RIA1
MYER REMURC
MEM
MILO W. HOISVEEN STATE OFFICE BUILDING 900 BOULEVARD
BISMARK, NORTH DAKOTA 58501
MILO W. HOISVEEN, President (North Dakota) TED RIGGINS, JR., First Vice President (Arizona) J. R. BARKLEY, Second Vice President (Colorado) 897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING
Mr. J. R. Barkley 2nd Vice President
National Water Resources Association P. 0. Box 679
Loveland, Colorado 80537
Dear Bob:
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 August 21, 1972 27S--e)
REM
AILa_a_15_1972
Although brief, I enjoyed our visit during the Billings, Montana mid-summer meeting. I also felt there was much interest manifested by the Board members regarding some of the 69 reports that are being published by the National Water Commission.
Bob, I have always had the feeling that we are too heavily engaged in Board meetings during our Convention. We have always discussed ways in which we might avoid
so many Board meetings during program presentations. I feel we have made some progress in this direction, but I believe we can still do better.
Your ideas will be appreciated. I am of the opinion that if each Board member could make a written request as to the item or items he specifically desires to present to the Board at the Convention, we could save session time. The requests should be made at least two weeks before the first Board meeting, which will be held on November 12, 1972, in the Utah Hotel. It could then be placed on the agenda.
Should you have any specific item or items you desire to I would like to hear from you regarding them. I feel we item considerations at the Board sessions. I am certain usual number of emergency items, but the above procedure eliminating some of these.
Your response will be greatly appreciated.
MWH:sl
DIRECTORS
Ted Riggins, Jr., Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho
Chris C. Green, Kans. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont.
Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Roland Westergard, Nev. I. J. Coury, N. M.
Sincerely yours, Milo W. Hoisveen President
Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Clarence Base, Okla. Harold Henigson, Ore. Homer Engelhorn, S. D. John W. Simmons, Tex.
place on the agenda, could expedite our we will have the could even aid in
Edward H. Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Kenneth L. Cook,
N411[MNI
DTh ,'('s(11111 1111).)(p).!1
i i y ))01)(i ;,) I
/t2n1
1,A'111141
MILO W. HOISVFEN
STATE Or FICE E3UIL DING 900 Bout cv SRI)
BISMARK NORTH DAKOTA 58501
MILO W. HOISVEEN, President (North Dakota) TED RIGGINS, JR., First Vice President
(Ai izona) I. R. BARK( FY, Second Vice President
((oloi.)(10)
IN/ NAT IONA! PRI SS 101111)INC,
I. J. COURY, Treasurer (New Mexico)
LORIN W. MARKHAM, Past President (Washington)
CARL. H. BRONN, Executive Director (Wishin( ton, D. C.)
WASI UN( I ON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
August 22, 1972
TO: MEMBERS OF NWRA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: PROSPECTIVE MEETING OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND JACK ROSS IN DENVER, SEPTEMBER 15
REC'D.
uG 2
5
1972
By now you have received a copy of the draft Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors on August
4,
in Billings. At the bottom of Page7,
you note that the Executive Committee with Jack Ross was authorized to act for theAssociation about views on reports to the National Water Commission. The time was set for September 15, in Denver.
At this time,
I
cannot predict which of the reports to the National Water Commission which NWRA has selected as most important will have been reviewed by the Commission before September 15, but I am assured that most will have been. In fact, by mid-October, the Commission will receive the proposals of its staff for the Commission's own report.The foregoing schedule indicated that persons who review reports should immediately submit their criticism to the Commission without awaiting any NWRA clearance. Such reports are, of course, those of the individual.
. To aid you in reporting in a form usually used by the Commission, I have asked Carl Bronn to mail you copies of a criticism which the NWC staff find very helpful. In general, the criticism should be directed to specific pages and should reveal faults especially that fail to provide back up for findings and recommendations.
In the meantime, I would like each of you to be thinking about the functions of the executive Committee and Jack Ross with regard to the reports. Offhand, it seems to me that criticisms of the reports which can aid the Commissioners are valid
regardless of who submits the criticisms. Since each of us will certainly not have the time to review all of the reports which we have farmed out, the likelihood of our aiding the
NWRA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE -2- August 22, 1972 This stepped-up procedure leaves uncertain the functions of the
Executive Committee in Denver.
I welcome your ideas on this point.
Sincerely,
Milo W. Hoisveen, President
'‘Vs etj.
NVEION4
No);416101M
NI l.0 VV HoP N ,,TA-ri Or F IC/ 131111 HING
900 hour I v
fil,A4AAK, NO1ITI1 DAKOTA 58501
Mr. William Erwin
Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development
Department of Agriculture Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20250
Dear Mr. Erwin:
MILO W. HOISVEEN, President (North Dakota) TED RIGGINS, JR., First Vice President (Arizona) .1. R. BARK1 EY, S(srond Vii e President
(Coldiddol
89/ NAIIONAI PRI SS 'MIMING
I. J. COURY, Treasurer (New Mexico)
LORIN W. MARKHAM, Past President (Wdshington)"
CARI H. BRONN, Executive Director (W.r.hington, D. C.)
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) .147-2672
August 22, 1972
Re: SWC File No. A-18
This will acknowledge receipt of your acceptance to speak at the annual Convention of the National Water Resources Association to be held in Salt Lake City on November 16, 1972.
I will be looking forward to meeting you at that time and I am certain that your discussion will be a most interesting one in view of the current agriculture situation. MWH:sl CC: Ed Southwick Ted Riggins Bob Barkley — Carl Bronn Sincerely yours,
Ado
Milo W. Hoisveen PresidentRECL
AUG
3 1 1972
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION
800 N. Quincy Street Arlington, Virginia 22208
August 24, 1972
Carl H. Bronn, Executive Director National Water Resources Association 897 National Press Building
Washington, D. C. 20004 Dear Mr. Bronn:
-
3 1979
Thank you for your invitation to attend the meeting to be chaired by Mr. Jack Ross in Denver, September 14 and 15. The Commission, of course, is pleased that organiza-tions such as NWRA are interested and becoming involved in its work. We are grateful for an opportunity to have a member of our staff be present to obtain the benefit of the views of informed groups on the important questions that we must deal with, particularly as our report begins to take shape in these final months.
Bill Hillhouse tells me that he has other unavoidable commitments on the 14th and 15th but it will be possible for Gary Greer to attend. I have asked Mr. Greer to plan to attend the meeting on the morning of the 15th, as you suggested.
Sincerely,
Theodore M. Schad Executive Director
MEMO
SUBJECT: Environmental or Outdoor Workshop at the Salt Lake
City Convention, November 16, 1972
Problem:
Outdoor groups and some professionals in government are among
the strongest detractors of water development. Issue:
Is their view justified by the facts? Approach:
Appraisals under the sponsorship of NWRA made jointly with
outdoor persons, under expert guidance, could reveal facts related
to changes in values from water development projects. For
credi-bility, these appraisals should:
...consider broad ecological implications, as well
as the factors obvious to users;
...present values by different kinds of outdoor
enthusiasts;
...be made in a manner that results can be readily
verified and easily disseminated.
