30th Annual Meeting

-

1

_

PROCEEDINGS

of the

Thirtieth Annual Meeting

NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION

October 19-21, 1961

A RECLAMATION SCENE

Billings, Montana

A setting of beautiful homes and a prosperous community that will contribute

to the well-being of this nation for centuries to come.

41:7 ',...^3P,....". •4... . ...'.... .44.51. 4 V. ..k •4 .. ... , _; "1r • ...0. ....c-..-- .r.

..-.,..it -

„L....N.

,

.. -

...

- .".VIP.„.••

• ,t'dt. ' .4* ... 4.A. .00, .t., iiii,

Zalti‘411111 At:iI llit,a

.las 2.it ...b,...a. _ .4...A. _{...,„...44. At.}

4i,....: -it .01...1,..-Ikef-Ahrtb. -ziemmile 16:"Iik

;,/lot- gib. 4...4 _ _ _ Abrat... 440e* Jit.41114A, ..ers0111."...41164111" 114.41111. '12‘4dit'lli. .1.' 11.1. -.._

•

dkirw. a'`.. Whi.-419. -"wilr. 4i. 41.41%. 411%....4414,..redli dikmethp..444"11~.` Itharee^It.,.-- .4.___ •

.iii6. .;.. dibea. . A... Jle AP. -Imr .=.. . as, 'ob... '0. ..t. +- Alk. Ilk -ai.'"gio.--Are' .all.

-gnat-ilk 4to.imr.

1w. —Is. dtilkfka...—ft., AL. sa. .0.1.1a. '4"1".sk41." .4.0.''''Z. eltim-rift.'96:"116.—'11bek .11e.4."1.*--IrACG~Ilk

..•

• • 400161hat 444 • • PK:*

* 1" "The Nation as a whole is, of course, the gainer by the creation of these homes, adding as they do to

the wealth and stability of the country, and furnishing a home market for the products of the East and South.** *" —PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT, 3RD ANNUAL MESSAGE, DECEMBER. 1903.

NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION

897 National Press Building

Washington 4, D.C.

Proceedings of the

THIRTIETH ANNUAL CONVENTION

NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION

October 19, 20, 21, 1961

Billings, Montana

RECLAMATION—Food and Fibre for Our Rapidly Increasing Population

NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION

897 National Press Building

NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION 30th ANNUAL CONVENTION Northern Hotel Billings, Montana October 19, 20, 21, 1961 General Sessions

THURSDAY FORENOON - October 19

8:00 a.m. - STATE CAUCUSES

9:45 a.m.

10:15 a.m.

10:20 a.m.

Babcock Theater

Color Film--WATER FOR THE VALLEY--Courtesy of the Bureau of Reclamation

Story of Central Valley Project

- GENERAL SESSIONS - Babcock Theater LaSelle E. Coles, Presiding

President, National Reclamation Association Prineville, Oregon

- INVOCATION

Rev. John F. McClelland

Minister, First Congregational Church

10:25 a.m. - WELCOME TO MONTANA

Honorable Donald G. Nutter, Governor of Montana

10:45 a.m. - WELCOME TO BILLINGS

Honorable Carl Clavadetscher, Mayor of Billings

10:55 a.m. - Introduction of Senator Mansfield by Honorable Arnold Olsen, Member of Congress, Montana

ADDRESS - Honorable Michael J. Mansfield, Senate Majority Leader, Montana

11:25 a.m. - ADDRESS - Honorable Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C.

THURSDAY NOON

12:00 noon - CONGRESSIONAL INTERIOR COMMITTEE LUNCHEON Carter Room

LaSelle E. Coles, Presiding

INVOCATION - Rev. Paul Deane Hill, Central Christian Church INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS

CENTRALIZED PLANNING VS. INEFFICIENCY AND WASTE IN WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT - Honorable Wayne N. Aspinall, Chairman, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee RECLAMATION AND AMERICA

Honorable Walter Rogers, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation

Other members of the House Interior Committee participating: Honorable J. Edgar Chenoweth, Colorado

Honorable Thomas G. Morris, New Mexico Honorable Hjalmar C. Nygaard, North Dakota Honorable Arnold Olsen, Montana

Honorable James F. Battin, Montana (not a member of the Committee) Honorable Peter H. Dominick, .Colorado

3:00 p.m.

3:30 p.m.

4:00 p.m.

THURSDAY AFTERNOON

- GENERAL SESSIONS - Babcock Theater Hugh A. Shamberger, Presiding

First Vice President and Nevada Director,

National Reclamation Association, Carson City, Nevada PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

LaSelle E. Coles

- WHERE WE STAND

Honorable Floyd E. Dominy, Commissioner of Reclamation, Washington, D. C.

- ADDRESS

Honorable William E. Warne, Director, Water Resources for the State of California, Sacramento, California

4:30 p.m. - ADJOURNMENT

6:30 p.m.

THURSDAY EVENING

- BUFFET SUPPER AND ENTERTAINMENT Carter Room - Northern Hotel

Master of Ceremonies: Kenneth Doty, Sales Manager, KOOK Radio and TV Station

FRIDAY FORENOON - October 20

9:00 a.m.

9:30 a.m.

- Babcock Theater

Color Film--KEY TO THE FUTURE--Courtesy of the l3ureau of Reclamation

Story of the Colorado River Storage Project

- GENERAL SESSIONS—Babcock Theater

Ralph Bricker, Presiding, Former Montana Director, NRA Great Falls, Montana

REPORT- -Agriculture Research Committee

George L. Henderson, Chairman, Bakersf ield, California

9:45 a.m. - REPORT--Codification Committee

Clifford E. Fix, Chairman, Twin Falls, Idaho

10:00 a.m. - REPORT- -Milo W. Hoisveen, President, Association of Western State Engineers and North Dakota Director, NRA, Bismarck, North Dakota

10:20 a.m. REPORT--Highway Right-of-Way Committee

P. A. Towner, Chairman, Sacramento, California

10:35 a.m. REPORT--Land Limitation Committee

Mark Andrews, Chairman, Mapleton, North Dakota

11:00 a.m. REPORT--Legislative Committee

J. H. Mouer, Chairman, Phoenix, Arizona

11:20 a.m. STATE CAUCUS REPORTS by Caucus Secretaries

11:50 a.m. ADJOURNMENT

12:00 noon

FRIDAY NOON

- LUNCHEON

Toastmaster: Honorable James F. Battin, Member of Congress, Billings, Montana

INVOCATION: Dr. John C. Page, Jr., Minister, First Presbyterian Church

INTRODUCTION OF DISTINGUISHED GUESTS

ADDRESS -- Honorable J. Edgar Chenoweth, Member House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and Congressman from

Colorado

FRIDAY AFTERNOON

2:00 p.m. - GENERAL SESSIONS—Carter Room--Northern Hotel LaSelle E. Coles, Presiding

CONTRIBUTION OF THE RECLAMATION PROGRAM TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION

-Honorable Lee Metcalf, United States Senator, Montana, and Member, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee

2:30 p.m. - THE 1961 DROUGHT AND TH - NEED FOR RECLAMATION IN MONTANA - D. P. Fabrick, NRA Director, Montana

2:45 p.m. - REPORT- -Audit Committee - Earl T. Bower, Chairman, Worland, Wyoming

2:50 p.m. - ADJOURNMENT FOR SECTIONAL MEETINGS 3:00 p.m. - SECTIONAL MEETINGS

7:00 p.m.

8:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m.

GROUND WATER SECTION—Lobby, Chamber of Commerce -Hugh A. Shamberger, In Charge, Carson City, Nevada

WATER USERS SECTION—Babcock Theatre - J. R. Barkley, Chairman, NRA Water Users Committee, In Charge,

Loveland, Colorado FRIDAY EVENING

- ALL-STATES BANQUET--Carter Room, Northern Hotel Toastmaster: A. A. Schlaht, President, New American Life Insurance Co., Billings, Montana

INVOCATION: Rev. Dr. Vern L. Klingman, Minister, First Methodist Church

INTRODUCTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS & NRA LIFE MEMBERS LaSelle E. Coles, NRA President

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS AT HEAD TABLE

INTRODUCTION OF BANQUET SPEAKER by Honorable Wesley D'Ewart, former member of Congress, Montana

ADDRESS - Dr. John H. Furbay, Lecturer, Author and Global Air Commuter, Forest Hills, N. Y.

SATURDAY FORENOON - October 21 - STATE CAUCUSES In Rooms as Designated

-To Consider Resolutions

- GENERAL SESSIONS—Babcock Theater - Harold H. Christy, Presiding, Second Vice President and Colorado Director, Pueblo, Colorado

10:15 a.m.

10:30 a.m.

11:00 a.m.

11:30 a.m.

- REPORT--Sugar Beet Committee - Earl Gregory, Chairman, Quincy, Washington

- NATIONAL FOREST WATERSHED MANAGEMENT - Richard E. McArdle, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. - WESTERN WATER DEVELOPMENT AND THE ARMY ENGINEERS

Major General William F. Cassidy, USA, Director of Civil Works, Department of Army, Washington, D. C.

- REPORT- -Water Policy Committee - Bert L. Smith, Chairman, Concord, Calif. 12:00 noon - ADJOURNMENT

12:15 p.m.

2:00 p.m.

SATURDAY NOON

- LUNCHEON- -Carter Room - Northern Hotel

D. P. Fabrick, Presiding, NRA Director, Choteau, Montana

INVOCATION - David Ostler, District President, Yellowstone District, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

INTRODUCTION OF DISTINGUISHED GUESTS

THE SECOND GREAT CHALLENGE, Dr. Roy E. Huffman, Dean of Agriculture, Montana State College

SATURDAY AFTERNOON

- GENERAL SESSION—Carter Room - Northern Hotel- -LaSelle E. Coles, Presiding APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORTS

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE - George L. Henderson, Chairman, Bakersfield, California

AUDITING COMMITTEE - E. T. Bower, Chairman, Worland, Wyoming. CODIFICATION COMMITTEE - Clifford E. Fix, Chairman, Twin

Falls, Idaho

HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY COMPENSATION COMMITTEE -Porter A. Towner, Chairman, Sacramento, California LAND LIMITATION COMMITTEE

-Mapleton, North Dakota

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE - J. H PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE

Chairman, Caldwell, Idaho

SMALL PROJECTS COMMITTEE - Doyle Been, Chairman, Hemet, Calif SUGAR BEET COMMITTEE - Earl Gregory, Chairman, Quincy, Wash. WATER POLICY COMMITTEE - Bert L. Smith, Chairman, Concord, Calif. WATER USERS COMMITTEE - J. R. Barkley, Chairman, Loveland, Colo. RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE - J. D. Mansfield, Chairman, Yuma, Ariz. SELECTION OF CONVENTION CITY FOR 1962

OTHER BUSINESS 4:00 p.m. - ADJOURNMENT

Mark Andrews, Chairman

. Moeur, Chairman, Phoenix, Ariz. - George L. Crookham, Jr.,

NOTHERN HOTEL BILLINGS, MONTANA

Thursday Forenoon - October 19, 1961

LaSELLE E. COLES, President - Presiding

ADDRESS

Honorable Donald G. Nutter Governor of Montana

Irrigation has meant a great deal to the semi-arid West, and we here in Montana can surely appreciate the value of these programs. In eastern Montana the economy of some of our counties is tied almost entirely to irrigation, to irrigated farming, and to the feeding industry, which could only be there because we have an irrigated program. Yields of the various feed grains have been increased tremendous-ly. We raise sugar beets, corn, and feed crops on irrigated land which we would not have much success with were we not to have water.

Today you hear a great deal of talk about the relationship between the Federal Government and each State government. And, for a moment, I would like to tell you what my philosophy is on the matter of Federal aid. First of all, under our United States Constitution we recognize that there are certain areas in which the United States Federal Government must operate alone. In that area under the Constitution the Federal Government has certain obligations which it must fulfill to the people. And I am thinking about defense, interstate commerce, international relations, and so on. Then again, under our Federal Constitution and under the constitutions of the various States, there are certain areas in which the State governments have obliga-tions to fulfill, and these obligaobliga-tions must be fulfilled by the State government. And then we have that area of middle ground in which the Federal Government and the State government can cooperate in providing for the people those things that both governments deem necessary. And it is in this middle area that the pros and cons of Federal aid arise.

I know that I am, and I'm sure that Senator Mansfield is asked about his views on Federal aid. It would be a lengthy proposition for anyone in politics or out of

politics to analyze every Federal aid program in order to determine whether it is good or bad. Generally, this is what I believe about Federal aid. First of all, Federal aid should be forthcoming only where there is demonstrated a real and not imagined need. Secondly, that real need should be determined by the people and not by some bureaucrat in Washington. And, thirdly, when the real need is determined to exist, then the relation-ship between the Federal Government and State government should be one of coopera-tion, and not one of Federal domination. This is my idea on Federal aid programs. Reclamation legislation passed by the Congress has historically provided for coopera-tion in projects all across the lands which come under reclamacoopera-tion. When the Bureau of Reclamation builds an irrigation project it is expected that the land benefited and the

sound thinking, and these projects have done well because they are soundly planned along these lines. Yes indeed, reclamation has meant a great deal to all of us. If the economy of Sidney, Montana, is improved, then the economy of that county is improved, and the economy of the State of Montana is improved. And if the economy of Yellowstone County receives a shot in the arm because of a reclamation project, then all of Montana benefits from that shot in the arm to Yellowstone County's economy. This was recognized a long

time ago. Sixty years ago, Teddy Roosevelt recognized this when he said, "the recla-mation and resettlement of the arid lands will enrich every portion of our country." And this I firmly believe in.

Today we have surpluses of agricultural products, but tomorrow these surpluses may well disappear, and we may have need for more wheat, and corn, and beets, and beans, and the produce of irrigated land. If nuclear war should come to this land, we

may again be called upon to feed the entire world. As estimated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, population growth and demand for agricultural products may call for

more than five million acres of additional irrigated land to produce and to satisfy the needs of our people. Now you don't place five million acres under irrigation over night. It takes time, as you well know. And it must be a continuing effort.

