•
"Together Today
for the
Needs of Tomorrow"
The Proceedings
at Albuquerque, New Mexico
November 13-18,1966
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
35th Annual Convention
.
897
National Press Building
Washington, D.C. 20004
S605
N31966
v.1•
NORTHEEZN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
EXPLANATION OF REPRODUCTION PLAN
These Proceedings contain all prepared addresses and also the
dis-cussions of the Business session
Reports of Committees and the Resolutions are not included. The
punch system of binding permits you to insert such, should you wish.
Since 738 copies of Resolutions were picked up at the Convention,
most people receiving proceedings will already have the Resolutions.
However, the Resolutions will be reproduced in Washington, D. C
Should you not have a copy, one will be furnished upon request
This method of distributing advance copies of Proceedings gives
you the speeches while the events of the Convention and your own
discussions with delegates are still fresh in your minds. It also
takes full advantage of the reproduced material
nowavailable at
the Convention site
(
As of this typing, copies of Henry Caulfield's talk are not
available
If not obtained before binding of these speeches,
copies will be furnished automatically from Washington, D.C,).
•
Proceedings of the
General Sessions and the Business Sessions of the
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION November 16, 17, 18, 1966
Albuquerque, New Mexico
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION 897 National Press Building
CF 'ONTENTS
Af.ORL:1SES
ADDRESS OF WELCOME - Ralph Trig,. 1:Lerque City Commission Chairman
•
MESSAGE BY THE PRESIDENT OF NRA - Harold H. Christy, President
KEYNOTE ADDRESS - The Honorable Clinton P. Anderson, Senior U. S. Senator, New Mexico "WATER CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE" - Floyd E. Dominy, Commissioner, USBR
"IT'S IN YOUR HANDS" - Ronald I. Cross, Agricultural Agent, A.T. & S.F. Railway Company PANEL - "WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS"
MODERATOR:
Henry Shipley, Assistant General Manager, Sale River Project, Arizona PANEL MEMBERS:
Frank C. Diluzio, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Pollution Control
C. H. dadleigh, Director of Soil and Water Conservation Research Division of Department of Agriculture
Archie Rice, Partner in Cornell, Howland, Hayes & Merryfield
"WATER FOR 10 MILLION MORE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIANS" - Robert A. Skinner, General ,Manager, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
"THY WHY AND THE HOd OF COMPREHENSIVE RIVER BASIN PLANNING" - Henry F. Caulfield, Executive Director, The Federal Water Resources Board
PRESENTATION - "INTEREST OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL IN PLANNING" Wright Hiatt, Executive Director, Western States Water Council
ADDRESS - Lt. Gen. Wm. F. Cassidy, Chief of Engineers, U. 3. Army
"WATER AND THE POLITICAL REVOLUTION" - Hon. Jack M. Campbell, Governor of New Mexico PANEL - "THE COLUMBIA-NORTH PACIFIC REGIONAL STUDY"
MODERATOR AND SUMMATIONS:
Brig. Gen. P. C. Hyzer, U. S. A., Chairman, Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Comm.
• PANEL MEMBERS:
E. L. White, Chairman Tech Staff
A. J. Webber, Oregon, U. 3. Dept. of Agriculture, State Conservationist, SCS C. W. Hodde, Regional Coordinator, U. 3. Dept. of Interior
PANEL - "WATER DEVELOPMENT AND TPE PUBLIC INTEREST" - introduced by J. S. Rigginsp Jr., NRA Director, Arizona
MODERATOR:
Thomas L. Kimball, Executive Director, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D. C.
PANEL MEMBERS:
Hon. Morris K. Udall, Member of Congress, Arizona
Hon. David R. Brower, Executive Director, Sierra Club, Berkeley, California "THE GROWING NEED FOR CREATIVE CONSERVATION" - Donald A. Williams, Administrator,
Soil Conservation Service
CONGRESSIONAL PANEL -"WESTWIDE WATER PLANNING THROUGH STATE COOPERATION AND NEGOTIATION!!
MODERATOR:
Hon. Wayne N. Aspinal, Colorado PANEL MEMBERS:
Hon. Harold T. (Bizz) Johnson, California Hon. Mortis K. Udall, Arizona
Hon. Wendell Wyatt, Oregon Hon. George V. Hansen
•
•
•
Remarks of Harold Christy, President, National Reclamation Association, at
the Annual Convention, Albuquerque, New Mexico, November 16, 1966
Some crops seem to flourish in cycles. An unusually productive year will be followed by a below-average year, and vice versa.
This seems to be true of legislative crops too. Last year at Kansas City we could look back on one of the biggest crops of legislation concerning Reclamation and water-resource development in all history. This year by contrast has seen less new legislation. It has nevertheless been an important year.
In 1966 the laws and programs of 1965 were tested and evaluated, and the executive agencies gained experience in implementing them. No doubt this experience will be reflected in further legislation to come.
It was the first year of operation of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, which opened the way for broader Federal-State relationships in the vital field of planning. Several regional and river-basin commissions have already been established under this law, including one in the Pacific-Columbia region. It was also the first year of the Western States Water Council, a new instrument that so far has scarcely had opportunity to prove itself.