General Procedure:
At the workshop in Salt Lake City, NWRA proposes to examine
how such appraisals might be made. If practicable, at least two
appraisals should have been made, in part at least, before the
Convention so that examples could be used.
...In doing this, NWRA proposes to work directly with
the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, &
Washing-1•••
FACTORS
Physical:
a. Lessening of natural devastations from drouth, flood, channel changes, low-flows.
b. Creation of favorable environments. [1] Directly:
..migratory birds ..local birds ..stream fish ..lake fish
—game & . other wildlife -.scenery ..flora ..water quality. [2] Indirectly: ..irrigation projects —community water
(trees, landscaping and birds) Attitudinal:
a. In government -- Federal, State and local. b. Of Associations.
c. Non-affiliated populace.
TASKS OF THE WORKSHOP
1. Consider whether the Approach to the Issue [as stated in pre-ceding] is practicable.
2. If not, consider modifications to improve practicability. 3. Determine whether to recommend to NWRA's Board of Directors
that State Associations undertake a west-wide appraisal --results of which would be highlighted at the Phoenix Convent-ion in October, 1973.
RECD.
•
Erinu
M
MMUS
ASSOVIA-EN
TO: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 & AUG 1 1 Ive (New Mexico)
LORIN W. MARKHAM, Past President (Washington)
CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672
August 10, 1972
The Members of The Resolutions Committee The National Water Resources Association Gentlemen:
This letter will serve as the official call for our Fall meeting here in Denver which will be held on Thursday, September 14 and Friday, September 15. The meeting will convene at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday in the Conference Room on the second floor of the Capitol Life Building at the corner of 16th Avenue and Grant
Street, the place where the September meeting was held last year. Not being a weather profit, I make no warranties concerning the condition of the weather when you arrive.
Arrangements have again been made with the Radisson Hotel for the reservation of rooms for your use. Enclosed are reser-vation forms which you should use; send the form directly to the hotel and identify your relationship to the Committee and to the Association. The Radisson, as you know, is only "two blocks" from the meeting room.
The Board of Directors held its mid-summer meeting at Billings, Montana on Friday, August 4. I joined with them at that time and discussed what appears to be the most pressing immediate problem for the Association which is to make our feelings known
about the various study reports which have been made for the National Water Commission in preparation for that body's deliberations and pronouncements of recommended policy.
The problem becomes acute when it is realized that there are something on the order of sixty-nine of these study reports., some of them not yet published; yet the Commission is attempting to procure a draft report by as early as October 1, 1972. As you will recall, Roger Ernst alerted us to the need for making our views known at the annual meeting last November.
The Members of The Resolutions Committee The National Water Resources Association August 10, 1972
Page Two
Because of the difficulty of obtaining some of the reports and the shortness of time remaining between now and the expected production of the preliminary draft report, the Board of Directors constituted an Ad Hoc Committee composed of the Executive Committee of the Board and me to attempt to screen the publication list and assign reports for review and comment to the various standing committees or to individuals in the Association. The Ad Hoc
Committee screened the list and has come up with a list of eighteen reports which would appear to have special significance to the
membership of our Association and upon which the Association should comment. The list we finally settled on is as follows:
1. Future Water Demands, Resources for the Future, Inc. 2. Federal-State Relations in the Law of Water Rights 3, Public Participation in Water Resources Planning 4. Potential Technological Advances and Their Impact
on Anticipated Water Requirements 5. Administrative Allocation of Water
6. Population Growth in Communities in Relation to Water Resourdes Policies
7. Legal Protection of Instream Water Values
8. The Role of Water in Regional Economic Development 9. Extending the Utility of Non-Urban Water
10. Balancing Development and Environmental Effects of Water Resources Development
11. Agricultural Water Use 12. Forecasting Water Demands
13. Economic Impact of Water Resources Development 1900-1970
14. Resolving Legal Conflicts Between Development and Environmental Values
The Members of The Resolutions Committee The National Water Resources Association August 10, 1972
Page Three
15. Excess Land Limitation Laws
16, Cost-Sharing Arrangements in Water Resources 17. Pricing of Water Resources Goods and Services 18. Recreational Use of Water Resources
The Board also concluded that the best way to move quickly in on this problem was to assign the various study reports to
different people or standing committees with a request that they produce a critique of the reports assigned to them in time enough for presentation to the Resolutions Committee, augmented by the Ad Hoc Committee, at the September meeting. In other words, the Board felt that the Resolutions Committee was best equipped to review these critiques in the framework of he policies enunciated by that Committee and make specific recommendations for comment to the National Water Commission still in the month of September.
As you can see, our work will be cut out for us if we are going to accomplish this task as well as to make our regular review of resolutions and proposed resolutions at our September meeting. However, I believe this is critically important for the Association and I am satisfied that the Committee can produce a respectable
work product which Carl Bronn or others can carry to the Commission. Accordingly, I look forward to seeing you and hope that we will be able, in the limited time available to us, to do this job well.
-truly you1 57
Jack Ross, Chairman Resolutions Committee JR:sw
'4" I•
AUG 1 4i 19te
National Water Resources Association August 11, 1972
TO: THE TRIBAL COUNCILS [BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COMMITTEE
CHIEFS, ASSOCIATION MEDICINE MEN] FOR: UPDATING [NO ACTIONS REQUESTED]
1. Inspection of Dams:
H.R. 15951 authorizing the Sec. Army (through the Chief of
Engineers) to inspect dams throughout the U.S. [with exceptions;
see Water Life, July, Page 4] was signed by the President. It is
PL 92-367. He stated some dissatisfaction with the legislation, especially the lack of adequate hearings.
2. Loans for Distribution Systems:
The House passed [August 7] H.R. 9198 to broaden the use
of PL 130 [see Water Life, July, Page 3]. Whether the Senate IIA
Committee will find hearings necessary is not yet announced. 3. Omnibus Reclamation Authorizations:
As of afternoon of August 11, the House IIA Committee
ordered reported H.R. 16012,to authorize the O'Neill, North
Loup, Salmon Fails, Brantley and Closed Basin projects [see Water
Life, July, Page 3]; Report may be printed in early September. ..All projects listed but O'Neill and North
Loup have been passed by the Senate in separate bills.
..The Senate IIA Committee is presently con-sidering the O'Neill and North Loup bills. 4. Bills for National Land Use Policy:
The House IIA Committee reported favorably H.R. 7211 [in
Report No. 92-1306],to establish land use policy (printed copies
to be available August 14). The Senate may take up its Land Use
bill [S. 632] before the August 19 recess. Meanwhile, coastal
zone legislation [H.R. 14146] is to go to House-Senate conference.
-2-5. Water Quality amendments:
House and Senate conferees continue to meet. 6. Appropriations:
a. USBR and Corps construction appropriations passed the
Senate and were cleared for the White House on August 10.
