MINA_
MITER RES:1-°\CES
TO:
ASSOVIA7110tk
MILO W. HOISVEEN, President (North Dakota) TED RIGGINS, JR., First Vice President (Arizona) J. R. BARKLEY, Second Vice President
(Colorado) •
897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING
I. J. COURY, Treasurer (New Mexico)
LORIN W. MARKHAM, Past President (Washington)
CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
January 10, 1973
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION SUBJECT: ENCLOSED MOCK-UP OF PROPOSED DISCUSSION WITH THE
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION
Earlier, I furnished you views on what authorities expected from the Commission that is not evident Ito me] in the Draft Report. I suggested that case studies -- using water resource proposals favored by States, but not yet authorized -- could fill some gaps, and still some long-standing controversies [by evaluating arguments over details through study of results on communities of applying the Draft's proposals]. Some of
those controversies -- reinforced by NWC -- are likely to affect authorized work also.
I suggested that [whatever our views] a big problem is to get the attention of authorities, now and during ensuing debates. A second is to create doubt about practicability of certain NWC findings.
Enclosed is a mock-up of an NWRA position [lacking Tab F, to be furnished you later] on the Draft Report.
DIRECTORS
Ted Ringin,.:;, Jr., Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. L, Cblo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho
..the "screw-ball" cover uses an environmental issue to get attention.
..the precis is partly to hold attention, and direct it to elements of the mock-up.
..agriculture is highlighted becAuse no other national association is likely to emphasize it, and some Gover-nors and Capitol Hill people are still interested in dependable agriculture -- even if the NWC is not. The pitch is to create doubt about the meaning of the Iowa State Report, and the use the NWC makes of it.
Chris C. Green, Kans. \Mosley D'Ewart, Mont,
M;;;I:aiil C. Siih, Jr., Nebr. Roland Westergarcl, Nev. I. J. Coury, N. M.
Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Clarence Base. Okla. haibIb tien srison, Ore. Homer Engelhorn, S. D. John W. Simmons, Tex.
..CONTINUED..
Edward H. Southwick. Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Kenneth L. Cook,
-2-..little noticed legal provisions for tying water to national goals and regional land and water potential [in Water Quality Act] are highlighted in precis, to strengthen our earlier pitch for those principles [Tab B] to guide project formulations.
..a prospective case for Federal interest in regional water investment -- to weaken NWC conclusion that such has gone Dodo -- is at Tab E.
..planners at all levels should be interested in Tab C. ..I hope the NWC tie to market place values is weaken-ed by Par. 4;
..and enhancing the human environment appears at "alpha and omega".
The body of the report ties all together, I think. Now, tell me what to do differently, please!
Sincerely,
Carl Bronn
'i r '14-7-7‘ til . WI \
vf
Ntk rt
ri -N
•0•11.1111.•101111111,13019,..M.111.1,‘," • ,
pas-tures gardeils and parks
-4
have been
proyourizty trunsiorm:ng. the
n,
if
e
n
ts
erivilronmeras.
I
ne!,(
Eiseverywk
1
kC
P
4r4a4 Dv reirl-rr
h/
ti(Pfe
,
e sof
arna-• e
tor
'„f77
.‘7414'
rtn e4rommolk-py„Tf efccrp.mnd
11
i•`4 *I, VI,A.8 ki CVIII
. . r,
tttlif tztiltle
P: a
•
isat.:6,7
who
ceiebcc
t!tdLE;14
•
(:
✓ aft • ri-ar fia
ik
crlt 1, 4..10 taA ,4E.00
A A
ifs int11-2
1
ranfr,
!
.11 I I r' rint-M41Z4 k •1:-ewts z44.:4 •.5.1.,91.11SLOMMIGREINIVIIWIC101.1,24:12MISAMPAVIL.161,19612111.012.-14:01ENNIMIOI.1121%W.U.N.,,411.11.1..V.VOLIONEN.MiraitWP¢ iAtoriV74 -nzur=oiert-pa...tisiarommtacar-Aranerecara
THE SUNDAY STAR and DAILY NEWS Washngton, D. C., becernly,,r 24, 1972
By RENE DUOS
;•%.
Precis for NWRA's Discussion of the Draft Report of the National Water Commission which finds:
a. What was to have been done (see Tab A) is not fully done (see all of par. 3).
b. Impacts of the Draft's proposals are not evaluated; this is especially important since the whole effect may be greater than is revealed by untested summation of the parts. (See especially pars. 3 and 4)
c. Alternatives to Federal investment in water development--a mdevelopment--ajor fdevelopment--actor in the Federdevelopment--al-Stdevelopment--ate pldevelopment--anning for wdevelopment--ater and land--are not yet checked out with plans and planners (see 3b, 3c, 3d).
d. The view of environment is not particularly cognizant of values from, and need for, man-induced eco-systems (see par. 3e).
e. A great deal of valuable information has been compiled and reported (Tab F ). Its usefulness could be increased by--(1) Recommendations to the President and Congress for
accelerating certain studies authorized in the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (see end of par. 3c.). (2) Rethinking the views on Agricultural Futures.
(3) Testing of prospective conclusions and recommendations
through cases involving realities. (See especially
par. 5)
TABS accompanying this discussion are:
Frontispiece: Perspective About Agricultural Land Tab A
Tab B Tab C
- What is expected of NWO
4
- National Policies Which Water Resources Policy Should Support
- Elements of joint planning dispensable if Federal investment is greatly diminished
Tab D - An overview of Reclamation
Tab E - Federal interest in regional water development --a proposed c--ase
Tab F - Views in the Draft favored
PERSPECTIVE FOR
1/
An Alternative future for Agricultural Land
BEEF COWS & HEIFERS: PERCENTAGE GAINS DURING 1970-80
NORTHERN PLAINS
In Reclamation States, an additional 5-1/2 mil-lion acres of land will be irrigated by year 2000 (according to OBEAS projections furnished water planners).
* No survey made in the Northeast or Nevada. Numbers assumed constant at 1970 level.
FUTURE
By the year 2,000
"in some parts of the country, little agricultural land will remain
.. "In the Northeast, 16,000,000 acres in farms are expected to shift to nonagricultural uses.
"In the Southeast, the net decrease of land on farms will be 9,000,000 acres.
• "▪ However, in the Central and western States, agricultural
land is projectef.to be reduced by only about 2% . .
compared with the 6% - 7% decreases in the Southeast and Northeast . • •
. . (But) . the domestic use of* farm products is
expected to rise 55 percent in the next 30 years . . . allowing a small gain in per capita food consumption. ISSUE
Do the forces behind the foregoing figures make practicable an orderly substitution of eastern lands for western water, as in the Alternative Future furnished the National Water Commission by Iowa State University?
1/ Information from Department of Agriculture, The Farm Index, Dec. 1972, except as noted otherwise.
BACKGROUND
"Since 1950, lands used for recreation and wildlife have increased by 20,000,000 acres.
"Each year, for the past ten, cities have pulled nearly
three-quarters of a million acres of countryside under their wings.
