| OCR Text |
Show may logically be associated with another entirely distinct branch of the State government. Experience indicates clearly that the admin- istration of water rights for both surface and ground water should be vested in a single State department or official, inasmuch as surface and ground waters are so closely related and inter- dependent. This is especially true in the irriga- tion States, where surface and underground sup- plies must) be part of a single plan. Since the availability of adequate data is indispensable to sound and equitable administration of water rights, systematic stream measurements must be made and the ground waters of the State must be adequately investigated to determine their availability. Again, it seems to be quite generally believed that questions affecting the quality of water with special reference to health considera- tions and pollution should be handled by an agency specializing in this field. Similarly, rec- reation, possibly including sports such as fishing, hunting and wildlife study, might be administered on a somewhat independent basis. In order that each State may obtain the most complete understanding of its own water and land use problems and opportunities, and to pro- vide a basis for cooperating in the Federal plan- ning procedure recommended in this report, the Commission suggests that the several States be encouraged to set up committees to consider means of coordinating at State level the water policy and programs of the State. Some States, like Montana and Wyoming, already have estab- lished such committees. A means of accom- plishing such a desirable result would be provided by having State water and land use committees established. An end result might be a central board having executive powers composed of the heads of the agencies responsible for water resources. In ad- dition, members from outside the State gov- ernment might be appointed to represent indus- try, fishing, wildlife, and other interests concerned with water resources management. The gover- nor would designate the chairman, and the board would appoint its secretary and staff. The Gov- ernment members should outnumber the non- Government members. Such a board, if prop- erly staffed, would promptly become the recog- nized voice of the State in over-all land and water matters. State and Local Planning Every State government should participate in planning for water resource development to the extent necessary to obtain a thorough under- standing of the proposed development works or measures, including the objectives which the proposed works or measures are expected to ac- complish. Then the State's own programs can be adapted to the proposed works where such adaptation is desirable. Moreover, such works and measures can be planned to facilitate desirable State programs. The end product will be a plan of harmonized State and Federal segments directed toward the same general objectives, rather than a grouping of noncorrelated State and Federal programs which may or may not be directed toward the same general objectives. Adequate State participation in planning should assure a large measure of local participa- tion. Ordinarily, a State government will be the smallest unit of government capable of con- ducting organized multiple-purpose planning. However, municipalities, counties, special dis- tricts, and.other units of government organized under State law frequently may be encouraged to participate actively in planning, especially with respect to certain elements of water re- sources development. Private organizations and individuals should also be encouraged to partici- pate, as they have in many instances in the past, as in the field of pollution control. Conflicts between Federal and State agencies as to plans cannot always be avoided, but the persistent effort of Federal agencies should be to identify possible conflicts as early as possible and to reconcile them before the plans reach the report stage. If such effort has been made and in the end agreement is not reached, the Federal agencies should submit what they consider to be the proper plan. The plan should contain the dissenting comment of the State when submitted 51 |
