 12:30 - 2:00 p.m. 2:00 - 5:00 p.m.
State Caucuses 8:00 - 9:30 a.m.
GENERAL SESSION 9:30 a.m. - 124- p.m.
Panel of Speakers -- Power
f k - ik
WQ
St Or VILuncheon
and
Main SpeakerCommittee Meetings and Field 'flip
P s h Hawaiian Luau Stckt 11 v
12e30 —
2:00 p.m. 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m.
-2-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, State Caucuses
GENERAL SESSION
Panel of Speakers -- Irrigation Water
^,t(
8:00 - 9:30 a.m.
9:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Luncheon and Main Speaker 12:30 - 2:00 p.m.
Committee Meetings and Field Trip 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. Evening - Free
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16
State Caucuses 8:00 - 9:30 a.m.
GENERAL SESSION
Panel of Speakers -- vsiater Pollution
R
eit,d7, z fr i. -Wei-A-rho"Panel of Speakers -- Recreation Luncheon and Congressional Panel
(Chairman Aspinall and Six Congressional Panel Members)
Committee Meetings and Field Trip All States Banquet
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17
Business Session and Committee Chairmen Reports
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18
Optional -- Neighbor Island Tours depart from Honolulu 9:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. 12:30 - 2:00 p.m. 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m. 9:00 a.m. - 12 noon
Calendar
No.476
90Tu CONGRESS } SENATE REPORT
iSt Session No. 491
RECL.
1967
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM.
AUGUST 4, 1967.—Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of August 3, 1967
Air. CHURCH, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 119]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 119) to reserve certain public lands for a National Wild Rivers System, to provide a procedure for adding additional public lands and other lands to the system, and or other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with
amend-ment(s) and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
PURPOSE
This bill, S. 119, will establish a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and thereby preserve and protect some of America's unspoiled and free-flowing streams, or their segments, that symbolize this vanishing heritage of our original landscape.
NEED
Many of our remaining free-flowing rivers are under threat of dams, pollution, and other destructive assault. If some of them are to be saved or restored to their natural state, legislative action is urgent. That is the objective of S. 119, which sets out in its statement of policy- the need to balance the national policy of dam building with a policy of preserving selected rivers or sections thereof that possess unique conservation, scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation values. The bill prohibits the Federal Power Commission from licensing the construction of dams on a wild or scenic river except where such action might be specifically authorized by Congress.
2 NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM
It also establishes a moratorium on licensing dams during a 5-year period on certain rivers listed for study as possible future inclusions in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
BACKGROUND
In 1962 the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, a bipartisan Commission established by the Congress to evaluate the outdoor recreation needs of the nation, recommended that:
Certain rivers of unusual scientific,. esthetic, and recrea-tional value should be allowed to remain in their free-flowing state and natural setting without manmade alterations. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, in. 1963, initiated a "Wild Rivers Study." Their objective was to in-vestigate further the need for conservation of a nationwide system of wild rivers, to develop and establish suitable criteria and methods for evaluating particular rivers or segments thereof, and to identify those rivers or streams having "wild river" qualities to an outstanding degree.
From more than 650 rivers, 67 were selected for preliminary field reconnaissance by special study teams. Based on this reconnaissance study, segments of 17 rivers and a number of their tributary streams were then selected for more detailed investigation. This detailed study was completed in 1964 and served as a basis for the recom-mendations contained in the initial wild rivers proposal.
The President, in his natural beauty message to the Congress, called for wild rivers preservation. He expressed the view that the time has come to identify and preserve free-flowing stretches of our great scenic rivers before growth and development make the beauty of the unspoiled waterway only a memory.
On this foundation of study and interest, Senator Church, for himself and 28 other Senators, submitted the wild rivers proposal to the Congress on March 3, 1965. It became S. 1446, 89th Congress. Hearings by the full Interior and Insular Affairs Committee were conducted April 22 and 23, and a special task force of the committee conducted field hearings at Green River, Wyo., May 17,!and at Boise, Idaho, May 18.
On September 15, the committee voted to favorably report the bill, with minority views (S. Rept. 792, to accompany S. 1446, 89th Cong.). On January 19, 1966, the Senate passed the bill, with amendments, by a vote of 71 to 1.
However, the bill was not acted upon in the House prior to adjourn-ment of the 89th Congress, and Senator Church reintroduced the measure as S. 119 on January 11, 1967, with 38 cosponsors.