• . . (with support uses) they have gobbled up a million acres each
year that may never again be used for agriculture.
"A 50 percent increase in cropland productivity since 1950 ... stems from more efficient farm organization, improved machinery, increased use of agricultural chemicals, additives to livestock
rations, improved species, more irrigation, •and regional shifts in
production.
About "more irrigation"--TABLE A
Changes in irrigated acreage (1000 acres)
Where 1949 1971 CHANGE
a.. 17 Western States (USBR) b... 2 other States: ARKANSAS FLORIDA (sum of 2 States) Two Futures Profile
"In general, it looks like urban uses won't take much cropland. An increase of 80 million people would take at most about 20 mil-lion acres of land ... about 10 millions might be cropland. This is 2% of our 430 million acres of cropland."
CAAD Report 40T,
Iowa State, June 1972, page 46. 4,820 8,570 3,750 For 422 1,500 1,078(2) 365 1,601 1,236 (up 2,304) (3) Year 2000 Full Face
"Of the nearly 34 million acres going out of farming., 22 million would be for urban expansion. ... another 7 mil-lion to recreation and
wild-life the remaining 5 million
for public facilities. The Farm Index, Dec. 1972, page 10.
(2) Irrigation Journal, Nov.-Dec. 1972, based on data from the
Universities.
(3) A "future" of agriculture in Arkansas and Florida might look
quite different had the Federal water development agencies not spent more than $2-1/4 billions in those two States.
_L-VIEWS OF THE NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION TO THE NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION,
ABOUT ITS DRAFT REPORT
Prelude:
Most diversions of irrigation water in the West make fields green, and most irrigation water returns to channels for further uses--instream and by diversions.
Green fields give variety to arid landscapes (there are about 1.2 billion acres of western landscapes) and sustenance to wildlife and for man. But man does not need irrigated agriculture, say some ....the world has too much already. Will this prove to be?
...."The Green Revolution, that widely hailed combination of new, high-grade, miracle grains and chemical ferti-lizers, is in trouble. World food production, which seemed to have permanently overtaken the rate of popula-tion growth, has tapered off to an annual growth rate of 1 to 2% in both 1971 and 1972, the Food and Agricultural Council was told a month ago. Worst of all--production appears to have actually fallen in the Far East, a grim irony"
....from "Eight Characters in Search of a Green Revolution," The Washington Post, • Dec. 31, 1972.
1. THIS ASSOCIATION:
The National Water Resources Association is a federation of associations in the 17 Reclamation States and Hawaii. Western governors created the organization in the early 1930s to aid western and national well-being through multi-purpose water development.
2. THE TASKS OF THE NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION:
Our discussion of the Draft Report of the N.W.C. is aimed at the tasks expected of the Commission. What was expected of the Commission is at Tab A, listed according to: law(I), announcements of the Commission(II), and views of Members of the Congress in
authority(III). The law which, established the Commission sets four key points—problems, requirements, alternatives, and impacts.
Quotes from the Commission and Meffibers of Congress expand the
meanings of those points.
2.
3. EXPECTATIONS NOT FULFILLED BY THE DRAFT REPORT:
a.
Money---Whether States, local governments, and private enterprise have the financial resources to construct the works con-templated by plans, and already authorized, is not
reported in the Draft! But, as Tab A shows, this was the subject of an initial inquiry to the governors, by the Commission. Further:
...the money issue looms even larger now than when first put to the States, because the Draft Report would phase down federal financing.
...the Draft proposes to "...increase the financial burden on State and local government." (pages 15-30)... and this when States are already overburdened by rising costs (an 87% rise in expeditures from 1965 to 1970!). b. Development to stimulate and to
guide--.How to use water resource development to stimulate and to guide economic growth is not reported in the Draft: By law, the Commission is required to consider economic impacts of development; it set about to study how best to use water for economic growth.
...Instead, the Commission concludes, and does so without back-up analyses of the water plans by Federal and State
entities, that:
..."While water resources projects have had very significant impacts on regional economic development and population distribution in the past, their role has been greatly diminished." (pages 3-46) Even a "diminished" role could be substantial. Should not the Water Resources Council--after consultation with its entities and the States--advise the Commission on this conclusion before it is verified to the President?
c. Evaluation of water resource
proposals--..The Commission stated a concern 'with the adequacy of systems for evaluating water resource proposals. The multi-objective approach of the Water Resources Council is generally
indorsed. But the back-up reports to the Commission did not study the potential of water resource developments to aid priority goals of the Nation, as stated in law and other-wise. (for which see list at Tab B , extracted from NWRA letter to NWC of September 7, 1972). I suggest that planning and evaluation not directed to priority national goals is deficient.
3.
..The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (1) directs a Presidential study of all national policies and goals in law, as related to resources, (2) authorizes River Study Centers for interdisciplinary studies to relate river and land uses, and (3) directs the President to use the Water Resources Council to complete Level B studies. Would the Commission indorse the funding of those items, and expedited action, to fill gaps in knowledge about the real Federal interest in water, land, and the general well-being?
d. Impacts and alternatives:
(1)..The potential impacts--economic, social, amenity, and regional --of the whole set of recommendations by the Commission are not discussed! Nor are alternatives to water projects in the planning pipeline, except unsubstantiated generalities
like--..."In any particular region, Federal funds might be more effectively employed by investing in transportation, education, or manpower training." (from page 14-26). ...about such "alternatives," casual inquiry reveals:
Transportation -- "Spending for transportation has become a bottomless pit. In the United States the total annual transport bill is
about $190 billions. But spending more money is not a guarantee that the
traffic will move." (from a Report on Environmental Issues, The Conserva-tion FoundaConserva-tion, Nov. 1972)
Education -- "an advanced university degree, once the
ticket of entrance to a secure world of college teaching, has become the mark of a young person searching for a job." (from the Washington Post, Dec. 29, 1972) Manpower training--"This fiscal year, Washington will pay
$1.6 billions to companies, vocational schools, and public and private agencies that contract to teach job skills to more than 1,000,000 unemployed and underemployed...in the views of many, the programs have swallowed huge
amounts of tax dollars but failed to put enough unemployed into productive jobs." (from TIME, "Taking Aim at Job Training", Dec. 18, 1972)
4. Especially in those areas already exporting educated manpower and with little besides agricultural products to transport out, should not such alternatives be tested before the conclusion is offered to the President and the Congress? (2)..The Report lacks a discussion of the impacts by its
recom-mendation on Federal-State planning; this is important, considering that the Draft visualizes:
...a reduction of new starts by the Federal water agencies (page 5-42)
...beneficiaries would have to repay the full costs of irriga-tion, drainage, and flood control (page 5-42)
...water programs should not try to influence the pattern of population distribution (page 3-46)
...it seems virtually certain that in the future the United States will need relatively few major navigation, flood control, or water power projects. For the foreseeable future, any needed increase in food and fiber production can probably be met at less cost by non-Federal action than by the construction of major engineering works by the Federal government (from pages 11-33 and 34).
