ittk.
1 i9/4
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 897 National Press Building
Washington, D. C. 20004
June 25, 1974
Mr. James H. Carter
Horton, Knox, Carter & Foote Attorneys at Law
Suite 101, Law Building 895 Broadway
El Centro,California 92243 Dear Jim:
From the enclosed letter you note that I have put your case to EPA. I put it in general terms rather than in the specifics of the Imperial Irrigation District so to obviate EPA's going to the field to determine what local officials may have been advising you. In my experience as a Bureaucrat this promotes a more objective beginning. Further, it tends to establish a principle which interests EPA as reducing the number of cases otherwise to reach its office.
In about three weeks if that is not too long for you -I will follow with a telephone call and a personal visit.
Blind Copy to:
J. R. Barkley, President, NURA P.O.Box 679
Loveland, Colo. 80537
Mr. Henry F. Vancik, Manager Roza Irrigation District P.O.Box 810
Sunnyside, Wash. 98944
Sincerely,
Carl Bronn
June 25, 1974
Environmental Protection Agency 401 M St., S.pi.
Washington D.C. 20460
Attention: Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and Standards
Dear Ms. Regelson:
This is a request for policy about used irrigation waters within an entity applying for permits to discharge polutants into the
Nation's waters.
At issue is the status, as regards P.L. 92-500, of water in descrete conveyances within the boundaries of any entity applying for permits which will cover all discharges at points outdide of the entity. The used water at issue does not replenish ground waters ... it is merely being conveyed, under exclusive control of the entity, to project boundaries.
This Association is preparing to advise entities that applica-tions for permits on internal conveyances need not, under the
conditions stated, be made under P.L. 92-500. Nor need measurements of quality and quantity of such waters be furnished to any agency enforcing P.L. 92-500.
If you will either confirm this or provide different policy, I would be grateful. Your reply will be furnished to our members in the Reclamation States. This will permit our working in con-certed action - rather than by dozens or hundreds - toward
accomodation.
Blind Copy to:
Mr. James H. Carter
Horton, Knox, Carter & Foote Attorneys at Law
Suite 101, Law Building 895 Broadway
El Centro, California 92243
Sincerely,
Carl Bronn
Executive Director
J. R. Barkley, President, NWRA P.O. Box 679
Loveland, Colo. 80537
Mr. Henry F. Vancik, Manager Roza Irrigation District P.O. Box 810
June 21, 1974
Mr. Jack Barnett Executive Director
Western States hater Council 1725 University Club Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Jack:
In a meeting at the Utah Hotel of the Executive Committee, after our discussions in your office, we considered desirable our continuing the exchange of ideas initiated. Therefore, I invite you to meet with the Directors in Denver at the Brown Palace Hotel on either July 25 or the morning of the 26th - whichever is most convenient to you.
We would like to have you update us on the interests of the 4estern States Water Council in criteria for water development, impacts of energy goals on water needs and rights, and dealing with the Federal Government on water quality.
Sincerely,
J. R. Barkley President
RECD.
titrllOHA
ASSOC
Mr. Charles Roe Manager, Symposium of Attorneys General North Shore Motor InnCoeur D'Alene, Idaho 83814 Dear Mr. Roe:
JUN
2 4.197,4
J. R. BARKLEY, President JOHN W. SIMMOlirer (Colorado) (Texas)
ROBERT T. CHUCK, Vice-President J. A. RIGGINS JR., Past President (Hawaii) (Arizona)
JOHN A. ROSHOLT, Vice-President (Idaho)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
June 19, 1974
Some of the attorneys attending your Idaho meeting may be interested in the interpretations of the Land Use Planning bill voiced by members of Congress during the recent House debate. Drawing on my experience during the formation of the legislation, I have excerpted a few remarks of special significance to future actions for Federal land use legislation. Fifteen copies of the excerpts are enclosed.
You are probably interested in future actions to satisfy citizens for some kind of national guidance about the uses of so-called "national" lands. The fourth page of the enclosure suggests a course of action.
Sincerely, 'r Carl Bronn Executive Director Enclosure: 15 copies
Information copies to:
All members, NWRA Board of Directors All members, NWRA Resolutions Committee
Mr. John A. Rosholt, Land Use Committee(4 copies) Executive Secretaries of State Associations
(w/c enclosure to each)
DIRECTORS
J. A. (Ted) Riggins, Jr., Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho
Ray Cudney, Kans. Hubert G. White, Mont.
Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Roland Westergard, Nev. Jerry D. Geist, N. Mex.
Vernon Fahy, N.D. Clarence Base, Okla. Harold Henigson, Ore. Homer Engelhorn, S. D. John W. Simmons, Tex. Edward H. Southwick, Utah
E. F. (Don) Doncaster, Wash. Karl Bergner, Wyo.
Ronald I. Cross
Railroad Representative, Texas Carl H. Bronn
EXCERPTS from the Congressional Record of June 11,1974
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10294, LAND-USE PLAN-NING ACT
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, by direc-tion of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolutioh 1110 and ask for its immediate consideration.
• Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule :.,nd take this position because I am convinced that the bill which it makes in order should be re-turned to the Interior Committee for ap-propriate changes
Mr. Speaker, MY opposition to the -rule is also based on the whole thrust of the legislation which it Males In oi-7-d-e-FTIV is de,sH-lbed by eight members of the In-terior Committee in dissenting views as "merely the first step on the road toward more Public control over the use of pri-vate property."_ .
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, it is being said that this bill imposes no Federal control on privately owned lands. Yet, some of the ablest Members of the House say the bill must be amended to protect private owners from Federal control.
Regardless of how much this bill is improved, if it goes to conference, we will get back the Senate bill. There are very few who want the Senate bill, but that is what you will get if you pass a Land Use bill today.
Mr. Broyhill of Virginia
.„
The bill would also require that the State designate and assert control over "areas of critical environmental con-cern"—a concept which is defined so as to include almost every conceivable cate-gory of land of any value in the State. Areas of critical environmental concern are defined in the bill as areas on non-Federal lands "where uncontrolled or in-compatible development could result in damage to the environment, life, or prop-erty, or the long term public interest which is of more than local significance." The definition goes on to list specific types of land that the State must include under its jurisdiction. The list is long and comprehensive. The land use program would encompass all fragile or historic lands, including shorelands along rivers, lakes, and streams, rare or valuable eco-systems. an extremely broad term in it-self, and geological formations, signifi-cant wildlife habitats, scenic or historic areas, and natural areas of significant and scientific value. It would also include all so-called natural hazards lands, such as floor plains, areas subject to weather disasters, areas of unstable geological character, ice or snow formations, and areas with high seismic or volcanic activ-ity. Finally, all agricultural lands, forest lands, grazing lands, and watershed lands would be subject to State control. And as if there were some doubt that these cate-gories were not adequate to cover the situation, the bill allows the State to name additional areas as it may deem to be of critical environmental concern.
Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to predict that if definitions of key facilities, large-scale development, and areas of critical environmental concern contained in H.R. 10294 are allowed to remain as is, we will be placing a firm lid on future economic development of many communities a4--r,s the country.
Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER).
Mr. BAKER
-H.R. 10294 gives rise to a novel situa-tion—in which two provisions play roles. The term "areas of critical environ-mental concern?' carry the connotation that no use is to be allowed in these areas. The definition of the areas is so open ended that any type land area could be so designated. However, the States are not required to use their power of emi-nent domain—providing compensation to the landowners. The situation could arise that a State lacking adequate funds for compensation might proceed to im-plement the provisions in the bill by using its police powers to totally deny use of the land by the landowner. This tactic would circumvent the issue of compen-sation, because the police power—zon-ing—is not normally a compensable land use control mechanism. The inevitable result of increasing the number and amount of controls on land use is to ter-minate the freedom of the individual to acquire and own property.
I believe Federal advice on land use policies will evolve into Federal dictates. If passed, this proposal could result in the demise of private property rights and increase Federal encroachment of State matters.
Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN) .
(Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his k _remarks.)