This year saw the Food for Freedom Act of 1966 - an act which effectively laid to rest the battered old "surplus crops" argument which only a few years ago threatened the entire Reclamation program.
Your Association, and particularly its Small Projects Committee under
Chairman Doyle F. Been, played a leading part in securing extension and expansion of the Small Reclamation Projects Act. An additional $100 million were
appropriated for the program, loan ceilings were raised, the interest rate was reduced, and other improvements were added. A report on this achievement will be made to the convention. I commend it to your attention, for this was one of the outstanding successes of the year for NRA with the driving force of western Senators and Congressmen.
-2-Those were some of the plusses of this year. Unfortunately, there was also one noteworthy minus. For the third consecutive year, the money appropriated for the Bureau of Reclamation's program went down below the level of the previous year. The reductions have not been great, but they have
occurred while construction costs were rising, so that the reduction in the amount of construction provided for is considerably greater than is reflected in the dollar figures.
We cannot help noting that this has occurred at a time when billions of dollars are being provided for the War on Poverty, which includes many under-takings much less carefully investigated and justified than the projects which are bottled up in the Bureau's backlog.
Many of us here can remember the War on Poverty conducted in the 1930's under such programs as NHA, PWA, CCC and WPA. Looking back, I believe most of us would agree that it was the construction type of projects undertaken in that era which paid off best - not only as public investments, but also to the people concerned. So I cannot help wondering why our present War on Poverty should not include a great deal more investment in Reclamation construction.
Surely it fits both the short-range objectives of the program, in the immediate job training and community income provided by the construction work; and also the long-range objectives of economic development, beautification, and social improvement. Many a one-crop rural area now stagnating and losing its young people could be. revitalized by the economic stability and diversi-fication provided by a Reclamation project. The Bureau has an ample backlog of already investigated and justified projects that can be put under construction in short order. Let us merge the War on Waste, the War on Water Shortages,
•
-3-West through an expanded program of Reclamation construction.
It is appropriate that in this transitional year, our Association has been undergoing a transition of its own. Your Board of Directors have con-sidered certain internal stock-taking endeavors aimed at reassessing our aims and interests during this period. These will be discussed during the business sessions of this convention. For the present, let me simply observe that in a time of change, NRA cannot stand still. We need a constant inflow of new
thoughts and new faces, new young people, in our membership and our activities. NRA should be a proselyting organization. I urge you active members who
have come to this convention especially to make a point to sell and to recruit for our Association when you return to your homes.
However, overshadowing all other Reclamation questions in 1966 has been the so-called Colorado River Bill, and two issues in particular that have arisen from it. One concerns the two Colorado River dams which are key features of the Central Arizona Project, the core of the Colorado River
pro-posal. The other concerns the question of West-wide interbasin transfers of water.
The controversy over the dams brings into focus a question which is emerging as a very important one to the entire water world. That is the question of the weight or priority to be given to scenic or other natural
values in evaluating water-resource development proposals. Are those so-called natural values to be absolutely over-riding and dominant, to the point where their emergence in a project situation nullifies all other considerations?
• It would seem absurd that any group or interest should be given such a veto power over the whole vital water resource field. Yet we seem to be approaching such a situation in this country.
•
•
-4-A great debate is building up on the manner of preservation, conservation, and use of our publicly owned natural resources. Right now the Pacific
Southwest is in the center of the argument, but it has involved other areas in the past and can occur anywhere in the nation. Our eastern friends who many times oppose projects in the West may wake up some morning to find their hopes of solving their own water supply, waterway, and pollution problems rudely dashed by the same preservationist propaganda.
I do not need to tell most of you here that Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, San Francisco, and other metropolitan areas throughout the West would not be in existence today at the present size if man had not taken positive action to correct nature's imbalance of natural resources through irrigation and other water resource programs.
ConServation is so hallowed a cause that it seems almost sacreligious to speak of a lunatic fringe in the conservation movement. Yet even religions can have their fanatical phases, with extremists trying to out do each other in self-righteous zeal, and often persuading their followers to do things they later will bitterly regret. Today a fanatical, zealot sentiment is agitating the conservation movement, just as it does some other movements. And if it Is allowed to grow and spread, it will work the same harm and destruction that it has done in other movements.
We are hearing again the same arguments raised against TVA and Hoover Dam and the Missouri River Dams and many others. The power is not needed,
or can be obtained better in some other way; the same for the water; the projects will not pay for themselves', they are political pork; and so on. But true
conservationists have always placed primary importance on water-resource conservation through river-basin development with dams and other appropriate
•
•
-5-works. Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot and their group; George
Norris, Hiram Johnson, David Lilienthal, Harold Ickes--all the great names of the conservation movement have been Reclamationists and dam builders. And we can measure what is happening in the conservation movement today by noting how its extremist segments have forsaken the basic beliefs of all the real conser-vationists who built the movement and made it great in service and achievement.
I believe that the true conservationists still support sound water-conservation programs and development projects. This is demonstrated, among other ways, by the record of Congress in supporting Reclamation and other water resource programs through the years.