...to a large extent, economic development benefits of water projects accruing only to one region will result in off-setting losses in other regions (page 14-26).
...In sum, the impact could well be less action from Federal-State planning. Money spent on plans not likely to cause actions is wasteful and harmful, the Commission surely would agree.
Therefore, the Commission might like to test the set of premises quuted above against the outline of a basin study underway. The Commission might conclude that the premises dispense with most elements of the Study. As a test, an outline of a basin study is at Tab C ;
elements dispensable under Draft premises are underlined. e. The whole environment:
(1)..How water resource developments could enhance amenities and future long-term productivity -- aims of the National Environmental Policy Act -- is not set forth in the
Draft, or its back-up:
...Chapter 2 does discuss impacts on the "natural environ-ment", but generally with regard to assessing changes considered advert;e. Capabilities to enhance natural amenities are not presented: "ecosystems" are discussed only in the sense that they may be impaired, whereas: the general well-being requires regard for:
5. ...."the symbiotic interplay between man and nature to
generate ecosystems more diversified and interesting than those of wilderness... Many richnesses of nature are brought to light and sustained only through
humanization of the landscape, as in agriculture...." from Dr. Rene Dubos, microbiologist, recipient of honorary degrees from 26 institutions and at least a half-dozen awards for contributions to science; see his lecture "Humanizing the Earth", to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 29, 1972.
....And irrigated agriculture is especially effective in humanizing the earth. It reduces the ravages of flood and drouth through storage and conveyance. Further, its works relieve the human load on national parks and
forests, a factor of growing importance as rationing
of visits to parks and forests is considered. It relieves the monotony of millions of acres of land otherwise used by people only to get from one place to another.
....Humanization ...of rural areas becomes critical as a force to counter those which draw people from under-utilized areas to overtax seriously the recuperative capabilities of that 1-1/2 percent of the National area comprising "urban volcanos".
4. THE WHOLE REPORT:
a. As a whole, the Draft emphasizes the use of water to maximize economic returns as measured in the market place (i.e. value according to willingness to pay). ... but in detail, that
concept of willingness to pay is weakened for most recreational purposes, and disappears for "environmental" values. It
seems that the standard for "men at work" would be different from that for "men at play":
b. The concept of value according to the market-place, for the worker, is linked with a game whereby eastern agricultural land could be substituted for western water. Wrapping this in a postulate that one region's gain is another's loss, the Draft concludes:
"...the Bureau of Reclamation should phase out its design and construction activities as presently authorized
projects are completed" (page 11-92).
(1)....But the Department of Agriculture plays a different game for the future, as regards agriculture in the eastern States ... for which see the Frontispiece of this discussion.
(2)...The Department of Agriculture data may not include a high level of export of agricultural products. While the rise of the past few years may not continue, balance of trade difficulties require a National effort for
6.
(3) •
agricultural exports -- especially as our competitive positions on oil, gas, and, other minerals grows weaker. ..Further, irrigation in proposals for Reclamation is
a means, not an objective. Its objectives are like those of accelerated tax depreciation; this provides a subsidy now (and in the near future) to gain jobs and exports, longer range.
(4)....The Draft does not study the effects (as on recrea-tion, fish and wildlife, other amenities, and municipal
and industrial water) of stopping. the subsidization of irrigation. An overview of the Reclamation program, as at Tab D , suggests that interdependency of
subsidized irrigation with other values sought from free-market uses of water (for humanization of under-used areas) merits special study.
(5)...The Draft does not examine whether transitions of water to other uses, as postulated in the Iowa State back-up report, would come about in practicable
fashion. If not, can the Iowa report be a dominant factor in conclusions?
C. The Draft stresses the need to link National policies and private practices for the water resource to that of land. But the Draft advocates a different philosophy for the water resource from that in legislative proposals for the National Land Use Policy, which the Draft seems to support: Specifically:
...all legislative drafts for a National Land Use policy propose to downgrade market-place values as determinant of benefits from private lands,
...whereas, for water--a public thing--the Draft would emphasize market-place values as the determinant of benefits!
Does the Commission propose that the Federal government move into private lands to restrain the free market, while moving out of water in favor of a free market?
5. THE REMEDY: (To fulfill stated expectations and to visualize
over-all effects)
....Test! Do this by applying the proposed recommendations to water projects in the planning pipeline, preferably those which have been approved by concerned governors. For those projects which flunk, assess the impacts, and the practicability of alternatives offered by the Draft tepokt. The "case for cases" follows:
(1)..Test cases reveal more than millions of words in argument about costs, cost sharing, interest rates, secondary values and other theories that are still kicking around after 20 years of controversy.
7. (2)..Test cases would reveal the impacts of proposals on
many communities.. .Those without viable alternatives
to water proposals may cause the Commission to provide criteria for "endangered communities", as for endangered species.
(3)..Tests can be run without great out-of-pocket expense because existing feasibility reports provide multi-disciplined analyses of needs and prospective results; other economic and amenity data - water oriented
and which cost hundreds of millions of dollars -have already been compiled by States, river-basin entities, and the Water Resources Council.
(4)..In addition to cases in the planning pipeline, others in the offing might test specific Draft positions (as the obsolescence of water projects to aid regional development). An example of such a case is at Tab E .
SUBJECTIVE VIEWS:
This discussion has generally avoided the "we prefer" or "we support" statements. Our prime purpose is to induce thought, not votes. But the NWRA's ad hoc Committee on your Draft does offer subjective views at Tab FL
Postlude
--.."Our civilization will become increasingly spiritless and dreary if we do not learn to recognize and cultivate positive environmental values, to remember that Man has frequently improved on nature by transforming it either for profit or for love.
Intact, many of the earth's potentialities remained unexpressed until they were brought out by human labor, imagination and indeed, fantasy."
NWRA
12/27/72
TAB A TO TESTIMONY OF NWRA TO THE NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION, February 1973
SUBJECT:
Primary results expected from the studies of the National .Water Commission.
I. RESULTS ESTABLISHED BY LAW -- IPL
90-515]a. To discern and to examine problems; to project requirements; to identify alternative actions.
b. To consider impacts of development - economic, social, aesthetic, and regional.
II. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS AS STATED BY THE NATIONAL WATER
COMMISSION ITSELF (Suggested key items for field conferences with the Governors and others; July 25, 1969)
a. To report whether state, local governments, and private
enterprise have the financial resources to solve major water problems. b. To consider how water resources development can best be
used to stimulate and direct further economic growth in States and regions.
c. To determine whether present methods for evaluating pros-pective developments are adequate.
III. RESULTS SOUGHT BY INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE COMMITTEES OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
a. To report whether improvements in economic efficiency, the alleviation of unemployment, the stabilization of production and income; the well being of communities, and the quality of goods . and services are available through water resource investments.
b. To examine social and economic consequences of complete or partial failure to satisfy such needs as may relate to water
12/27/72
-2- NWRAC. To suggest methods for, and to compare the consequences
of
alternative funding options open to the U.S. Congress (III a,b,
and c are from letter by Senator Alan Bible dated December 12to the National Water Commission. Similar views are evident in letters by Senator Mark Hatfield and Congressman John Rhodes to
the
National Water Commission, December, 1969).d. To analyze--in the category of a "major problem"--the broad effects of delay in federal funding of projects already
authorized (letter by Congressman Harold T. (Bizz) Johnson, to .the National Water Commission, December, 1969)..
