Mr. WELSH. We are opposed to both of those. We agree with the appointment of a committee of basinwide or river water resources committee and the Federal Interagency Committee. But we are opposed to the appointment of the coordinator and the board of review, and the reasons are set forth here. (Information referred to follows:) STATEMENT ON SENATE RESOLUTION 281 AT CONFERENCE By William E. Welsh, Secretary Manager, National Under date of November 17, 1956, it was my privilege to There are several points which have been brought to my attention since that statement was submitted, which I would like to discuss today. Basin account. The basin account, which, in my opinion, simply means the pooling of power revenues or the using of power revenues within a river basin or related area to assist in the repayment of irrigation costs which are beyond the ability of the water users to repay, was discussed very briefly in the report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Water Resource Policy, page 33, House Document 315, 84th Congress, 2d session. We note also that some of the statements reproduced in the committee print on Senate Resolution 281, dated January 4, 1957, oppose the pooling of power revenues. In order to present the views of the National Reclamation Association on this question I am reproducing herewith Resolution No. 10 adopted at our annual meeting in Salt Lake City, November 1956. "RESOLUTION NO. 10. BASIN WIDE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING "Whereas the complicated and costly multipurpose projects which are today essential to the fullest utilization of the West's limited water supplies, are making power a more and more important paying partner in reclamation development; and "Whereas the use of power revenues to aid the repayment of irrigation costs is almost as old as the Federal reclamation program; and "Whereas it is recognized that integrated and coordinated planning, development, operation, and financing of federally constructed water development projects within a river or drainage basin and compact agreement related areas is the most economical, efficient, and feasible method of developing the water resources of many river basins and compact agreement related areas; and "Whereas the use of basinwide power and other revenues to aid irrigation development within a river basin and compact agreement related areas is a recognized sound and practical principle in the case of many river or drainage basins and compact agreement related areas: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That the National Reclamation Association endorses the principle of integrated planning, development, operation, and financing of Federal water-development projects within a river or drainage basin and compact agreement related areas, and the use of basinwide power and other revenues to aid irrigation development within the river or drainage basin and compact agreement related areas; and be it further "Resolved, That integrated development and financing within a river or drainage basin and compact agreement related areas, should not abandon the principle that basinwide development should meet reasonable standards of economic feasibility; and be it further "Resolved, That the authorization of all Federal basinwide developments, including the use of basinwide accounting, shall be by act of the Congress; and be it further "Resolved, That in any legislation for integrated basinwide development and financing consideration should be given to the repayment problems of existing irrigation districts within a basin; be it further "Resolved, That in any event integrated development and financing should not be imposed on river basins and compact agreement related areas or existing Federal or local projects without approval of local consumptive users of water that would be thereby affected." Time of repayment. We note that there have been several statements submitted in which it is suggested that the time of repayment should be limited to 50 years. Most reclamation projects where power revenues are available to assist in the repayment of costs allocated to irrigation will be repaid within 50 years. However, there are a good many potential reclamation projects throughout the entire West which would show a very favorable benefit-cost ratio but would not always have power revenues available to the extent necessary to complete repayment within 50 years. The benefits that accrue to the Nation as a whole as the result of a reclamation project do not cease at the end of 50 years. The benefits from reclamation projects, and there are many indeed, will continue to flow out to the entire Nation throughout the life of the project. As an illustration I would like to point to a project with which I have been personally acquainted since it was first placed under construction almost 50 years ago the Boise project in Idaho. That project was completed more than 40 years ago and yet it is in better condition than it was at the completion of the project. Practically all of the original wooden structures have been replaced with concrete. There is no end in sight as to the useful life of that project and, of course, the benefits will continue throughout its useful life. Just as a partial illustration of the benefits, the income taxes alone from that project and the surrounding community which is dependent on the project repay to the Federal Government every 4 years the total cost of the project. Surely it would be good business for Uncle Sam to extend the time of repayment a few years beyond the proposed 50-year limit if it were necessary on a project such as that. To summarize the above two points, if we should abandon the policy of basin account which has been in use in the Missouri River Basin and the Central Valley of California and just recently authorized in the upper Colorado River storage project and at the same time if we should limit the time of repayment to 50 years we would most assuredly be pulling the curtain down on reclamation. Regional River Basin Water Resources Committees and a Permanent Federal Interagency Committee.-We concur in the recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Committee as to the creation of both of these committees. Coordinator of water resources and board of review.