Actually, I believe there is no basic inconsistency between preservation and use. Surely there is enough wilderness in this great West so that we can find abundant refuge for those who wish to commune ir. solitude with nature in the raw. Surely we can do this without disrupting the program with which we must feed and clothe and support the growing millions of our people. The 200 million visitors who camped and boated and swam and fished in Federal reservoirs last year prove that outdoor recreation of the most satisfying kind can be had along with the other benefits of multiple-purpose water-resource development. Those who enjoyed the majestic scenery of Lake Mead or Lake Powell or dozens of other lovely Reclamation lakes, must find it hard to believe that similar lakes in Bridge and Marble Canyons will be quite the desecration that some people claim.
In short--there is every reason to believe that we can have all that we want from our West and its waters provided we can plan together for their development, and share together in their use. But if any group or interest is permitted to exercise an absolute, no-compromise veto over all other interests and needs, then we are in trouble, and should recognize the fact
-6-•
and take steps to meet it.
Now for the other topic I want to discuss--Westwide interbasin transfers of water. The water export features of the Colorado bill are significant not simply because they propose interbasin diversions--those have become relatively familiar--but because the diversions contemplated here are on a vast scale and affect regions which differ greatly in character. Their very proposal has aroused strong emotions, and created a serious risk of interregional conflict.
This is the real problem of West-wide water diversions. All other kinds of problemsconnected with them can be solved. They take a lot of study--more than some people may want to take time for--but they will yield to patient teamwork--if we can manage to cope with the emotional problem.
This means that from the very start we must try to eliminate all sectionaland regional considerations from our interbasin planning. The different regions can and should study and plan within themselves; this is needed. But when we come to approach inter-basin, inter-regional planning, It must not be in the form of a confrontation of Southwest versus Northwest, or of Colorado Basin versus Columbia Basin. We must plan and study, and when necessary finance and build, on a unified West-wide basis.
I think that the concepts embodied in the Colorado Bill as it vas last seen in Congress are incomplete in that they represented agreements among
large parts, but not all, of the West. And I hope that by the time it reappears, it will have broadened to the point where it provides at least the basis for a West-wide approach. Our present bill began with an agreement between Arizona and Califonia. It was broadened to embrace agreement between the Upper and Lower Basins and those of the Great Plains. What we need now is one more step that will at least lay the foundation for a plan that will offer benefits to the Northwest as well, along with other areas of the West, and that we can
•
•
-7-all support as a truly West-wide water plan.
None of us has any illusions that this will be easy. The agreements that have been achieved up to now have been between areas that all had one common bond of interest. They were all areas that could be considered have-not areas, in terms of water. But when you line up all the have-nots
behind a proposition of that kind, then no matter how you phrase your proposition, it cannot help taking on at least the outward appearance of a prospective raid against the haves. You arouse the basic instinct of self-preservation in those who are excluded.
We have here one of the most ancient arguments in human history. A man says: "I have more mouths than I can feed, and my neighbor has a field he is not using. I shall take his field away from him so that my children may live; and shall recompense him as I can."
This argument has been accepted and acted on as just, many times. The trouble is that it has also been used to justify greed and aggression. It was the argument we used to take the country away from the Indians. So when
anyone wants to put forth this argument, it is up to him to build a very strong case that he really does need the field--or the water--and that his neighbor really doesn't need it for his own children; and that the transfer of the right and property really is just and wise.
This means that a great deal of study and planning and negotiation must take place. Both sides of the transaction--the have side as well as the have-not side--will have to participate in the study and planning, and consent to the final arrangement. So no matter how we look at it, it seems to me we are going to have to approach our interbasin planning on a West-wide scale in order to have anything we can live with.
v
•
•
-8
-In all fairness to the men who worked long and hard on the final draft ofthe Colorado Bill, I think they did everything possible in a sincere attempt to protect the basin of origin. I have been surprised at the number of dedicated people from the Northwest who have never read the final draft that was reported out of committee. This bill has consolidated all the eastern opposition to western projects and unless we can develop a united Western front we are all doomed.
For us in the National Reclamation Association, this presents a great opportunity and a great responsibility. We have calledr'ourselves the Voice of the West. Now is the time to prove it.
We face problems these days that are not going to be solved overnight nor on a crash basis. Anything that can help us obtain perspective or
facilitate teamwork will be most useful. I believe that the NRA itself
can serve such a purpose, and that this must be one of our major roles in the months and years to come. We must be a force for unity, for cooperation, for the broad West-wide view--one of the bonds that will help hold the West
together and keep it speaking with one voice. Thank you.
•
•
Remarks of Senator Clinton P. Anderson National Reclamation Association
Albuquerque, New Mexico November 16, 1966
I want to join in welcoming the National Reclamation Association to Albuquerque and New Mexico. While I have leen thinking about this meeting since accepting your kind invitation some time back, I have been able only in the last few days to sit down and put my thoughts on paper. We were engaged here with certain other activities which commanded a good deal of my time. The outcome of those activities will permit me to continue my long-standing interest—shared with you--in sound water conservation and
development.
This meeting is convened at a highly significant moment in the history of concern with water resources. Finally--and regrettably quite late-- an awareness that the entire nation faces a severe water management problem has penetrated the national conscience. I am reluctant to call it a crisis; that label is so overused. Our water difficulties need not reach crisis proportions if we plan wisely and manage effectively.