Sen-ate provisions generally accepted. [See WSen-ater Life, June, Pages
1 and 7].
b. Agriculture, Environmental & Consumer's Protection [H.R. 156901 cleared for White House on August 9. Provisions include:
..Agricultural programs $6.2 billions
..Rural development $1.0 billions
..Environmental programs... .. .. $2.95 billions
..Consumer programs $3.2 millions
-incumbency. Wayne •
4--driMall
104 ea
P.O. BOX 215 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22210 Mr. Carl BronnNational Reclamation Association Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Bronn: Wayne Aspinal middle trying 'to bring
In this day of This effort to achieve be served has found •41 will benefit the Amer
A
1
,
1101111.11.=Dallalir courcer- utroraxammor_c.
1011.111111•MC MUMMA 11.111=CM
CARL H. BRONN-COL U. S. A. (RET.) ALICE MAY BRONN
897 NATIONAL PRESS BLDG. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004
SECD.
PATRICK A. GORMLEY TREASURERAUG
a
1972
=Kit =EC MIR 0.11:11 1113:011•11.10.11C
PORIE);101;A7./Y„ Or 01/7 5 e."1/21, /ACe ,4: -Y./ (77/
THE CHASE MANHATTAN SANK National Association
Broadway at fulton Street, New York, N. Y. 10038
-The election o
1:0 2 LOI.,000 21: 0
24in Ligi0 3E11 21-20
_
way for those who support a canaiaat,e
10003a1011.11,-11C.,•=1/fab
We hope you can join us in showing this support at a reception at the Army
Navy Club, 17th-and I Streets, N. W., Farragut Entrance, between 5:30 and 7:30 p.m.
on Thursday, August 10. A reply card is enclosed.
• / /v' /e/41.7 Sincerely, 1 r°4 cf.? c ,-/ c-/ irn., 0 7 C. .0' 5...
A copy of our report filed with the appropriate supervisory officer will be available for purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C. 20402
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION STUDIES
tort?'"
Future Water Demands, Resources for the Future, Inc.,
Accession Number PB 197 877 $3.00
2. Metropolitan Water Management, Urban Systems Research
and Engineering, Inc., .84
Accession Number PB 199 493
3. Precipitation Modification, Jack D. Lackner
Accession Number PB 201 534
Wastewater Reuse, Jerome Gavis
• Accession Number P.B 201 535
Ground Water Management, .Le.slie E. Mack
Accession Number Pb 201 536
$ 6.00
$ 3.00
$ 3.00
$ 3.00
6.' Functional Analysis of Apprepriation Law, Charles Meyers \/
Accession Number PB 202 617 $ 3.00
7. Improvement of State Water Records, Richard L. Dewsnup
and Charles.Me:yers
Accession Number PB 202 618 $ 3.00
Law of Interbasin Transfers, Ralph W. Johnson'
Accession Number PB 202 619 $ 3.00
7
Market Transfers of Water Rights, Charles Meyers and Richard Posner
Accession Number PB 202 620 $ 8.00
Federal-State Relations in the Law of Water Rights, Frank J. Treiease
Accession Number PB 203 600 $ 6.00
11. The Federal-State Regional Corporation, Richard A. Solomon
Accession Number PB 202 997 $ 3.00
12. Interstate Water Compacts, Jerome C. Muys,
,Ational Water Commission Studies Page--- 2
15. Public Participation in Water Resources Planning,
Katherine H. Warner, university of Michigan
Accession Number PB 204 245 $ 3.00
eei(e Potential Technolo,?ical Advances and Their Impact on
Anticipated Wiater Recuirements, National Academy of Sciences
Accession Number PB 204 053 $ 3.00
, 17. Institutions for Water Planninc, Gary W. Hart
Accession Number PB 204 244 $ 3.00
_Systems Analysis in Water Resources Planning, Meta Systems, Inc.,
Accession Number 204 37-4 — $ 6.00
19. The New England River Basins Commission — A Case
Study, Helen Ingram
Accession Number PB 204 375 $ 3.00
Administrative Allocation of Water, Edward W. Clyde and Dallin W. Jensen
Accession Number PB 204 249 $ 3.00
21. Public Access Rights in Waters and Shorelands, Richard L.
.Dewsnup
Accession Number PB 205 247 $..3.00
22. Legal Aspects of Water Salvage, Richard L. Dewsnup
Accession Number PB 205 005 $ 3.00
23. /
, Population Growth in Communities in Relation to Water
Resources Policies, Rivkin/Carson, Inc. Accession Number PB 205 248
464.74,
. 24. Ground Water Law, Management and Administration, Charles
'\
E. Corker c.3 -,,..
Accession Number PB 205 527 $ 6.00 ,7
q
25. Riparian Water Law, A Functional Analvsis2 Clifford Davis -)
c
Accession Number PB 205 004 $ 3.00
4
26. Legal Protection of Instream Water Values, Richard L.
Dewsnup
Accession Number PB 205 003 $ 3.00
Ational Water Commission Studies P'age -- 3
27. Watershed Management, William E. Sopper
Accession .Number PB 206 370 $ 6.00
28. Water Resources Policy in Wisconsin, University of
Wisconsin Accession Number PB 204 928 $ 3.00 33. 34. / 35. 36.
Regional Economic Development - The Role of Water Utah State University
Accession Number PB 206 372,
Authorization of Federal Water Projects -- Legal Problems, Northcutt Ely
Accession Number PB 206 096 $ 6 .75
The Role of Water in the Landscape (Aesthetic Values) R. Burton Litton
75 2
-- The Role of Water in Regional Economic Development
p
8
af) -sez
Jay Anderson, Utah State University •
s ci :0?
Water Pollution Control Panel Report, Dwight Metzler Chairman
Extending the Utility of Non-Urban Water, Jay Bagley/ Utah State University
Water Resources Planning Panel Report, Harvey Banks Chairman
. Recycling and Eco-System Respon,e, Harry Stevens,
e
449
Michigan State University
Balancing Development and Environmental Effects of-Water,
Fts ,707//3
_Resources _Development, ,.1.Tharles R. Goldman, University
of California - Davis Fr214 ,,,4, to rig/ ti it/
ps 2-07 filf, 16/
2:-6
•_
4-0 eAcA_
Wiz
,f;//:-/-1/04-38. Classification of Wpter for Specific Uses, Arthur
Wilcox, CSU
-4790
ational Water Commission Studies Page -- 4
42. Desalting as a Means of Augmenting Water Supplies, Staff Report
4. Waste Heat from Thermal Electric Power Production
Report of a Panel of Experts
10°
44. Inland Waterways, Dwight Blood, University of Wyoming
45. Natural Hazards--Floods and Droughts, David G. Arey
46.