Earlier I mentioned Federal-State cooperation. I would like to discuss at this point some of the aspects of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1961. This legislation was introduced in the last Congress. I am sure that all of us recognize and realize the necessity for maximum use of this Nation's water resources. Many of these States represented in this Association are water-resource States. Water is our heritage, our birthright. And it is surely one of our most valuable resources. Now, when industry considers a State for possible plant location, two of the things that industry considers among others is availability of an adequate supply of good water and availability of a cheap source of power -- a source of cheap power. These factors become more and more very important facets in attracting industry to a particular State. The western States generally, possibly with the exception of California, are on the threshold of economic growth. And we surely need all of the assets we have to attract industry to within our borders in order that we can broaden our tax base so that we can provide additional funds for the very necessary government services.

We cannot adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude in our relationships between

States in dealing with water or hydroelectric energy. But under the legislation introduced in the Congress, provision is made for a water resources council composed of the

Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. There is further provision that if the Governor of one State in a river basin requests it, the President is authorized to create a river basin commission. When the President has so acted, the governor of each State in the basin may nominate a representative to be appointed by the President. Every Federal agency which has a substantial interest in a river basin development shall also have representation. Now, frankly, I am deeply concerned about a program under which one governor in a river basin can make a request for a creation of a commission and have the President act on that request. Recognizing that in one of these river basins we can have five or seven States, why should the act of one governor determine what the future course of action shall be? What is wrong with the democratic principle of having at

least a simple majority make this determination? And I'm also concerned about the fact that every Federal agency having a substantial interest shall have representation. The Federal agencies represent the people. Are we going to be left in a position where each Federal agency has the same identical representation that each of the States has? This question I would like to have answered. And I surely hope the Congress will give full consideration to these problems I raise.

I believe in a program of maximum use of water, but I surely urge the Congress, in giving considerations to the various problems in this legislation, to consider the prob-lems created by the loss of those States about to move into a period of economic growth of losing their water and hydroelectric energy through prescriptive use by downstream States. I know there is talk about saying, well let's make maximum use at the present time of your hydroelectric energy--let's talk about enterprise on the West Coast, and there is legislation pending which spells out that when the source State needs the electricity back they will get it back. Being realistic gentlemen and ladies, once in-dustry moves into a particular State and makes full use of the hydroelectric energy available there, they establish a prescriptive right as does the State. Then you tell me how the source States can ever get that electricity back. Now, water is a peculiar re-source in that it can pass through hydroelectric generators, can continue on its way down stream, pass through other hydroelectric generators at downstream sites--can be used over and over again without any particular loss. It can be used for irrigation and sub-ject to the nominal loss from penetration and evaporation- -return to the stream from which it came to again be used at some downstream point for irrigation or for the produc-tion of hydroelectric energy. But in this peculiar area of water I am satisfied that the Congress can adequately protect all of the States interested in stream flow --interested in irrigation and reclamation projects--and interested in the production of hydroelectric energy.

The things of which I speak directly affect the programs in which this Association is interested. A construction of projects primarily for irrigation, and secondarily for hydroelectric energy will protect the water rights of all of the member States whom you people represent. I have suggested to our Water Conservation Board that they give con-sideration to the construction of projects under the Small Reclamation Projects Act. Other States represented here might also make use of this legislation. I think it can be of tremendous value in the areas where small dams are needed. The large projects must, of course, be implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation, but large or small, we need these projects and that need will not diminish. It will increase throughout the future.

I wish to compliment this Association. It has historically, wittingly or un-wittingly, subscribed to the philosophy of Federal-State cooperation. It has considered the desires of the people and has given consideration to the feasibility of all reclamation projects supported by it. We need irrigation. We recognize the value of the reclama-tion program. We want to encourage this development. Selfishly, I want these projects developed so that we can capitalize upon full use of water arising in Montana sources. I am satisfied that you people think just as jealously of your resources within your own States, of the water that is either sourced or which passes through your States. Water is so important to all of the western region of the United States. And we must be care-ful that through lack of foresight we do not lose our birthright.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I hope and know that you will enjoy the hospitality of the people of Billings, Montana. And we want you to know that we fully appreciate all of the good that you have accomplished for your respective States and for this Nation. Thank you very kindly.

ADDRESS

Honorable Carl Clavadetscher Mayor of Billings

As the Mayor of Billings, I am very happy and proud to be here today and to bring you greetings from the people of Billings and a most sincere and cordial welcome. We are naturally proud of our community, and we are indeed honored that this wonder-ful organization has picked Billings as the site for its convention. If there is anything

that we of your official family can do to help you in any way, I want you to consider us at your service. And I might digress here for a moment and state that some of you may have received some parking tickets from our meter-maids. I told them about these tickets on the windshields. They try to keep track of them, but if any of you have parking tickets and if you don't want to take them back home as souvenirs, if you will turn them in to one of your local officials here or at the desk, I will be very happy to take care of them.

To get back to this meeting again, it is quite appropriate that you have selected Billings as the site for this meeting because Billings is a living manifestation of the fact that reclamation and conservation work. The town received its major impetus from the reclamation projects - irrigation ditches. A substantial part of our economy is agriculture - irrigated agriculture. Even our scenery, our timber resources, our oil resources, our fish, our game are all assets which have been handed to us from our forebears as a result of some long-range planning and study in fields of reclamation

and conservation.

I do not choose to look upon all of these assets as our exclusive private property to do with as we wish. They are a heritage that has been passed on to us from our fore-bears. It is our responsibility to use them, to take care of them, and to pass them on to the next generation when the time comes for us to lay down the reins.

You ladies and gentlemen undoubtedly will do a very fine job here. And you probably won't get too much national recognition for the fine work you are doing. But I guarantee you one thing, ladies and gentlemen -- if you should fall down on the job, if you should neglect your responsibility, there will be millions of people in the next generation crying aloud to the Nation: Why didn't somebody do something when they had a chance?

We in Billings are very proud to have you here. We know you are going to do that job. We hope you come back very soon, and if you have some time, drive around, take a look at this city, and see what reclamation and conservation have done. Thank you very much, and come back again soon.

INTRODUCTION OF SENATOR MANSFIELD

Honorable Arnold Olsen Member of Congress, Montana

It seems to me that in some manner of speaking I should not be introducing the next speaker to you people, for he is nationally known. Moreover, he is very dear to

the hearts of the people of Montana. I was especially pleased to hear Mayor Clavadetscher say that it is significant that the National Reclamation Association is holding its meeting here in Billings and I think it is also significant that you have your meeting in Montana at a time when two new starts in reclamation occurred within the last thirty days.

These new starts are, of course, a tribute to the National Reclamation Associa-tion. They are milestones in your progress. But they are also accomplishments of the electorate of Montana in having sent a Congressman to the Congress from the western district for ten years and having succeeded him with another Congressman for eight

years, who have the same philosophy as the philosophy of the National Reclamation Associ-ation. Sometimes your Associat _{on puts it in more words than I have heard our next}

speaker use to define that philosDphy. I think his simple statement is probably the best simplification of the philosophy of reclamation - of river development. He simply says that water runs down hill. And because it runs down hill and we can't stop it from running down hill, the work of developing the water resources of the Nation is a question for

national cooperation. And, of course, that's the reason that your organization is a national organization.