"---Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Speaket, there is no question that land use plan-ning is needed if a growing population, increasingly aware of its environment, is to use a limited amount of land properly. The question we must answer, in my judgment is not whether we should have land use planning, but who should do the planning and how should the planning be accomplished.
During the past few months, the de-bate surrounding the Udall bill and the Steiger substitute has made clear two facts. First, there is no consensus on the subject in regard to the specifics of the legislation or the final outcome it will create. Second, there is a lack of under-standing as to the impact the bill will have.
In view of the misunderstandings in-volved and the increasingly divided opin-ion on the measure, I have concluded that the Congress should take no action until the issues are more fully resolved. It has become clear to me that more in-depth consideration and input are needed before final action is taken.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gen-tleman from Missouri (Mr. RANDALL )
Mr. RANDALL
-As for the farmers of west central Missouri, whom I am privileged to repre-sent it would mean they would have to accept the decision of Washington on where every feed lot would be located or whether their land could be used or lpf t, unused.
—
1--Mr . KA ZEN
- I have no argument with those wile say we need land use planning in our Nation. I concede the interest of our people in the soil and water that pro-duce our food and fiber and the im-portant questions of siting homes, com-mercial and industrial developments. But I contend that these matters involve the people who own the land, their com-munity interests, perhaps the States' protection of regional concerns. I say we should not escalate this issue to na-tional policy.
Mr. KETCHUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in oppositoin to the rule for H.R. 10294, the Land Use Planning Act of 1974. As a member of- the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, I have been considering this destructive bill for months. There is absolutely no reason why a bill which is in such deplorable shape should come before this House. When the sponsors of legislation have to send out a "Dear Colleague_ letter ex-plaining an entire package of amend-ments _they-are offering_to_their own bill, I think it is clear_the legislation is not ready for consideration and should be sent back to committee.
Mr. MARTIN of North Carolina. _
will offer four amendments which will serve to eliminate any misconceptions about the bill. They will make it clear this legislation cannot, even by the wild-est stretch of the most suspicious imagi-nation, be seen as expanding any Federal power. When it comes to the imagina-tions suspicious of potential Federal en-croachment, mine takes no back seats, and I can see the need.
The first of the amendments will state in unequivocal terms that no existing State authority will be usurped and that no new authority will be created in the Federal Government.
The second amendment will state, without qualification, that "the alloca-tion of responsibility between the State government and its political subdivisions for the development and implementation of the State land-use planning process shall be determined by State law." No faceless bureaucrat in the bowels of a State capitol will usurp local authorities: the decision will be made, if at all, by the legislature: by elected officials.
The third will "grandfather" grants to State and local governments, so as to keep pending grants from being put into limbo while awaiting establishment or implementation of a planning process.
The fourth of the amendments I will introduce will redefine general purpose local governments to coincide with the definition used by the Bureau of the Cen-sus, OMB, and the Office of Revenue Sharing.
Now, if these riders are not sufficient insurance, I will support an amendment deleting section 108(d) (2), thus wiping out the Federal role even in cases of deci-sionmaking of multi-State importance..
- Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in op- ; position to this rule today.
Mr. Speaker, I will give the Members five quick questions and answers which will lead them to see that it would be a responsible vote to vote "no" on this rule:
First. Will this bill exert strong Federal controls over the development of urban, suburban and rural lands?
Yes. The criteria set down by the Fed-eral Government for receiving funds are both explicit and detailed and amount to a Federal dictate of what State policy must be. H.R. 10294 defines what the planning process for each state must en-tail, and what methods are to be used to implement the planning process. These criteria take up 10 pages of the bill (Sec. 103-106) .
Second. Does this bill provide for Fed-eral review and veto of substantive State or local decisions concerning land use?
Yes. The Secretary of Interior has the sole discretion to determine the eligibil-ity of a State for a grant and if the Sec-retary is not satisfied that the criteria outlined in the bill are met, he can veto the grant (Sec 108) . One of these con-ditions is that the Secretary must be satisfied before making grants to the States that "in designating areas of crit-ical environmental concern, the State has not excluded any areas of critical en-vironmental concern which the Secre-tary has determined to be of more than statewide significance." (Sec. 108(d) (2) ) . This clearly involves the Federal government in the substantive decision-making policies of the State. Moreover, Section 108(a) of the bill brings not only the Interior Department, but every other Federal agency into the approval proc-ess of State plans.
Third. Will private property rights be damaged by this bill?
Yes. By forcing the States to define areas of "critical environmental concern, areas suitable for or impacted by key facilities, identification of areas of large scale development," and stating that the State must regulate or control the use of land or activities in such areas (Sec. 105-106) the bill raises the specter of encour-aging the State and local governments to utilize its zoning powers in a sweeping classification of lands. This would deny existing or potential uses, or powers of eminent domain without giving just compensation to the owners of private property within these areas. The bill does not provide for any compensation mech-anism to aid the States in purchasing the properties it orders protected (in fact it explicitly prohibits the use of Federal funds for such purposes) Sec. 409(e) .
Fourth. Will this bill create a "no-growth" atmosphere?
Yes. H.R. 10294 places environmental considerations ahead of all others. The criteria mandated for Federal support mostly relate to preserving the physical environment by protecting ecosystems, maintaining open spaces for public use, and setting aside areas of environmental concern as no-growth pressures. The bill makes little mention of economic use of lands and would, in effect, cripple a great deal of construction and development of energy resources. With the potential for litigation evident throughout the bill and with the addition of two more layers of bureaucracy, delays will be inevitable.
H.R. 10294 would piace real constraints upon growth, and institute environmen-tal protection programs at the expense of human needs.
Fifth. Will the States be pressured by the Federal Government to take part of the program?
Yes. Implicit throughout the bill is the requirement of a dual Federal/State co-operative approach, not a voluntary State involvement. Many States cur-rently are considering land use bills— which in itself is an argument against a Federal bill—and considering the lim-ited funds available to sstate govern-ments, they will be enticed to jump at the opportunity to obtain "free" money from Washington. Furthermore, the bill instructs the Federal Government as a matter of Federal policy "to use all prac-tical means to encourage and support the establishment by the States of effective land use planning and decisionmaking processes." Sec. 102. Federal advice on these matters will inevitably evolve into Federal dictates.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, so much opposition has been expressed to this legislation this after-noon that I was reminded of something I read recently, an article in the consti-tution of one of the Greek city states that proposed that whenever someone suggested a new law he had to stand be-fore the assembly with a rope around his
. . . neck.
The legislation pending before us, for
example, has aroused very legitimate concerns about the rights of property owners guaranteed by the fifth amend-ment. Unfortunately, neither the com-mittee bill nor the substitute address this Important question in a meaningful way or provide assurances that legitimate property rights will be protected in the implementation of State land-use plans. Boiler plate language such as the com-mittee bill's disclaimer that nothing in the act shall diminish or enhance con-stitutionally protected property rights has little practical significance because these rights are nowhere codified, but in-stead reside in a shifting body of widely varying and sometimes inconsistent judi-cial precedents. Congress cannot directly legislate on this body of case law one way or the other.
However, adoption of either the com-mittee bill or the substitute will neces-sarily mean significant new efforts to regulate land-uses; actions which may test the protections currently afforded property owners by judicial interpreta-tion of the taking clause. In particular, the newly created State land-use bu-reaucracies may be tempted to employ regulatory powers in areas which go be-yond the limits that generally prevail at present.
I believe It is imperative, therefore, that a countervailing perspective be in-corperated into the bill and the State land-use planning process. Safeguards are needed to restraTn these bureaucratic tendencies and to force State and local land-use agencies to recognize that the acliicve:nent of some thoroughly proper land-use objectivc3, such as preserving scenic areas or providing more open space, will rcr:uire compensation of land owners to be constitutionally permissible.
