Dr. Fey is the president of the University of Wyoming and we regret very much he will no longer be with us after a few months. He returns to Vermont. I presume your statement is his and you speak for him this afternoon. Dr. MORGAN. I hope so. Mr. RONCALIO. I will be happy to let the record show that his institution and his voice is added to yours. Dr. MORGAN. I did confer with him before coming, Mr. Roncalio. Mr. RONCALIO. Fine. Dr. Tolley, do you know of any cooperation of your institution with any institution in Ontario or in Quebec that would bring international advantages to this problem, particularly on boundary water quality control in the Great Lakes? Mr. JACKSON. Would you state that again, please, sir? Mr. RONCALIO. Do you know of any cooperation with any of the colleges or universities of Ontario or of Quebec Provinces that would bring an international cooperation to solving the problems of boundary water, quality control of the Great Lakes? Mr. JACKSON. At the current moment, I know that we have in the department of geology a mutual program with the University of Toronto in relation to the study of Lake Ontario. Dr. Cramer is working on the geochemistry aspect of Lake Ontario, and since we do not have a research vessel, the Port Dolphin, which is the research vessel of the University of Toronto, has been most kind in giving a certain number of days so that Dr. Cramer can work on the Great Lakes, and we would certainly welcome the opportunity to work with the University of Toronto for studying Lake Ontario. But at the present time there is no mechanism that we have in order to do so, except this informal agreement, as I said, between the department of geology and the University of Toronto. Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Dr. Morgan and Dr. Tolley. Dr. TOLLEY. Thank you very much. Mr. ROGERS. The Chair has a letter from Cornell University under date of February 10, over the signature of James A. Perkins of Cornell University, and a letter from the State University of New York at Binghamton dated February 7, signed by Bruce Dearing, presi dent. They will be inserted in the record at this time, without objection. The letters, as I understand it, are in support of this bill. (The letters referred to follow :) Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Ithaca, N.Y., February 10, 1966. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: You will recall that Cornell University was selected by the Department of the Interior to be one of the initial 14 land-grant universities to be provided with annual basic allotment funds authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-379). We are now completing our first full year of operation under this act and it is my pleasant task to inform you that the aims of the legislation as envisioned by you and the members of your committee are being achieved by Cornell University. In addition, Director Leonard Dworsky of our center assures me that, in his opinion, this is the general situation throughout the country. My purpose in writing at this time is to indicate our support for S. 22 as passed by the Senate, amending title II of the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, and the several companion bills in the House (H.R. 3606; H.R. 5930; H.R. 6282; H.R. 8916). When S. 2, on which the Water Resources Research Act was based, was being debated on the floor of the House, Congressman Rogers indicated that the Committee "* * * realized the limited amount of money available would make it necessary that they (the land-grant institutions) have some hardware * * * and a program in operation * * *. The committee has also viewed the program under the act as one involving cooperation between the universities and the Federal Government. For the fiscal year 1967, Cornell University will receive $87,500 under its annual allotment from the Department of the Interior and will expend of its own funds approximately $70,000 for the activities carried out by the water resources center. While Cornell University is engaged in a strong program of water resources research, we are fully aware of the substantial competence elsewhere which could make significant contributions to the management of water resources. The annual allotment cannot be used to support research much beyond the land-grant university. Otherwise the fear earlier stated by Congressman Rogers about the ineffectiveness of fragmented programs might become real. At the same time, Cornell University is cooperating fully with at least six other institutions in New York State. We provide information about matching grants under title I. We have also arranged for the receipt, technical review, processing, and financial management of several matching grants proposed by other institutions. The number of matching grant proposals that may be submitted by other institutions for the limited funds is unlimited. This may become a matter of some concern. We believe that the provisions of title II as contained in S. 22 provide improved procedures for financing water resources research as well as providing for wider participation on the part of many qualified public and private organizations. The continuing drought in the Northeast accentuates the need to concentrate on the development of new knowledge to help improve the management of our water resources. In an earlier letter to you on S. 2, I noted that "the acquisition of knowledge is a prudent investment and both Houses of the Congress have acted wisely to encourage research in water resources to assure the conservation of this vital substance." This prudent investment is becoming more important and S. 22 provides a marked advance in our ability to undertake water resources research. Respectfully, JAMES A. PERKINS, President. Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BINGHAMTON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE ASPINALL: I am writing to urge you to give favorable consideration to title II of the Water Resources Act which has passed the Senate (S. 22) and will be considered by your committee later this month as H.R. 3606 and related parts in Public Law 88-379. Favorable action on this piece of legislation will allow agencies all over the country to get on with the much belated program of research and study on the water resources problem. It is significant to note that we are currently well into the International Hydrological Decade-a program the origin of which the United States sponsored-without any significant special funding having been arranged to support these activities. I urge you to support the original form of title II of the Water Resources Act. Yours sincerely, BRUCE DEARING, President. P. (The following letters and statements of Dr. Walker and F. Thieme are included at this point pursuant to permission later granted :) Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that weather and schedules prevented me from meeting with your committee to discuss Senate bill S. 22 in which I have an interest as a citizen concerned with a major problem facing this country. I am taking the liberty of sending you a copy of the remarks I would have made had I been able to appear. Sincerely