for the authorization of projects for the conservation and development of land and water resources should include evaluations made in accordance with criteria prescribed by the Congress, and that they should fully disclose the details and results of all studies and analyses of all potential utilizations, costs, allocations, payout, and benefits, both direct and indirect, made by all interested operating agencies. SEC. 5. That the preservation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers requires that any departure by the executive agencies from the observance and employment of the policies, standards, procedures, and techniques reflected in and growing out of the law governing the conservation and development of the land and water resources of the Nation be effected only after approval by the Congress. SEC. 6. That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Public Works be, and they hereby are, directed jointly to study, in consultation with other appropriate committees and executive agencies, and to design and to formalize a comprehensive and particularized sets of standards and overall criteria for the evaluation of all proposed projects for the conservation and development of land and water resources, including attention to the several specific factors recognized in section 4 of this resolution, all to the end that the Congress shall fully exercise its constitutional powers, as reflected throughout the text of this resolution. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Public Works are hereby directed to submit to the Senate, as early as practicable during the first session of the Eighty-fifth Congress, a detailed report with respect to their implemetnation of this section. The following memorandum requested comments and collaboration: UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, MEMORANDUM TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, FEDERAL AND The United States Senate, on July 26, adopted Senate Resolution 281, relating to national water projects, policies, and procedures. This resolution was recommended jointly by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Čommittee on Public Works, after hearings in which representatives of executive agencies, other organizations and individuals appeared. The attached report to the Senate, No. 2686, by the two committees sets forth views on the importance of this subject. It stresses the necessity for the Congress to lay down ground rules with respect to information to be furnished in connection with proposed water projects, procedures and related matters. Section 6 of the resolution directs the two committees, jointly, to study, design, and formalize "a comprehensive and particularized set of standards and overall criteria for In pursuance of the directive of the Senate, the two com- You will note that the committees are under instructions to report to the Senate as early as practicable in the 85th Congress and your cooperation in submitting material in the form of suggestions or recommendations will be appreciated. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation. DENNIS CHAVEZ, Chairman, Committee on Public Works. Chairman, Subcommittee on Flood Control. Address replies to: Chairman, room 224-A, Senate Office Acceptance of the invitation to collaborate in considerations pursuant to S. Res. 281, and designation of a liaison staff representative have been received from: Hon. Allen J. Ellender, chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate Hon. Clair Engle, chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives Hon. Harold D. Cooley, chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives Hon. Charles A. Buckley, chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives Comments have been received from the following officials of the executive branch: Comptroller General of the United States Bureau of the Budget Federal Power Commission Secretary of the Army Secretary of the Interior Secretary of Agriculture The latter three departments, as requested, also furnished detailed information and specific data relative to cost allocations and costbenefit calculations. Comments have been received from officials of the States of California, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington, and Wyoming. Comments also have been received from the Upper Colorado River Commision, composed of representatives of the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Comments have been received from the following organizations: Arkansas Basin Development Association Association of Western State Engineers Connecticut River Valley Flood Control Association H. C. Gee Kaskaskia Valley Association Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce McCall, Parkhurst, & Crowe National Reclamation Association Northwest Public Power Association Water Resources Associated Engineers Joint Council A summary of the individual comments is attached, and each of the communications follows. CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES I. FEDERAL AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES Matter for consideration by the Congress 1. At the present time the Federal water resource program is based on a large number of laws that are administered by several agencies. These laws do not provide uniform policies or criteria that are fundamental in carrying out the programs. 2. He believes that the water resource program can be more effectively administered if the Congress provides policies and criteria to be applied for allocation of costs of multiple-purpose projects, the results of which serve as the basis for establishing rates for commercial power. In addition to establishing policies and criteria for cost allocations, he believes that the new legislation should also provide for (1) period for repayment of construction costs, (2) rates of interest, and (3) subsidies to nonpower purposes. 3. Audits of the important Federal water resource development programs that include power generating and marketing operations disclose that even though projects have been in operation for a number of years, firm-cost allocations have been made for very few multiplepurpose projects. 4. To resolve the matter of reaching firm-cost allocations, we believe that the Congress could take one of the following alternative courses of action: (a) Establish policies and criteria for making the cost allocations, and designating specifically the agency to make the allocation where one agency constructs the project and another agency markets a product of the project. (In this case the Congress may want a firm-cost allocation report submitted to it for review, and such report also to include the views of the interested agency not having the responsibility for the cost allocation.) The Congress may want to define the role of the Federal Power Commission in these allocations. (b) Establish policies and criteria for making the cost allocations and designating the Federal Power Commission to make the firm-cost allocation, wherever power is a purpose in the project. (In the Columbia River Basin, the Federal Power Commission has been specifically designated by the Congress to make the allocations on the Bonneville Dam, McNary Dam and lower Snake River projects. The Commission also was designated to make the allocation of the Fort Peck project.) (c) Establish policies and criteria for making the cost allocations and requiring the constructing agency, the power marketing agency, |