The amendment I intend to offer is designed to accomplish this objective by adding a new property protection thrust to four critical segments of the commit-tee bill. It would amend—
First, the findings section-101—to in-clude congressional recognition of the . uncertainties and burdens imposed on property owners by the unsettled na-ture of judicial precedents regarding "taking";
Second, the policy section-102—to in-clude an intent to provide racre-"explicit guidance" for the resolution of conflicts between property rights and public ob-jectives which may arise in the land-use planning process;
Third. the State planning process
see-A tion-104—to require that explicit
land-owner compensation policies he adopted where existing State law and judicial precedents indicate that, land-use objec-tives cannot be pursued by regulatory actions alone; and
Fourth, the implementation section-106-;-to afford property owners
opportu-nity to contest4he adoption of regulatory rather than compensation policies where they believe the former would be incon-sistent with existing law and precedent, and to require that the burden of proof ioe on. the State agency to show
other-wise.
The purpose. of these amendments 1s to insure, that by encouraging essential land-use planning, the Federal Govern-ment will not also be funding wholesale efforts to reform current property law to the detriment of private landowners. I, hope that you will give,serious considera-tion to supporting these amendments when they are offered' tinder the 5-minute rule. But first let rs approve this rule so that these important issues can be debated.
Mr. ROUSSELOT..11
Reassuring words in the committee re-port to the effect that land-use planning activities conducted under the bill would be in the nature of regulation rather than taking of land are of little com-fort when considered in light of the declaration of policy contained in sec-tion 102 of the bill. That secsec-tion refers to a land-use planning process assuring—
Informed consideration, in advance, of the, environmental, social, and economic impli-cations of major decisions as to the use of the Nation's land.
I would point out at this time that pri-vately owned land does not belong to the Nation or State until it has been con-demned in accordance with law and just compensation has been paid for it. Mr. CAMP
As a member of the Committee on In-terior and Insular Affairs which has jurisdiction over this bill, I have had the opportunity to sit through hours of hear-ings on the Land Use Planning Act. The testimony has convinced me that H.R. 10294 is nothing less than the first step on the road toward Government control over private property.
-2-• Mr. F1AMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I am aware- of -The-Tong legislativefii
tory of the Land Use Planning Act, which now seeks to bring the living habits of man more in conformity with his diminishing natural habitat, the land. Since 1971, bills on the subject of imple-menting a comprehensive land use plan-ning act have been referred to the House Interior Committee, specifically the Sub-committee on the Environment, and I commend this body for their thorough study of such legislation.
_. The purpose of the act is to authorize the Secretary, pursuant to guidelines issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, to make grants to assist the States to de-velop and implement comprehensive land use planning processes.
Council on Environmental Qual-ity last year issued a report entitled "The Use of Land." In its report, the task force established by the Council included sev-eral recommendations relating to prop-erty rights. In view of the fact that the Council will be issuing guidelines to the Secretary for promulgation of the act if it is enacted. it is somewhat alarming to note that their report recommended an end to the landowner's traditionally psumed right to develop his property re-gardless of environmental and social costs, a right presently restricted by local zoning laws. The report goes on to state that landowners should be required to bear the restrictions without compen-sation by the GovernmentriBy rejecting an amendment in this regard during for-mal committee consideration, the House Interior Committee has implied endorse-ment of the latter recommendation by
the Council. A
-In my judgment, the highly signifi-cant issue of this act—fifth amendment private property "taking clause" guar-antees—have been left without adequate safeguards in H.R.
10294?*-I seriously question the wisdom of de-liberating the bill today, and it is there-fore my hope that the rule will not be adopted. We already have a proliferation of complex and overlapping Federal laws and functions affecting the use of land. I have already mentioned the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which includes provisions highly germane to the use of land. An-other, also under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee, is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
In addition to these two we have the Clean Air Act, and Coastal Zone Man-agement Act, and Land Use Planning Authority assigned to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and authority for the Environmental Pro-tection Agency under the very broad and sweeping authority of the National En-vironmental Policy Act. Now we are asked to adopt a rule for consideration of a bill to create yet another land-use oriented bureaucracy: an Interagency Land Use Policy and Planning Board.
The Water Pollution Control Act, spe-cifically in section 208, outlines land use criteria. It calls for a regulatory program to be developed to regulate the location, modification, and construction of any facility that may have discharges. In addition to pollution control planners, we also have on the Federal level flood control planners, site planners, and land use planners under other authority, and even the Watershed Program.
- Mr. THONE. Mr. Speaker, property ' rights of Nebraska farmers and ranchers would be eroded by this Federal land use legislation.
- The bill, _if it becomes law, could have serious economic effects for Nebraska farmers and ranchers. If land were zoned for agricultural use only and changing - conditions made it desirable to convert to • industrial or residential use, the change could not necessarily be made just on the county or State level. All actions at local or State levels would have to fall within Federal guidelines, rules and regulations that would amount to dictation.
The bill would give the Federal Gov-ernment the power to determine that certain areas were of "critical environ-mental concern which are of more than statewide significance" and therefore subject to direct Fedelal control. Nebras-ka's unique sandhills could come under that definition.
- •
Mr. RARICK. '
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Members should be aware of the extent to which this bill intends for the Federal Govern-ment to go in dictating what Americans can and cannot do with their private lands and buildings. Page 45 of the com-mittee report indicates the intent of the committee in this regard:
PART B—COMPREHENSIVE LAND-USE PLANNING PR OCE SS
The four sections in this part of title I provide for the development of a compre-hensive land use planning process and the subsequent administration and implementa-tion of the process. (Emphasis added) These sections also Set forth certain requirements as to use and development in accordance with the comprehensive land use planning process. Where the term "development" is used in this latter sense it means, in the context of the American Law Institute Model Code, the dividing of land into two or more parcels, the carrying out of any building or mining operation, or the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any struc-ture or land. Development includes, but is not limited to erection construction, redevel-opment, alteration or repair. When appropri-ate to the context, cleveolpment refers to the act of developing or to the result of develop-ment. (Emphasis added)
Thus, Mr. Speaker, it is clear from this passage that, though the bill and its pro-ponents speak of land use processes, in reality the legislation deals with land use decisions. In fact, the bill itself pro-vides for this in section 108 by giving the Federal Government the right to review and veto substantive State or local de-cisions concerning land use that the Sec-retary of the Interior feels do not meet the criteria outlined in the bill._
- _
I plan to vote in favor of reasonable land use planning legislation. Legislation that will permit local and State governments to avoid the kind of oppressive and de-bilitating development and crowding which has occurred in too many large metropolitan areas. Legislation that will
provide financial assistance to develop a systematized approach to land use plan-ning which includes citizens from all sec-tors of the local community. Legislation ' that will, on the other hand, permit a ' local community to plan for prudent commercial development and industrial use of their area so that they are not forced into economic stagnation sur-rounded by public and private lands maintained in a natural and pristine state for the enjoyment of those who would come from surrounding areas. My thesis? Simply that we should provide legislation that will make possible the establishment of land use planning pro-cedures which does not, even by implica-tion and economic inducement, direct local or State governments as to land use. If there is a lesson to come out of the debate on this bill the past 2 months, it Is that the American people are just about Washingtoned to death.
This issue is especially disconcerting to me because Florida has the beginning of meaningful land use planning devices. While the Florida Legislature is often in the vanguard of citizen-oriented issues, I had hoped the Congress could enact compatible legislation that would en-hance not impede the efforts of my great State.