SUMMATION
1.
Key words in the law are--problems; requirements,alterna-tives, impacts.
2. Key thoughts in the National Water Commission's initial approach--sources of money to solve water problems; use of water to stimulate econoiilic growth; adequacy of methods for evaluating
• water developments.
3. Keys to aidingmembers of the Congress: national goals that may be furthered by water resources development; consequences of partial failure to satisfy water resources needs; comparative consequences of alternative funding options!
CONCLUSION
The specifics proposed by the NWC, itself, and the needs
stated by
members
of Congress, all lie within the scope of justfour key words of the law.
A (2)
TAB B. Extracts from attachment to letter of Sept. 7 to the NWC. NATIONAL POLICIES WHICH WATER RESOURCES SHOULD SUPPORT
Such policies, and their sources, include:
A. "Sound balance between rural and urban America requiring
. . . that the highest priority be given to the
revitaliza-tion and development of rural areas."
(From Public Law 51-524, Title IX, Section 901. Also, Senate Report 92-734, the Rural Develop-ment Act for 1972, states recent Congressional policy to use water resources for rural
vitalization.)
B. "To help reverse trends of migration and physical growth which reinforce disparities among States, regions, and cities ... to apply resources in strengthening the economic and social health ... to assure adequate tax base and job opportunities...
(From P.L. 91-609, Title VII, Section 102.)
C. "Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and ... pleasing surroundings.
(P.L. 91-190, Sec. 101(b)(2).)
D. "To provide for optimum development of the Nation's natural resources."
,.. to give special regard to "contributions which such plans (water and related land resources) will make in -obtaining the Nation's economic and social goals."
(Both from P.L. 89-80.)
E. "In every recommendation or report on proposals for
legislation or other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on
... IV The relationship between short-term use of man's environment and the maintenance and enhance-ment of long-term productivity.
(P.L. 91-190, Sec. 102(2)(c))
F. Not in law, but stated by the President as objectives
of subsidies through accelerated depreciation --create jobs
.. promote economic growth
.. increase the competitiveness of U.S. goods abroad. B.
Elements of the planning for the Platte River Basin.
'(Elements underlined may be dispensable under concepts of the Draft Report of THE NWC)
Study Area
LOUP SUBBASIN
Primary Objectives:
1. To
protect and enhance the scenic areas
and recreational projects on lakes, rivers
and streams.
2.
Determine capability and limitations of
land use to assure minimum hazards of
wind erosion of the Sandhills region.
Questions For Public Resolution:
1.
Development of ground water for
irriga-tion vs. waterfowl producirriga-tion in high
water table areas.
0
2.
More intensive agricultural use of
Sand-hills vs. established uses for grass and
livestock.
3.
Downstream use of water for
hydro-electric power vs. upstream uses for
culture and industry.
4.
Flood control reservoirs vs. levees and
flood plain regylation.
UPPER PLATTE SUBBASIN
Primary Objectives:
1.
Minimize flood and
ero-sion damage,.
2.
Attain greater efficiency
in
application of irrigation
water within existing
sys-tems.
3.
Determine interrelationships between
ground and surface water so conjunctive
use systems may be considered.
4.
Improve water quality, in many streams.
Questions For Public Resolution:
1.
Flood control reservoirs vs. levees and
flood plain regulation.
2.
Clearing of channel debris which inhibit
flows vs. natural environmental needs.
3.
Downstream use of water for
hydro-electric power vs. upstream consumptive
uses.
4.
Water quality enhancement vs. additional
agricultural uses such as irrif;ation and
feedlots.
Q.
) et,
ELKHORN SUBBASIN
Primary Objectives:
1.
Minimize flood dama e, which is the
hi:h-est of any subbasin.
2.
Develop a fish, wildlife and recreation
potential to accommodate the large urban
centers near the subbasin.
Questions For Public Resolution:
1.
Flood control reservoirs vs. levees and
flood plain regulation.,
2.
Development of ground water for
irriga-tion vs. waterfowl producirriga-tion in high
water table areas.
3. Provision of
streamflow for water quality
en-hancemerft vs. —d-e-V' elopment of
addi-tional agricultural uses for irrigation and
feedlots.
I
UPPER PLATTE r LOUPL_
EL- 10--IN' J -1, .C:NNER PLATTE.LOWER PLATTE SUBBASIN
Primary Objectives:
1.
Provide for future municipal, industrial
and dgmestic demands for water.
2.
Meet the recreational needs for urban
areas within and near the subbasin.
3.
Propose plans to control flood and erosion
damage.
Questions For Public Resolution:
1.
Flood control reservoirs vs. levees and
flood plain regulation.
2.
Water quality enhancement vs. additional
agricultural and industrial uses.
I4Yo v ci c (2 r" 1-0 / ac.// 'c A/c"
Study Guidelines
All plans must have guidelines or objectives.
The national overall purpose of water and
land resource planning is to reflect society's
preferences for achieving the following
ob-jectives set down by the Water Resources
Council.
1. To enhance the national economic
devel-opment by increasing the value of the
nation's output of goods and services and
improving national economic efficiency.
2.
To enhance the quality of the
environ-ment by the manageenviron-ment, conservation,
preservation, creation, restoration, or
im-provement of the quality of certain
natural and cultural resources and
eco-logical systems.
3.
To enhance regional development through
increases in a region's income; increases
in employment; distribution of population
within and among regions; improvements
of the region's economic base and
educa-tional, cultural and recreational
oppor-tunities; and enhancement of its
environ-ment and other specified components of
regional development.
'
Planning fur 'Flood Prevention
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
• - •
Planning for
for the Environment
General criteria which will be followed
dur-ing the Study will include.:
1. The study will be of reconnaissance level.
2.
The base year used will be
1970.3.
Three planning periods will be
used-1970-85;
1985-2000; 2000-2020.4.
Coordination with the upstream states of
Wyoming and Colorado regarding
utiliza-tion of `water will be maintained.
5.
Only those projects and programs
con-structed and operational as of
1970will
be considered as existing.
6.
Future needs for 50 years will be met in
each planning area prior to identification
of surplus flows for potential diversion to
meet critical needs elsewhere in Nebraska.
7. Approved State Water Quality Standards
will he recognized and followed during
the study.