What used to be a problem besetting us in the West has become national in dimension. Out here we never had as much water as we needed or could use. Now the Northeast has experienced a drought that plagued the most populated area of the country for over five years. On the other side of the continent, the Northwest is worried that its greatest river will be tapped by thirsty states to the south. The magnificence of the Great Lakes is being destroyed by polluaon--the streams of the Appalachian highlands continue to be contaminated by seepage from mines long since sealed—and industfializa-tion has brought water polluindustfializa-tion to Dixie.
We do not intend to go on this way. A nation that will be producing goods and services of over $1,000 billion by 1980 can pay the price of clean and abundant water. A nation with at least 245 million people by 1980 cannot assure their prosperity and well-being unless it does.
There is a national water problem--but only in the sense that it
affects the total national interest, and, therefore, compels Federal response. There is no national solution--for the problem is local and regional in scope and impact.
The last few years, however, have produced an impressive response by Congress and the Administration to the Nation's water problems; The Water Resources Research Act; the Water Resources Planning Act; the Water Pollution Control Act; the Land and Viater Conservation Act; the
2
-Clean Water Act; and legislation—including the Aspinall-Anderson Act of 1961--which vastly broadened the desalination program.
• These are all Federal acts. But each of them encourages and imple-ments state participation in water resource study, planning' and development.
•
I believe we now have the basic tools and building materials--in terms of legislation--to cope with our water problems.
The challenge comes in successfully digesting what we have. The difficulties are, in large measure, administrative and organizational. There are now relationships evolving between the Federal government and state and local governments. And there is the seemingly eternal headache of making
the agencies and departments in the water field not only get along with one another, but of stimulating them to give the public interest priority over the agency's interest.
It is not enough that the bureaucratic right hand know what the left hand is doing—we must know that what is being done is being done well. To do -otherwise is to invite public disenchantment with the whole water effort, and to generate costly delay. We cannot afford the luxury of erecting a water bureaucracy that will crumble of its own clumsy weight—and take needed programs and projects with it.
I am quite sympathetic to the views my good friend John Saylor of Pennsylvania expressed in the House last August. With the help of the Legis-lative Reference Service, the Congressman—who speaks with the authority of ranking minority member of the House Interior Committee—found more than 50 agencies involved in the water resources activities of the Federal Government. Let me quote John Saylor's words:
"Every one of these agencies has been created for a
purpose and I do not relieve the Congress of its responsibility in permitting the creation of such an organization monstrosity as the Federal Government's effort in water resources. The functions are so finely divided, responsibility and authority have been so confusedly delegated and redelegated by reshuffling within the executive branch that most of the original goals set by the Congress are unfulfilled . . . The duplication and confusion existing among all these agencies is so gross that most of the time of the thousands of bureaucrats working in this field is devoted to solving organizational and administrative problems, rather than doing anything about the water problems of the Nation.
When a dedicated conservationist and responsible member of Congress--in a strategic position from the standpoCongress--int of water projects--is vigorously
-
3-4
•
•
Perhaps the worst curse of overlap and needless duplication is the high toll it exacts on capable water specialists. They are in scarce supply. Headway is being made on increasing their ranks: No fewer than 300 new courses in the water field have been started at universities, and 50 schools now offer graduate courses in water pollution control. Young people should be encouraged to enter the water field. I can think of no personal commit-ment more challenging than that of helping to improve the quality of life in America. At the same time, these young men and women must be assured that the mission will have strong public support over the long haul.
We cannot plan and conduct water programs by simply reshuffling a limited number of skilled people. Mobility is a fact of professional life in
America. But reasonable competition for trained personnel is a threat to effective water programs when it becomes a game of "robbing Peter to pay Paul!'; that is, when a university researcher or teacher is pirated away by a state agency, only in turn to be hired off to Washington. I know we are in
constant need in the Federal Government of talented and energetic people. But those same qualities are just as urgently needed to plan and manage -water projects in local communities, states and regions.
A "brain drain" to Washington would severely handicap local initiative, and make success in solving our water problems far less likely.
The Water Resources Research Act has given an important lift to graduate education in hydro-science. That is a valuable contribution.
Having had rather deep involvement with the legislation, I know that Congress intended to encourage fundamental research across the full spectrum of water
problems--scientific, legal and administrative. But I also know that we wanted the institutions and individual researchers to seek answers to the immediate water difficulties of their areas. The quest for basic
knowledge--vital as it is —should not dominate the water resources research program at the expense of practical investigation of pressing water problems.
-A few moments ago, I cautioned about the dangers inherent in the multiplicity of agencies and bureaus on the water scene. At the risk of . seeming inconsistent, I want to mention the proposal for a National Water Commission advanced by the chairman of the Senate Interior Committee, Henry A. (Scoop) Jackson.
The Commission would be charged with the. responsibility of
assembling the facts about water problems and—on the basis of these facts--to review water policy in the light of the broad national interest. It would be called upon to evaluate the basic premises underlying the nationls water resource development policies and to determine where these premises and policies are leading us.
- 4
-The Senate passed the water commission bill last June following favorable reports from all agencies--and after extensive hearings
which showed support from many of the foremost water experts.
In the House, the substance of the measure was added to the Lower Colorado River
Pro-ject bill, but everygne here knows what happened to that legislation.