It is because this issue is so important that I refuse to be pulled along into a parliamentary vortex of amendments, points of order, substitute bills and easy answers to difficult questions. The pru-dent device is to defeat the rule under which this patchwork legislation was to be considered. This way we will all have a better understanding of the issues and how we can remedy the problems dis4 cussed today. /0 5/ 44 1) 't7 Op Qi (21 •,-i .. 4. .4.• 4.1 CS, 0 'Li (17 0 0 0 0 0 0 4, 44 0 fi • ,., 'fi ,si CC 40 is, it/ ^Cr 0 V. Co 44 4 0 l..) o 5, 0 -4 ( 1, .,.... 4, 0 0 0 .3 ql 0 f•.. .., 4, ..7. kti •,..f f:1, Ot 0 (Zi (\f "f 47 4k. 0 eV 4.1•1 4.4 I •••te (C)‘' ''. Alt' '11ki 4/
t
0 .1 "V 4, ei k "I 17 0 • .0 4 .0 .", 6‘1A 44' 0 '' fi C., 44, 0 4., 0 ..f rt/ Al' 0/ 0/ ''.1 ''''G' ••,.. El, ky ^C kf i`C, 47 ., 0 "fi 4.) 0 Vs 0 0 17 ..•%, CO \f\ '`,' 't7 0 c•••,.. ',1 0 "f ef rtf ••V. 0 , Cif "Y 0 4„Y A 0 0 b •••/ •-.., 4. 0 .4. .. o 0 o ,L, ..., .4. ...., m ,.., ".. 0 --,. 0 --,. 0 0 o .4. -..,, 0 -0 0 .. -, ...,..T 05,0 .c--',..f Q., •4 0 0 A ty 0 1.", ,z4•• 4. .0 4, • 4J 0 4, 0 0.I 0 Ci g.f CS, A 0 C051 4., •• 0. 0 "Y —3—ISSUE -- How now to clarify the Federal interests in non-Federal lands?
1. Devise an entity to work with the States and river basin organi-zations to survey, to evaluate, and to report to Congress the COMBINED effects of existing Federal land-use policies, such as: a. .The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (described by HUD
as a "land use program", one designed to influence substan-tially the use of non-Federal lands in 15,000 or more
communities).
b. .Restoring the integrity of the Nation's waters via Sections 208 and 303 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.* [for which Congress authorized $150 millions in planning
funds for the first two years!]
c. .The Clean Air Act, used not only to stop certain concentrated uses of land, but also to influence such uses through control over routes of access under criteria stemming from the
judicial branch of the Federal establishment. d. .The Coastal Zone Management Act.
e. .Actions stemming from the Water Resources Council, the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Soil Con-servation Service.
f..Federal Highway actions and programs of Department of Trans-portation.
g. .A number of programs, not mentioned in the foregoing, of Departments of Agriculture, Interior and HUD.**
2. Integrate the results from Item 1 with a survey of effects from upcoming Federal policies and practices directed at mined lands and other energy facilities.
3. All for the purpose of recommending a Federal process for clarifying and coordinating Federal policies affecting the usefulness of lands in a Land Use Coordination Act!
*Footnotes:
The Central Atlantic Environment Center reported in December
1973--"So important are the new water-related requirements for land use control that Lester Edelman, Counsel to the House Committee on Public Works, told a recent seminar of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin:
'I am amused about fights in Congress and legislatures about proposed land use legislation...Congress has already taken this action. We have a land use act. It is Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972.'"
**For example, the voluminous regulations affecting subdivision of lands for inter-state sales.
-4-KUTIONAL
RISER 2ESLECES
ASSOCUlinti
J. R. BARKLEY, President JOHN W. SIMMONS, Treasurer (Colorado) (Texas)
ROBERT T. CHUCK, Vice-President J. A. RIGGINS JR., Past President (Hawaii) (Arizona)
JOHN A. ROSHOLT, Vice-President (Idaho)
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
June 19, 1974
J. R. BARKLEY P. 0. 80X 679
LOVELAND. COLORADO 80537
To: Directors, NWRA
Subject: Committee of State Association Executives
By letter of April 24, 1974, I requested that you forward to me the nomination of persons from your State that would serve on three primary Com-mittees, i.e., Water Users, Small Projects, and State Association Executives.
Based upon the nominations which were received, pursuant to that request, the Water Users and Smell Projects Committees have been established and the Committee lists are enclosed for your information.
As you all remember, a recurrent subject of Directors conversation has been addressed to the strengthening of the State Associations. Additionally, at our winter meeting, we attempted to ascertain the views of the States regarding a concept under which federal investments in water resource proj-ects should be made. This was mentioned in my letter of May 2, 1974,
regarding summer Board meeting. Hopefully, in order to aid you in obtaining some feel from the States, I am naming the Committee of State Association Executives and requesting its Chairman to take the lead in getting such
information as he can prior to our Board meeting on July 25-26.
Copies of this letter are being forwarded to those State Association Executives who have, thus far, been suggested by you Directors. The list is attached. However, nominations are still open to those of you who wish to have a representative of your State named to the Committee.
You will recall, and you should have in your file, copies of drafts which Carl Bronn distributed at Board meeting to give us something to think upon. Copies are being furnished to the listed State Association Executives.
DIRECTORS Vernon Fahy, N.D. E. F. (Don) Doncaster, Wash.
J. A. (Ted) Riggins, Jr., Ariz. Ray Cudney, Kans. Clarence Base. Okla. Karl Bergner, Wyo. James F. Sorensen, Calif. Hubert G. White, Mont. Harold Henigson, Ore. Ronald I. Cross
J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Homer Engelhorn, S. D. Railroad Representative, Texas Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Roland Westergard, Nev. John W. Simmons, Tex. Carl H. Bronn
Page 2 To: Directors, NWRA
For your information, I have asked Val Killin, Executive Director of the Colorado Water Congress to be the Committee Chairman. I do so, not to favor my own State, but because of Vales pest experience and knowledge of the current resource investment policies and the problems connected there-with. Mr. Killin retired from federal service with the U.S.B.R, last fall and accepted the position with our State organization. He spent several years on the Commissioner's staff and was the Assistant Regional Director of the Bureau's Lower Missouri Region at the time of his retirement. I am pleased that he is willing to give us a hand.
REMINDER: To Directors -- Don't forget to make your room reservations with the Brown Palace Hotel for the summer meeting.
Address: 17th & Tremont, Denver, Colorado 80202 Sincerely (/ J. R. Barkley President JRB:jm CC: Carl H. Bronn Jack Ross
WATER USERS COMMITTEE
WASHINGTON Mr. Henry Vancik, Chairman Roza Irrigation District P. O. Box 810
Sunnyside, Washington 98944
NEVADA Mr. Jim Wood
Truckee Carson Irrigation District 755 Wood Drive
Fallon, Nevada 89406 NEBRASKA Mr. Hal Schroeder
1120 Federal Securities Building Lincoln, Nebraska 68500 COLORADO HAWAII UTAH TEXAS Mx. Ralph Adkins
Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. P. O. Box 316 Pueblo, Colorado 81000 Mr. Walter O. Watson % Robert T. Chuck P. O. Box
373
Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Mx. Devon HurstSan Juan Water Conservancy District P. O. Box 218
Blanding, Utah 84511 MT. John Babcock P. O. Box 220
•
CALIFORNIA
SMALL PROJECTS COMMITTEE
Mr. Doyle F. Boen, Chairman Eastern Municipal Water District 24550 San Jacinto St.
P. O. Box 858
Hemet, California 92343 NORTH DAKOTA Mr. Homer Englehorn
Garrison Conservancy District Box 107
Carrington, No. Dakota 58421
UTAH Mr. Earl Harris
% Edward H. Southwick 1483 Wall Avenue Ogden, Utah 84404
NEVADA Mr. Myron Goldsworthy, Secretary-Manager Pershing County Water Conservation District P. O. Box 218
Lovelock, Nevada 89419 NEBRASKA Mr. James R. Pringle
Farmers Irrigation District P. O. Box 307
Scottsbluff, Nebraska HAWAII Mr. James Y. Yoshimoto
% Robert T. Chuck P. O. Box
373
Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 WASHINGTON Mr. Elmer McDaniels
P. 0. Box
239
Sunnyside, Washington 98944
TEXAS Judge Otha Dent
Texas Water Rights Commission P. O. Box 13207, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
COLORADO
UTAH
NEVADA
NEBRASKA
COMMITTEE OF STATE ASSOCIATION DIRECTORS
Val Killin, Executive Director - Chairman Colorado Water Congress
328 Livestock Exchange Building Denver, Colorado 80216
Rolf Nelson, Secretary-Manager Utah Water Users Association 38 E. 4th South
Bountiful, Utah 84010
Herb Rowntree, Secretary-Manager Walker River Irrigation District North Main Street
Yerington, Nevada 89447 Clyde Burdick, Mayor City of Ainsworth P. O. Box 165
Ainsworth, Nebraska 69210 HAWAII Robert T. Chuck
P. O. Box
373
Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 WASHINGTON Fred Hahn
Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504
IDAHO Sheri Chapman, Executive Director Idaho Water Users Association 201 Idaho Building Boise, Idaho 83702 ARIZONA TEXAS CALIFORNIA T. Richmond Johnson
1124 Arizona Title Building Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Bill Waddle, General Manager
Texas Water Conservation Association 202 City National Building
Austin, Texas 78701
John P. Fraser, Executive Director Assoc. of California Water Agencies 1127 - 11th Street, Suite 305
A GOVERNMENTAL. AGENCY • OF THE
,of-June 18, 1974 Colonel Carl Bronn
Executive Director.
