pay itself out in 1987, although I think probably that would be stretched out a little beyond 1987.

Mr. SORENSEN. On the other hand, I think probably that the trend on those projects is that they would repay somewhat earlier. The demands increased faster, as far as the need for the use, than had been assumed in many of the early studies.

Senator BIBLE. Well, that may be true, but I think Hoover Dam, and the building of Glen Canyon Dam and then Parker Dam downstream, will be hardpressed to meet the schedule of 1987, if I understand the problem.

Mr. SORENSEN. I think, Senator Bible, that in many cases, and I don't remember about the matter of Hoover, necessarily, but projects have been changed, additional features have been authorized within the framework of a 50-year payout on the various units, and that has stretched out the time in which the repayment would be completed. Senator BIBLE. There are others who want to ask questions. I know you have other witnesses, but I think you have entered into a very provocative area. These are things that constantly concern us on the Appropriations Committee, because as well-intentioned as we are, and as hard as we try to fund what is authorized, having made that original commitment to the reclamation effort, nevertheless, if the Bureau of the Budget doesn't give us a firm figure, whether it is a level of $200 million or $300 million, or whatever, it is something that, as a practical political problem, you can't get through your committee or can't get through the Congress.

Then in addition to that, you have, as the chairman so very aptly and correctly said, this constant scramble for dollars. Eevn after you fund it at whatever level, there is no assurance that the executive will spend it. So I think this is an area where you have to spend a tremendous amount of time, because reclamation projects have problems, as you men very well know.

Mr. SORENSEN. This was part of the reason I said that you might say, Why do we bring some of these things to this committee?

We realize there is a long, hard road on this matter, and we believe that this is one of the very important places that this has to be received with some favor. As we go along, we already are gearing to take these matters up with the executive department.

Senator BIBLE. I am delighted to hear that. In addition, one of the problems that constantly concerns me in this area, as well as in the creation of new parks, is the fact that we are asking in each Congress to authorize new reclamation projects, asking each Congress to authorize new parks, and we can't even fund the ones that we have already authorized.

Mr. SORENSEN. Right.

Senator BIBLE. So this is a constant, vexatious and troublesome problem to me. Shouldn't we take care of what we have already authorized and put some of these others on the shelf for a while?

Mr. SORENSEN. I think the point is good, Senator Bible. I would point out, however, that if we merely use as a criterion those projects which are already authorized, we may be missing some projects now starting in the authorization process which are most important and badly needed.

This is a concern, I think, that many of us have. We have to look at where the real needs are, and try to work toward those. We do have

this real problem of backlog that has already completed the authorization process.

Senator BIBLE. I just have one further question of either you or Mr. Bronn.

Can you, just very quickly, tell us the difference in the authorizing funding and the measuring sticks that are used in projects under the Corps of Army Engineers, as contrasted to those of the Bureau of Reclamation?

Mr. SORENSEN. This is part of the reason we come to you with a concept such as we have been talking about here. This reinvestment cost, in most cases-and this is not 100-percent true because there are far greater nonreimbursible items involved in corps projects.

Senator BIBLE. I am very well aware of that, and I wish Mr. Bronn or somebody would point it out for the record, because he has the background, I understand, of having had a little experience with the Corps of Engineers.

You seem to have done better with the Congress of the United States than the Bureau of Reclamation. Why did you do it? Were you more alert, or had more intelligence, or more political friends, or a broader base to operate under? Just why? Why are you treated differently?

Mr. SORENSEN. We tried to get Colonel Bronn to continue to wear his uniform, thinking maybe this would help.

Senator BIBLE. It might. If you were in a foreign country it would be a cinch to help.

Mr. BRONN. Senator, one big factor favoring the corps is that they have 50 States.

Senator BIBLE. I think that is correct. In reclamation there are 17? Mr. SORENSEN. Continental.

Senator BIBLE. Sixteen continental States plus Hawaii?

Mr. SORENSEN. Seventeen continental States, Senator.