-It is noted that statements have been submitted dealing with both of the above recommendations which came from the report by the Presidential Advisory Committee. With respect to these proposals, I would like to present the position of our National Reclamation Association by quoting from the report of our Water Policy Committee, which was unanimously adopted by the adoption of resolution No. 2 at the Salt Lake City meeting last November. Coordinator of water resources.-"We Disagree. The proposal that a Coordinator of water resources be established has been comprehensively considered. Continuing apprehension has been expressed lest the operations of such an officer, with the responsibilities as outlined, would hinder rather than hasten water resource development. It is recognized that such a position could be created in the Office of the President by Executive order, and that if the duties were carried out in a constructive manner and without infringing on the authority of the Congress, desirable objectives might be achieved." Board of review.-"We Disgree. This proposal has also been comprehensively considered. Advisory and coordination functions for such a board appear desirable objectives. However, we raise the question as to how a board could function without circumventing action by the Congress. Our comment on this proposal is in line with similar apprehension expressed over the somewhat similar proposal of the Second Hoover Commission last year." In my opinion there are plenty of safeguards now without creating additional obstacles. Let us review briefly the procedure now required. A reclamation project is first initiated in the local office of the Bureau of Reclamation, where investigations are made usually at the request of local organizations as well as the Senators and Congressmen representing the area. Many conferences are held with local organizations. If in the opinion of the local office the project is justifiable, a report is forwarded to the regional office where it is fully reviewed and again conferences are held with local organizations. From there it is referred to the Denver office where problems involved include engineering, design, construction, geology, and hydrology. It is then forwarded to the Washington office of the Bureau of Reclamation where it is again fully reviewed by the Washington staff. All of this usually requires considerable time and involves a great deal of publicity, particularly in the local newspapers. After the project has been approved by the Washington office it is submitted to the various Federal and State agencies in accordance with the following review procedure: 1. Transmittal to the affected States and the Secretary of Defense under the provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1944. 2. Transmittal to the governors of affected States under provisions of the Coordination Act of 1946. 3. Transmittal to other Federal agencies under agreement of the Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources. 4. Transmittal to the President through the Bureau of the Budget. 5. Transmittal to the Congress. Further review of a report and consideration of project development is accomplished before both the legislative and appropriations committees of the Congress. În considering the above procedure there is one item that most assuredly should not be considered lightly. That is the required transmittal to the affected States and Federal agencies in accordance with the so-called O'Mahoney-Milliken amendments to the 1944 Flood Control Act. These amendments were agreed upon and became a part of the Flood Control Act only as the result of strenuous efforts on the part of representatives of numerous land and water organizations from all over the United States and extending over a considerable period of time. The objectives of these amendments as set forth in the call of the water conservation conference at which they were consummated were (1) assure local and State participation in plans for water-resource development; (2) preserve the integrity of State water laws. These amendments at the time of their adoption were widely heralded as the water bill of rights. I submit that under the present procedure and also with establishment of regional river basin water resources committees and a permanent Federal interagency committee that the general public and the taxpayers as a whole will be fully and adequately protected. To establish two additional offices, We consider the questions involved in Senate Resolution matter. Respectfully submitted. WILLIAM E. WELSH, Secretary-Manager. Mr. LINEWEAVER. Elmer Nelson, you have been around downtown and up here for a few years. Mr. ELMER NELSON (professional staff member, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.) I haven't anything to offer, Mr. Chairman, except to say that I was very much impressed by John McCall's statement. However, he brought into the matter another element, a matter of contracts, which probably does not quite belong here. It belongs in another phase of legislation that these committees should consider; for example, the Barrett bill, which has to do with water rights. I think also that we are talking about a matter here which should be given consideration, if we are going to outline the material for use of the committees, and that is some limitation on the time during which water users would be required to repay where there are other revenues which can repay the debt, and which is the subject of Bill Welsh's statement. We have those in most instances. Unusual conditions can always be taken care of. As Mr. McBride knows, they were taken care of in Oklahoma. Areas will be treated the way they have to be treated in order to exist and prosper. But it seems to me that where there are power revenues which are assumed to be assured of coming into the picture, that they can take up the matter of unpaid irrigation allocations which the water users cannot pay just as well after 45 years or 50 years as well as after 70 or 80 years. This could put the water users on notice that they will be required to repay in a limited time of 40 or 50 years, and then they will be through. The power revenues will usually repay their allocations about four times as fast as water users. Ultimately, power revenues of the Missouri Basin will pay six times as fast, whenever they start coming in, as any water users will pay or can afford to pay. We can just as well, maybe, take up some of these things the minute we get out of this dilemma that Mr. McCall finds himself in, which is what kind of a contract we should enter into. Water users should pay for a certain period only. With Corps of Engineers projects, |