National Water Resources Association 897 National Press Building
Washington, D.C. 20004 and
Mr. Michael Cassady
Executive Vice President' Water Resources Congress 1130 17th Street; N.W. 'Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Carl and Mike:
RECD
Mr. J. R. Barklcild,fi ."*11ffeleiffeftI
,
ligETTY
P. 0. BOX 579 ORANGE. TEXAS 77630I am writing., this letter jointly to you two because both of you . have heard me say many times that in regard to our "Environmental"
dilemma we need to figure out someway to get our Water Resources Development story over to the American people.
Perhaps there is a way opening up as indicated in the attached column "Environmentalists Hurting Workers" by Victor Riesel which appeared in the Beaumont Enterprise on Friday, June 14 and no doubt appeared in many other newspapers. This is the first time that I have ever seen a nationally syndicated columnist blast "The Environmentalists, the Fish Fanciers, the Compulsive Scenery Lovers", and he certainly points out well what we have been saying to ourselves--the delaying tactics occasioned by the "Professional Environmentalists" are not only slowing down progress, energy
production, water resources development etc., hut, also, are
serving to increase the cost to the taxpayer and by the same token affecting the job employment situation.
This is the same sort of story that should be told on the Rainbow Bridge, Navigation on the Mississippi, Florida across barge canal, Irrigation in the West, on and on and on. Maybe this could be the medium that will get the attention of the labor organizations--and people in this country. I am wondering if there is someway that Mr. Riesel might be approached to do a series of articles. He apparently has the right idea and as I say this is the first time I have ever seen anything like this written by a nationally known syndicated columnist.
I pass this on to both of you with the hope that your. Executive Group might kick this idea around. It might even be possible with this approach for you to talk to heads of Labor Organizations in
Colonel Carl Bronn - 2 -
June 18, 1974 and
Mr. Michael Cassady
Washington_ After all they and the people they represent are being hurt in many ways as he points out in his article and
also in many other ways as we have all discussed numerous times. We have all been. groping for Some unique method of attacking "the myths". Maybe this offers us another way.
Of course both of you know that I am ready to do anything to help. Please let me hear from you after you have kicked it around together.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
1. Simmons
E; cutive Vice President an General Manager
JWS/ds Enclosure
• ) e• • ) V -7.74a.solt 7.7%1 1 •
-eseiatassythe days before Henry himself Consolidated Edison Co. $10 Then came the fuel boycott hove into sight.
. per. fish killed during con- crunch. The utility, sought It's the Cornwall pumped-•1 ' t •
I . . s ruction and operation of new Permission to burn less ex- water 1 plant which seems to ' i • power plants. That's the pensive, regular coal in its me to be a More harrowing - poachers' punishment. Since plants. The -city said no with story for those whose oldege thousands of fish are killed one or two slight exceptions. security portfolios were I regularly, this would bring The increased cost ran to depleted by the Con-Ed stock
quite a sum to the state and about $100 million a year. fall..
considerable Political As the cost increased, Some This' installation was • • i popularity to Louis. But it was of it was passed along to the planned in 1962. The Federal stopped by the courts., consumer. Many refused to Power Commission approved
...2. F.. . But it's vital to the message pay their higher bills. Thus by it and by 1965 the company
•
r,---7--t,
here to report swiftly that the . June 1, 1974, the "un- was ready to build. The United Mine Workers' (UMW) collectibles" jumped to $305 estimated cost then was $115 e :tea' Welfare and. Retirement million from $248 million due million..
-Fund's stock' portfolio con-' on Jan. 1, 1973. Thus the due But the environmentalists as' •
---Fs . tains 80,000 "Con-Ed" shares, bills jumped over $50 million marched into c:ourt and before So do many other labor funds. in 17 months. commissions. The courts Further, the UMW fund has Further,. for years now. Con- delayed construction. Fish hundreds of thousands of other Ed has been attempting to would be killed. The mountain utility shares — as do other meet the power shortage by would be disfigured. It would . ,... unions' investments for the scheduling construction of a be scarred. Thus for some. 12 care of retirees, widows and • traditional "pumped" water years delay has succeeded s
orphans — and the Welfare of generator plant at Cornwall, delay because. of en-active members, N.Y., on the west bank of the vironmentalists' court action. 1
--Thus the sharp fall of Con- Hudson 40 miles north of the It still isn't really under !.. :;.-: . • Ed's stOck (and its resultant city, and a nuclear power construction. Cost now is 1.-H! impact on other utility stock ,plant at Indian Point, also on estimated at $720 million.
• market values) cost the. the Hudson. ` •:' . The power company again . working people heavy losses. .. • offered to build hatcheries. It - What caused the virtual ENVIRONMENTALISTS offered to put the plant, un-collapse of Con-Ed shares? appeared from behind every derground. But the con-Many economic forces — not i tree . and in almost' every servationists still fight back. ee ..,.., . :.the least of which were the • court; There is the Natural They still talk of a scarred
envirOilMeritaliSt3.12::::";-s_ -. '1 Resources ..Defense -Council, ...mountain and the "fish-kill."
; which represents the' Hudson 'and' many' of -. these ' . corn-River Fishermen's mittees, when on holiday, go Association . which is. fishing and hunting. Which is desperately concerned with fine, but hardly consistent.
1 • k,•••• ' • ; : ; • :. • A i
By VICTOR RIESEL truly secure and steady flow of the life and love of striped NEW YORK — Having critical electric power in this bass (though white perch survived June 5, World vast megalopolis — and they seem in more danger). Environment Day, my have caused, I do believe, There also is the Scenic thoughts turned to widows, increases in costs of light and Hudson Preservation Con-orphans and fish. Since my the fuel for human living and ference. There were other • compassion is stronger for the work. conservationist, groups which , bereaved, the dependent, the For example, under tackled the nuclear plant. But youngsters than for fish, I feel pressure from en- this installation is swinging . compelled to make this appeal vironmentalists the New York into action despite the pro-fish to reason to the en- City Council in 1971, led by the people whose basic instincts vironmentalists, the fish then Mayor John Lindsay, for decency and love of fish I fanciers, the 'compulsive passed an air quality code, do not demean. Point is that scenery lovers. This required Con-Ed to burn they did delay the nuclear Were this not so unhappy a fuel with a 0.3 per cent sulphur plant. Arid Lefkowitz did try to tale, I would start with the full content instead of 1 per cent. charge the company $10 per , report of the efforts of the Experts tell me this in- dead fish — though Con-Ed I. _election-conscious New York creased costs by $80 to $90 offered to build hatcheries and
I
.- State Atty. .Gen..' Louis ' million annually. The corn- flood the Hudson River with . Leficol-vitz, my old and pany pleaded with the city more fish than it ever had intimate friend, to charge the fathers. But no use.
I I
THE ENVIRONMENTA-LISTS' social power is enormous. It has prevented a
So Con-Ed's cash positibn
became shaky. It must, for example, keep four million barrels of oil fuel on hand as a reserve inventory. And at a cost now of $13 a barrel. This • ties up a lot of cash—far more than it did before the Ara lands pumped up prices.
