Senator JOHNSTON. The next witness is William T. Crisp. Going back to another witness, Mr. E. H. Agnew, president of the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation Mr. SCHAD. Senator, we have his statement, and I suggest it be put in the record. Senator JOHNSTON. I imagine that will be sufficient. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF E. H. AGNEW, PRESIDENT, SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION I am E. H. Agnew, president of the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, a general farm organization with more than 21,000 member families. We appreciate this opportunity to make a brief statement to this committee on a subject that has been of deep concern to us for a number of years. We believe that your report and recommendations will be of inestimable value as a basis for determining a sensible course of action, legislative and otherwise, designed to obtain maximum wise use of our water resources in meeting future needs of our growing population, our expanding industrial and agricultural development, and to bring about public understanding and support for implementation of a program of combined conservation and wise use. Such a program is undeniably a vital part of plans for sustaining a sound and expanding national economy and for improving the standard of living for the people of this country. Despite the enactment of no less than 30 separate laws by Congress since 1866 clearly indicating the intent of the Congress to protect the right of States to control their water resources, recent court decisions and the policy of the Justice Department make it quite evident that Congress must take action to protect the rights of States and individuals, or the Federal Government will preempt the field of water rights to the point that States and individuals will find themselves strictly limited as to what they can do, or cannot do, with respect to the conservation and use of water resources. We have long recognized the need in this State for putting into effect a program (1) to further guarantee to the State the right to control its water resources by setting forth by State law a procedure whereby the State could and would establish and protect the corporate and private and individual rights to the use of water resources, and (2) to protect water rights as property rights, and (3) to avoid, insofar as possible, the future penalty that is bound to be inflicted upon any State in which precious water resources have been lost, either through failure to conserve and use wisely, or by surrender through Federal preemption brought on partly by neglect of the State to exercise its right to control. To develop such a program in this State would be of little value unless the Congress acts promptly to stop Federal preemption of the right to control water resources and restore this right to the respective States and protect it. Our Farm Bureau voting delegates in annual convention assembled at Clemson last November adopted the following resolution: "We commend our general assembly for unanimous adoption of the joint resolution memorializing the President of the United States and the Congress to enact legislation protecting our water resources from Federal preemption. This is a vital part of States rights, and unless this trend toward Federal preemption is stopped or reversed, individuals and State governments may soon find that they have little rights left to the use of water or to the control of water resources. "It is equally as important and as urgent that our general assembly take appropriate action looking toward adequate provisions for the handling, management and control of our State's water resources in the future as it is for the Congress to take action preserving or restoring the rights of States to control these resources. "It is obvious that rapidly expanding needs and uses of water for domestic, municipal, industrial and agricultural purposes in years to come demands that immediate attention be given to wise and well-planned conservation and use of our water resources. "Our general assembly should immediately give attention to this problem on a sufficiently broad and businesslike basis to guarantee the wisest and most beneficial possible use of our water resources in the future. "The first step toward accomplishment of this objective is a comprehensive survey of our water resources, an estimate of the qualitative and quantitative needs for future use for various purposes. The 1961 general assembly should have this study and report as an aid in preparation of a sound basic water law." The resolution quoted above clearly indicates that our farm people in this State understand that action on the part of our general assembly and action on the part of Congress constitute imperative needs that must be met if our State and Federal Governments may be expected to work together closely to the end that we may in the future reap maximum benefits from our water resources. There is significant language in section 2 of Public Law 85-850 which provided for the establishment of the U.S. Study Commission on Southeast River Basins: "SEC. 2. In carrying out the purpose of this Act it shall be the policy of Congress to (1) recognize and protect the rights and interests of the States in determining the development of the watershed of the rivers herein mentioned and their interests and rights in water utilization and control as well as the preservation and protection of established uses This section indicates clearly that Congress recognizes the right of States to develop their water resources. As president of this State's farm bureau organization, it has been my privilege for several years to be a member of the Resolutions Committee of the American Farm Bureau Federation-and twice a member of the subcommittee on natural resources. We heartily subscribe to the water policy of the American Farm Bureau Federation which is in part, "Federal participation in water development projects should be in cooperation with State and local interests. We are opposed to Federal domination of water resource development. We favor legislation to require Federal agencies (1) to comply with State laws relating to the use of water, and (2) to respect private rights to the use of water established by State authority. The right to use water is a property right which should not be taken from any person without due process of law and adequate compensation." We are also heartily in accord with the current American Farm Bureau Federation resolution on watershed protection and flood prevention which reads in part: "During the past decade Federal funds appropriated for downstream measures have vastly exceeded those made available for upstream protection and flood control measures. We recommend that an increased proportion of the total funds appropriated for water utilization programs be provided for planning, development, and construction of projects under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act”. We are not participating in the controversy pointed up in the Savannah River Basin between private and public power interests, but we quote this one sentence from the power policy of our American Farm Bureau Federation, "The entry of the Federal Government into the power business should be restricted to those instances where adequate development cannot be obtained otherwise." Our organization does not have the research facilities to warrant us trying to be technical about the problems of surveying water resources, projecting needs for various purposes in the future, and making recommendations; but we are grateful for an opportunity to participate in one of the 20 hearings being held around the country by the Senate select committee. Since this select committee is composed of members from each of the four