comments by proper executive arm of the administration. It is proper for executive branch to analyze all benefits; however, the selection of projects should be based primarily upon direct benefits.

12. The report of December 22, 1955, by the Presidential Advisory Committee is useful in achieving purposes of Senate Resolution 281. Favor independent Board of Review.

The NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER recommended that—

1. Authorize projects in depressed areas if improvements increase standards of living even though analyses indicate inabilty to fully repay construction charges. 2. When justified by economic and social consideration projects necessary to preserve water users ability to meet Federal obligations should be authorized with costs beyond ability of water users being nonreimbursable.

3. Investigational costs should not be considered in evaluating projects and only that portion of the investigational costs which are within the ability of water users to pay should be reimbursable.

The NORTH DAKOTA WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION advised that

1. Rules during past 8 years have become increasingly restrictive and difficult to comply with.

2. Budget Circular A-47 and others impose more rigid standards for measuring utility and feasibility of projects than appears justifiable.

3. Cost of projects is increasing to extent that a new and more realistic approach in estimating economic feasibility is needed. Suggest also that full disclosure of all facts and factors be presented to Congress and not decided by administrative edict.

The Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, North Dakota, stated that it favors modification and liberalization of existing criteria as set forth in A-47 and President's Advisory Committee on Water Resources Policy so that water resources projects showing a benefit-cost of less than unity but vitally necessary may have benefit of congressional consideration and not withheld by executive action.

The GOVERNOR OF OKLAHOMA advised that

1. Development of water resources projects requires final consideration by the Congress.

2. It is doubtful that few, if any, projects could meet the stringent requirements of the procedures proposed by the Presidential Advisory Committee; and under those procedures, the time required to develop projects could well be 50 to 100 years.

3. Opposes Bureau of the Budget Circular A-47 and the proposed revision. 4. Willing to participate in partnership projects, but this is not possible to the extent proposed by the Presidential Advisory Committee or Budget Circular A-47. 5. Endorses the approach of Senate Resolution 281, particularly sections 3, 4, 5, and 6.

6. Conservation storage should be provided in all reservoirs constructed by Federal agencies.

7. A national policy on reservoir planning and construction is desirable.

The DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON advised that

1. Every drop of water should be conserved, and complete development of every source of water in United States should be planned.

2. Congress should reaffirm the sovereign right of States to control the regulation and use of water.

3. To devise a plan basic data must be available.

4. The opportunity exists to set stage for an organization representing all uses of water in all parts of the country.

The STATE ENGINEER OF WYOMING endorsed the resolution of the Upper Colorado Commission.

UPPER COLORADO COMMISSION stated that

1. Recognize that Congress has primary responsibility for authorization of projects. Recognized need for Congress setting standards and criteria as guides for executive departments.

2. Objects to

(a) Coordinator of water resources;

(b) Independent board of review;

(c) Regional or river basin water resources committee; and

(d) Federal Interagency Committee chairmaned by the coordinator of

water resources.

3. Secretarial or other administrative authorization of projects should not be permitted except by various small projects acts or in case of national emergency. 4. Conditions in Western States have changed and there is probably no remaining project fully reimbursable in 40 years. Many projects remain which would be economical.

5. One way in which projects may be economically sound is by participating in basin power revenue accounts. Logical to keep power rates at about those prevailing in basin with surplus revenues used to assist agricultural economy. 6. Continue interest-free policy on irrigation development.

7. Projects should be considered on basinwide basis. Multipurpose projects should be planned and developed on basis of maximum future requirements. Include water supplies for future use even though firm commitments has not been finally made.

8. The ratio of total benefits to total costs should be greater than unity. There may be instances where individual projects or separable units do not have a favorable benefit-cost ratio. Congress may want to take other factors into account and authorize projects on the basis of other than monetary consideration. 9. In the operation of a basin, account projects supported by power revenues should pay its own operation and maintenance and at least something toward construction costs.

10. Insofar as practicable contracts for repayment of project costs should be made repayable over a period of 50 years with an additional development period of 10 years if required. Power and M. and I. water projects should repay costs with interest.

11. Recreational benefits should be nonreimbursable. Many times recreational benefits have been undervalued. Congress may wish to reexamine these benefits. 12. State water laws and interstate compacts should be observed.

Cost

13. Program of collection, collation, and interpretation of basic data should be accelerated. Review and publication should be made by a single agency. should be financed by direct appropriations by Congress.

14. Circular A-47 directs that analyses of multipurpose projects be by the separable costs-remaining benefits method, considering only direct benefits. Although uniformity is desirable, since the method of payment varies by agencies, it is important that cost analyses be made by alternative methods and considering both direct and indirect benefits where appropriate. The question of whether incremental units of a project are justified should be determined by Congress. 15. Federal loans or financial guaranties should be made to cover costs of developing power or municipal water for anticipated needs with contracts being made for reimbursement when use occurs.