L
Land Resource
Acc
mplishm nts
Bureau of Reclamation
MILLIONSS 200
160
ANNUAL ENERGY REVENUES
120in 1971, about fifty billion KW-hours)
80 40 0 59.1 69.7 75.4 100.8 140.6 161.4 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971
Ten Leading Flood Control Projects
Project and State
Flood Control Benefits 1950-1970
Cumulative 1971 1950-1971Cumulative (thousands)
Central Valley, California $271,960 $ 1,700 $273,660
Colorado River Storage (Main Stem Features),
Arizona-California-Colorado-Nevada-New
Mexico-Utah-Wyoming 117,971 4,069 122,040
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program,
Colorado-Kansas-Montana-Nebraska-North Dakota-South
Dakota-Wyoming 82,963 4 2,764 85,727
Colorado River, Texas 54,332 54,332
Columbia Basin, Washington 36,432 2,037 38,469
Boise, Idaho-Oregon 33,071 3,896 36,967
Washoe, Nevada 36,060 - 36,060
Hungry Horse, Montana 28,768 3,331 32,099
Minidoka-Palisades, Idaho-Wyoming 25,159 7,289 32,448
Salt River, Arizona 18,530 - 18,530
Other Projects 65 428 7,706 73,134
Total $770,674 $32,792 $803,466
1971
BILLION GALLONS 1,200 —
MUNICIPALINDUSTRIAL
AND OTHER NONAGRICULTURAL
WATER SERVICE
1958-1971
MILLIONS —15 C=I800 •0040•"...too. POPULATION SERVED,/ • ••••*.i.#./ 10 c=1u, C6. ..**" ton Le, CD Cd UJ ••• \WATER SUPPLIED 400 5 CD C1-1559 1661 1963 1965 1967 191)5 17i Year Recreational Activity (1959-1971) Visitor-Days (million) Index (1959=100) 1°59 22.7 100.0 1960 24.3 107.0 1961 25.6 112.8 1962 27.0 118.9 1963 34.7 152.9 1964 34.3 151.1 1965 36.6 161.2 1966 44.9 197.8 1967 47.9 211.0 1968 49.5 218.1 1969 54.5 240.1 1970 54.2 238.8 1971 55.7 245.4GROSS VAIIIE BY
CROP CATEGORIES
1961-1S71
*WIPERIII I
MILLION $ 2000 MEALS I 1000 1.1!SC. FIELD CROPS FORAGE HIM AND NUTS "VEGETABLES*Includes seed, nursery and additional revenues **Indudes family gardens and orchards
MO
1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971
1.0.1..1.1.0•••
TAB E
TAB E -- To NWRA Discussion of Draft Report with the National Water Commission
SUBJECT: THE FEDERAL INTEREST IN REGIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT: A CASE.
Background:
The Draft Report of NWC downgrades future Federal water. devel-opment as an effective aid to regional develdevel-opment in the national interest. Neither the Draft Report nor its back-up seriously
analyzes the potential of Federal investment in water resource development to aid national goals, except water quality.
That the potential of water for regional development -- of national purpose -- merits study is evident in the following case: The Case:
How to obtain energy at affordable prices -- a universal goal is reported by the National Petroleum Council's Committee on U.S. Energy Outlook, in a preprint copy of December, 1972. The Outlook forecasts energy needs, discusses sources, considers synthetics, and examines water requirements related to making energy available. Extracts from Chapter 10 follow:
WATER AVAILABILITY Introduction:
Electric power plants require large volumes of water for
cooling purposes. Plants that produce synthetic oil and gas need large volumes of water, both for processing and cooling....
There is sufficient surface water in the overall western states area to supply the amounts required for these plants, but it is often locally insufficient within the areas containing oil shale and coal. Also, legal restrictions will impede its geographic re-deployment.
Summary and Conclusions:
Estimates of water availability are those of Federal, State and local agencies.
A billion dollar program to construct dams and aqueducts would have to be initiated almost immediately to assure sufficient water
..CONTINUED..
-2-availability to meet the high energy supply projections set forth in Case I. Case IV would permit a delay of two years in beginning such a construction project. Other needs of the area make this project necessary in the near future regardless of the development of the synthetic fuels industries.
The water requirements of these new plants could be largely met by the Montana-Wyoming Aqueduct as preliminarily planned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. This aqueduct would transport
water from the Bighorn and Yellowstone Rivers into the coal-bearing regions of Montana and Wyoming. In order to be in service by 1981 --as required by the projections in C--ase I -- the engineering planning work would have to begin in 1972. Even for Case IV, work would
have to begin in 1974. The project, estimated to cost $750 million, will require Federal funding for construction. The cost of the
project could be repaid by those companies utilizing the water or mining the coal on Federal lands.
Sustained energy development at rates higher than those
projected in Case I for 1985 will require very large investments for water resource projects with long lead times, and may ultimately require major governmental decisions regarding the allocation of water resources among competitive users.
Scope of the Report:
A large portion of the potential energy resources to meet future demand for energy production from oil shale and coal is located in the western states.
PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS ON WATER AVAILABILITY
..time interval represented by most specific records is relatively short, covering an historical period of less than 30 years.
..the risk of an unpredictable dry cycle becomes a
serious matter. As the point is approached when all of the apparently available water in any one area is committed to use, a decision to invest capital in additional plant capa-city becomes more risky.
Montana:
Water availability could be a potentially limiting factor in energy development in Montana -- particularly when there is a requirement to utilize the water that is not in streams near the
4.
-3-identified coal deposits -- due to the requirements for capital and construction time....many considerations argue against this [a piecemeal] approach, particularly the inefficiency of using a series of small systems and the danger of increased damage to the environment. A major transmission facility, logically originating in Montana and crossing near much of Montana's coal, will be re-quired to serve energy requirements in Wyoming. A single, integrat-ed water distribution system such as the Montana-Wyoming Aquintegrat-educt System proposed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is the indicated logical alternative.
..it must be recognized that the 8-year lead time allows no delays in study authorization, planning, consideration of the environmental impact, congressional authorization and funding for construction, and, of course, the construct-ion of a near-billconstruct-ion dollar aqueduct.
Wyoming:
....It appears that the construction of a single integrated aqueduct system to move Bighorn-Yellowstone River water to the northeastern Wyoming coal fields offers a more practical approach to development of a water supply to meet the projected require-ments of the 1980's.
....Use of the waters of the Yellowstone River System is
controlled by the Yellowstone River Compact among Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming, approved by Congress October 30, 1951 [65 Stat. 663].
LETTER OF INTENT TO BID ON NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION CONVENTION FOR YEAR
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NWRA
1. This Organization, representing the State of
desires to be heard by the Board of Directors of NWRA in order to present its Bid for the NWRA Annual Convention for the indicated year.
2. Name of Sponsoring Organization (or Organizations)
3. The City and State in which Convention will be held is:
4. Proposed dates, during period October 15 - November 15, are:
1st Choice 2d Choice 3d Choice
5. Sponsoring Organization Agreement attached, Enclosure 1.
r
6. Motel Headquarters Assurance attached, Enclosure 2.
7: The Presentation to the Board of Directors when scheduled,
will be made by the following persons:
Date
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE By
Name Title Address
ENCLOSURE 1 - LETTER OF AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF SPONSORING ORGANIZATION TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NWRA
1. Convention Bid for year
2. Name of Sponsoring Organization (or Organizations)
3. Name of Bidding City and State
4. Proposed Dates (October - November)
1st Choice 2d Choice 3d Choice
5. The above named Organization (or Organizations) agree to sponsor
the NWRA Annual Convention for the year indicated, and, if chosen, will perform the following services:
A. Provide Convention Staff of workers to take care
of Convention Organization.
