STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, Senator ESTES KEFAUVER, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: We understand that on June 15 the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has scheduled an informal hearing on Federal-State water rights. We also understand that some States would reduce the interest of the Federal Government in water rights on major water development projects to such an extent that public interest in wildlife resources would not receive adequate protection. We hope that the recreational uses of water will continue to be provided in Federal water development projects, particularly fish and wildlife. Sincerely, FORREST V. DURAND, Director. NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Although NRECA has thus far not participated in the hearings concerned with Federal-State water rights, I am particularly grateful for one comment which you made last week during testimony in support of the Barrett bill type of legislation. You referred to the fact that although a large number of States are interested in the water rights arising from the Colorado River, it would be virtually impossible to realize the opportunities afforded by these rights except for the ability of the Federal Government to undertake developments like the Colorado River storage project. The rural electric cooperatives in both the upper and lower Colorado Basin States will also benefit from this tremendous undertaking. Over 70 rural electric systems, serving approximately a quarter million consumers, will be able to purchase low-cost hydroelectric power generated at Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, and Curiecanti. And, the revenue derived from power sales will, to a large extent, repay that portion of project cost which is allocated to the irrigation features. It seems to us, therefore, that, wholly aside from the legal issues involved, the Congress should very carefully weigh the disadvantages as well as the claimed advantages inherent in any legislation which would, in effect, circumscribe the water resource development program of the Federal Government by making it subservient to the laws of the separate State jurisdictions where that very program is carried out. Such curtailment of the Federal water resources program might be justified if the citizens of the States were being actually deprived of valuable property without adequate compensation. We question, however, whether the property rights of the individual citizens of Western States are being violated by the Federal Government to the extent that would justify penalizing Federal water resources development, which has meant so much to these States. At such time as additional hearings are held, we would very much appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony on this legislation. Meanwhile, we respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the record of preliminary hearings. Sincerely yours, CHARLES A. ROBINSON, Jr., Staff Engineer and Staff Counsel. CALIFORNIA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We appreciate your concern over questions in Federal and State water rights relationships and thank you for arranging the June 15 exploratory hearing on the subject. As Senator Kuchel has stated, Californians are particularly aware of the problems raised by recent U.S. Department of Justice interpretations of Supreme Court decisions such as the Pelton Dam case. Almost all of the water to be utilized in Clifornia's multibillion dollar State water development and distribution program, now underway, flows from lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Therefore you can understand why we are disturbed by claims of "paramount rights" to all unappropriated waters originating on federally owned lands. We feel the need for legislation to clarify the Federal position was ably demonstrated in the January 30, 1961, report of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources. The board of directors of the California State Chamber of Commerce on March 10, 1961, endorsed in principle the provisions of H.R. 4567 of the 86th Congress, sometimes known as the Federal agencies bill, as a first and very important step in resolving uncertainties and conflicts in the relationships of the States and the Federal Government with respect to control and administration of water rights. Mr. Burnham Enersen, a highly respected attorney and member of the chamber's water resources committee, has submitted a detailed statement for the June 15 hearing. We endorse his views in principle and support his proposal for prompt establishment of a program to study the entire problem by the Federal Government and the States. We favor the enactment of the provisions in the Federal agencies bill, which would abrogate the "reservation" doctrine announced in the Pelton Dam case, and we are hopeful that as a result of your hearing the bill will be reintroduced. Sincerely, JAMES MUSSATTI, General Manager. VERMONT STATE FARM BUREAU, INC, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: It is my understanding that you are to hold a 1-day hearing on Federal-State water rights relationship. We would simply like to list a few items with respect to Vermont Farm Bureau's stand on this issue. We are heartily in accord with the resolution on this matter approved by the voting delegates at the American Farm Bureau at its recent convention in Denver in December of 1960. These policies will be brought to the attention of your committee, however, we would like to specifically mention these few items: "Federal practice in water development projects should be only upon the request of and in cooperation with State and local interests. We are opposed to Federal domination of Federal water resources development. We favor legislation to require Federal agencies (1) to comply with the State laws relating to the use of water and (2) to respect private rights to water established by State authority. The right to use water is a property right which should not be taken from any person without the due process of law and adequate compensation." "We are opposed to the establishment of additional Federal river basin authorities, including the current proposal in the Bonneville power corporation bill. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, KEITH WALLACE, President. MASSACHUSETTS FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR: I understand that your committee will be holding a hearing on Federal-State water rights relationship this coming week. Our State farm bureau has been interested in this proposition for a considerable period of years. We were instrumental in getting set up in Massachusetts an official body known as the Massachusetts Water Resources Board. From time to time we keep up to date with their activities. There are two observations which I would like to make (1) the entire subject matter needs great consideration and remedial legislation to insure that the States have greater defined areas of water rights and that the Federal shall not encroach upon those areas properly reserved to the States (2) that greater consideration be given to coordination of Federal and State planning in this field. To explain a little of what I mean, consider the case of the background and experience which has been built up since the establishment of our Massachusetts Water Resources Board and the knowledge of our local needs which sometimes is not taken into consideration when the Federal may move a team in here from Idaho or New Mexico or some other place, make its surveys and get out with later recommendations to the proper Federal bodies without any consideration or cooperation with State and local authorities. This appears to us to be a practice of Government which may be entirely unintentional but which makes for unnecessary local tension and uneconomic propositions because of failure to get the result of background knowledge and experience. I request that these matters at the proper time be considered by your committee. Respectfully yours, CARLETON I. PICKETT, Executive Secretary. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, CONNECTICUT FARM BUREAU ASSOCIATION, INC., Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We understand that the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs is currently considering relationships, concerning Federal-State water rights. This is of greater concern to the urban and agriculture people of Connecticut. We are faced with the growing demands by our agriculture for water, together with the demands caused by the urban and industrial development of our State. Thus, it is important that Connecticut have long-range plans concerning its water resources. Connecticut has long recognized the need to make such plans and is constantly working to improve its State water laws. We urge that your committee give every consideration to allowing the States to take steps to protect, develop, and improve their water laws and established water policies in a way consistent with their present and future needs. The rights of the State of Connecticut are of great importance if the above objectives are to be reached. We recognize the need for the Federal Government to provide some coordination on needs relating to multi-State projects, as well as to cooperate with their individual States. We would hasten to add, however, that Federal participation with various State projects should only occur upon request by such States. In such cases the Federal Government should comply with, and not ignore the existing State laws, or the private water rights established under such laws. We trust that your committee will give our general views concerning FederalState water rights relationship, its serious consideration. Sincerely yours, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, GEORGE W. SIMPSON, Jr., MICHIGAN FARM BUREAU, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: While Michigan is known as Water Wonderland and proudly carries this designation on auto license plates, there is a growing awareness of the need for water management, conservation, and for more statutory definition of the right to use water in our State. Approximately 70,000 farm families were represented in the last Michigan Farm Bureau annual convention held November 9-11, 1960, at East Lansing. Seven hundred voting delegates gave study and thought to the problem and adopted a resolution recognizing that "With each passing year an abundant and adequate supply of water of dependable quality becomes increasingly important for municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes." The delegates favored "legislation to provide much needed information on our underground water resources." In unmistakable terms, delegate action also recognized this area as one of State concern. Said the delegates: "We continue our insistence that our water resources should be recognized as a problem of State rather than National jurisdiction." The Michigan Legislature has been giving attention to the need for statutory action in the area of water rights. I am enclosing a copy of a legislative proposal which was introduced in the current session of our legislature. A resolution establishing a Senate Interim Study Committee on Water Needs, Water Rights, and Water Management is also pending. Also, a bill was introduced to provide for filing of water well drillers' logs so that our underground inventories may be more clearly known and wisely managed. We believe that the tools are available within our State to provide the necessary means for working on this important problem. Michigan's watershed pattern consists generally of relatively small intrastate areas. In those cases where interstate relationships exist, we believe that cooperative compacts can be developed with our neighboring States to provide necessary enabling arrangements for solutions of problems. It seems improbable that national legislation bearing on water rights and water use could be satisfactorily tailored to meet the needs of Michigan while at the same time fitting a pattern covering the large watersheds and storage reservoir areas of many of our sister States in both the humid and dry sections of our Nation. There is great danger in the threat of nationalizing our water resources through interpretations and court decisions subjugating State laws relating to the use of water to the overriding power of our Federal Government. We support the belief that the right to use water is a property right. Restriction or confiscation of this right without due process of law, whether by the Federal Government or any agency of the Federal Government, is an illegal destruction of a property right. We believe that Congress should adopt legislation clearly stating the supremacy of State law in the area of water rights so that no confusion can exist. We understand that the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee will soon be holding a hearing on this general subject. We ask that this letter be included in the record of the hearing and hope that the committee will recommend legislation to clearly establish the right of the States to the use of their water resources and to determine the best means of managing these resources under local conditions of use and availability. Sincerely yours, WALTER W. WIGHTMAN, President. |