I suppose that I am given this honor to introduce our next speaker because I come from the district where he had his political birth, and his political ascendency. I am extremely proud of the First District of Montana because of my predecessors in the

Congress. They have made my way easy. They have made a place for me on the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. I am sure that Chairman Wayne Aspinall influenced my having a place on the Committee because I was succeeding the two Congressmen that preceded me. They had such a fine record supporting river development. And Wayne Aspinall expects that I will serve in that tradition. I assure you that I expect to discharge the honor of representing the First District well in expending every effort to follow in the footsteps of Senator Metcalf and the next speaker.

Senator Michael Joseph Mansfield,affectionately known as Mike, is not a native of our State, but he is a distinguished citizen of our State because he had the good fortune of having parents who selected this State for him to be raised in. He was born in New York City, March 16, 1903. In 1915, when he was fourteen years of age, Mike enlisted in the United States Navy and served until 1922 with the Navy, the Army, and the Marine Corps, respectively. He worked as a miner in my home town of Butte -a h-ard-rock miner. He -also worked -as -a mining engineer there. He -attended the

Montana School of Mines. He later obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree from Montana State University in 1933 and his Master of Arts degree in 1934 from the same institution. And he stayed there as a professor until 1942, when he was elected to the Congress of the United States from this First District. He was elected to the 78th Congress and served through the 82nd Congress. He was elected to the United States Senate in 1952

and re-elected in 1958. Senator Mansfield was a distinguished world leader before he was Senate Majority Leader. He is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and

Administration and a member of the Joint Committee on the Library, the Joint Committee on Printing, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. He is our distinguished neighbor here in Montana. He is our contribution as a world leader for the United States of America. I give you Senator Mansfield.

ADDRESS

Honorable Michael J. Mansfield Senate Majority Leader, Montana

I want to join our Governor and the Mayor of Billings in extending the best wishes of the State of Montana to all of you for a most successful and a most productive con-vention. I feel that this meeting of the NRA occurs at a most propitious, a most auspicious time in the history of our State. As Arnold Olsen has said, within the past thirty days there have been two dedications in which you as an organization and we as Montanans are vitally interested. One, the East Bench Project in the Beaverhead. Second, of course, the dedication of the Yellowtail Dam Project on the Big Horn yesterday. In both instances fantasies - dreams - have become realities. At Hardin I mentioned the great contributions made by my old friends, Howard Bunston, Roy Gould, and Henry Ruegamer. Going back far beyond the authorization of the Rick Sloan Act in 1944, which laid the ground work for Yellowtail, I think there are other people in this State of Montana who are entitled to recognition, too. I won't list all their names. I will mention a few. There is Dick Fabrick from Choteau who year in and year out, under Republican and Democratic Administrations, has done his part, spent his time and money and energy to do what he could to bring about the better development of the State as a whole. There is 0. A. Bergeson from the Beaverhead country who played a large part in seeing to it that favorable consideration was given to the East Bench Unit, and now he is working in behalf of the West Bench Unit. There was the late 0. S. Worden, publisher of the Great Falls Tribune. There was Jim Rowe of Butte, now deceased. Citizens of Montana in the

finest sense, because they were interested not just in their particular locality, but were interested in the development of the State of Montana as a whole.

Now Governor Nutter has been quite frank in his statements this morning. I shall try to be equally frank in what I have to say. The Governor has mentioned the water re-sources legislation now pending in the Congress. And he has raised some objections to that legislation. I think those objections which he has raised are perfectly valid. I think they ought to be given the considerations which it appears they are due. And I would hope that when hearings are held on this legislation those opposed to it, as well as those in favor of it, would appear before the appropriate Congressional Committee and thereby make their views known- -not to a btreaucracy but to the elected representatives of the

people of the United States. That is just what your Government in Washington is. Nothing is perfect. Nothing can or should be perfect. There are two sides to every question, and sometimes there are three--your own. But those things ought to be considered, and they ought to be gone into in detail. If what Governor Nutter has said is true, I think he has a right to make the kind of constructive criticism he has this morning. But I also think

that if he is in favor of this kind bf legislation, as I am sure he is in principle, that he likewise ought to make recommendations which would fit in, which would make the pro-tection of a river basin more accurate, and which would not give to a particular

Governor, in a particular region, the right to have the powers which have been brought to our attention this morning. We do operate on majority rule in this country. And if a Governor is given the type of veto which our Governor has brought to our attention this morning, then I think what he is doing in effect is exercising the use of the veto in the sense that the Russians do in the United Nations.

Now, in the State of Montana we have some of the headwaters of both the Columbia and the Missouri Rivers. In the State of Montana we have resources

un-paralleled, but in this State our sites for the development of hydroelectric, reclamation, irrigation, and recreation projects are becoming less and less with the passage of time. These sites should be developed. If they are for the use of electricity only, they should be developed by private companies. If they are multi-purpose projects, they should be developed by the Government of the United States. Don't ever get the idea that these projects which the Congress authorizes such as Libby, Hungry Horse, East Bench, the West Bench and Yellowtail are given to you for nothing. Every dime the Government of the United States puts into these projects is repaid back with interest and then some. They are investments in America. They are created to benefit all our people. And they are both needed and necessary.

Now speaking of Yellowtail, I made the statement yesterday that it was as dear to my heart as Hungry Horse, and Hungry Horse was very close to Mike Mansfield. I pointed out just what we received in the way of benefits from Hungry Horse- - that everyone was helped - no one was hurt. And the same thing can happen to Yellowtail. And there we find that with a few minor personal exceptions the people of Montana have by-and-large been wholeheartedly behind this project. I would say that the Montana Power Company has never opposed the building of the Yellowtail Project. As a matter of fact, when the Eisenhower Administration announced the creation of a partnership policy in the field of public power, if my memory serves me correctly, the Montana Power Company made an application to Secretary of the Interior Seaton to enter into a partnership arrangement to develop Yellowtail Dam. Again, if my memory serves me correctly, I do not believe the Montana Power Company even received an acknowledgment. But I think that credit should be given where credit is due. Insofar as this great dam, now dedicated, now under construction on the Big Horn, is concerned - I want to repeat, except for a few individuals in the State of Montana, it has had the wholehearted support of the people who reside in this State regardless of the section in which they live.

These investments are important.

For too many years in this State too much has gone out of it for the benefit and enrichment of others in other parts of this Nation, and too little has remained here, for our people. And I think it's about time for a change. I think we have great in-ducements for industry. And I am delighted, Governor, with the efforts you've been

making to draw and attract new industry to this State so that we can develop and grow as we think we should. The people of Montana are entitled to the primary use of all the resources we have in this State. And as far as Fmconcerned, I intend to see that that is done.