Hearings were conducted on S. 119 and S. 1092, the administration bill to provide for a national system of scenic rivers, April 13 and 14. Following an executive session on July 26 that adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute which included some of the provisions in the administration bill, S. 1092, the committee voted to favorably report the bill, S. 119, to establish a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
AMENDMENTS
The scope of the original bill which passed the Senate last year has been expanded to recognize and define two types of rivers, namely,
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM
3
"wild" and "scenic" rivers. The definition of a wild river area was revised and the definition of a scenic river was added. Recognition of these two types of rivers means that the national system will be made up of both wild river areas and scenic river areas.
The Eleven Point River in Missouri was considered in last years' bill to be a wild river but in this measure is classified as a national scenic river. Recommended for immediate inclusion in the new na-tional system is the St. Croix River in Wisconsin and Minnesota. A bill to create the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway passed the Senate in the last session, but because that river contains segments which fit the definitions of both wild and scenic river areas, it was decided to add it to this bill. The Illinois River in Oregon and the Wolf River in Wisconsin are new additions to the group of rivers recommended for immediate inclusion in the national system. Several new rivers are listed for study as to possible inclusion in the national system at a later date.
Provisions for planning new additions to the system were expanded to require local public hearings on any addition to the system and to allow the State legislatures to make their recommendations known if they so desire.
Provisions were added to encourage the development of State and local wild and scenic rivers and to protect the owners of improved
property which may be acquired.
Therefore, in order to simplify- consideration, the committee amended the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting the agreed upon language in the nature of a substitute.
RIVERS IN SYSTEM
A national wild river area, as defined by S. 119, is one located in a sparsely populated, natural, and rugged environment where the river is free flowing and unpolluted, or where the river should be restored to such condition, in order to promote sound water conservation, and promote the public use and enjoyment of the scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation values.
Rivers or segments of rivers which would be designated as wild river areas for the initial system are the Middle Fork of the Salmon and the Middle Fork of the Clearwater in Idaho, the Rogue and Illinois in Oregon, the Rio Grande in New Mexico, the St. Croix in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the Wolf in Wisconsin.
Some of these same rivers have segments which are also designated as scenic river areas, including the Rogue and Illinois in Oregon, and the St. Croix in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Other national scenic river areas would be on the Eleven Point in Missouri and the Name-kagon in Wisconsin.
A national scenic river area as defined by the bill is a river area that is unpolluted and which should be left in its pastoral or scenic attrac-tiveness, or that should be restored to such condition, in order to protect, develop, and make accessible its significant national outdoor recreational resources for public use and enjoyment.
Twenty-seven rivers or river segments are listed for study for possible future inclusion in the bill.
By agreement between the two Senators from Idaho, Mr. Church and Mr. Jordan, the main section of the Salmon in Idaho, from the
4
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEMtown of North Fork to its confluence with the Snake River, was placed in this list of rivers for study for possible future inclusion. The Middle Fork of the Sahnon and the Middle Fork of the Clearwater (including its tributaries, the Lochsa and the Selway) remain, however, in the initial system as national wild river areas.
At the request of the two Senators from Wyoming, Mr. McGee and Mr. Hansen, the Green River in Wyoming was removed from the group of rivers for study.
The Jackson County (Oregon) Chapter of the Izaak Walton League recommended the inclusion of the Illinois, a tributary of the Rogue River in Oregon, for inclusion in the initial system as a result of a series of public meetings in the Rogue River Basin. The segmentation of the Roane and Illinois into specific "wild" and "scenic' areas also follows the chapter's recommendations.
ADMINISTRATION
Administration of the rivers in the system would be by either the Secretary of Interior or Agriculture, or the Secretaries jointly, based upon their administrative areas; or jointly with the States, or States and local governmental agencies, or by the States or local governmental agencies, exclusively. States would be encouraged to cooperate in the planning and administration of such areas where they include State-owned or county-State-owned lands. The Secretary of Interior is directed to provide technical assistance and advice and to cooperate with States, interstate agencies, political subdivisions, and nonprofit private organizations with respect to establishing wild and scenic river areas. The bill has been referred to as an extension or corollary of the Wilderness Act, but its provisions are not nearly as restrictive. A national wild or scenic river area will be administered for its esthetic, scenic, historic, fish and wildlife, archeologic, scientific, and recrea-tional features, based on the special attributes of the area. However, it will not prohibit the construction of roads or bridges, timber har-vesting and livestock grazing, and other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. Mining will be allowed to continue, although claims located after the effective date of the act may be subject to regulation to conform to the system, particularly to prevent pollution.
Also, it is the legislative intent that nothing in this act shall inter-fere with or diminish the authority and right of State and local gov-ernmental entities to call upon and obtain the aid of Federal and other agencies in emergencies, such as, for example, floods or forest fires, in any national wild or scenic river area.