It is significant, to me, that 49 senators put their names on the Jackson bill--an indication of a strong consensus that a need exists
for dis-interested, searching examination of our water problems. And if the
proposed commission is to perform its assignment properly, it must be free of parochial allegiance--either to an agency, or a particular water
use, or to a narrow interest rather than the general good.
It may he that there are other ways to get at this problem. But we need a system that will enable us to make broad-scale assessments,
to weigh alternative approaches, and to come up with what will prove the correct
;•egponse. And the Central Arizona Project is one proposal that must
receive
ve-.41 judgment.I am glad to see
trictt
the Bureau of Reclamation is making such an assessment of what all of us would md-nit has been a rather controversialwater development scheme. The exercise w be--in my estimation--a vrduable experience for the Bureau. I say this, as tn ,s,?d friend of
reclama-41on, because I believe the Bureau no longer can be content witi..
1-)eing rrticipally a ditch and dam builder. Rather, it must deal with the
fuli gamut oi water problems. Its current study will have to examine the
cost of slurces of water which are alternatives to water from impoundments.
As the agency tackle s this complex issue, it will be asking, among other questions: What is the true cost of waste water recovery? What
is
the
cost of desalted water?Meanwhile, several of the members of Congress--and particularly those on the Interior Committees of the Senate and the House--may
want to see if we can find a little ground on which we all may stand on the
Central Arizona question.
I am interested in the fate of the project, in part because New Mexico is anxious to see Hooker Darn constructed--and so am I.
But as an outsider not involved with the day by day battling r, n the Central Arizona Project, I wonder if there are other ways to meet
the problem.
It is appropriate that the Bureau of Reclamation will be taking
a close look at the use of power reactors as an alternative to revenue-producing
register" clams—on the Lower Colorado, Great advances are being made not only in nuclear reactor technology, but in the adoption of the atom
as a power source by the utilities across the country. And, of course,
the abundant coal deposits of certain areas of the Lower Basin are a rich reservoir of energy fuel, All we have to do is note what is happening
in the Four Corners region. There, a combine of private and public
utilities--called WEST— is building a giant mine-mouth generating plant, Such a
venture holds great promise.
The best illustration of the exciting things that are happening in atomic power is the combination of nuclear reactors and desalting plants. What this rapidly growing technology means in terms of cheap water is of major importance to us.
Already launched is the plan to construct below Los Angeles a 150-million-gallon-per-day desalination plant linked to a massive nuclear
power reactor. The dual-purpose facility is expected to produce fresh
water from the sea at a cost of 22 cents per 1,000 gallons, and power at less than
3 mills per h. w. h,
That is bringing the cost of water down towards an attractive neighbor-hood. But there may be even more dramatic reductions in cost just over
the horizon.
With the Government of Mexico, the United States has underway an 18-month study of the possibility of a 750-million to 1-billion gallons-per
-day desalting plant—tied to a 3, 000-3, 500 megawatt nuclear power
reactor--to be located close reactor--to the border of the two countries and serving both
nations. I am told that such a plant might bring the cost per 1,000 gallons of water down to 11 or 12 cents.
At that cost the figures look appealing for irrigation use, It also opens up the possibility for using desalted water for blending with
that part of the Lower Colorado's flow which is heavily contaminated with salts,
making it unusable for irrigation.
I recall not too many years ago that Dr. Philip Hammond, a
brilliant physicist—then at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory—outlined to me
the potential use of giant power reactors and desalting plants to produce
large blocks of electricity and water cheap enough to use for irrigation. I
thought the idea fascinating--but quite remote because of the heavy public
expendi-tures which would be needed and the uncertainty of the return.
But we can see that the idea is coming much closer to reality, And it has
•
•
- 6.'
With the world population increasing at 60 million a year, there is a need to boost grain output by 30 million tons a year--and that will be up to 40 minion tons by 1985.. Most of the worldts arable land is now in use,
while the water supply for the balance is inadequate or comes when it is not needed for farming. We are going to need new reclamation lands.
Besides desalination, weather modification may help. Within.the last year, two separate reports—one by the Panel on Weather and Climate
Modification to the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences of the National
Academy of Sciences, and the other from the Special Commission on Weat'ler Modification of the National Science Foundation—have suggested that the time is ripe for moving to exercise increased control over precipitation—a con-elusion that
I
reached many years ago, on the basis of my own study and observation of the reports of scientific experiments by a number ofinvestigators. With the support provided by these two prestigious committees of scientists, I anticipate that the Congress will soon authorize a program of applied research and development in this field. The only thing that is holding us up is the question of governmental organization to do the job. A bill passed the Senate late in the session—but died in the House of
Representatives—which would have provided a start toward a substantial acceleration of the program, by all involved Federal agencies. The bill, or ethers, will be reintroduced and will provide a basis for further con-sideration in the 90th Congress. I trust that an adequate program can be worked out because it is overdue.
In the meantime, I have continued down the path which the late
Senator Francis Case and I started along more than 10 years ago. I support the effort of the Bureau of Reclamation to increase the usable water supply through cloud seeding. We were successful in adding $750,000 to the
$3 million includ•A in the PresidentTs budget for this program in the current fiscal year. Bit by bit, we are getting this program up to where we should have had it years ago. Successful enactment of general legislation may be just the step needed to move ahead more rapidly. I hope the National
Reclamation Association will get behind this program and help increase it to the level it should be.