University of Pittsburgh
Water Resource Management Institutions in Wisconsin, Irving Fox
Resolving Legal Conflicts Between Development and. E.nvironrnental Values
48. Value of Water in Alternati\7.e Uses, Colorado State University
49. Value of Water in Selected River Basins, Washington State
University
--- 51.
eirtiA
Excess Land Limitation Laws, Harry Hogan
Federal-State and Local Relations in 'Water Resources Management, Wendell and Schwann
P6
Cost-Sharing Arrangements in Water Resources, Bureau as e e‘t-, —
of Standards
Pricing of Water Resources Goods and Services, George , Washington University and Johns Hopkins University
Alternative Approach to the Design of Public Organizational Arrangements, Vincent Ostrom
55. Judicial Decision Making Arrangements, Grant P. Thompson
°
6
(3
56. Institutional Aspects of Interbasin Transfers, Dean Mann 19
57. Authorization and Appropriation Processes for Federal Water
Resource.s Treatment, LT:avid Allee and Helen Ingram
58. Intergovernmental Aspects of Water Pollution Control Law,
William Hines, university of Iowa
• .-Nrational Water Commission Studies
Page 5
60.. Flood Plain Management and other Water Related Land Problems,
Staff Report
-61. Research Needs in Water Resources, Staff Report
62. Manpower Needs in Water Resources, Staff Report
cal JA
63. Waste Management in Muskegon County, Michigan, University
ps -'ao--"
of Chicago
64. Water Resources Council: Coordination of Federal, State,
and Regional Water Management, Staff Report
65. Food and Fiber Policies and Water Resources Development,
Staff Report
..----., ... .
v
(
66.' Recreational Use of Water Resources, Staff Report
67. Federal Decision Making Structures, Staff Report
. 68. Summary-Digest of State Water Laws —
69. Summary-Digest of Federal Water Laws
August-16, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 13659
NATIONAL TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S AS-SOCIATION SUPPORTS INDIAN PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over this past weekend I received a telegram from the National Tribal Chairmen's Association containing a resolution in support of Indian participation in Fed-eral revenue sharing. The NTCA, whose membership consists of chairmen of the over 200 federally recognized Indian tribes in the United States, met last week in Eugene, Oreg., to consider and discuss current problems facing the American Indian. One of the top issues on the agenda was Federal revenue sharing.
SC11£1tOF METCALF has sponsored an
amendment to the revenue-sharing bill that would include Indian tribes as eligible participants. I am a cosponsor of this amendment and fully support it. The revenue-sharing bill (H.R. 14370) is still pending before the Senate Finance Committee, and I believe that this resolution clearly points out the sub-stantial interest of the Indian people in this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the tele-gram be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the tele-gram was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL TRIAL CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION,
Eugene, Oreg.
Senator EDWARD KENNEDY:
A resolutibn: Whereas the exclusion of Indian Tribal Governments from the Federal assistance under revenue sharing would be inconsistant with President Nixon's clearly announced policy of Indian self-determina-tion and
Whereas: the denial of Indian participa-tion in revenue sharing is abdicaparticipa-tion of the Federal trust responsibility for the wel-fare of reservation Indians and denies Federal recognition of reservation Indian tribes as local governments: and whereas. the National Tribal Chairmen's Association, commends Senator Metcalf and Co-sponsors of Amendments Numbered 1357 for bi-parti-san effort to include Indian Tribes in revenue sharing:
Now, therefore, be it resolved: That the whole of the reservation Indian community In the United States of America be duly as-sembled and represented by this conclave of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association respectfully urges the congress not to leave the Reservation Indians and all other Fed-erally recognized tribes out of this impor-tant revenue sharing program under which all local Governments will be assisted: That, we believe this amendment is a test of Con-gressional Willingness to grant Reservation Indians the right to shape their own future' we request that you not leave us,out, thereby confirming the principle that the Govern-ment of the Indian country should be by consent of the governed, that, we hereby re-quest that this resolution be placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
Certification: the foregoing resolution was unanimously adopted by the National Tribal Chairmens' Association, a quorum being present at their first annual convention held In the Eugene Hotel, Eugene, Oreg. this 10th day of August 1972.
WILLIAM YOUPEE, President.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there have been numerous reports and specula-tion that there is a jurisdicspecula-tional dis-pute regarding S. 632, the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of
1972.
S. 632 substantially differs from the bill as originally introduced.
S. 632 affects at least 112 Federal pro-grams and other matters which are in the substantive jurisdiction of several Committees of the Senate.
S. 632, despite its broad implications, was subject to only 4 days of hearings last year.
But far more important than any ju-risdictional matters are basic substan-tive issues relating to the impact of S. 632, issues which are not clarified on the face of the bill or in the report ex-plaining it.
Mr. President, there is no question of the need for national land use policy. In fact, elements of land use policy have been incorporated in a great many Fed-eral laws relating to development, eco-nomic growth and environmental policy. Many Senate committees have been in-volved in developing these elements of land use policy and, it would seem to me, that these same committees should be involved in the development of a "na-tional" land use policy.
The broad input of Members of other committees would be beneficial to the goals which S. 632 articulates. Hearings on the impact of the legislation on other Federal programs by relevant commit-tees would be beneficial. I think the wise course for the Senate and the Nation would be to have those hearings and have that input.
My concern with the jurisdictional questions is not the narrow one of committee prerogatives. It is not my de-sire to assert these in any obstruction-ist way whatsoever.
I am concerned that several relevant committees—each with broad back-ground and expertise—have not made their input into the. shaping of a na-tional land use policy with its far-reach-ing implications.
Apparently this course—further com-mittee review—is not available. Appar-ently it is the desire of the Senate to act on this legislation without the broad consideration it deserves. Therefore, it is essential that consideration of this legis-lation on the floor of the Senate be as thorough and complete as possible. I will do my best to identify the important is-sues raised by S. 632.
The Land Use Policy and Planning As-sistance Act now awaiting Senate con-sideration has significant implications— perhaps greater than any domestic legis-lation we have yet considered in this ses-sion of Congress.
It mandates that States closely super-vise or control land use decisions which have long been the province of local gov-ernment;
It requires States to coordinate all S. 632, THE LAND USE POLICY AND PLANNING ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1972 _
State and services which signifi-cantly affect land use;
It establishes the Federal Government as procedural supervisor of these newly centralized State responsibilities; and
It proposes policies for land use and resource conservation which appear to be oriented toward development and may conflict with environmental legislation
we have enacted.
These proposals will have significant ramifications on the -financial structure and sovereignty of State and local gov-ernment, on the relationship of the Fed-eral Government and the States, and upon the future of Federal and State laws to protect the environment.
Mr. President, this bill creates an out-line for national land use policy with no substance; declares a national policy but concedes to the several States re-sponsibility to determine what that pol-icy should be; and directs all Federal programs to subject themselves to the State-determined policy.
Federal legislation of this magnitude, with far-reaching impact on many Fed-eral programs- - at least 112 by the In-terior Committee's count—should pro-vide some Federal policy guidance. This legislation provides none.
In an effort to meet some of these defi-ciencies and highlights this area of con-cern, I will propose amendments to S. 632 to set national policy criteria. These policy positions, if enacted, would pro-vide valuable public benefits.
Today I suggest several criteria as a possible direction for national land use policy. I urge discussion of my proposals so that when the time comes for amend-ments to S. 632 we can adopt a national land use program that includes a true national policy adequately considered by the Senate; a clear statement of statu-tory indices to establish the basic ele-ments of good land use.