Now, when we speak of the National Reclamation Association we speak of a group which comprises individuals representing seventeen States in the Union. These States are drawn together by a common purpose. That common purpose can be stated in one word - water - the most precious resource this country has. You can talk of oil all you want, but I'll take water any time. As time goes on our water is going to become more and more precious than it now is. It is going to be needed as our industry ex-pands and our population increases. I would hope that the objective of this organization would be to continually pound into the minds of the people in this country just how im-portant water is. Not that you have to, because the main source of a water supply for that huge metropolitan area of New York City almost went dry five or six years ago, or when the water level lowers itself in the midwest in states like Indiana and Ohio, I don't think you've got much of a selling job to do. If you add to those two factors which bring home the real need of water to the people of the East the fact that our rivers are becoming polluted because of the use of more and more industrial purposes, then I think our people will have a better recognition of just how much water means to us and our livelihood and our very survival. Here in this State, a semi-arid State, in which we get by on the average of between 12-1/2 and 13 inches of rainfall a year, we know what water is, and we appreciate its full value. In the Secretary of the Interior's State of Arizona, where I understand the average rainfall is about 6 inches a year, they understand the value of water as well. Up and down the Rocky Mountain regions, in the western part of the Great Plains areas, and down into Oklahoma and Texas, we know what water is because we've never had enough of it. Because of that, an organization of this kind has a great national duty and national function to perform.

When Bill Welsh asked me to speak this morning I asked him what he would like me to discuss. "Well," he said, "we're going to get a lot of reclamation speeches, so why don't you discuss foreign policy and the defense posture of this country." But be-fore I do so, let me make this general statement. If you're going to have a good be-foreign

policy, if you're going to have a strong defense posture, you have to have a sound domestic economy as well. Each is complimentary to the other, and if one is weak the chain will break. I hope that when you hear people complain about money being spent under either a Democratic or a Republican administration for domestic purposes, but not complaining about spending money for defense, that you would recognize the correlation between the two. After all, approximately 70 percent of the income and corporate taxes paid by the people and the corporations of this country goes for the security of this Nation and for the payment of past wars.

In this day and age, in this critical era which confronts us, we have no choice but to arm and to arm as well as we can. President Kennedy has referred to this decade of the 60's as the "dangerous decade" - and it is. And, maybe of all the years in this decade the most dangerous one confronting us is the year 1961. No President -no President in the history of this Republic has ever gone into his first year of office with the terrible problems confronting him as President Kennedy has this year.

As I go up and down my State, as I go throughout the country, I find people talking about civil defense shelters. I find them asking questions about Berlin and what we're going to do there. I say to them that I am glad that they are worrying about civil de-fense shelters, because whether they build them or not they are interested in what is

going on and they are aware of the potentials involved in the world situation which confronts us. I am glad they are asking questions about Berlin because we better ask questions while there is still time. But I point out to them that Berlin is not the only problem con-fronting this Country and our President. It is the most immediate, it is the most press-ing, it is the most dangerous. But think of the other problems which confront the

President of the United States. There is the situation in Laos, far from settled. There is the continued aggression of the Vietnam Government from North Vietnam into Free Vietnam.

And now the President's personal military advisor, General Maxwell Taylor, is in Saigon taking a look-see at the situation. Then there is the perennial unsettled situation in the Middle East. There is the Congo, which may well become worse before it

be-comes better. There is Cuba, a cancer 90 miles off our shore - to all intents and purposes a member of the Soviet Block. And there is our own Hemisphere, and most important to the United States is Brazil. In the northeastern part of that country live 22 million people who have been on a near starvation diet for over six years. If something is not done to give some hope and promise to those people and their children, in my opinion an explosion will occur there which will make Cuba pale into insignificance; because it will occur among a larger population by far on the mainland of the continent of South America. And it may spread, and undoubtedly would spread, far beyond the borders of Brazil itself.

There are other problems I could call to your attention, but I think I have said enough to indicate just what confronts the President of the United States today. And please remember this, that even though he got in by a very, very, very slender majority that he is still the President of all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike - that under the Constitution he is charged with the conduct of our foreign policy - that under the Consti-tution he is the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces - and that in his hands lies the future of this Country and the Free World. It is an awesome and a terrible responsi-bility. It is a responsibility so great that it calls for the greatest unity on the part of the American people regardless of Party. Because, whether you like the President or not, based on political differences, he is our President for the next 3 and 1/3 years, and as such, he is entitled to the full support of every American.

Now, what has he done since he has been in office? Well, he is trying to bring about the balancing of our defense posture. He has increased the size of the Marine

Corps from 175, 000 to 200, 000 men. He has increased the size of the Army considerably. He has doubled tie SAC planes on alert either in the air or at the end of the runways. He has doubled the number of polaris submarines, so that today while only five are opera-tional, four are under construction and 36 more have been authorized. He has seen to it that the Air Force has been built up. He has called back two National Guard divisions into active service, and he has called up numerous reserve components in the various States of the Union. What he is seeking is a balanced defense force because he knows that if he is going to be able to develop a good foreign policy, he has to have the strength to back it 11P• And if he is going to have that kind of strength, he is going to have to ask us for the

money so that strength is forthcoming. And he has. And I am happy to state that every member of both parties, Democrat and Republican alike, gave the President every single dime he asked for our defense and threw in another $800 million besides for insurance. Remember, approximately 70% of the money that you pay to the United States in the form of taxes goes for the defense and the security of this Country.

Now, in Montana I usually publish a statement every year showing just what the Federal Government spends in the form of aid and related matters. And strangely enough for every dollar which we pay in the form of taxes in this State, we receive

approximately two dollars in return. And I think this year the figure will be above that. And, now and again I get some criticism because people say that the Federal Govern-ment just shouldn't spend this much money in Montana--just shouldn't give us this much assistance. But they do not read the figures very clearly, because they go on the

assumption that Arnold Olsen, Lee Metcalf, Jim Battin and I exercise a great deal of power in Washington and that this money is coming out here because of pressures on our part. Not at all. We didn't have a thing to do with the Air Force Base at Great Falls. We didn't have a thing to do with the Glasgow Base near Glasgow. We didn't have a thing to do with the missile sites now being constructed in various counties in Montana. But those two bases and these missile sites represent hundreds of millions of dollars spent in Montana--not because of what the Congressional delegation did, but because the Department of Defense and the men best capable of making judgments as to what our security entails decided that these bases and these sites should be placed where they are.

As those of you from Montana will recall, during the second World War, 7, 000 combat planes of all types flew north from the two fields at Great Falls to Alaska, and from there into the Soviet Union, an ally at the time. The point is this, that Montana is no longer an isolated, high-plains, Rocky Mountain State. And what was a one-way street in 1944 and in 1945 could, in the case of a showdown, become a two-way street. And that's why this area is being given the assistance which seeks to insure for the whole Nation the security which is the Nation's due.