No one now can predict ths fate of his huge electrica power utility. Much depend. on the ability to raise cash — meaning the patience of ths • banks and confidence of th-public. Con-Ed's president ha talked of bankruptcy. If thi-happens the whole market wil • shake. Labor portfolios will
devalued. Yes, widows an orphans will be hurt badly.
Why should they run secorn to fish? Or is the mark 0 sorrow on their faces les meaningful than tip scar of , mountain? Isn't ;t time fottis to come together and reason,
June 14, 1974
Mr. G. W. Hannett
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District P. O. Box 1849
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Dear George:
Rachel ran down the Public Law for the cases in which you are interested and arranged for us to get copies for you. However, betwixt the message center and the mail man the
copies have not arrived. So, as an interim reply, Rachel finds that:
The North Side Pumping District in Idaho and the Quincy-Columbia District in Washington obtained certain relief in 1968 through Senate Bill 1251 which became Public Law 90-400. The documents will be air mailed to you on arrival here.
George, you remember that we sought general legis-lation for this; :).iludlever, Chairman Aspinall in correspondence to the Civil Service Commission determined that general legis-lation is not desirable. So far, we have been unable to
locate the Civil Service reply to Mr. Aspinall. My recollec-tion is that severance pay was put in two categories; for employees working for the Bureau on the District, transfer to the District would be effective without severance pay. The second category is employees not hired by the District who could be transferred to other Bureau work, but who refused; they would,TeET entitled to severance pay.
My discussions with USBR people in Operations and Personnel suggests that the best move is for the District to determine whom they want (tentatively at least) and then analyze the apparent severance pay problem.
Will send you the Civil Service response to Aspinall if it is not lost in Archives.
Sincerely,
Carl Bronn
REPLY TM
G. W. Hannett, Attorny Post Office Box 1849 Albuquerque, N. M. 87103
MUDDLE
RIO
GRANDE CONSERVANCYDISTRICT
POST OPTICS BOX 581
ALBUQUERQUE. NEW MEXICO 87103
June 3, 1974
Carl Bronn, Executive Director
National Water Resources Association National Press Building
Washington, D. C. 2a004
• •
Dear Carl:
The Conservancy District that I represent is going to take over the operation and maintenance of the District from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. The question of severance pay, of course, is coming up. At previous meetings, it has been stated that special legislation is needed for the District to avoid the payment of severance pay. As I understand it, at leaq in one instance, Congress has so acted. I wonder if you know the citation for that legislation or what public"law it may have been. As I recall, it was out of the State of Washington or Oregon. I would appreciate your as-sistance.
I hope all is going well with you and yours. Kind personal regards.
cjw
Very truly yours,
G. W. Hannett
June 13, 1974
Mr. Jack W. Keating Executive Manager
California Water Resources Association 245 East Olive Avenue
Burbank, California 91503 Dear Jack:
Thank you for your letter of June 11, suggesting that NWRA consider representing water industry viewpoints to the National Commission on Water Quality.
I attended one briefing session by the Commission staff on their approaches to their mission. I keep in touch regularly with certain staff members. As of now, the timing and method of consulting with the public are not determined. Ohen such determination is made I will work out with NWRA's Executive Committee our role. Meanwhile, advice from anyone in California about specific inputs to the Commission are welcome indeed,
Again, Jack, our thanks.
Sincerely,
Carl Bronn
Executive Director //
BC: Messrs. Barkley and Boen w/c incoming
ISIDENT 4W. RUSSELL
'pine,. Amador, Calaveras, Dorado, Mariposa, folio, Nevada, Placer, ierv•a, Tuolumne Director ICE PRESIDENTS :0B.DON W. Mit.E.En VI Norte, Hunib4dt, Lake, twin, Mendocino, 1apa, Onoma, Trinity ttrixtitm E. MOORE, JII.
os Angeles Director otivatx V. PHILLIPS biz Angeles Director and itsistant Treasurer 414Es H. TURNER áfl 14ancisco Director IICRETARY.TREASURER BANCTS IIERWOOD )1r,-e1or at Large SS iSTANT TREASURERS IAT L. EGGERT Iirixter at Large V arin.EN W. BUTLER 41s Angeles Director PIRECTORS Licitiom D. ANDREWS
'resno, Madera, Kings, Tulare
)(WEE F. BOEN liverside Osi:Pit P. BOUT Ilarneaa VELEN BOTTORFF hthersfie/d iwazoisr J. GINDLER otis Angeles or,oE KERRIGAN WI Diego l. HENRY KLOSS ylcramento I. Louis LAKE ;arden Grove 'ALL H. LANE ".;i:s Angeles )At•trEt. D. MIKESELL 4171 Bernardino onNi T. O'HALLon.AN itiota Clara-San Benito
OSEPII E. PATTEN
Suite, Lassen, Plumes, Shasta, "llama, Sutter, Tuba Director
WALLACE C. SPINARSKI
. stagier
),,'LEY STEPHENS
• atm Costa, San Joaquin, ' Yob) RT/S TUN NELL fa Barbara, Luis Obispo a. E. WARD ',tura :ECTORS AT LARGE SNN P. ALLEN I'. DIBBLE W. F. HERBERT rOSEPH JENSEN A. S. RUMMELSBURG .TER F. SCHABARUM /ISORY BOARD BVEY 0. BANKS aunit BAIILING . W. BATES LOS Banos
L
OME BERNARD Sari Bernardino REDERICK BOLD, Walnut CreekI
t/ONCAS BRADLEYayor, Los Angeles
M. BRODY PAwNtS Fresno G. BikywN .:•verty Hills V.'it..t.,1Alkt C. BRYANT ' ,,,ersfield CBT F. CARTER tierial K CHASSIS Francisco t. M. CI.INE ...a Ana i. P. COLEMAN -torville • WILLIAM W Coox ...Izmir C. CnowLE .,Lcard , ,r1 D. CnowLEY N,.m Francisco DONALD K. CURRLIN Sail Jose Citakt..r.8 DE BRETTEVILLE San Francisco litelinno W. DICKENSON Stocktm Ilormirr W. DIETZ jiedthrIg ,Wa.tamor G. DUNN :,Cupei tin()
L'i\
RESOURCES ASSitiik
ORGANIZED 'IN 1955
A non-profit, non-partisan state-wide citizens association dedicated to the balanced development of water resources of California and the West to meet the needs of man and improve his environment. 245 EAST OLIVE AVENUE, BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91503 • (213) 848-9990; L.A. 849-3129/3120
EXECUTIVE MANAGER, JACK W. KEATING PUBLIC RELATIONS, ED SIMMONS•
June 11, 1974
Mr. Carl Bronn, Executive Director National Water ,Resources Association , 897 National Press Building
Washington, D.C. 2.0004 Dear,Nr. Bronn:
• 414
William R. Gianelli, former State Director of Water Resources in California, talked to me at length yes-terday about the new National Water Quality Commission .of which he is a member. This commission is taking
testimony and researching a possible updating of water quality laws under a mandate from Congress.
Gianelli told me that the preponderance of the ,witnesses and evidence being presented before this commission are coming from environmentalists and other opponents of water projects, and that there are few voices from the friends of water being heard.
He suggested that the NWRA might be a likely candidate for the organization to forcibly represent the water industry's viewpoints before this commission.
I personally think that the findings of this commission will play a very important role in the amendments to water quality legislation, which I think in some areas should be changed somewhat.
JWK/rv Si cerely, k W. Keating Executive Manager RONALD R. ESAU San Jose JOHN D. FETT Riverside CARCFOSSETTE Downey W iLifkikz4 W. FfrANKLIN Las Angeles JouN P. FRASER Sacramento DUANE L. GEORGESON Los Angeles WILLIAM R:GIANELL Pebble Beach JEROME B. GILISERT Sacramento ALFRED R. GOLZE Los Angeles DANIEL G. GRANT Santa Barbara ROBERT M. HAGAN Professor, U.C. Davis JOHN S. HARNETT Oakland HOWARD H. IIARTL// Yuba City E. THORNTON IFIDETSON Bellflower ROBERT J. JASPER Tehaclzapi THOMAS D. JOHNSON Bakersfield BURTON E. JONES South Pasadena CArd:H. KADIE, SII.