As a basis to begin the discussion of criteria for national land use policy, I suggest the following:
That legislation affecting national land use patterns incorporate as a minimum the requirements and land use controls of the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and other environ-mental regulatory legislation;
That further commercial, industrial, or residential development of flood plains be limited to that which is absolutely necessary and so constructed as to mini-mize land damage;
That productive agricultural land be preserved for farming activities, with de-velopment limited, except where a State deems development essential to health and welfare or where it is necessary to provide adequate housing;
That new development be limited to that which can be supported without ex-hausting available energy supplies, water and sewer systems, roads, or transit sys-tems, and other necessary services;
That wetlands and coastal areas be protected from development;
That further development covering lands so they cannot absorb storm waters
S 13660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE A ltrp0 16, 1972
be required to include holding systems to prevent rapid runoff of storm waters into sewers or natural streams;
That the ecological characteristics of upland watersheds be preserved;
That redevelopment and iiiiiirovement of existing communities be favored over industrial, commercial or residential de-velopment which will utilize existing agricultural lands, wild areas, woodlands, and other undeveloped land areas, and that development contrary to these prin-ciples be allowed only where it will pro-vide significant jobs, housing and edu-cational opportunities for low and middle income families.
These are some of the criteria for good national land use policy which I propose for discussion. My proposals are intended to fill the void of S. 632 as reported. I would hope, after discussion, that the Senate will approve a responsible set of criteria to serve as a national land use policy guide.
But lack of policy direction while it purports to set Federal policy is only one of my concerns with S. 632.
The legislation before us would re-quire, in a short time, great strides in coordination and consolidation of land use planning efforts, but it entirely ig-nores the other side of the coin—the ex-cessive dependence of cities and counties on property taxes which has led to the haphazard and confused land use pat-terns of today. This cannot be ignored. You cannot seriously consider land use planning reform without property tax reform, for they are inextricably tied to-gether in a complex series of relation-ships dating back to the early days of the Republic.
Mandating major reform of land use planning authority, as S. 632 does, with-out also addressing the local property tax dependence issue, can further strangle many of our major cities that are already on the verge of bankruptcy.
Today 66 percent of all locally gener-ated revenues come from the property tax—$38 billion.
Today about 40 States set maximum limits on the property tax rates cities may charge and set limits on local bor-rowing which relate to the property tax base.
When a city reaches the limits imposed by State law—as some cities such as Detroit and Cleveland have—its only re-course is to somehow influence use of land for greater tax productivity. If this fails, municipal services—police, fire pro-tection, sanitation, et cetera—must be cut back.
S. 632 would require States to strip cities of this essential revenue raising option—an option which has created well recognized problems—but S. 632 suggests absolutely nothing be substi-tuted to assure that local revenues will be there to support local services if con-trol of the property tax base is lost or its
I submit we cannot act so casually and after so little consideration on an issue of such vital impact to our grassroots of government at the local level.
Let me emphasize that in taking this position, I am in no. way justifying the present property tax system which is often regressive, haphazard, and unfair. Nor am I downplaying the need for more sensible land use planning. I am only stating that we cannot have reform of one without reform of the other.
Last year my Subcommittee on Inter-governmental Relations published a study entitled "Property Taxation; Ef-fects of Land Use and Local Government Revenue." This study clearly identified the close identity of property tax and land use. It stated:
The low taxation of land based on present-use value also facilitates speculative holding of land in the path of urban development for large capital gains. An added incentive for withholding land from the market for large price rises comes from the favorable capital gains treatment of land investment profits under the Federal income tax laws. Another Federal income tax feature, the allowance of business building depreciation, creates local pressures to allocate more value to building improvements and less to nondepreciable land. A focus on building improvements in assessments for local property taxation in-hibits rehabilitation of older residential properties.
Large acreages of vacant close-in subur-ban land as well as rebuildable central city sites are withheld from the market for large price rises under the present property tax system. That occurs as land is taxed at low effective rates, in relation to realistic market value, and building improvements are sub-ject to a relatively greater tax burden. Con-sequently land prices are high in urbanizing areas and builders "leapfrog" further out to cheaper lands for residential development. Less than optimum size communities are cre-ated, entailing high per-unit costs of services, increased daily commutation, and an exten-sion of urban sprawl.
The deadening impact of property taxes on land use in central cities has been starkly illustrated by Mayor Ken-neth Gibson of Newark, N.J., who stated.
We must rely upon our local property tax for 65';', of our revenues. In a city where we already have one of the highest and most confiscatory rates in the country, we were forced to raise the rate of taxation this year by almost 10%. This increase means that an owner of a $20,000 home will pay about $1,850 in annual property taxes. We have reached a point where our property tax has only has-tened the flight of industry, commerce, and the remaining middle class homeowners out of Newark. The excessive rates we are forced to impose have actually been the cause of abandonment, deterioration, and a decline in our tax base. The stark reality finds buildings being abandoned at the clip of one a day.
I shall propose amendments to force consideration of the property tax issue as part of this land use reform package.
Also, because I believe that no single Federal agency has either the breadth or the competence to assume the
respon-side of the land use issue. I have several very specific questions about the impact of this legislation which, I believe, must be answered before S. 632 is enacted:,. ,
First. Will the State assumption of land use control required in this bill shift liability for damages from incom-patible land uses—such as airport noise— from local governments to the States? This is no small matter. It will mean shifting up to $10 billion in damage claims from Los Angeles to the State of California. As States are specifically re-quired to assume "determinative" au-thority over land use around airports, it would appear they also might be liable for allowing continuation of incompat-ible uses.
Second. Will the uncertainties of im-pending State controls compromise the capacity of municipalities to borrow money? The borrowing capacity of mu-nicipalities is closely tied to property values and property tax income. Changes in zoning designations from agricultural to commercial or from low-density to high-density residential, for example, • can mean thousands of dollars of reve-nue and hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in increased tax base on which to borrow. Any federally re-quired State actions or potential actions which might restrict use designations to less valuable uses could compromise ca-pacity of some localities to sell bonds and if the more restrictive use designations were imposed could make some bond sales based on the higher assessed valu-ations actually illegal.
Third. If a State assumes major re-sponsibility for land use control, what concurrent responsibility does it assume to pay the cost of local services, particu-larly in those communities whose levels of service are restricted by a low prop-erty tax base? Already in three major cases, Serrano against Priest, Van Du-sartz against Hatfield, and Rodriguez against Edgar, courts have held that dis-parities in the level of educational serv-ices caused by differing property tax bases are a violation of the equal pro-tection clause of the 14th amendment. The Supreme. Court will consider the is-sue this fall. It would appear that as-sumption of a major State role in deter-mining local property values would in-vite similar rulings relating to other local services—police, fire, sanitation, trans-portation. Certainly the courts would not permit States to keep levels of local serv-ices permanently low in some communi-ties by prohibiting higher value land uses. The potential impact of this radical reform in the way we pay for local serv-ices must be seriously contemplated as we examine the ramifications of the bill before us.
Fourth. What is intended by the re-quirement that States set up a method for coordinating programs and services of "all State and local agencies
signifi-41.