All of this lays down a challenge—and establishes the responsibility of the National Reclamation Association—to press forward towards the objective of increasing economic opportunity in the Western states through reclamation of arid lands and related water programs that are needed to improve the quality of life in the West.
It is not enough for you, as an organization, to muster feeble support for irrigation projects, while letting divisive squabbling over
emotionally-charged issues prevent the West from presenting a unified front in favor of necessary legislation. And by this I mean the arguments over private
•
•
7
-versus public power, the excess lands limitation, Federal -versus State control over water rights, and others. Such fights have hurt us in the past, and prevented the authorization of some worthwhile projects. Many of the problems that exist today could have been solved a decade or more ago if reclamationls true friends had not let unreasonable fear of Federal domina-tion lead men to oppose the very projects which could help the irrigated areas.
In the Missouri Basin, the power rate fight, haggling over upstream versus downstream water rights, and the debate over irrigation versus dry-land farming, are among the factors that have led to the hold-up in
authorization of needed irrigation works for South Dakota and Nebraska. A major fight will come up over these projects next session. They could have been half built by nowt
Failure to reach a consensus and act progressively on some of these issuer in the past has led me to Question whether an organization such as
NRA can be effective. I believe that it can be if we have the will to make it so. Look to the record of the Mississppi Valley Association, which closes ranks almost monolithically to support the civil functions program of the Corps of Engineers. Consider the activities of the National Rivers and Harbors Congress, which reached beyond its traditional role of supporting the rivers and harbors and flood control programs of the Corps of Engineers, to establish a Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, which may well become as effective a voice in support of the Bureau of Reclamation as you now can claim for the National Reclamation Association itself.
So we must keep our institutions--both government and private--in tune with the needs of today and tomorrow. I recognize--and salute—the power you have displayed in support of :7eclamation projects. But the field has been broadened: your association also must be. The Congress needs
your help, individually and collectively. It is not too late to seek a better world.
•
•
For release November 16, 1966
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
ADDRESS BY COMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION FLOYD E. DOMINY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AT THE ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION IN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO,
November 16, 1966
Water Challenges of the Future
After several years serving as the anchor man or windup speaker on the National Reclamation Association conventions, I welcome this opportunity to be a first day speaker at this, your 35th convention, because I believe I have a little food for thought which you may want to mull over during your sessions. I am fortu-nate too in following your keynote speaker, Senator Anderson, for we see alike and work together on western water problems. My ideas, I am sure, supplement his.
Reclamation has come to the crossroads of crisis rather regularly in its more than half a century of western water development. Your association was born from one of these crises back in 1932. At that time there was a growing national reluctance to undertake anything of such a sectional nature as the reclamation pro-gram. There was also growing division and competition between different areas of the West for water development.
Your association was instrumental in merging these divisive voices and speaking loudly and effectively on the national scene, so much so that the golden age of Reclamation development was born. The Reclamation program since has prospered over more than three decades.
From this came the giants of Reclamation development--the Columbia Basin Project, the Central Valley Project, the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, the Missouri River Basin Project, and, of course, the development in both the Upper and Lower basins of the,Colorado River.
At the same time, there have been authorized and constructed numerous lesser projects. These I term lesser only in physical dimensions, for to me each project is equally important for the purposes and the area it serves. We do not believe in bigness for bigness' sake. We do believe in planning and custom building each project for maximum efficiency and long-range need. This very often can be accomplished best by massive storage and control structures and riversized canals and distribution facilities.
There have been two or three major shifts of emphasis during this golden age of Reclamation --or perhaps I should call them enlargements rather than shifts from the primary Reclamation function. Conservation and use of water for irrigation still remain a principal purpose. But with this continuing emphasis on the
development of water for irrigation purposes, there now exists a growing demand for water for municipal and industrial purposes, which we seek to satisfy within the extent of our authority and Congressional approval.
With Secretary Udall and Representatives Rogers and Mahon I have just attended the dedication of Sanford Dam on the Canadian River in Texas. Next summer will see the first delivery of water from the Sanford Reservoir through a 322-mile aqueduct system to serve the Texas panhandle cities with water. Eleven cities will be served. This is typical of the growing emphasis on development of water supplies for municipal and industrial uses.
There also is growing emphasis on water-related recreation benefits such as boating and fishing. This, of course, is nothing new to Reclamation. You know, and I know that from the beginning, anytime we constructed a reclamation dam and reservoir, we automatically created a new fishing hole, a new picnic spot, a new boating area. But only in recent years has there been express Congressional recog-nition of this benefit.