CONDEMNATION
Subsection 5(d) places a limitation on condemnation, by providing that where 50 percent or more of the acreage within the entire national wild or scenic river area is owned by Federal, State, or local govern-ments, neither Secretary can condemn for acquisition of fee title but may condemn for scenic easements. The committee approved this limitation because it believed that rivers flowing through this amount of public land could amply provide bank-land areas for public access and facilities without the need for the fee acquisition of property. In
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM
5
adopting this limitation, the committee wishes to stress that it is peculiar to the problems of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and should not be regarded as a precedent limiting condemna-tion in other cases where areas may be dedicated to public use and benefit.
Under subsection 5(d) wherever the power of condemnation is conferred, the Secretaries are limited to acquiring a maximum of 100 acres per mile on both sides of the stream, tributary, or river, in fee title. Section 5(a) sets the maximum acreage for boundaries of a national wild and scenic river area at 320 acres per mile on both sides of the stream, tributary, or river.
Subsection 5(f) provides that neither Secretary can condemn lands within any incorporated city, village, or borough as long as such entities have in force a duly, adopted valid zoning ordinance that is satisfactory to the appropriate Secretary.
It is the intention of the committee that both Secretaries shall encourage local units of government to adopt zoning ordinances which are consistent with the purposes of this act and that where such valid zoning ordinances are in effect and where there is no need for further Federal acquisition that the appropriate Secretary will suspend acqui-sition of scenic easements and fee title. For example, it is intended that in that section of the St. Croix River described in section 3 (b) (1) that acquisition will be limited to less than 1,000 acres to be used as access points and that the remainder of that segment will be primarily controlled by local zoning ordinances.
WATER RIGHTS
The language contained in subsection 6(f) is intended by the com-mittee to preserve the status quo with respect to the law of water rights. No change is intended. The first sentence states that estab-lished principles of law will determine the Federal and State juris-diction over the waters of a stream that is included in a wild river area. Those established principles of law are not modified. The third sentence states that with respect to possible exemption of the Fed-eral Government from State water laws the act is neither a claim nor a denial of exemption. Any issue relating to exemption will be determined by established principles of law as provided in the first sentence. The second sentence would apply to this legislation the principle of compensation embraced by section 8 of the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, 390, found in 43 U.S.C. 383). This means that the Government must pay just compensation for a water right taken for wild river purposes if the water right is a vested property right under established principles of State or Federal law. See U.S. v. Gerlach (339 U.S.725).
Subsection 6(j) makes it clear that designation of a stream or its portion thereof is not to be considered a reservation of unappropriated waters other than for the purposes of this act—and in no greater quantities than are necessary for those purposes.
It should be made clear that it is the intention of the committee that the Federal Government may reserve only such unappropriated waters as may be required for the purposes specified in this act. The establishment of a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System is not intended to affect or impair any prior valid water right vested under State or Federal law.
6
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEMBALANCED DEVELOPMENT
In its selection of rivers to be included in the initial system of wild and scenic rivers, and in the study group of rivers for possible later inclusion in the system—with a 5-year moratorium on the licensing of dams on the latter—the committee is cognizant that there are many other rivers throughout the United States which may qualify for the system. The bill establishes procedures by which these may be added. The committee did not review all the rivers of the United States in acting upon this bill. However, the committee did give particular attention to the middle Snake River watershed in Idaho and Oregon. The Middle Fork of the Clearwater and the Middle Fork of the Salmon, both part of the watershed, will become initial streams in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System established by S. 119. The main Salmon River will be studied for possible future inclusion in the system.
The Middle Fork of the Snake, also an area of great beauty, con-tains the location of the proposed High Mountain Sheep Dam just above the confluence of the Snake and the Salmon. This is the last undeveloped site on the Snake River for a great storage dam. The committee took cognizance of this fact in not considering inclusion of the Middle Fork of the Snake in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The committee believes that exclusion of this portion of the Snake River watershed is in keeping with a balanced natural resource program.
COST
Total cost of land acquisition and development of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System over the next 10 years has been esti-mated to be $40 million, based on the initial rivers in the system.
FUTURE BASIN PLANNING
In view of the congressional policy to protect. wild and scenic river values throughout the Nation, the bill requires all Federal agencies that are engaged in water resources planning to include in their planning reports a discussion of any potential wild or scenic river areas that may be involved. In addition to this general requirement, the planning agencies are required to consider wild and scenic river values as a potential alternative use when making plans on rivers designated by the Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture. These requirements will assure proper consideration of potential wild and scenic river values during the planning process.
COMMITTEE POSITION
The committee believes there is urgent need to establish a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System now, and strongly recommends the approval of S.119 as reported to the Smite.
EXECUTIVE AGENCY REPORTS
The executive communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior in submitting and recommending the ad-ministration's scenic river bill to the Congress, together with