August 16, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 1366"
transportation. Are all of these activities to be coordinated at; the State level? This broad based mandate for coordina-tion in seccoordina-tion 302 is typical of the many general phases of potentially severe im-pact which are unexplained in the leg-islative development of this bill.
Fifth. Is the legislation, by setting pol-icy for equal consideration of environ-ment and economics and for "balanced" land use and by requiring States to over-ride local laws designed to restrict de-velopment, intended in any way to con-flict with nondegradation policies and air and water quality improvement man-dates of other Federal laws or with State laws intended to restrict development? What will be the impact of these new Federal policy positions on court cases involving those other laws?
Sixth. Will any State constitutional changes be required by this legislation, and if so, does it give States time enough to consider and act? It would appear that the major redirection of responsibility S. 632 requires will necessitate some con-stitutional changes, particularly in those States that have strong local home-rule laws.
Further, all States which act re-sponsibly and undertake property tax reform and land use reform together will probably have to adopt constitutional changes. But they may not have time. Eighteen States require that constitu-tional changes be adopted by two sessions of the legislature and then be approved by the electorate. This would be a 3- to 7-year process at best, more if adequate consideration of these vast reforms is to be. allowed. In three States where two-session approval is required—Nevada, Tennessee, and Vermont—the legislature only meets biannually, and if major re-form was not approved in their 1973 ses-sion, which might be difficult, final ap-proval would not be possible until at least 1977 and probably 1980.
Just what is intended by this legisla-tion, and what the ramifications of that intent are must be examined in much greater detail before this bill is approved. The real issue now is whether or not legislation of this scope and magnitude will be adequately digested by the Senate prior to its passage. I would hope, in the days ahead, my colleagues will address themselves to the issues covered by the bill, will bring to bear on this legislation their knowledge of other programs which will be affected by it, and bring to the Senate their recommendations for per-fecting changes which shape a national land-use policy with real direction de-signed to protect the environment and enhance the quality of life in America.
Mr. President, I intend to explore the full implications of the issues which I have raised during the debate on the bill. Whenever the leadership is prepared to call up the bill, I will be prepared to dis-cuss its implications and propose amend-ments to address the concerns I have put forward today.
THE MOUNT McKINLEY NATIONAL PARK COMMEMORATIVE
POST-AGE STAMP
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on July 28, in my State of Alaska, the Mount
Mc-Kinley National Park stamp was dedi-cated commemorating the national parks centennial.
At the dedication, the keynote address 'was delivered by Mr. Henry Albert, ex-ecutive assistant to the Postmaster Gen-eral for government relations.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that Mr. Albert's remarks be printed in the RECORD.
There being, no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REMARKS BY HENRY R. ALBERT It is a pleasure for me to be here today. Representing the Postmaster General at this dedication ceremony is a rare privilege indeed and being here, at Mount McKinley, the highest point on the North American Continent is exciting.
This event has given me the opportunity to visit your fine state after too long an absence. Before joining the Postal Service, my employ-ment brought me to Alaska many times, and seeing this beautiful park again brings back many fond memories.
We have found that the commemorative stamps which we issue are powerful com-munication devices. They emphasize our na-tion's achievements and help to instill a sense of national pride. They also point up our great natural resources, such as this splendid spot where we are gathered today.
Four months ago, Postmaster General Klas-sen dedicated the first in a series of five com-memorative stamps honoring the centennial of the National Park Service. That issuance marked the 100th anniversary of Yellowstone National Park, which was an apprcpriate be-ginning for the series since it is the oldest of our national parks.
Each stamp in the series highlights a dif-ferent kind of park in the National Park sys-tem. After Yellowstone, we issued stamps for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, which is a recreational park; The City of Refuge in Hawaii, which is an historical park; and the Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts in Vienna, Virginia, which is a cultural park. The stamp which we are issuing here today honors Mount McKinley Park which is, of course, a natural park, and one of the most beautiful in the world. Even though it is the last in the current series, it is certainly not the least. Each of the five issues was designed to underline the unique and vital contribu-tion these. parks make to our country's en-vironment. They were released in different values to meet the rate for diflerent type mail. This 15-cent stamp is for international letters and international air mail cards and was designed by James Barkley, of Yonkers, New York.
• Our Philatelic Division ordered a printing of 40 million of this stamp and, I am advised that from early indications based on de-mand and orders actually placed, it will be sold out in a very short while and become a collector's item at an early date.
In • closing let me reiterate what a real pleasure it is for me to return here to the great land up north. Our 49th state now has a stamp to match its greatness. A stamp that will communicate to the world the majestic beauty of this rich and bountiful land en-dowed with more natural resources than any other area in the world.
This land—the great land—is not for the meek—the feeble and the weak—no it's a land peopled with the doers, the strong, the adventurers, and it is appropriately referred to as the last frontier.
We hope that this series of stamps, and this one in particular, will encourage many Americans to visit our National Parks. We also hope that the stamps will remind all of us that conservation of our natural wealth and beauty must continue to be of vital con-cern to us all.
It is with great pleasure and a sense of
deep personal pride that I dedicate thin Mona t McKinley Alaska Commemorative Stamp.
HOSPITALS AND FEDERAL'REGULA-TIONS: MANY WILL DIE WHO MIGHT HAVE SURVIVED
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, one a series of articles describing the variee problems -confronting small hospital Montana carries a must descript. line that reads "Small Hospital., a gle Could Wind up on Deathbed." T. headline has a dual implication: The hospitals may be forced out of existence. and as hospitals disappear. health care for the sick and injured becomes pro-gressively more remote, leading to un-necessary deaths.
One person describing the situation said:
Many will die who might have survived.
The villain, if there is but one villain, is the Federal Government with its maze of rules and regulations, designed for densely populated areas with no consid-eration for the needs of small hospitals. Mr. Donnis Curran describes this prob-lem in a series of articles. The probprob-lem is created by the Federal Government, and it demands congressional oversight. I ask unanimous consent to place two of the three articles in that series in the RECORD.
The third article was the initial article in the series and describes the impact upon small hospitals of dwindling popu-lations and a shortage of medical per-sonnel. I have previously discussed these problems and in the interests of brevity do not ask to include that article. For those who might be interested, copies of the entire series are available from my office. I have maintained that passage and enactment of the Rural Development Act of 1972 will at least start correcting those problems of outmigration and the conditions that prevent medical person-nel from locating in our rural areas.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the REccex, as follows:
SMALL HOSPITALS' STRUGGLE COULD WIND UP ON DEATHBED
(By Dennis E. Curran) • RELENA.--I'm not pushing the panic but-ton," a disgruntled hospital executive com-plained to federal health officials last week, "because the panic button is already here." Trapped between steadily rising costs and sometimes decreasing revenues, many of Montana's smaller hospitals are having fi-nancial struggles, and some are facing extinction.
And the situation promises to get worse before it gets better.
Consumers are demanding more services, a new ,minimum wage threatens to upset pre-cariously balanced budgets, and inflation spirals faster than hospitals are allowed to raise rates. Competition between nearby hos-pitals will probably increase as rural popula-tions dwindle, and new federal regulapopula-tions, which probably will be costly to meet, appear to be just around the corner.