B. Submit prepared Convention Format to Board of Directors for approval at the Summer Meeting on or about
which will include details on: (1) Convention Budget
(2) Preparation of Program
(3) Preparation of Convention Announcement Material (4) Preparation of Registration/Reservation Forms
(5) Mailing of Convention Materials including Announcement and Registration/Reservation Requests to individuals on lists furnished by National Headquarters and supplemented by local sponsoring organizations
(6) Handling of all details with Convention Headquarters (7) Assisting National Headquarters in obtaining speakers
and preparation and mailing of Letters of Invitation to speakers and program participants
(8) Working with National Headquarters on determing Fees and Registration charges, including costs of individual functions, limited packages, whole show and wives
registration fees
(9) Furnishing of badges, name cards, etc. for Convention Delegates, Honored Guests, Wives, etc.
(10) Handling of Pre-registration of delegates (11) Ladies Program Activities
•
ENCLOSURE 1 PAGE 2
6. Estimate of Convention "Surplus" that will be remitted to
National Headquarters is:
A Firm Guarantee of is pledged.
7. Hotel Reservations will be handled in this manner. Check one:
A. Handled directly by the Headquarters Hotel with the Requests Received on a separate Application and forwarded to Hotel by the Sponsoring Organization, with confirmation to delegates direct from the Hotel. I
B. Sponsoring Organization will receive requests as a part of the Registration/Reservation Form and Housing handled through a Central Housing Committee.
C. Hotel Reservations will be handled by the Convention Bureau
of the Chamber of Commerce or other
organization.
8. All Delegates will be housed in the Headquarters Hotel
Rooms available or in the alternative,
Rooms will be available in the Headquarters Hotel and-other Delegates housed, as follows:
Hotel Blocks from HQ Hotel
Rooms available
Hotel Blocks from HG Hotel
Rooms available
Hotel Blocks from HG Hotel
,. .
1 ENCLOSURE 1
PAGE 3
9. The Sponsoring Organization, as indicated above, will coordinate
all matters concerning the Convention with National Headquarters.
By
Date
Sponsoring Organization Name
ENCLOSURE 2 - LETTER OF ASSURANCE FROM CONVENTION HEADQUARTERS HOTEL TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NWRA
1. Name of Hotel
2. By this letter, the above named Hotel agrees to serve as the
Convention Headquarters for the NWRA Annual Convention for
the year and makes the following dates available in
October-November: 1st Choice
2d Choice 3d Choice
3. The Hotel, as Convention Headquarters, will block off and make
available for Registered Convention Delegates, Convention Participants, etc., the following number of rooms
which will be:
A. Sufficient to take care of the entire Convention (at least 650 rooms will be required)
or
B. Arrangements will be made with the following other Hotels to take care of the difference indicated:
Hotel Rooms Blocked
Hotel Rooms Blocked
Hotel Rooms Blocked
Hotel Rooms Blocked
3. As Convention Headquarters, the Hotel agrees to furnish
complimentary the following:
A. number of three room suites for officials.
B. number of rooms for workers and participants.
C. number of rooms for Convention Headquarters,
Press Room, Reproduction Room, etc.
D. number of Meeting Rooms for State Caucuses
ENCLOSURE 2 PAGE 2
5. Meal functions can be handled in the following manner:
For Luncheons Capacity
For Receptions Capacity
For Banquet Capacity
Other Rooms available are:
Capacity Capacity
6. The Hotel will work with the Sponsoring Organization and National
Headquarters to make sure that all arrangements for the Convention are handled well in advance of the arrival of the guests.
By
Date
Hotel Name Title
TENTATIVE AGENDA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MARCH 19-21 [For Review at First Session of Board]
Open: Promptly at 1:30 P.M., March 19 [Board Room, Quality Inn-Capitol Hill Hotel].
1. Minutes of latest meeting [Salt Lake City]. 2. Review of Schedule:
MARCH 19
..2:30 P.M., Senator Church ..3:15 P.M., Board Room. ..Evening, not determined. MARCH 20
[Room 245 Old Senate Office Building].
..9:00 A.M., Board Room
..11:50 A.M., Luncheon with Water & Power Resources Subcommittee of the House, Room B-369, Rayburn House Office Building.
..2:00 P.M., Board Room [possible recess to contact delegations]. ..4:45 P.M., Reception, Rooms B-339 and 340, Rayburn House Office
Building, end 7:00 P.M. MARCH 21
..9:00 A.M., Board Room.
..10:15 A.M., Board Room -- hear Acting Director, Office of Water Resources Research [Dr. Warren Hall].
..11:00 A.M., Board Room -- Executives USBR, and possibly others. ..12:00 Noon, Congressional Room, Luncheon for USBR [Directors'
wives included].
..2:00 P.M., Board Room. MARCH 22
..9:30 A.M., NWRA Executive Committee, NWRA Office.
..12:00 Noon, Senator Jackson address on energy, Press Club. 3. Fiscal Review:
..income-outgo, 1972 ..projected outgo, 1973 ..income, 1973
..each Director reports regarding Resolution #72-4 to raise income by at least 25%.
..Director Southwick recaps Salt Lake City Convention results. ..income, 1974 [may defer to Summer Board meeting, or Phoenix Convention].
TENTATIVE AGENDA----2
4. National Water Commission Report: ..views stemming from field hearings.
[Spokane, Phoenix, New Orleans and D.C. ..forthcoming hearings by Congress.
..Agriculture -- future study by NWRA? ..Cost sharing -- changes in views?
5. Discussion of factors influencing water development:
—Construction; legal; planning; research; debt amortization; and national policies, overall.
6.
National Land Use Policy:..John Rosholt, et. al.
7. Pollution and Irrigation "Point" and "Non-Point" Sources. 8. Objectives of the Phoenix Convention:
..Committee to advise.
9. Summer Board Meeting -- Purposes; Time; Place
..[options like: University of Nebraska; alongside either Western States Water Council or Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission; at site of authorized but unfunded proj-ect; central location, as Denver].
10. Appointment of Committee Chairmen and Review of Missions.
National Water Resources Association February 13, 1973 DRAFT 2/13/73
RECD.
FEB 1 5 1973
Some notes on testimony before the National Water Commission in Washington, D. C. on February 8 and 9, 1973.
Representing the State of Pennsylvania was Maurice Goddard, formerly a member of the Public Land Law Review Commission.. He stated that a principal weakness of the report is its lack of any analysis of impact on society of the proposals. Further he stated there is an over-emphasis on economic efficiency as a basis for decision-making. He stated further that the pro-posed user charges is one of the items which requires an in-depth study of impacts before legislation is proposed.
Mr. Goddard stated that States and local interests simply cannot finance flood control that is justified, considering the income tax burden imposed by the Federal Government.
While recognizing that flood control for future development may not be the answer to the flood plain problem, he did state that the relocation of existing communities is quite impractical; for such communities, flood control needs to be examined in
regard to total impact.