Mr. BRONN. I will offer an opinion, alongside the fact about 50 States

Senator BIBLE. I realize you have 50. This has been known, I think, as the pork barrel bill, hasn't it, at various times?

Mr. BRONN. Of course, as you well know, in that so-called pork barrel appropriations bill are both the Bureau and the corps, as well as Atomic Energy and others. But in authorizing-and this is the other point, the one I was going to mention as a judgment-the corps in the past has put together its request for new authorization, omnibus legislation, so that almost everybody has something in the bill, and a feeling of interest in it.

Senator BIBLE. You think that might have some political

Mr. BRONN. Well, at least you can say they know they are benefiting the Nation, because there is something in the bill for every part of it.

Senator BIBLE. Fine.

Mr. BRONN. And this is also a good deal of our problem today, in other programs, which relate to what we are doing. Let's take a program as closely related as water quality. Now we all know that reservoirs do a lot of things for water quality, and some of them even do things that treatment can't do.

Reclamation has neither glamour nor procedure like water quality We authorize a piece of a program, a piece of a program here and a piece there, but the quality people come in and say, "We want you to authorize us to do a billion dollars worth of work in 1970. We are not going to tell you what our standards are, we are not going to tell you where the money is going to go. We are going to give to the Secretary the rights to approve the projects, but we want the authority," then everybody who thinks he might get in on any clear water job is for the bill, and you get it.

And that is quite a difference in technique.

Senator BIBLE. Just one further question, and then I will yield. What is the difference in the measuring stick of the nonreimbursables allow to a reclamation project or recreation, as contrasted to the same allowance for a nonreimbursable for recreation for a corps project? Mr. BRONN. To the best of my knowledge, sir, they are identical. They come under the same legislation, and also, when we deal with. similar purposes, in either corps or Bureau projects, we use the same measuring sticks and the same criteria for reimbursement.

If they are the same purposes, and by a purpose I mean like flood control or irrigation. Now sometimes, even when all the effects are measured in dollars, we have different reimbursement. You may save a man a lot of money from a flood. He doesn't have to pay any of it back.

You may make a man some money in irrigation. He has to pay part of it back. I think, and your staff certainly knows, that there is a great deal of difference in benefit evaluation, not between corps and Bureau, but among the kinds of benefits, and a great dealSenator BIBLE. For example?

Mr. BRONN. Well, let's take water supply, for one. The benefit is based on evaluation of some alternative project. And whatever that project is going to cost, you say, that is what the water is worth.

Now then, for irrigation, we say the value of the water is equal to the increase in net income, after you apply the water to the land, which is quite a different approach.

We can go into recreational boating and find that we get involved in such things as the amount of investment, the amortization period, and the net profit.

Outdoor recreation, we have a wholly different approach. Some things we try to ascribe a dollar to, and so much for a visitor-day for certain kinds of visitations.

Then we go over into the straight outdoor recreation stuff: We simply say it is desirable to spend $200 million a year from land and water conservation funds, and let's go spend it. We don't have a benefitcost ratio, on benefits measured by dollars, any more than we do in clean water or clean air programs.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you very much. I believe the discussion has been helpful.

The Senator from Oregon?

Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Chairman.

I am very impressed not only with the content of your testimony, but the matter in which you have presented it. It has very obvious earmarks of an engineer in its format, and I think it has been very helpful. I have two or three questions.

First of all, when you talk about the forecasts of needs for land

and water.

Mr. BRONN. Yes, sir.

Senator HATFIELD. You talk about the need for land in terms of acres, 8 million, 4 million, 5 million. I believe that there is no question that we have adequate land which is not now in use in this country. My question to you is, How are we going to designate the uses? In this increasing complexity of society and population, and all the other factors involved, how are we going to determine that this amount of land, or this land is going to be used for one purpose, and this land is going to be used for another purpose?

You boil it down to units of government like counties and cities and state and national. I have had a little experience in the matter of getting county zoning, as an example, and it is very difficult. People just do not want it. Especially in the various counties. The rural counties are the most difficult of all to get any kind of regulation for use of land. They resist it, most of all, and these are some of the very areas that we are most concerned about in this water development. Mr. BRONN. Yes, it is.