So while a number of possible solutions to the dilemma have been proposed, the futur doesn't look overly bright for many of Moe tana's small hospitals.
"I don't know what the answer is. I wish. I did," says George Fen tier as he surveys a list of Montana's 70 licensed hospitals, 45 c -which have less than 50 beds.
[hcuiii u]
SIVIA.L.L-FtlECILANIATION
F*Ft
COO
IECTS ACT
SMALL RECLAMATION PROJECTS ACT OF 1956
The Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1044) as amended June 5, 1957 (71 Stat. 48), September 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 376), and November certain 24, types 1971 of
(85 Stat. 488), established a program under which organizations, located in the 17 westernmost contiguous States and Hawaii, can obtain loans for small reclamation projects and grants for those portions of the projects that are nonreimbursable as a matter of national policy. A copy of the Act, incorporating the amend-ments, is enclosed starting on page 16.
The following information is provided for the use of organizations inter-ested in knowing of the scope of this program and the initial steps required to obtain a loan or grant. It is not intended to provide full instructions for those intending to prepare an application. For further information, interested organizations should consult the appropriate Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation. A list of the Regional Directors and the boundaries of their respective regions are shown on pages 29 and 30. What is a Small Project?
A small project may take any of several forms. It may be a complete single-purpose irrigation or multiple-purpose water resource project, or a distinct unit of ,either one; an irrigation drainage project; or a rehabilitation and betterment project or distinct units of such under-takings;--projects similar to those which might be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation under the Federal reclamation laws--with a total cost not in excess of $15,000,000.
How large a loan may be made?
The limit of the Federal funds that may be provided is $10,000,000 for a combination of a loan and grant or for either.
For what purposes can grants be made?
Grants may be made for flood control, outdoor recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement purposes where these purposes are of general public benefit. Grants may be made even if no loan is requested, provided that the project is multiple-purpose, and that the applying organization can demonstrate its ability to contribute the remainder of the project cost.
Who may apply for a loan and/or grant?
The law refers to an organization which may obtain a loan and/or grant as follows:
"The term 'organization' shall mean a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof or a conservancy district, irrigation district, water users' organization, an agency created by interstate compact, or a similar organization which has capacity to contract with the United States under the Federal reclamation laws."
An individual or an unorganized group of individuals cannot obtain a loan or grant. In general, irrigation companies or similar private organizations do not qualify, but in certain States their status might permit them to do so. However, it may be practical for such companies or groups of individuals to adopt a form of organization under State law that will qualify. In case of doubt as to whether an organization can qualify, consult the Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Does it cost anything to apply for a loan and/or grant?
Yes. The formal proposal must be accompanied by a check for $1,000 to cover a part of the cost of review and processing of the application. In addition, all costs of making the necessary investigations and pre-paring the application report are borne by the applicant. These costs may be substantial.
Can an organization obtain several separate loans or grants?
Yes, but not for the same project. Likewise, two organizations cannot obtain separate loans or grants for the same project, but two or more organizations may combine in a joint venture to make a single application for a single project. The law specifically prohibits more than one loan or grant, or combination of these, for one project. Larger projects with total costs exceeding $15,000,000, or for which desired Federal financing exceeds $10,000,000, might be considered for authorization and construction through regular Reclamation procedures.
An organization may obtain any number of loans provided it can be demon-strated that each proposal is a complete undertaking or a separate and
What purposes may be included in project proposals?
Project proposals may be solely for irrigation or for drainage of irrigated lands or may be for multiple-purpose projects authorized or eligible for authorization under the Federal reclamation laws. Multiple-purpose projects may include irrigation, drainage, domestic, industrial, or municipal water supply, commercial power, flood control, fish and wildlife enhancement, or outdoor recreation. Loans cannot be made solely for municipal water even if most of the water will be used for watering lawns and gardens. Such use is not considered to be irrigation within the intent of this Act. Irrigation must be for commercial agriculture.
Loans may be made for the local organization's share of the costs allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement and outdoor recreation.
Can a loan and/or grant be obtained for a project authorized for construction by the Bureau?
Yes, if the proposal qualifies under the Small Reclamation Projects Act. If the whole project is to be developed according to the Bureau plan, the matter of the application is somewhat simplified. When proposals are for only a part of a project, it may be necessary for the Bureau to study the remainder of the project in order to determine whether the partial develop-ment will deprive others of the opportunity for developdevelop-ment. Loans will not be made for small project proposals that would damage or destroy known
opportunities for more comprehensive developments.
Irrigation distribution systems on authorized Federal Reclamation projects may also be developed under loans provided for by Public Law 130, 84th Congress (69 Stat. 244), revised by Public Law 520, 84th Congress (70 Stat. 155). That Act provides for loans to irrigation districts and similar organizations to construct their own distribution systems in lieu of construction that has been authorized for the Bureau of Reclamation. No limit has been placed upon the size of such loans, other than the cost limitations that may be contained in the authorization for Bureau construc-tion of the system. In many respects, the procedures are identical with those for projects under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, but some of the steps in obtaining approval are simplified. Further information on this type of loan may be obtained from the Bureau of Reclamation brochure entitled "Loans Under the Distribution System Loans Act--P. L. 84-130." What part of the loan is interest-free and what part is interest-bearing?
The portion of the project costs that is properly assigned to irrigation service for lands not in excess of 160 acres in a single beneficial ownership
or 320 acres held by husband and wife is free of interest charges. Interest must be charged on the reimbursable portions of the project costs chargeable to providing irrigation benefits to lands in excess of 160 acres in a single ownership, to the production of commercial power, to furnishing water for domestic, industrial, or municipal use, and for the reimbursable portion of those costs allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement and outdoor recreation.
What rate of interest is to be paid?
The rate of interest to be paid on such loans is based upon the interest rate on certain long-term obligations of the United States. The rate is determined each fiscal year by the Secretary of the Treasury and will apply throughout the life of the contract to all contracts executed during that fiscal year (12 months beginning July 1 of each year). These rates may change from year to year. The rate applicable for fiscal year 1972 is 3-1/2 percent.
How soon must the loan be repaid?
The repayment period for such loans must be the shortest practical period justified. The actual payout schedule for a specific project will be dic-tated by the conditions anticipated and will be decided between the Bureau and the applicant organization. The repayment period cannot exceed 50 years from the date when the principal benefits from the project first became available.
Is a contract required?
Applicants must enter into a contract with the United States which will provide for the repayment of the loan and which will cover various pro-visions for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the project and the repayment of Bureau costs.
What contribution must be made by the applying organization? The Small Reclamation Projects Act, as amended, provides that the organization will be required to finance, by means other than the Federal loan and grant, a part of the cost of the project. For projects that cost more than $10,000,000, the local interests must
this contribution, the local interests must provide all costs of lands and interests in land, except where grants for fish and wildlife enhance-ment and outdoor recreation are involved, and all water rights. Those costs, plus the cost of preparing the application and paying the filing fee, are therefore the minimum contribution that can be accepted for new projects, and more may be required. For rehabilitation and betterment work on existing projects, the amount of the contribution must be considered on an individual case basis to provide for a local share of the costs consistent with the requirements placed upon new projects. As a minimum, the construc-tion must be equal to the savings in operaconstruc-tion and maintenance costs which are expected to accrue during construction.