For the State of Maryland a representative of the Department of Natural Resources stated that the State and local interests simply do not have the money adequately to plan for river basin management; he proposed increased funding for the Water Resources Council, and State Planning Agencies under the WRC Act. Further he stated that the Regional Planning Agencies proposed by the
Draft Report tended to be too much "single purpose", which is one of the problems of the Susquehanna River Basin organi-zation. The further fault with planning is that there are too many plans for the amount of action which results.
2.
A representative of Cornell complained that the National Water Commission does not really understand the Water Quality Act. Further, he stated that congressional intent was quite evident in the statement of Senator Buckley on the floor of the Senate and during the debate:
Hans Walker, representing the Office of Indian Water Rights in the Department of Interior, objected to proposals of the draft report that Indian Water Rights could be quantified through the State Courts. Mr. Luce reminded him that there always is the prospect of appeal through the Federal Courts'.
Walker seemed to accept the use of courts to quantify present uses, provided that Federal review is assured. How-ever, while he was arguing that the future should be left
entirely open for the Indians, he and Mr. Luce debated what the report really means [leaving one in doubt as to Mr. Walker's intention].
Frank Dushenek, representing the National Congress of American Indians, objected to proposals of the draft that
downstream users of water from Indian lands should be compensated whenever their water is withdrawn, based on a finding of
prior Indian rights.
Mr. Luce stated that when downstream people have obtained water under combined Federal and State procedures - surely
they should be entitled to compensation if the water is removed. However, Mr. Dushenek said "No: The people asked for the
project, the Government did not force the water upon them. They took the risk and lost."
A number- of other Indians, representing various Tribes and portions thereof, testified with regard to the draft report. In general they seemed to oppose the idea of any compensation, presumably on the basis that this might interfere with determina-tion of rights. They also pointed out that, in preparing for adjudication of rights, the Indians do not have the funds to do the necessary work and hire skilled counsel. They must have financial aid for this.
Representing the State of South Dakota, Joe Grimes said that irrigation for that State gives the opportunity to stabilize --not to reach and get more. Further he stated that livestock growing is the Principal occupation: for this, drouth is an extreme hazard; that is, loss of feed can cause reduction of breeding stock. The effects of this continue for years after the drouth ends.
3.
Mr. Grimes also noted that construction of reservoirs on the Missouri had taken vast amounts of agricultural lands which the State and local people felt would be returned through irrigation. In the decades since construction was started, no substantial quantity of land has been put under
irrigation from the reservoired waters. The Commissioners seemed to be particularly interested in this point.
glusen,
Mrs. representing the League of Women Voters, seemed
to be interested primarily in advocating additional funding for citizens groups participating in water resource decisions.
Representing the Water Resources Research Institute at Rutgers, Bill Whipple(B.G. retired) noted that the present flood insurance program is subsidized; therefore subsidy for flood protection harmonizes with that policy where flood
protection is better than flood insurance. He spoke in favor of the yield rate as determinant of costs and discounts. He agreed also that the objectives of the Water Quality Act are unreal. Further, he stated that there is no real study of the objectives of water quality legislation.
The navigation interests came in strong, being represented not only by a variety of associations but also by support areas in cities and counties which industries depend upon for .water movement of goods.
Representing the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Allan Agnew, of Washington State
University, endorsed the report right down the line. His was the most commendatory statement I heard. He went beyond, and said that the Nation must realign its priorities for water development and that some elements of society would have to make sacrifices. He concluded by praising the statesmanship and the objectivity of the report.
Representing the National Audubon Society, Elvis Stahr
(former Secretary of Army), said they are so favorably impressed with the draft report that they hired two experts to prepare a 26-page review. This has been reproduced and mailed to
thousands of people. Mr. Stahr specifically wanted to endorse the draft review on ending subsidies and allocating full costs. Further, they liked the drive toward economic efficiency --as by making people pay. He stated that Federal water resource development is no longer needed for the national wellbeing.
4.
The representative of the State of Vermont stated that --while dams aid Vermont fish and wildlife by augmenting sununer flows -- there are many other disadvantages; he is not certain that there are overall gains. Vermont endorses the view that people ought to stay off flood plains, and that further develop-ment on them should be stopped. Further, he favors public obtain-ing ownership of flood plains. Vermont favors high priority
for recreation. In this, multipurpose development is often a poor compromise.
A joint statement was read for Governors Rampton and
Hathaway of Utah and Wyoming. The statement suggested that the Iowa study is a simplistic solution, which has no place in
real life. Further the Draft Review of the future of agriculture does not provide contingencies, a major defect.
The two governors do not support the theory that social goals obtained through water development are at an end. Nor do they support the thesis that development in one region is necessarily an offset in another -- especially with the
continued population growth and rising standards of living. A representative of the Delaware Valley Conservation Association complained that the draft tends to generalize problems, not to solve them. Further, the draft is entirely neglectful of the biological energy of waters. In the brief period the witness was unable to develop the practical value
of this, but the point may some day come to the aid of reservoirs as a basic waste treatment device.
A representative of the American Society of Civil Engineers stated that Federal subsidies are extensive and pervasive.
He stated that policy wi-th regard to water resources ought to be in harmony with the general practices for subsidizing
programs which advance the national interest. He urged that the Commission delete requirements, as to interbasin transports, for deteLmining the economic gains for developing areas which would lose water. Such determination is impractical. The representative concurred that the Bureau of Reclamation should strengthen its "water management capabilities" but not that it should be phased out of engineering. No logic was given for this recommendation.
Representing the Western States Water Council, Mr. Tom Cahill said:
.."The free market assumptions used in the study on agriculture ignore proper relationships between agricultural output and
5.
..National economic efficiency is not necessarily the highest goal of water resources development.
..Environmental planning should not ignore the welfare of the public.
..Rights to the use of water acquired by appropriation and use under the laws of the States are property rights: Federal statutes should not be used to pressure States to enact legis-lation adversely affecting such rights.
..The draft's reliance on cost-sharing policies would reduce the governmental role to that of the banker with a limited social conscience.
..Regional development concepts should be included as objectives in all plans for proposed water programs.
The United States Farm Bureau introduced a 20-page single-spaced set of views. The Bureau recommended that the period for review of the draft be extended to July 15. Also, it recommended that the 160-acre limitation be increased to a realistic value -- but that surcharges not necessarily be a
condition for changing the limitation. He reported that sports-men rely heavily on the Nation's farmers as friends. (I am
not sure what the Bureau wanted the National Water Commission to recommend in this regard). The Bureau believes that legis-lation is needed to dispel uncertainties about the applied reservation doctrine. And "The Farm Bureau for many years has recommended that the construction of additional Federal water projects which would provide water to bring new land into agri-cultural production be postponed until such production is needed."
The Environmental Policy Center of Washington, D. C.
recommends the deauthorization of the Central Arizona Project, the Central Utah Project, our three Nebraska projects, Garrison,
REC L
-4
JAN
8 1973
12/27/72
TAB A TO TESTIMONY OF NWRA TO THE NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION, February 1973
SUBJECT:
NWRA
Primary results expected from the studies of the National Water Commission.