Now I mentioned that people talk about Berlin—they're worried. And well they might be. I recall, for example, that as a delegate to the United Nations in 1958 when Mr. Khrushchev first laid down his ultimatum concerning a peace treaty with East Germany and a change in the status of Berlin, I worried about that and I began to do some research. In February 1959, I made the first of five speeches on Berlin and the German question. On June 14th of this year I made the last. And I made the last speech because Mr. Kennedy, on his return from his meeting with Mr. Khrushchev in

Vienna in May of this year, called a group of the leaders together in the living room of the White House and there gave us a detailed point-by-point analysis of his two days' conversations with the Premier of the Soviet Union. They were both polite. They both laid their cards on the table. The President told us the only time Mr. Khrushchev showed any emotion, the only time he raised his voice, was when the question of Berlin was under discussion.

And in that speech on June 14th I stated that there were three factors which were not negotiable. One - the continued freedom of the people of West Berlin. Two - the continued rights of the allies to occupy West Berlin. And three - the continued rights of the allies to egress and ingress into and out of West Berlin to West Germany. But I recalled that Mr. Khrushchev had made a statement to the effect that he would be willing to consider--I think he still would--the creation of a free West Berlin. And I thought that a suggestion countering this might well be in order. Not a demand, but what I hoped was a constructive suggestion to be made under a Democratic administration

as I had made them under the previous Republican administration. So I suggested that, instead of accepting Mr. Khrushchev's suggestion,that we ought to advance the idea of a free all Berlin--both East and West. I wonder how many people know that in East Berlin is the East German capital of Pankow. Now I knew that Mr. Ulbrecht would never accept such a proposition. I knew that Mr. Khrushchev would never even allow such a proposal to be considered. You would have thought the roof had fallen in. But what has happened since? Some weeks ago the East Germans raised a concrete wall which really for the first time divided East and West Berlin. And they put behind that wall a barbed wire fence--a wall and a fence which we should have knocked down as it was being constructed,

but a wall and a fence which we cannot knock down today.

What's going to happen in Berlin? No one knows. Mr. Gromyko has been meeting with Mr. Rusk in this country. A week ago last Saturday he met with the President in the White House. A week ago last Monday he met with Mr. Stevenson at the United Nations. And a week ago yesterday he met with Prime Minister MacMillan of the United Kingdom. Then he reported back to Moscow. On Tuesday, the 17th, the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Communist Party Congress got under way. And what was the first thing Mr. Khrushchev said to us? Well he said in a six-and-a-half hour speech that he would be willing to go beyond the deadline of the end of the year for the signing of the treaty with East Germany. Any time over the past 12 years, today or tomorrow, he could sign a treaty of peace with East Germany and there isn't a thing this Country or our allies could do about it. But as far as West Berlin is concerned, that is a different matter. We do not intend to be pushed out of that city, because we have an obligation there which we will answer. (applause)

So, folks, those are some of the things you have to consider. Because when you speak of Washington you are speaking of the Government of the people of the United States. And Washington is represented by members of the House and Senate of both

parties whom you elect. Legislation is passed in that Congress on the basis of a majority vote. The people who are in Washington are not living in a foreign capital; they are

living in the capital of the United States of America and they are there as your representa-tives. So I would hope when you look at the situation today that you will consider just what confronts this man who is the Chief of State of this Nation- -that you will look at him and note that the lines are beginning to appear and the gray is beginning to crop out in the back of his hair. This man has a tremendous, a great, a burdensome responsibility. This man alone must make the final decisions which will determine the future course of this Country. This is no time for Americans to be against Americans. This is no ti me for division and disruption at home. This is a time for unity. And I hopeI know --that unity will be forthcoming. One thing we should always keep in mind- -that no matter who the President of the United States is--be he Democrat or Republican--if he makes the wise decisions, if he makes the right decisions, we will win regardless of party. But if he makes the wrong decisions, if he is not in full command of the support of all his people, it isn't he alone who suffers. It is all of us--and again, regardless of party. The times are critical. The times call for understanding. And the times call for support of the President of the United States.

ADDRESS

Honorable Stewart L. Udall Secretary of the Interior

Unless ways are found to conserve more fresh water and to convert salt water cheaply into fresh, the United States only 20 years from now will lack enough water to

meet its basic needs.

This is one of the plain, hard facts of life which President Kennedy spelled out clearly and unmistakably in a few words when, in a message to Congress in mid-July, he said: "We have a national obligation to manage our basic water supply so it will be available when and where needed and in acceptable quality and quantity - and we have no time to lose." With this message he transmitted the most far-reaching water policy legislation sent to the Congress by the White House in many years.

The President's proposed "Water Resources Planning Act of 1961" would have an important bearing upon all water and related land conservation and development

activities throughout America.

These are some of the things it would accomplish:

It would establish a Cabinet-level Water Resources Council which would be the keystone in a comprehensive structure for water resource planning within river basins and would provide over-all guidance and standards for planning, consistent with existing law.

It would authorize the President to create - at the request of the Governor of one or more affected states, or of the Council - a river basin water re-sources commission for any region, major river basin, or group of related river basins in the United States. These commissions, composed of repre-sentatives of the states and Federal agencies concerned, would be charged with preparing and keeping up to date comprehensive, integrated plans for Federal, state and local development of water and related land resources. Also they would recommend long-range priorities for basic data collection and analysis and for investigation, planning and construction of projects.

And, it would provide encouragement to the states to fully and effectively participate in water and related land resource planning through financial assistance to aid in their planning.

This river basin planning would require that any plan take into account domestic, agricultural, energy, industrial, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other major re-source conservation and developments. It would enable the Congress - within the Federal sphere of responsibility - to decide upon the many individual project develop-ments on the basis of full information as to the over-all needs and timing for basin development. At the same time, states and local interests - within their respective spheres of responsibility - would be enabled to do likewise.

I am sure that this proposed legislation must be a matter of particular gratification to all of you here, because for many years now, since soon after its organization in 1982, the National Reclamation Association has been in the forefront of efforts to achieve just such objectives.

This is the more remarkable when it is realized that it has only been in the last decade or so that the extent of our national water problem - and the interrelationship of all areas and sections of the United States in the need for a solution - has been fully recognized.

Again, this fact of interrelationship has been underscored by President Kennedy when, in his unprecedented special message to the Congress on natural resources, he declared: "Wise investment in a resource program today will return vast dividends to-morrow, and failures to act now may be opportunities lost forever . . . This is not a matter of concern for only one section of the country. All those who fish and hunt, who build industrial centers, who need electricity to light their homes and lighten their burdens, who require water for home, industrial, and recreational purposes - in short, every citizen in every state of the Union - all have a stake in a sound resources program . . . backed by the essential cooperation of state and local governments."

Probably no group or organization in America is more acutely aware of the need for broad-scale, farsighted - and prompt - water conservation action than this

Associa-tion. Probably none is closer to the problem. Well over 60 percent of your members are officers and representatives of irrigation districts, canal companies, and other types of water users' organizations. You know the problem, and you have done much to help bring it into proper focus so that it can be dealt with adequately on a national scale.

In its recent final actions, the first session of the 87th Congress gave us one of the most generous Reclamation appropriations in a decade. We are starting the present fiscal year with a construction and rehabilitation program, including loans for small projects, of over $270 million. The overall appropriation contained funds for seven new construction starts.