What of water rights involved in lawsuits?
The Act requires that the applying organization make a showing that it has, or can obtain, the necessary water rights. Therefore, water rights that are involved in legal controversy can prevent the approval of a project proposal that is dependent upon Chem. However, if the proposed project is financially feasible without the controversial water rights, it may be approved for Federal financing.
Who plans and builds the project?
The applying organization is responsible for planning, building, operating, and maintaining the project. The Bureau will provide advice on preparation of the application and examine the plans to determine whether the project can reasonably be expected to accomplish its purpose and repay the loan. Also, the Bureau will inspect the project as necessary during construction and throughout the period of loan repayment to make certain that it is built and managed according to agreement.
The applying organization should make its own arrangements for the neces-sary consulting engineering services and other specialized services that it needs. In the event that an applicant finds it impossible to obtain necessary specialized services, the Bureau will provide such services whenever practical to do so, if the applicant pays for them. Similar arrangements can probably be made with other Federal agencies within their special fields, but it is suggested that applicants consult the Bureau's Regional office on this matter. The other agencies generally prefer that the arrangements with applying organizations be made in cooperation with the Bureau.
Where may Bureau advice be obtained?
Applicants should consult the appropriate Regional Director as indicated on page 29.
Must the detailed construction plans and specifications be approved by the Bureau?
Yes. However, only preliminary plans which will indicate construction standards and enable reliable cost estimates to be made are required in the application.
Must the applying organization pay the costs of the Bureau's participation? Yes, if the loan is approved, all costs of the Bureau's activities on
each project must be repaid by the applying organization as part of the loan, expect Chose costs properly allocable to nonreimbursable functions. The $1,000 provided with the application will pay a portion of the costs of processing and considering the application. It will not be refunded even if the proposal is not approved. In the event the Bureau is asked to make special studies for the applicant's use for its loan application, the applicant must advance funds for the Bureau's use on such studies. All reimbursable costs of considering the proposal and of the Bureau's other activities, including contract negotiations, examination of the final plans and specifications, inspection of construction work, and account auditing must be repaid with the loan.
Can the applicant obtain Bureau data for use in its studies?
Any Bureau data useful in planning the proposed project will be made available to the applicant. The law provides for payment by the applicants of the costs of such data and, in general, charges will be based on the cost of preparing and furnishing such data to the applicant. These charges may be included as part of the loan. Are other agencies involved?
The Act specifically requires that the applicant consult with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the appropriate State fish and game
and wildlife values of the area. Also, an assessment of the cost of mitigation of damages and the value and specific cost of enhancement should be obtained.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466, et, seq.) requires that the proposal be reviewed for its effects on water quality. Such review should be made by the regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency, and its comments should be requested.
A list of regional offices and a map of regional boundaries are enclosed for the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and for the Environmental Protection Agency.
If grants are requested for flood control, the applicants must also consult with the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, which has the primary interest in that activity. It will be necessary for agreement to be reached among the applicant, the Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau on the manner of operation of the project in order to assure the claimed general benefits. In proposals requesting grants for outdoor recreation which are located outside the National Forests, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation must be consulted regarding the recreation facilities proposed, their capital cost, annual operation costs, special operating regulations, and the projected annual benefits to be derived from recreation. For projects located in the National Forests, the Forest Service must be consulted.
In accordance with the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-577, October 16, 1968), the Office of Management and Budget in Circular No. A-95, Evaluation, Review and Coordination of Federal and Federally Assisted Programs and Projects, has specified clearinghouse procedures to be followed by applicants seeking Federal assistance under the Small Reclamation Projects Act.
Applicants are required to submit a "Notice of Intent" to an established State, regional and/or metropolitan clearinghouse at the same time that the notice is submitted to the Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclama-tion. A sample "Notice of Intent" is included for applicant's guidance beginning on page 22.
State and regional (non-Metropolitan) clearinghouses have been established by Governors in accordance with Circular A-95. Metropolitan clearinghouses have been established by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Section 204 of the Metropolitan Development and Demonstration Cities Act of 1966.
Clearinghouses have 30 days after receipt of the notice to inform appropriate agencies of the proposed project. In addition, State and regional clearinghouses have the 30-day period prior to the date on which the application is expected to be filed to submit any comments of the State or regional agencies to accompany the application, where the clearinghouses have given notice of their intent to do so.
Applications must include any comments made by or through the clearing-house along with a statement that such comments have been considered prior to submission of the application or a statement that the clearinghouse procedure was followed and that no comments were received, if such were the case.
The regional office of the Bureau will provide information regarding the agencies that are to be consulted in each specific case.
Must the States be consulted?
Yes. The proposals must be submitted for review by the State or States in which the project is located, and the Governor (or a State agency designated by him) must find that the project is financially feasible and must conmient upon the claimed water rights. Also, where projects affect interstate streams, proposals must be submitted to the other States of the river basin for review and comment, except for those proposals for rehabilitation and betterment programs on existing projects which would involve no new use of water.
Who submits the proposals to the States and other Federal agencies? The applicant. The regional office of the Bureau of Reclamation will provide information on where the reports should be sent.
Must the application be submitted to the Congress?
Yes. If the proposal is approved, the Secretary of the Interior submits the application to the Congress. No appropriation of funds can be made for the project until the application has lain 60 days before the Congress while the Congress is in session, without adverse resolution by either of the respective Interior and Insular Affairs Committees. This procedure is not required, however, for proposals which are part of a Federal reclamation
Are application blanks available?
No. To meet the requirements of the law, the applicant must provide a report which will set forth the plan and estimated cost in details com-parable to those included in preauthorization reports required for a Federal Reclamation project.
In general, the application should be made in two steps. First, a notice of intent should be filed, a sample of which is included in this brochure on pages 22 to 28. Second, the formal application consisting of a resolution by the Board of Directors of the applying organization and the application report, should be submitted accompanied by the $1,000 application fee. The resolution should state the amount of loan and/or grant requested, the amount of the proposed contribution, and the number of years anticipated for repay-ment of the loan.
What information is to be in the report?
The exact contents of the report will vary with the type and complexity of the proposed project. Therefore, the Bureau's Regional Director should be consulted to determine the requirements for each individual project. Briefly, the report should include items such as the following:
1. A summary of the proposal.
2. A statement of the powers and authority of the organization and the State law under which organized.
3. Information on the financial condition of the organization and its authority to act for the water users.
4. A showing that the applicant organization has all lands and water needed for the project, or can obtain them. Organizations having
the right to condemn lands for right-of-way can satisfy much of this requirement by a statement to that effect.
5. Land classification information sufficient to show that the lands of the project can maintain production throughout the repayment period. 6. The acreage of irrigable lands held in excess ownership.
7. A general description of the proposed project, including the area to be served, water requirements for present and future irrigation and municipal and industrial use, water supply, water rights, and