16. Concerned about fluctuating level of general investigations suggest permanent subcommittee of Congress to hold hearings and to formulate following years investigational program.

OTHER AGENCIES, ASSOCIATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS

ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN STATE ENGINEERS stated that

1. Congress should continue to exercise all its constitutional powers to encourage land and water resources development.

2. Developments should be comprehensive and should secure maximum utilization.

3. Number of Federal agencies planning and reviewing projects should not be unnecessarily increased and administrative review procedures should be simplified and shortened.

4. Reports to Congress should include evaluations made in accordance with criteria established by Congress and should contain the details and results of all studies made.

5. Executive agencies should not depart from criteria without approval of Congress.

6. Water policy committee of association is authorized and directed to formulate and submit specific recommendations on standards and criteria to be adopted by Congress.

KASKASKIA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS stated that

1. All benefits should be evaluated.

2. Commitment for remibursement for local benefits should not be prerequisite to planning or construction of projects.

3. Determination of benefits should be on a more realistic basis and should include recreational, industrial, and municipal and domestic water supply.

LOS ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE stated that

1. Favor establishment by Congress of standards which should be specific and require that distinction be made between national benefits and those which are local or benefit individuals.

2. Recognize inherent equities in partnership approach.

3. That standards and criteria be submitted for review by concerned local, State, and Federal agencies.

4. Require that report to Congress follow criteria and criteria applied uniformly on all projects with detailed analyses included.

5. That independent board of review be formed for impartial review of all agencies reports.

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, ENGINEERS JOINT COUNCIL, NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL RIVERS AND HARBORS CONGRESS, NATIONAL WATER CONSERVATION CONFERENCE jointly recommended:

1. That the present program of basic data collection be accelerated and put on a more consistent and definite basis.

2. That planning be conducted on a cooperative basis with representatives of all Federal, State, and local agencies involved.

3. That a reorganization be adopted to include: Regional or river-basin committees, to serve in advisory rather than operating capacities; and a permanent Federal Inter-Agency Committee, to serve as the medium for coordinating the interrelated functions of Federal Agencies. (Most of the six organizations, including the chamber of commerce, also concur in a recommendation for an independent board of review, established by Congress, to serve both the Congress and the President as an impartial economic-engineering consultant on the feasibility of Federal projects.)

4. That the principles which recognize water rights as property rights be accepted. (Any study of the relationships between property rights to water and the social and economic development, and of the principles and criteria to be incorporated in law regarding such rights, as proposed in the Cabinet Committee report, should be conducted by a group composed of Federal and State representatives plus local interests including private industry.)

5. That no system of relative priorities for use of water be applied uniformly to the entire country.

6. That evaluations of water projects by all agencies be on a uniform basis. 7. That each major water resource project be separately authorized by Congress.

8. That, as a general policy, all interests participate in the cost of water resources development projects in accordance with the measure of their benefits.

COL. H. C. GEE, CONSULTING ENGINEER, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, made detailed recommendations as to policies and particularly as to procedures to liberalize and expedite the water resource development program.

MCCALL, PARKHURST & CROWE, attorneys, object to report of the Presidential Advisory Committee of Water Resources Policy.

NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION advised that

1. Congress must have primary responsibility in the authorization of projects and opposes assumption of veto power by executive offices or department over projects.

2. Congress must set policy and standards and executive branch can only recommend.

3. Congress should set standards and criteria and evaluation of projects should be based on uniform standards and criteria.

4. Economic justification of a project should be generally expressed in terms of benefit-cost ratio and should include direct, indirect, and public benefits. Ratio should not be only criteria for justification.

5. The evaluation period for estimating benefits and costs should be the economic life of project or 100 years whichever is less.

6. Cost allocations on multipurpose projects should reflect equitable distribution and single purpose projects all costs obviously should be charged to that purpose. 7. Repayment on other than irrigation should be within 50 years. Irrigation repayment period should be fixed by Congress but in no event longer than the useful life of the project. Power and municipal and industrial water costs should be repaid with interest and costs of irrigation should continue to be repaid without interest.

The Northwest Public Power Association expressed opposition to present criteria for cost allocations, and specifically to their application to McNary Dam and powerplant.

WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATED stated that

1. Geological Survey should through direct appropriation publish basic data collected by itself and other agencies.

2. Federal Government should recognize paramount rights of States to water. 3. Waterways should be toll free.

4. When a State, political subdivision, or any public agency acquires right to use water from a Federal reservoir it should be permanent.