On June 26, President Kennedy acted to attack the water problem on another front when he forwarded to Congress proposed legislation to expand and extend Federal efforts in the saline water conversion program. "This bill," the President stated in a letter of transmittal, "will provide the Department of the Interior with a wide variety of tools to attack the saline water conversion cost barrier. It contemplates a major acceleration of current programs of basic and applied research, and permits the construction of con-version plants far larger than any now in existence to test the feasibility of known and

yet

Five days earlier, on June 21, in participating in ceremonies marking the dedication of the nation's first saline water conversion demonstration plant at Freeport, Texas, the President said, "This is a work which in many ways is more important than any other scientific enterprise in which this country is now engaged. It serves the interest of men and women everywhere. It can do more to raise men and women from lives of poverty and desperation than any other scientific advance."

The Freeport plant is the first sea water conversion plant in the United States capable of producing one million gallons of fresh water per day, and the first to regularly supply the water needs of a U. S. municipality.

Based on data obtained thus far from operation of the plant, the cost of the product water is $1-$1.25 per 1,000 gallons, including 20-year amortization charges. This, of course, is still high when compared, for example, with the minimum rate of 26 cents per thousand gallons for fresh water users in Washington, D. C., and the estimated national average cost of about 30 cents per thousand gallons. But as recently as the late 1930's, as you know, it cost between four and five dollars to convert a thousand gallons of sea water into fresh, and, since then, equipment, fuel, and labor costs have increased several fold. Now, with improved techniques, more experience, and larger plants, it is anticipated that conversion costs can be reduced to somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 cents per thousand gallons within the foreseeable future.

Very soon now I shall be participating in the dedication oi the 250, 000-gallon-a-day plant designed to desalt the brackish well water at Webster, South Dakota, and work is well under way on a million-gallon-a-day sea water desalinization plant at San Diego. Meanwhile, contracts have been awarded for the design of the New Mexico and North Carolina plants and the actual start of construction will not be long delayed.

In still another major water conservation achievement of this Administration, approval of the Congress has been won for pollution control legislation. This comes at a time when pollution of our country's rivers and streams has - as a result of our rapid population and industrial growth and change - reached alarming proportions. To meet all needs - domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational - we shall have to use and re-use the same water, maintaining quality as well as quantity. In many areas of the country we need new sources of supply - but in all areas we must protect the supplies we have. The newly enacted pollution control legislation will, in the years to come, help

make this possible.

Last February, President Kennedy expressed concern lest more immediately recognized problems compete adversely with the long-range challenge of water resource development. "The problems of immediacy," he said, "always have the advantage of attracting notice - those that lie in the future fare poorly in the competition for attention and money." Under the circumstances, he called for the fullest participation and co-operation of Federal, state, and local governments and private interests in wisely and effectively facing up to our natural resource problems - and in particular, those con-cerning our water supplies.

This need for prompt and urgent action has been emphasized this year by the severe and continuing drought in the upper plains area from northern Wyoming to Canada, and by the growing problems in the Southwest which has felt the weight of similar drought conditions for some three years.

It was further underscored when, early in the year, the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources published its report on a two-year water study in which the Department of the Interior and other agencies participated.

The Committee's supply-demand studies showed that full development of all

available water resources in five regions of the West will be required by 1980 or earlier if the needs of the growing population are to be met and the projected expansion of

economic activity achieved.

The report also estimated that by the year 2000, three other regions - including one area east of the Mississippi - will be added to the list of those in which full

development of available water resources will be required if the projected demands are to be met.

Now, as we all know, the achieving of these aims will be no simple matter. The Senate Select Committee, for example, estimated that the minimum requirement for dealing with the water supply and pollution abatement problems would involve the need for 315 million acre-feet of reservoir capacity for river regulation by 1980, and an ad-ditional 127 million acre-feet between 1980 and the year 2000. This 40-year estimate of minimum, nation-wide storage needs is roughly five times the total water storage capacity built by the Bureau of Reclamation in the 58 years between 1902 and 1960.

The capital costs appear large, too, if the offsetting benefits are considered separately.

The Select Committee estimated that new capital investments of $12 billion would be required by 1980 to build the required minimum storage capacity, and an ad-ditional $6 billion by the year 2000, for a grand total of $18 billion. Municipal and in-dustrial sewage treatment works under the same program, which calls for water of relatively high quality in all the nation's streams, would require new investments estimated at $42.2 billion by 1980, and an additional $39 .4 billion between 1980 and the year 2000, for a grand total of $81.6 billion.

Required capital investments, therefore, for a minimum program of additional water storage and water pollution control facilities between now and 1980 amount to roughly $3 billion annually, considerably more than is being invested today, even under the accelerated Kennedy Administration program for fiscal year 1961.

"The task is large," the President has said, "but it will be done."

I share his confidence. But getting the job done will require the unceasing efforts of all of us in the challenging months and years ahead.

Another hard fact of life of which I am sure all of us here are fully aware is the unfortunate circumstance that the reclamation program simply does not yet have the unanimous support of all the people of America. It has its share of enemies, many of them quite vociferous. Some, of course, oppose reclamation for purely selfish

reasons. But the truth is that a great number simply do not understand the value of reclamation work, what it means to America as a whole.

One of the arguments we have often had to meet is put in the form of a question -"Why should we spend Federal money to build reclamation projects and bring more land

Now let us examine this question for a moment. The Bureau of the Census recently issued a very comprehensive report which indicated that by 1980 the nation's population shall have increased from the present 180 million to 261 million. This is an average in-crease of about 4 million persons each year - or a 45 percent inin-crease in 20 years.

By the year 2000 we are told we can expect a population of about 383 million. These additional mouths will need food.

The Department of Agriculture, reporting on future food and fiber needs indicates that to meet our domestic and export needs of 1980 will require continued technological gains to provide 42 percent greater yields, plus a net gain of 20 million acres of crop-land. By the year 2000, our needs will require 75 percent greater yields, plus a net

addition of 63 million acres of cropland. We are also told by the Department of Agriculture that losses of agricultural land to urban expansion, industrial, highway, and other non-agricultural uses exceed one million acres annually. Equivalent losses due to erosion and other causes add another half million acres each year.

The acreage available for crop production has remained fairly constant at about 400 million acres since 1920. At that time, this provided 3.8 acres per capita. In 1960 we averaged 2.2 acres per person, and by 1980, based on indicated trends, we will be reduced to only 1.5 acres of cropland for each person. Furthering the projection to the year 2000, the figure will be less than 1 acre per person.

Although too few of us realize it today, this is an alarming trend. In Utah, for example, economists have projected present trends to indicate that the .State will have a 24 percent deficit in agricultural production by 1975.

No, it is by no means too early to undertake and expand positive action to protect our agricultural heritage of plenty which is such a blessing and the envy of much of the world.

This is one of the meanings and purposes of reclamation which it is our task to make clear to more Americans. And, through education, we must make them see the whole picture, we must make them understand how reclamation has a bearing on every citizen -regardless of where he happens to live.