I. RESULTS ESTABLISHED BY LAW
a. To discern and to examine problems; to project requirements; to identify alternative actions.
b. To consider impacts of development - economic, social, aesthetic, and regional.
II. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS AS STATED BY THE NATIONAL WATER
COMMISSION ITSELF (Suggested key items for field conferences with the Governors and others; July 25, 1969)
a. To report whether state, local governments, and private
enterprise have the financial resources to solve major water problems. b. To consider how water resources development can best be
used to stimulate and direct further economic growth in States and regions.
c. To determine whether present methods for evaluating pros-pective developments are adequate.
III. RESULTS SOUGHT BY INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE COMMITTEES OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
a. To report whether improvements in economic efficiency, the alleviation of unemployment, the stabilization of production
and income; the well being of communities, and the quality of goodst
and services are available through water resource
investments.
b. To examine social and economic consequences of complete or partial failure to satisfy such needs as may relate to water%
14.
12/27/72 -2- NWRA
c. To suggest methods for, and to compare the consequences of alternative funding options open to the U.S. Congress (III a, b, and c are from letter by Senator Alan Bible dated December 12
to the National Water Commission. Similar views are evident in
letters by Senator Mark Hatfield and Congressman John Rhodes to
the National Water Commission, December, 1969).
d. To analyze--in the category of a "major problem"--the broad effects of delay in federal funding of projects already authorized (letter by Congressman Harold T. (Bizz) Johnson, to the National Water Commission, December, 1969).
SUMMATION
1. -Key words in the law are—problems; requirements, alterna-tives, impacts.
2. Key thoughts in the National Water Commission's initial approach--sources of money to solve water problems; use of water to stimulate economic growth; adequacy of methods for evaluating water developments.
3. ,Keys to aiding members of the Congress: national goals that may be furthered by water resources development; consequences of partial failure to satisfy water resources needs; comparative consequences of alternative funding options!
CONCLUSION
The specifics proposed by the NWC, itself, and the needs stated by members of Congress, all lie within the sqope of just four key NO/vas of the law.
DRAFT 1/2/73
VIEWS OF THE NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
TO: NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION, ABOUT ITS DRAFT REPORT
1. This Association:
The National Water Resources Association is a Federation of Associations in the 17 Reclamation States and Hawaii. The organi-zation was formed in the early 1930s to aid Western Governors
achieving multi-purpose water resource developments vital to Western and National well-being.
2. The Tasks of the NWC:
Criticisms of the Draft Report should be directed to tasks expected of the Commission. Expectations are evident in law [P.L. 90-515], in questions which the Commission put to the Governors and others (for the first series of conferences), and in letters from members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the U. S. Congress. Those three categories of expectations are summarized'at Tab A, (which see)
3. Expectations Not Fulfilled by the Draft Report: a. The Draft Report does not make clear whether
State, local governments and private enterprise have the financial resources to solve major water problems [Tab A, II a]. This issue looms larger than when put to the States, by the Commission, because the :Report proposes to phase down Federal investments.
page 2.
b. The Draft Report does not reveal how water resources development can best be used to stimulate and to direct further
economic growth in States and regions [Tab A II b].
,-- That is, the Report does not make clear the scope of its investigations about water development for improvements in
economic efficiency, the alleviation of unemployment, the stabilization of production and income, the well-being of communities, and improving the quality of life [Tab A III a].
However, reports to the Commission did observe that impacts of water projects on regional development and popula-tion distribupopula-tion are diminishing. But the potential of water
development was not analyzed, even though the Federal government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in planning about water resources from which substantive advice could be developed.
c. The Draft Report does not study water resources as regards the national objective
urban and rural America.
of creating sound balance between About this, our letters to' the Commission of last July and August noted the commitments of Congress to give the highest priority to the revitalization and development of rural areas, to influence population distribution, and to apply water resource investments to such objectives. Does any repor-tito the Commission study the potential of water development to those ends? Instead, as we noted in our criticism of report PB 206 372 (Regional Economic pevelopment--The Role of Water) the authors state:
Page 3.
"It is quite clear that our purview does not include broader social and political effects of project implementation."
...But, broad impacts of development -- economic, social, aesthetic, and regional -- were to have been prime subjects of the Commission [Tab A I b].
d. The Report does not reveal that the Commission has
considered the potential impacts of its recommendations as a whole.
For example:
(1). . . The recommendations "will increase
the financial burden on State and local. govern-ments" [15-30]...and this impart even though States were burdened by an 87% rise in expendi-tures from 1965-1970!
(2)... The recommendations would cause substantial diminution of Federal investments for plans
studied by Federal agencies, rive.r S'asin entities, and the States themselves. What would be the
social impacts, on whom, when? No study is made!
(3)... A"free market solution" to agriculture would release western water for other purposes. But, would the non-irrigated replacement lands
provide desired stability? Is the "replacement" of the model likely to come about in a free
Page 4.
offsetting upsets? No study is made,!'
...As stated before, the redefinition of require-ments as demands backed by willingness-to-pay, and downgrading the regional development role of
water, together would greatly reduce Federal invest-ments in water developinvest-ments. Should not the Federal role in water planning therefore be greatly reduced? Would a national assessment of water "requirements"% be worth the Federal cost under the new definitions of Federal interest? No study is made.
4. Rounding out the Draft Report
a. Arguments over the logic and philosophies of the Draft could continue without real aid to comprehension of overall impacts, and to visualization of alternatives. But realities likely to stem from the recommendations as a whole could be visualized
by case analyses. Even though the Draft downgrades-the benefit of using project histories for forecasting, test cases -- applying Report recommendation to prospective developments -- would bring realism in appraisal of potential impacts. Therefore
--b. The Draft Report should be rounded out by applying its proposals to prospective water developments. The application could be made through the Water Resources Council, using the river
Page 5.
basin entities and the States. Since the cases would be develop-ments in "pipeline" stages, the cases could be tested quickly. The Commission's alternatives of transportation, education, and job training" would be the only new aspects.
5. Over-all views about the Draft . Report and the approach to
it--a. Top authorities in the Administration and in the Congress -- and also the Draft Report -- call for legislation to establish national land-use policies. In present draft legislation, the dominant element is to establish processes to work against the maximization of private income; that is, for private lands
market-place values are to be subordinated to concepts for general welfare.
b. But the Draft Report reverses that philospphy as regards water resources, a public good! For that public good the National Water Commission would make market-place values the dominant force for fixing values! The justification for this important switch in philosophy is not evident.
d. The Draft Report (including back-up reports) evaluates subsidized irrigation on the basis of national need for agricultural products. That is like evaluating President Nixon's accelerated depreciation allowance by its immediate contribution to income tax,t
revenues. The accelerated depreciation allowance decreases revenues
even while the Nation is running a budget deficit. But, .in
longer-range perspective, other results were estimated to outweigh that direct disadvantage. That kind of perspective is as applicable to