Senator HATFIELD. How are we going to get over these problems? How are we going to get these land designations?

Mr. BRONN. One of the approaches the country is working into relates to your river basin commissions, wherein we are to examine water and related land uses, make forecasts of development, and one of the things done also under this law is that the State governments are given planning grants, and one of the things they are supposed to do is to try to develop general guides for the best uses of land.

Now, I have answered your question only with regard to guides, and the one you point out is also control, and I don't have an answer for control.

Senator HATFIELD. Well, it is going to take more than guidelines, though, is it not, if we are going to get full utilization and highest use of land?

Mr. BRONN. Yes, Senator, it certainly will.

Senator HATFIELD. I have seen in my own State, highways built in which there is a single objective used by and large, and that is, the closest distance between two points, with little regard for land utilization, or the highest use of land.

We formed a land-use commission, in order to try to bring together the engineers with the agriculturists and the other users of land to get a little broader viewpoint on just building of highways. As you know, once land is taken out of agricultural use for highways, its loss is usually forever for such purposes as agriculture.

There are other examples I could cite you on this matter of getting down to the highest use of our land, which is going to take far more than just guidelines.

I think this may lay the foundation for a public understanding and public education, which eventually-and I may be wrong, but I have come to the conclusion that eventually it is going to have to take certain controls.

Mr. BRONN. I agree with you.

Senator HATFIELD. And this is very obnoxious to a lot of people. Mr. BRONN. It is, and to find out what the highest use is, we have to have a better scheme of evaluation, and this is part of what I am seeking in the group A, "enhancement of human values."

Senator HATFIELD. Before I leave that point, I would hope that out of your association, which has such high prestige and admiration by so many people, and particularly your constituency, your direct constituency, I would hope that perhaps you could give some leadership here and some focus on this very problem of guidelines versus control, or a combination, or the relationship between guidelines and control and use of land.

I am not talking about just individuals, control on individuals. I am talking about total control in terms of municipalities, and governments, and industries, and corporations, and highway commissions, and so forth.

I do not think of control here as purely an autocratic centralized power, exercised by bureaucrats, and all these other impressions and images we have, but I am talking about acceptable control, that people will accept because they realize that it is for the benefit of the greatest number. Perhaps your organization could give some help along this line.

Mr. BRONN. I think so, sir.

Senator HATFIELD. And the second part of that forecast, relating to water, where you estimate that agriculture will need about a 25-percent increase, do you include in that only agriculture, or do you include the industrial water used in food processing industries?

Mr. BRONN. This is only direct application agriculture, sir.

Senator HATFIELD. I see. So, food processing would be included under industry.

Mr. BRONN. Under industry; yes, sir.

Senator HATFIELD. Some of us have been deeply concerned about this cost/benefit ratio formula and not including more of the socalled noneconomic factors, and I have heard some testimony on that. I would just like to make one final comment, or observation. I think your group A, "Enhancement of human values," in my opinion, we have to get a more national character to these reclamation projects. It is now pretty much thought of as a Western benefit. The membership of the committee here is a further example of great emphasis on the Western part of the United States.

We only have, I think, Senator Bible, what, 99 Members of the House of Representatives, out of 12 Western States? I think about 99, and we have, of course, out of 12 Western States, the reclamation, public lands States, we call them, we have 24 Senators, so consequently, we are very much in the minority in terms of the political power structure.

It does seem to me that we have to get a more national understanding, or national emphasis upon these projects as being in the national interest, and not just regional.

And in my opinion, the way we are going to do this is by the very thing you have done here, to show the human values, or the qualitative factors of life that are involved here, not just the quantitative. The quantitative factors are so much related to the economic, materialistic factors of our society.

I think, too, that we have great unrest and turmoil in this country today, amongst many of our young people, amongst the poor, and some minority groups, and that if you carefully analyzed some of this unrest, I don't think it is all ascribed to just lack of materialism. I