There is also stream regulation and pollution control to be considered. The 89th Congress responded to a growing national awareness of contamination of our waters and a demand for positive action in cleaning them up. As a result, we now have as a sister agency within the Department of the Interior, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration with wide powers to undertake an active and posi-tive program. We will work closely with this agency, particularly in operation of our reservoirs for stream regulation, for pollution control to the highest degree possible consistent with the primary purposes for which they were authorized and constructed. Many of us here today are aware that the Bureau of Reclamation has been involved in the quality of water control business since construction of its first storage reservoirs. For example, analysis of water released from Lake Mead shows a variation of less than 100 ppm in dissolved solids, while the reservoir inflow prior to construction of upstream Glen Canyon Dam, often was upwards of 1,000 ppm. Reservoirs improve water quality by entrapment of sediment and debris and by precipitation of mineral salts. Although some added water losses through reservoir evaporation result in a small increase in average salt concentrations, there is an offsetting benefit of less tonnage of soluble salts being delivered to downstream water users. Multilevel outlets of some reservoirs make it possible to control the temperature of water released to a stream for industrial or fishery purposes. Such outlets also provide control of the quality of water when the reservoir content has become stratified with layers of varying quality.
Finally, there has been the development and utilization of the vast hydro-power resources of our rivers. This, of course, is not entirely a development of the Golden Age of Reclamatipn for the first Federally constructed hydropower plants were a part of the Salt River Project in Arizona and the Minidoka Project in Idaho back in the early 1900's. Nevertheless, the great giants of Federal hydropower development which saw installation of 8,700,000 kilowatts of capacity at Bureau of
2
Reclamation and Corps of Engineers multipurpose plants in the Western States •
occurred during the last three decades.
•
For many years, Federal hydropower production has long been a bone of controversy between public and private utilities and the Bureau of Reclamation, more than once, has been caught in the middle of these arguments to the detriment and delay of the Reclamation multipurpose program.
However, in recent years we have made significant progress toward a
mutuality of agreement which should end much of the back-biting type of competition and permit all utilities and the Federal Government to work toward maximum use of all generating capacity. A far-reaching step in this direction was the intercon-nections between public and private systems of the Colorado Storage Project area followed later by the agreement on intertie connections between the Pacific North-west and SouthNorth-west with the Federal Government and public and private utilities all participating.
Another major step will be interconnection next year through our Missouri River Basin transmission system of eastern and western power grids reaching all the way between Pacific and Atlantic coasts. This intertie has been worked out by a committee of operating engineers and with complete agreement of all entities. It will mean the interconnection of more than 245 million kilowatts of generating capacity, about 40 percent of the world total.
This interconnection of the several power pools which already exist, both east and west, will permit greater efficiency and maximum use of generating capacity without infringing on any management prerogatives of any utility, public or private. It will permit participating utilities to reduce the standby capacity they would otherwise need and also permit peaking capacity to shift from one pool to another as the need arises.
This broad interconnection will permit Federal hydroplants to make a
greater and more timely contribution to the utility output by adapting operations to peaking purposes at an earlier date and to a much greater degree than could be pro-grammed without the interconnections.
As Senator Anderson has told you in his recapitulation of legislative action by the 89th Congress, Reclamation was well treated with authorizations for major
projects in North Dakota, Washington, and California and enactment of a Basin Account for the Pacific Northwest. The first big step was taken for the seven -State Colorado River Basin Project when a favorable report came from the House Interior Committee. However, it was too late for final consideration by the 89th Congress. This project is in the national interest. It will be considered further when the 90th Congress convenes. Early action is essential if a water crisis on the Colorado River is to be avoided.
I mentioned that Reclamation has experienced many crossroads of crisis. I believe we are now at another crossroads but I would not identify the present situa-tion as a crisis. Rather I would say this is a crossroads of challenge with several routes open to the future.
Of immediate importance is the maintenance of the orderly process of water development. The Nation faces a tight budgetary situation as we all know and Recla-mation should and will do its share in reducing expenditures to a measurable minimum. In my eight years as Commissioner, I have prided myself on a tight and efficient administration and further economies will mean a real squeeze but we will manage. You people who are also concerned about getting projects for which you have worked hard and long will have to have understanding hearts and accept necessary delays that may be required in the national interest.
But I am particularly concerned that there be no delay in investigations and authorizations of Reclamation projects. Any required delays in our construction pro-gram now can be retrieved by subsequent escalation.
Reclamation projects are not conceived and finally accomplished in a day, a week, a month, or a year. And like an iceberg, only the portion of the time devoted to construction shows in a completed project. The huge unseen submerged portion of an iceberg may be compared to the long advance time required in the planning and authorization of projects.
It is a never-ending effort to keep the available water supply pushed ahead of the demand and any delay in the planning process could be disastrous 10 or 20 years from now. This is an immediate challenge.
Another challenge, and I would say this one is also almost immediate in nature although its implementation and effect are long range, is a broadening of our concept of the development and use of all available water supplies.
When the first pioneers pushed across the Missouri, reclamation was a
simple matter of stream diversion. Now we have basin-wide concepts of river develop-ment and even trans-basin diversions. The Central Valley Project-, the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project all are dependent upon
trans-basin movement of water and the San Juan-Chama Project here in New Mexico will soon be diverting water through the Continental Divide for this thriving city of
Albuquerque and other growing demands in the Rio Grande Valley.
But I believe that a major challenge of the future for our Nation will go beyond this to the potential diversion of water over great distances, across State boundaries and perhaps even international boundaries. The Parsons plan to bring water all the way down from Alaska is visionary but will it be considered visionary 25 or 50 years from now?