5. Reject taxes-foregone theory.

6. Fair market value rather than loss-of-income system should be used for establishing land values.

7. Federal Government should not withhold aid to a local agency in development of a project for power, municipal, and industrial water supply merely on the assumption that if it is economically sound it can readily be financed by sale of

securities.

8. Local beneficiaries of local flood protection works should only be required to furnish right-of-way, relocate roads, bridges, etc., and assume legal liability for construction and operation and maintenance.

9. Multiple-purpose reservoir should be planned and developed for future maximum requirements.

10. Economic feasibility should include value of falling water.

11. Benefits from flood storage including land enhancement values should be nonreimbursable. Reservoirs larger than those authorized under Public Law 1018 shall not be constructed as local protection works.

12. Repayment contracts should generally be for 50 years, plus a 10-year development period. However, repayment period should always be finally determined by the Congress.

13. Recreational benefits should be used in determining feasibility.

14. Interest rate should be computed on the basis of average interest rates payable by the Treasury on obligations not callable for 15 years.

15. Reports should include all costs which permit realization of benefits. 16. Benefit-cost ratios should be computed on basinwide basis including authorized and existing units.

17. Approve of section 111 of H. R. 12080.

18. Suggest use of sections 205 and 206 of H. R. 12080, with some modifications, in setting up standards.

19. All agencies should use similar standards in setting up costs and benefits. 20. Congress should make it clear that it retains primary responsibility for authorizing projects and the Bureau of the Budget should not delay submitting reports to Congress.

21. Oppose creation of Coordinator of Water Resources. 22. Oppose creation of an Independent Board of Review.

The Arkansas Basin Development Association, Inc., the Connecticut River Valley Flood Control Association, H. C. Gee, consulting engineer, submitted comments similar to those made by Water Resources Associated.

EXHIBIT 11

PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES POLICY

SUMMARY AND MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

A sound water policy must look toward an adequate supply of water for our people, prevent waste, reduce water pollution to its lowest practicable level, provide means for the best and most effective distribution of water, improve navigation, and take steps to check the destructive forces of water which destroy land, property, and life. There are many different problems in different areas. It is neither practicable nor desirable to have only Federal responsibility There is no single "national" water problem.

It is recommended:

1. Basic data.-That the present program of basic data collection (such as rainfall, streamflows, and hydrology) be accelerated, and be programed and carried out on a more consistent and definite basis (sec. 1).

2. Planning. That planning for water resources and related developments be conducted on a cooperative basis with representatives of all Federal, State, and local agencies involved; and that this joint participation be continuous from the beginning in order that plans and projects developed assure the best and most effective use and control of water to meet both the current and long-range needs of the people of a region, State, or locality, and of the Nation as a whole (sec. 2). 3. Organization.-That an organization plan be adopted substantially as follows (secs. 2 and 3):

(a) The position of Coordinator of Water Resources be established to provide the Presidential direction to agency coordination and to establish principles, standards, and procedures for planning and development of water resources projects.

(b) An independent Board of Review be created to analyze the engineering and economic feasibility of projects and report to the President through the Coordinator.

(c) Regional or river basin water resources committees be formed with a permanent nonvoting chairman appointed by the President and with membership composed of representatives of all Federal departments and States involved.

(d) A permanent Federal Interagency Committee, advisory in character, on Water Resources be established under the chairmanship of the Coordinator composed of principal policymaking officials of the agencies concerned.

4. Water rights-(a) That the principles which recognize water rights as property rights be accepted. That determinations as to disposition of water recognize such rights.

(b) That a study be made by the Federal Government in collaboration with State and local entities to determine the relationships between property rights to water and the social and economic development of the Nation and the area, and of the principles and criteria which should be incorporated into Federal, State. and local laws regarding rights to the appropriation and use of water that would assure its best and most effective use and at the same time encourage maximum participation by all parties concerned.

(c) That States enact legislation regarding the ownership and right, purpose and place of use of underground water.

(d) That formation of interstate compacts where appropriate be encouraged (sec. 4).

5. Priority of use of water.-That no system of relative priorities for use of water should be applied uniformly to the entire country (sec. 5).

6. Evaluation. That evaluations of water projects by all agencies be on a uniform basis, requiring balanced consideration of all benefits and costs which can reasonably be measured in dollars, as well as consideration of other values not readily expressed in monetary terms (sec. 6).

7. Authorization. That each major water resources project be separately authorized by the Congress (sec. 7).

8. -Cost sharing.-(a) That, as a general policy, all interests participate in the cost of water resources development projects in accordance with the measure of their benefits; that the Federal Government assume the cost of that part