Sacramento EDGAR L. KANOUSE Los Angeles RICHARD W. KARN San Leandro JAMES H. KRIEGER Riverside H. RONALD LAMPSON Bakersfield ROBERT LEE Los Angeles GII.DERT W. LINDSAY Los Angeles HARRY E. LLOYD San Francisco JOHN M. LUTHER Sacramento HOWARD MANKIN,
San Luis Obispo
FRANK T. MATTHIAS Oakland WILLIAM L. Yolo DENNIS MtCARTIIY Bakersfield PAUL 'MCKEEHAN Santa Clara STEVEN J. MEYERHOFER Glendale HOWARD A. MILLER San Marino WARREN J. MITCHELL Redwood City CLYDE N. Mown!. Long Beach ORAL L. MOORE San Francisco SAMUEL B. NELSON Northridge LOUIS R. NOWELL Los Angeles LANGDON W. OWEN Newport Beach PAUL E. OWEN Ventura WILLIAM S. PETERSO:. Los Angeles STUART T. PYLE Bakersfield CHARLES RANDOLPH Oroville JAMES T. ROSTRON Los Angeles Glen L. Schmidt Ventura M. J. SHELTOZ, San Diego NED A. SMITH Hanford ROBERT I. SNYDE.P Los Angeles HAROLD A. SPARKS Bakersfield MERWIN WAGNER Orange WILLIAM E. WARNE. Sacramento LOWELL 0. WEEKS Coachella ROBERT M. WILKINSON' Los Angeles ALAN J. WILLIAMS Los Angeles LLOYD D. Thum': Redlands 7 77,
1 CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
tESIDENT AV, RUSSELL
!pine, Amador, C:alaveras, t Dorado, Mariposa, (ono, Nevada, Placer,
Ora? Tuolumne Director tCP, PRESIDENTS 4>ULOON W. MILLER
W Norte, Humboldt, Lake, (orin, Mendocino 'apa,
6no7na, Trinity 41.1.1.aivi E. MOORE, Jn. tot Angeles Director tmEnT V. PHILLIPS .0ti Angeles Director and Isistant Treasurer 4NES IL TURNER an Francisco Director T ECZETARY-TREASURER HERWOOD qtretor at Large PSI STANT TREASURERS !AT L. EGGERT hrector at Large Y..1..nnEN W. BUTLER 4.) Angeles Director ,IRECTORS LicHarm D. ANDREWS "rf.,no, Madera, Kings, Tulare )ose.e F. BOEN . YECrthle OSEPII P. BORT Uemeda 11,t.r.N BorronFF Iskersfield lt.t.wroN J. GINDLER 40s Angeles ?1:01,GE KERRIGAN Diego HENRY laoss irarrainento Z . LOINS LAKE ilerde,i Grove ).4‘'L H. LANE Angeles ?s.NiEE D. MIKESELL !en Bernardino OHM T. O'HALLORAN ;ante Clara-San Benito 't1SEPH E. FATTEN
%tie, Lassen, Minas, Shasta, 'ir,rra, Sutter, Yuba Director
WALLACE G. SPINAUSKI tanceAter
r)unt..c5; STEPHENS ontrn Costa, San Joaquin, !clam), Yob°
C.:URTn TUNNELS. ;that: Barbara, 341i LUIS Obispo C..111. K. WARD V. /aura IIRECTORS AT LARGE GtrtiN P. ALLEN S. DIBBLE •
xr
v. F. Jinni :Tura osr,PH JENsr.N A,, S. BUMMELSRUBC PF,TEII F. SCHABARUM ADVISORY BOARD HARVEY 0. BANKS Belmont SAMUEL DARLING traco C. W. BATES Los Banost
OliN BERNARD .noxiieMarthRO r},E!)EHICK BOLD, JR. WalPtIt Creek 1..1:01+.1..1.S BRADLEY Aioyor, Los Angeles flAt.iat M. BRODY F,,MUNO G. BnOwN Bcceriy huh WILLIAM C. BRYANT akersfield tunin-r F. CARTER Irnpers'at DAN CHAPIN $an Francisco f's7r.u. M. CLINE ;Santa Ana _Cala. P. COLEMAN Victorville,I)n. WILLIAM W...COON V.../140 .11r.pnrarrr G. CROWLE Payward ION D. CROWLEY Francisco 'DONALD K. CLIIIRLIN San Jose CHARLES DE BRETTEVILLE 'San Francisco
iticn Arlo W. DICKENSON ,Stockton ROVVOir W. DIETS reddihg ,WILLIAM C. DUNN ronOrifirin ORGANIZED IN 1955
A non-profit, non-partisan state-wide citizens association dedicated to the balanced development of water resources of California and the West to meet the needs of man and improve his environment. 245 EAST OLIVE AVENUE, BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91503 • (213) 848-9990; L.A. 849-3129/3120
EXECUTIVE MANAGER, JACK W. KEATING PUBLIC RELATIONS, ED SIMMONS
Mr. Carl Bronn, Executive Director National Water Resources Association 897 National Press Building
Washington, D.C. 2.6004 Dear,Mr. Bronn:
June 11, 1974
-6. 1,14 lit.
William R. Gianelli, former State Director of Water Resources in California, talked to me at length yes-terday about the new National Water Quality Commission 'of which he is a member. This commission is taking
testimony and researching a possible updating of water quality laws under a mafidate from Congress.
Gianelli told me that the preponderance of thepitnesses and evidence being presented before this commission are • coming from environmentalists and other opponents of water projects, and that there are few voices from the friends of water being heard.
He suggested that the NWRA might be a likely candidate for the organization to forcibly represent the water industry's viewpoints before this commission.
I personally think that the findings of this commission will play a very important role in the amendments to water quality legislation, which I think in some areas should be changed somewhat.
JWK/rv Sincerely, k W. Keating Executive Manager RONALD R. Esau San Jose JOHN D. FETT Riverside CARL-FOSSETTE • Downey WILLIAM FirXNKLIN LOS Angeles JOHN P. FRASER Sacramento DUANE L. GEORGESON Los Angeles WILLIAM R:GIANELLI Pebble Beach JEROME B. GILBERT Sacramento • ALFRED R. COLZE Los Angeles DANIEL C. GRANT Santa Barbara ROBERT M. HAGAN Professor, U.C. Davis JOHN S. HARNETT Oakland HOWARD H. HARTER Yuba City E. THORNTON IBBETSON Bellflower ROBERT J. JASPER Tehachapi THOMAS D. JOHNSON Bakersfield BURTON E. JONES South Pasadena CAIUCH. KADIE, SR. Sacramento EDGAR L. KANOUSE Los Angeles RICHARD W. KART, San Leandro JAMES H. KRIEGER Riverside H. RONALD LAMPSON Bakersfield ROBERT LEE Los Angeles GILBERT W. LINDSAY Los Angeles HARRY E. LLOYD San Francisco JOHN M. LUTHER Sacramento HOWARD MANKINS San Luis Obispo FRANK T. MATTHIAS Oakland WILLIAM L. McANLas Yolo DENNIS MtCARTHY Bakersfield . PAUL 'MCKEEHAN Santa Clara STEVEN J. MEYERHOFER Glendale HOWARD A. MILLER San Marino WARREN J. MITCHELL Redwood City CLYDE N. MOORE Long Beach ORAL L. MOORE San Francisco , SAMUEL B. NELSON Northridge LOUIS R. NOWELL Los Angeles LANGDON W. OWEN Newport Beach PAUL E. OWEN Ventura WILLIAM S. PETERSON Los Angeles STUART T. PYLE Bakersfield CHARLES RANDOLPH Oroville JAMES T. ROSTRON Los Angeles Glen L. Schmidt Ventura M. J. SHELTON San Diego NED A. SMITH Hanford ROBERT I. SNYDER Los Angeles HAROLD A. SPARKS Bakersfield MERWIN WAGNER Orange WILLIAM E. WARNE Sacramento LOWELL 0. WEEKS Coachella ,„ . ROBERT M. WILKINSON Los Angeles ALAN J. WILLIAMS Los Angeles LLOYD D. YOUNT Redlands
June 13, 1974
Mr. E. F. Doncaster Secretary
Roza Irrigation District P.O.Box 810
Sunnyside, Wasii. 98944 Dear Don:
RECD. JUN/ „
Regarding your May 17 letter to Congressman Mike McCormick, my understanding of the arrangement is that the Water Resources Council requested the Interstate Conference on Water Problems to collect certain information. The Inter-state Council in turn asked the Western States Water Council to aid in the collection. To me, that is not a bad arrange-ment.