All of us present here are thoroughly familiar with the fact that today - after

nearly 50 years of the Reclamation program - some 8, 000, 000 acres of irrigable Western land are served by Reclamation projects. Power-generating capacity stands at more than 5 million kilowatts. Crops produced with Reclamation water are worth over $1 billion a year. And, at the same time, the Federal Government has collected more in taxes in Reclamation areas since 1940 than its total overall investment of some $3.5 billion in dams and powerplants and other related facilities.

Now, these are most impressive figures. But, taken as a whole, they are sometimes difficult to comprehend. The average citizen probably is able to grasp more easily the

meaning of some of the separate component parts. He could probably appreciate, for

area equal to the addition of a new state - over 4 million acres - and will increase the electric power resources of the West by approximately 2.5 million kilowatts. At the same time, the project will provide municipal water supplies, add 760 miles of navigable river channels, reduce danger of floods, and provide water to help develop lignite coal, oil-shale, and other mineral resources.

Thus, the project will help stabilize the economy of an area comprising one-sixth of the continental United States - a region on which all Americans depend for half our bread, a fourth of our wool, and a significant portion of our meat and butter.

Only a few days ago I took part in the dedication of the great Trinity Dam in California. This dam - and the surrounding complex of works - will cost about $245 million when completed. So far, $168 million has been spent, and the project is about 70 percent completed. In terms of our multi-billion-dollar national budget, this is a comparatively modest sum - but the dividends are great. Many Americans have found jobs because this dam was built. About 9,500 man-years of work has meant local pay-rolls of more than $52 million. For each construction worker at the dam, four ad-ditional Americans have been employed in manufacturing and transporting the materials to the site.

To build the dam, tractors and conveyors have come from Illinois, trucks from Indiana and Pennsylvania, and cranes, shovels, and draglines from Wisconsin - plus a myriad of products from the vast industrial empire of our eastern states. Generators are being built in Schenectady, New York, an area of substantial labor surplus. It can truly be said that the falling waters of the Trinity River will house, clothe, and feed a great number of Americans who might otherwise remain unemployed. This, I think without mentioning the continuing multipurpose benefits to California and the nation -is the sort of thing every citizen can understand and appreciate.

We in the Department of the Interior are greatly concerned about the vanishing shoreline of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts - the rapid movement of coastal lands into uses which deny public enjoyment and appreciation. In Reclamation projects such as Trinity, we are in a sense creating a new and growing inland shoreline - one which today totals more than 7,000 miles devoted to public use. Some idea of America's appreciation of this major new recreational resource may be seen in the fact that, in 1960, 24.3 million visits were recorded at 177 Reclamation recreational areas.

The key, of course, to multipurpose planning is power - hydroelectric power which provides the revenue to make such projects financially feasible. We can also view power generation as a conservation effort in its finest sense.

In his 1961 message to the Congress on natural resources, President Kennedy had this to say in regard to electric power:

"To keep pace with the growth of our economy and national defense require-ments, expansion of this nation's power facilities will require intensive effort by all segments of our power industry. Through 1980, according to present estimates of the Federal Power Commission, total installed

capacity should triple if we are to meet our nation's need for essential economic growth. Sustained heavy expansion by all power suppliers -public, cooperative and private - is clearly needed.

"The role of the Federal Government in supplying an important segment of this power is now long established and must continue.

"Hydroelectric sites remaining in this country will be utilized and hydro-electric power will be incorporated in all multiple-purpose river projects where optimum economic use of the water justifies such action."

At the same time, the President directed the Department of the Interior to develop plans for the early interconnection of areas served by the Department's marketing agencies with adequate common carrier transmission lines; to plan for further national cooperative pooling of electric power, both public and private; and to enlarge such pool-ing as now exists. As a first move in this direction, we established, as I am sure most of you already know, a special task force which is studying the feasibility of interconnect-ing the lines of the Bonneville Power Administration and those or the Central Valley Project.

At the same time, we appointed a committee to work with private power interests to de-termine where the pooling of private and public power production will serve the national interest.

Meanwhile, the Congress gave its endorsement to construction on an all-Federal basis of the basic transmission lines required to market the power generated by the great Colorado River Storage Project, and steps were taken immediately to expedite

planning and progress toward completion of this giant undertaking. Simultaneously, we urged public agencies and private power companies to cooperate with the Department in working out a transmission system that will ensure the economic growth of the Colorado Basin, and promote the stability of the entire power industry.

A further step toward conservation and better utilization of electric power resources was taken with the undertaking of studies looking toward the so-called "pump-back"

storage systems which permit the use of generation capacity during slack demand periods to fill power reservoirs from which water can be turned back through generators to meet peak periods of power demand. These, then, are some of the ways in which we in the Department of the Interior are moving as speedily as possible to assure the nation of adequate water and power resources not only for today - but for tomorrow.

We have other programs under way with which I am sure you are familiar, but which I will not discuss in detail here. These include accelerated research programs aimed at reducing water losses from evaporation, transpiration of water-"stealing" plants and weeds,seepage losses, and other causes. I will only say now that we are making progress in these fields.

Finally, we would like to leave you with this thought. I believe you will agree with me that the demands of a growing industrial society at home, as well as the nation's commitments to defend freedom abroad, have brought us to the moment of decision in resource conservation.

Whether our physical and spiritual resources prove adequate to meet our needs tomorrow will be determined by the actions we take - or fail to take - today.

With this in mind, I feel certain that we in the Federal Government who are charged with this responsibility can count upon your cooperation and support in the achievement of our joint objectives in the challenging years of the 1960's.

Working together, we can accomplish much for the future of this nation which we love.

CONGRESSIONAL LUNCHEON

Thursday Noon - October 19, 19 61

LaSelle E. Coles, President - Presiding

Editor's Note: This was a unique feature as far as NRA Convention programs are concerned. Six members of the Full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and Sub-committee on Irrigation and Reclamation were present and participated in the program.

Congressman Wayne N. Aspinall (Colorado),as Chairman of the Full Committee, made the opening statement at the luncheon, after which he introduced Congressman Walter Rogers (Texas) as Chairman ot the Subcommittee, who also presented a state-ment. At the conclusion of Congressman Roger's statement, he first introduced Congressman James F. Battin (Montana) who was present, although not a member of the Committee. Then Congressman Rogers introduced each of the four members of the Committee who responded with short remarks.

CENTRALIZED PLANNING VERSUS INEFFICIENCY AND WASTE IN WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Honorable Wayne N. Aspinall Member of Congress, Colorado

Chairman, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee

The future water needs of this nation demand that we make the most efficient and wise use of our limited water resources. The continued economic growth and well-being of the United States generally and its regional river basin areas are dependent upon our doing so. A sound, progressive water resources development and conserva-tion policy is as essential to the future welfare of this naconserva-tion as is a strong naconserva-tional defense program.

As this nation moves forward with the crucial, long-term problem of development and wise use of our limited water resources, we must make a decision as to whether there will be an efficient, centralized approach to water resources planning or whether, as has been the case so often in the past, we shall continue to plan in an inefficient, haphazard manner which results in wasteful duplication of effort and money. We shall have the opportunity to make this decision next year when the Congress considers