4
•
•
But there are major factors which I believe must be carefully weighed in considering the desirability of trans-basin water development. I set forth these factors in a series of three speeches recently in Washington and Oregon. These States, understandably, are much concerned about possible exportation of their most valuable resource, the Columbia River.
I said then and repeat here today that before export of any water from any basin or State to another, there must be a determination as to the potential needs of the basin of origin and such needs must be fully protected. This could be
determined by an established agency or combination of State and Federal agencies or by a National Water Commission such as Senator Jackson has proposed.
But looking beyond this determination, I doubt very much that the United States Congress will permit water unused and unusable in one area to go to waste if it can be transported and used in another area to enhance the Nation's economy. We are, after all, one United States. The boundaries of the States are political and they do not conform to geographical river basin boundaries. Yet a State does not hesitate to move water from one river basin to another within the State if the water is otherwise unused. Should not the same principle apply nationwide?
Another challenge in our future is the search for water from the sea and from the sky. While many people seem to take for granted the eventual diversion of Columbia River water to areas of shortage, I am not so sure that this is the most economic answer, even if it is ultimately demonstrated that there is water in the Columbia River surplus to the full development potential of the Pacific Northwest.
A good share of Colorado River water, for example, is used for domestic and industrial purposes. The cost of purification of sea water may well be competitive with the cost of large scale diversion from the Columbia River when the advantages of stage development possibilities are weighed against large initial development costs and high pumping expenses associated with diversion of water from the Columbia River at the only logical and practical point below Bonneville Dam.
Another prospect, and in my opinion an exciting one, is the likelihood of increasing precipitation from rivers of the sky. Congress has given us the green light for a,large scale program of practical research in this field and I hope we will have some answers in a matter of years. I can say now that it looks most promising in certain areas and under certain conditions. We have just completed a motion picture on our weather modification research and I hope you will all take a look at it during the premier here Thursday afternoon. I believe you will agree that exciting new sources of water may be available to us.
Finally there are two more challenges in our future. One is the problem of conservation versus preservation. The other is the financing of Reclamation area. Curiously enough they are somewhat related in matters which will be before the 90th Congress.
I have always said that the keystone of Reclamation success in a sectional program is the relatively large amount of hard cash returned to the Treasury in repay-ment. Around 90 percent of our total Reclamation investment is repayable and being repaid. I know of no other natural resources conservation program which returns this high a portion of its investment to the Treasury.
Municipal and industrial water and power investments pay their own way with interest, power revenues pay a big share of the costs of irrigation development, and surplus municipal and industrial revenues also contribute to irrigation payout on many projects.
A serious proposal was made during the last Congress that this mode of repayment be abandoned because two dams planned on the Colorado River, the primary purpose of which would be hydropower production for revenue purposes, would back water into portions of the Grand Canyon. One, Marble Canyon, would be above Grand Canyon National Parkland completely outside of the Grand Canyon as it is officially defined. The other, at the,Hualapai or Bridge Canyon site at the headwaters of Lake Mead would back water in lower reaches of the Grand Canyon through Grand Canyon National Monument and for 13 miles along the downstream boundary of the National Park.
I am not going to get into the argument of conservation versus preservation today because Representative Mo Udall is scheduled to debate it with one of the
preservationist lobby's principal spokesmen, Dave Brower of the Sierra Club, on Friday. I, incidentally, will share the podium with Brower at the American Water Resources Association meeting in Chicago next Monday which should be interesting since I have been a particular object of their criticism.
What I do want to point out today is that one of the challenges of the
future is to determine whether we should stick with traditional methods of Reclamation payback. Would it be better for Reclamation to go in the thermal generation business as the TVA has done and abandon proposals for hydropower development where wild rivers and areas of great natural beauty are involved?
I grit my teeth as I say this for I contend, and have hundreds of pictures to prove it, that Reclamation, in storing the spring runoff and regulating our
streams for the public benefit is not the great destroyer but, in fact, consistently improves the rivers for all purposes including recreational uses and enjoyment of natural beauty.
The First Lady, Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson, dedicated Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River in September and was moved to say, "As I look around at this incredibly beautiful and creative work, it occurs to me that this is a new kind of 'writing on the walls', a kind that says proudly and beautifully, 'Man was here." The same may be said of Reclamation works' all over the West.
Nevertheless, the challenge and question are whether Reclamation should seek alternative ways of repayment of Reclamation investment costs. Another alter-native might be a greater writeoff of Reclamation costs. Other water resources
6
•
•
agencies seem able to find ways to accomplish a greater writeoff at the expense of the general taxpayers and possibly the committees of Congress who are responsible for writing the framework of laws within which we operate may want to consider it.
These then are challenges which Reclamation faces in our future. But they are not mine alone or those of our agency or of the Federal Government. They are yours as well, for yours is the voice of the water users of the West.
urge you to take hold as you did in the early days of your organization, to weld divisive opinions and ideas into as much of a whole as possible. Unity is a key in facing up to many of the major policy decisions involved in challenges of the future. In the final analysis it is you as individuals, as irrigation districts, as conservation districts, and as States, who will make the final decision, for you are the public and the Congress is responsive to your will and desires. We, in turn, do the bidding of the Congress.
Thus may the challenges of the future be met. And meet them we must if we are to continue the notable contributions to the national economy and prosperity which we have been able to make in the past.