I agree with Hank's feeling that States outside the Columbia River are insufficiently interested in the permit system and irrigation. Of course, that was my problem with All States three years ago when I needed help to modify the draft bill.
Your interesting note about Expo '74 was forwarded to Rusiia since I know casually the Minister of the River Fleet. He will be pleased.
Sincerely,
Carl Bronn
Executive Director BC: Mr. Barkie
"SERVING 72,000 ACRES IN THE YAKIMA VALLEY"
'‘f r
JAY
-717,Cri
Roza Irrigation District
CORNER., OF 13th STREET and BLAINE AVENUE • P. O. BOX 810 • SUNNYSIDE, WASHINGTON 98944 • PHONE 837-5141
May 24, 1974
Mr. Carl Bronn, Executive Director
National Water Resources Assoc:
897 National Press Bldg.
Washington, D.C.
20004
Dear Carl:
Through one of our Directors to the State Reclamation
Association, I have a Memorandum circulated by the Western
States Water Council. I am sending you a copy of the
Memorandum and my reply to our Congressional delegation. •
I am also enclosing an article pertaining to interest
rates charge Russia by the Export-Import Bank which you
have probably already seen. The bridges to foreign affairs
are in a much better state of repair than the ones to
domestic affairs, and the gap is widening.
Hank Vancik seemed to feel that the other sections of the.
seventeen western states are not too concerned with the
EPA application and permit system along with its
admin-istration. This seemed to be his only reaction that he
expressed to me.
Thank you for inviting Hank to meet with you in Salt Lake.
City.
Very truly yours,
. F. Doncaster, Secretary
efd
enc:-3
PAUL W. SCOTT
Walnuts. DIRECTOR
Chicago, Milwaukee, St Paul and Pacific
Railroad Company
REAL ESTATE, ECONOMIC & RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 808 Skinner Building, Seattle, Washington 98101 PHONE (206) 628-3910
May 31, 1974
R. D. ARGUE
ASST. WESTERN DIRECTOR
P. W. DAVIS
WESTERN MGR. • REAL ESTATE
‹f3
Mr. R. I. Cross, Manager Agricultural Development
The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe 900 Polk St.
Amarillo, Texas 79101 Dear Ron:.
File: G - National Water Resources Association
I note with some interest the, possibility of the program at NWRA 4.n Fresno, including a status report on land use legislation. I have just returned from American Industrial Development Council meeting where I was responsible for presenting information on national land use planning
and the status of legislation to the Transportation Section of that organization.
An excellent presentation was made for us by Mr. John J. (Dffey, Director of Energy/Natural Resource and Environ-mental Section of the Chamber of Commerce of the
United States. He gave us considerable information on the provisions of Senate Bill 268 (Henry Jackson's bill
) HR 10294 (Udall's bill) and HR 13970 (the Steiger
-Rhodes bill). For your further information,-I am sending
you a brief resume of Coffey's presentation to the AIDC group.
If we are going to have any in-put on land use
legislation, it might be well to consider what the Chamber of Commerce
. of the United States is doing on: •this matter.
With best regards, I am
PWS/md
Sincerely,
Western Director
Real Estate, Economic & Resource Development Department cc: Mr. Kenneth L. Cook, Director
Agricultural Department Burlington Northern 176 East Fifth Avenue
or
RIA
HAT01411
II RESBECES
lassoCOATION
Mr. Bruce P. Van Haveren Hydrologist
6495 Happy Canyon ,Road Apt. #110
Denver,-Colorado 80237 Dear Mr. Van Haveren:
J. R. BA9KLEY, President JOHN W. SIMMONS, Treasurer (Colorado) (Texas)
ROBERT T. CHUCK, Vice-President J. A. RIGGINS JR., Past President (Hawaii) (Arizona)
JOHN A. ROSHOLT, Vice-President (Idaho)
897 NATIONAL 'PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
June 13, 1974
Thank you for your inquiring about the National Water Resources Association. Your letter is being referred to' the Colorado Water Congress which represents us in your
State. sap
In the meantime I enclose a copy of our "Water Life" of May and a pamphlet revealing our approach to conflicts between man and nature in managing the water resource,
Sincerely,
Carl Bronn
Executive Director Copy to:
Mr. Val G. Killin, Executive Director Colorado Water Congress
328 Livestock Exchange Bldg. Denver, Colo. 80216
DIRECTORS
J. A. (Ted) Riggins, Jr., Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho
Ray Cudney, Kans. Hubert G. White, Mont.
Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Roland Westergard, Nev. Jerry D. Geist, N. Mex.
Vernon Fahy, N.D. Clarence Base, Okla. Harold Henigson, Ore. Homer Engelhorn, S. D. John W. Simmons, Tex. Edward H. Southwick, Utah
E. F. (Don) Doncaster, Wash. Karl Bergner, Wyo. Ronald I. Cross
Railroad Representative, Texas Carl H. Bronn
.ti.OMERON LismiNGINEERS
4*,
Director,
BRUCE P. VAN HAVEREN Hydrologist
1315 South Clarkson Street Denver. Colorado 80210 303 - 744-3175
c
National Water Resources Association
897 National Press Bldg.
,
Washington, D. C: 20004
Dear Sir:
"Bruce P. Van Haveren
6495 Happy Canyon Road
Apt. #110
- Denver,-Colorado 80237
May 28, 1974
I am interested in learning more about your organization.
Please send me a list of available publications. I would appreciate
being.placed on your mailing list to receive copies of newsletters,
prcgress reports, etc. I am actively engaged in water resources
consulting, and I have a genuine interest in being informed of all
water resources activities in the U. S.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
F/LE:
Naw file:
-COOPERATION
.
WATER RESOURCE AGENCIES
Mr. Lee Orton
Executive Director
Nebraska AsioaaUon
of Resources Districts
Suite 525, Terminal Bldg.
Lincoln, Nebraska 66508'
L.Dear Lee:
This thanks you for your letter of May 24 with
enclosures. I find them very interesting as I continue
talking with water oriented associations in Washington
toward our goal of joint residency some place in Washington,
D.C.
Sincerely,
Carl Bronn
Executive Director
BC Mr. Barkleyst
AZ.7
Nebraska Association of Resources Districts
Mr. Carl Bronn Executive Director
National Water qesources A&s'n. 897 National Preas Bldg.
Washington, D. 20004
Dear Carl,
Th
SUITE 525, TERMINAL BUILDING
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 66508
May 24, 1974
During our conversation with you in your office several weeks back, one Of the topics which we considered was the discussions un-derway by your organization and' others in Washington of a joint office facility. I had mentioned the arrangements we had here in Nebraska and suggested that we provide you and Nebyaska's National Water Resources Association Director, Judge Smith, with some written documentation of the arrangements and the successes we feel were made possible by our arrangements in this state.
Enclosed herewith is a copy of a memorandum to the file from Mr. L. E. Donegan of the Nebraska Water Resources Association and myself as the Executive Director of the Nebraska Association of Resources Districts, on the subject.
I hope that this information is of some benefit to you and your Board's deliberations on possible joint offices.
I look forward to having the opportunity to again sit down and visit with you about water resources development.
Sinc
ee Orton
Executive Director
