OCR Text |
Show The dominant agency approach tends, finally, to relegate such important functions as water- shed management, pollution abatement, the fos- tering of fish and wildlife, recreation, and at times even hydroelectric power, to secondary positions. In consequence, the other agencies in these fields have far too slight a say in the decisions as to final programs to be proposed to Congress. Local Responsibility Another heavy drag on many comprehensive river basin programs is the lack of effective State and local participation. This has been due in part to the fact that State laws are no better adapted to comprehensive planning than are Federal laws. Even so, the fact must be faced that, both legally and traditionally, States and local governments have such important interests and responsibilities in the field of water and land resources development that no plans can be really comprehensive which fail to include them in the planning. States' responsibilities in this field include agricultural education, extension services, and research whereby the fuller utilization of re- sources is sought. States also conduct activities directed toward development of industry, rec- reation, fish and wildlife, forestry, protection of public health, highways, utility construction, and other public objectives to which water resources development is fundamental. All States have built up regulatory functions in connection with various elements of water resources development. All States have certain legal responsibilities in the field of water rights. All States have agencies engaged in planning connected in one way or another witrm water resources development. Similarly, municipalities have the principal responsibility- for domestic and industrial water supply. Along with private industry, they must also play an important role in connection with the program of pollution abatement. Special districts created under State law, like soil con- servation, irrigation, or drainage districts, may have important local responsibilities. Our failure, thus far, to gear together local, State, and Federal planning for water resources development has been in many ways costly and unfortunate. It has resulted in incomplete and inadequate programs. It has strained Federal- State relations. It has delayed desirable work needlessly and often has aroused mutual distrust between State and Federal agencies. Worst of all, it has blocked the way to an understanding participation of the people themselves in river basin planning. Signs of Progress Discernible trends, however, point toward greater unity of water resources planning on a recognized multiple-purpose basis. Perhaps these trends will indicate the direction that further progress should take. In the field of Federal legislation we have the more recent amendments to the flood control acts, which provide for some correlation or co- operation among the Army Engineers, the De- partment of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and the Federal Power Commission, providing at least in specific cases a basis for mutual review of plans and recommendations. We also have the provision in all Flood Control and River and Harbor Acts since 1944 for review by the States of certain project and program re- ports providing for water resources developments affecting their people. This has been successful in some areas where the States have developed well-staffed water agencies. The most prominent experiment in this field is the one authorized by the act setting up the Tennessee Valley Authority. The importance of this is recognized even beyond the boundaries of the United States. For the first time Congress set up an agency to undertake the scientific man- agement of a river basin as a whole and to estab- lish direct cooperation with the interested State and local governments as well as with the people of the basin. Although the Authority, it should be noted, was not required by Congress to consult with 44 |