Senate committees having primary responsibility in connection with water resource legislation, it may be expected that the work of these four committees-Interior and Insular Affairs, Public Works, Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and Agriculture and Forestry-may be better coordinated through the work and influence of this select committee. It takes little imagination to visualize vastly expanded needs for water-good water-in the years to come. It is estimated that the per capita consumption of water in this country will double in the next 25 years. No more water is being created. The supply is exhaustible. Concentrations of people are to be limited by supplies available of good water. Industrial growth and expansion is likewise to be limited. There is a strong trend toward shifting agricultural production to areas where water is plentiful for irrigation and away from areas where such supplies are not available. Our South Carolina General Assembly continues to confer the right to use huge quantities of water for industrial purposes. Until recently, our general assembly raised no objection to the Federal Government acquiring complete control of substantial portions of our available water supply for purposes that certainly tended to restrict industrial and agricultural expansion and development in this State. There can be no doubt that the future progress of South Carolina is dependent upon joint industrial and agricultural progress. Such progress means expansion and development in both industry and agriculture. Industrial and agricultural expansion and development add up to increased business activity. An expanding population with increased business activity plus a doubled per capita consumption of water is certain to result in some water shortages in some areas or for some purposes within the next few years. Neither our State government or the Federal Government is prepared to face up to this situation of impending water shortage, particularly in the 31 socalled humid States. Therefore, our State government needs to take immediate steps to find out how much water supply we have, how much of it we have already given away, what is left, and what can be done to guarantee that the remaining supply will be wisely conserved and used. Then the necessary legal procedure must be provided to guarantee that this program of wise conservation and use will henceforth be applied to that portion of our water resources not already being lawfully and properly used. The State cannot put such a program into operation with confidence until Congress makes it clear that the State's right to manage its water resources will not be subjected to Federal preemption and domination. Continued neglect on the part of our general assembly to provide for initiation of a sound program of management of our State's water resources (that part which now remains for allocation) does not justify but does tend to invite Federal preemption in this field of water resource management and control because this problem of conservation and wise use of both land and water resources is a problem that is national in both scope and consequence. In order to place the primary responsibility for performance in this field upon the respective States as a right unchallenged, we urge that this Senate select committee exercise its leadership responsibility in the Congress to stop erosion of the constitutional right of States to manage their water resources. Such action would do two things-first, it would encourage States to assume their rightful responsibility and to take action to initiate a program of conservation and wise use of water resources and, secondly, it would place the responsibility for such programs directly upon the States where it belongs. The CHAIRMAN. Does Mr. Crisp have a statement for us? Mr. SCHAD. We do not have that. Mr. MCBRIDE. I have not seen that. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Senator JOHNSTON. The next witness is Col. Harry E. Brown. STATEMENT OF COL. HARRY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, FOR GOV. LUTHER M. HODGES Colonel BROWN. Thank you, Senator Johnston. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harry Brown and I am the director of the Department of Water Resources for the State of North Carolina. As long as you cannot meet in our State we are very glad you met down here. The CHAIRMAN. Fine. We are glad to have you with us. Colonel BROWN. With your permission, sir, I think I can summarize my statement in about 2 minutes. It is getting late. The CHAIRMAN. We are not concerned about the time unless you are. Colonel BROWN. No, sir, I am not. We feel the next 15 or 20 years is going to be very critical in our State. At the present time we have enough water and very few of our towns and cities are hurting for water now. We believe, though, that this condition will not continue unless we use every effort we can to conserve and manage our water resources. We believe this could best be accomplished by the development of our river basins and by the development of our small watersheds under Public Law 566 as amended by 1018. I think our State is third in the small watershed development. I believe Texas is first, Georgia is second, and we are third in the number of projects under that program. We are very sorry that more funds have not been provided for the 566 program. I understand that about $32 million this year will only permit about 32 new starts. We feel in our State that this is one of the best programs we have for the conservation of water. In the Cape Fear River Basin the Corps of Engineers is working hand in hand with the State to come up with a plan to utilize the water resources of the basin. I believe this is the first time that I have ever heard of where the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service will couple up with a joint report. We anticipate they will recommend the construction of retention dams upstream, and some smaller dams and then some larger dams on the main river. This report will be submitted, I believe, in August, and I am looking forward to it with a great deal of interest, and I think this committee should have a copy of that report when it is submitted. As I say, this is the first time that I know of where the whole basin is administered by the corps and the Soil Conservation Service. We have 16 major river basins in our area and we feel we can control the water and can conserve our water if we all work together. That is, the Federal Government, the State and local people. This job cannot be done, we believe, by the Federal Government or by the State or by the local people alone. We feel it has to be a joint effort, a nonpartisan one, and we have all got to forget our selfishness and work for the good of the whole area. That is our belief in our State. We are moving ahead very fast in our water pollution program. At the present time, about 98 percent of the area has been studied in the water pollution program and about 66 percent of the streams have been classified. After a stream is once classified we give the industry and the town a certain number of years to come up with a pollution abatement method. It generally runs about 5 years. We feel by 1963 that all of our streams will be classified, and we believe that most of our towns and most of our industry will have put their plans into effect by that time or shortly thereafter. We have to reuse this water over and over again and we feel we can only do that by putting the water back in the stream in about the same condition it was when we took it out. And we are working toward that goal. Senator SCHOEPPEL. What progress have you noted in your State with reference to the requirement that you lay down for pollution abatement? Are they progressing as fast as you think they ought to? |