yours, ERIC A. WALKER, President. REMARKS ON SENATE BILL 22 Mr. Chairman, it's very good of you to allow me a few moments to talk to this committee. Let me assure you that I am very anxious to say something about S. 22 and the idea behind it, because I think it is a start on some badly needed action, but it is only a start. It isn't a matter of concern to me whether this work is done by a specific set of institutions or by a wide range of institutions. The problem is so big that we need all the help we can get. This problem is not one which is confined to water resources. It's a problem which impinges on many of the things this Nation is trying to do, and some of them not very successfully. A part of our difficulty seems to lie in the rather narrow definition that we tend to give to research. The National Science Foundation, with whose program I am well acquainted, is devoted almost entirely to research. Some of it we call basic and some of it we call applied. There are other organizations in the Government which support research, but the product of research is new knowledge, and new knowledge, valuable as it is to those who wish to know how things work, is of very little help to humanity in general until we put it to work. Now usually we count on industry to take the fruits of research and do the development and whatever else must be done to produce a machine, device, or system which the public wants and which the public will buy. And because usually the public will buy it at a price that will cover expenses and allow the company to make a profit, the whole system fits into our way of life. But, let me point out there are many things which we need which no industry can manufacture and sell at a profit, and one of these things is plenty of good water. Water is usually treated by municipalities and distributed by them for the convenience of the citizens. And, although it might be distributed by a private corporation, they are subject to regulation. Regardless of what the restraints are, neither the governing bodies nor the private companies are willing or can afford to take the risk in trying new experiments which might fail. Let me point out that the Department of Defense does research and development, but in the Department of Defense we hear of R.D.T. & E., test and evaluation as well as research and development. As a matter of fact, the Department of Defense pays for the manufacture of pilot models, tests the pilot models, redesigns them, trains the people to use them, and tests the final product to see if redesign again is necessary to fill their needs. It is a well known fact that we would not get new weapons for the military if we counted on private industry to develop them to sell at a profit thus taking all of the risk. The Atomic Energy Commission, also, continues the whole gamut from research to final use. And this is how we developed the power reactors. NASA does research and development but it doesn't abandon that research and development to private industry and ask it to make the moonshot. The point I want to make is that if we are to get the proper development and engineering of our water resources, we've got to find ways of doing more than research. We've got to find ways of producing pilot plants, putting them to work in municipalities, testing them, redesigning them, and someone has to accept the risk of failure. We at the Pennsylvania State University have had experience in this, and have built and operated pilot plants for the water retrieval which we have found necessary to finance ourselves. We would much rather have devoted that money to other purposes, and obviously would have done so if we had been able to get the Federal Government to assist us with this kind of work. But not many universities have the incentive to try such things. As I have pointed out, no town council or city government is going to risk the installation of a sewage plant which has only a 50-50 chance of working. The voters would not reelect them. Yet, there is a possibility that if the new design did work, the country would take a major step forward in water retrieval. No matter where we get it or who does it, it is going to be in the interests of this country to spend more money on this kind of work. I think it will have to be done by the mission-oriented agencies of the Federal Government. Now this proposed bill, S. 22, provides funds, as I understand it, which can be used by institutions or municipalities for demonstration tests or for experimental plants having to do with water purification. In this way we can put our basic research information on water to the use of communities. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Seattle, Wash., February 16, 1966. Hon. THOMAS S. FOLEY, DEAR CONGRESSMAN FOLEY: I appreciate the opportunity to submit to you for insertion in the hearing record the following statement on behalf of the University of Washington with respect to legislation designed to restore title II to the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. The University of Washington is pleased to add its support to legislation designed to increase the support of water resources research. Under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, we joined with our distinguished sister institution. Washington State University, in the establishment at Pullman, Wash., of the State of Washington Water Research Center. In this enterprise, under the directorship of Prof. Roy Tinney, of Washington State University, and a joint scientific committee comprising an equal number of scholars from both universities, our institutions have joined in a multidisciplinary study of critical water problems facing the State, region, and Nation. We have also made every effort to join with scholars, research experts, and Government analysts elsewhere in the region and the Nation so that our research will have the broadest base possible. We believe that Government support of water resources research must be guided by certain key principles and goals: (1) Wise use of the limited number of trained and experienced research personnel to do the special kind of multidisciplinary research required and take the leadership in its the design and execution. This should be without regard to their institutional, public or private, academic or nonacademic, affiliations. (2) A major increase in the number of such trained personnel which means an important academic commitment to multidisciplinary graduate work on resources with a substantial increase in the social sciences. (3) Flexibility in geographic, institutional, and project organization of research. The evolution of regional centers or regional combinations of State centers should be encouraged as in many cases it represents a wiser use of the scarce resources than a rigid State-by-State system. We believe that title II will strengthen the water research program quanitatively and qualitatively by permitting the participation of more research people in exising center organizations and at other institutions working in the water research program under the act. The inclusion of other academic institutions and nonuniversity research agencies strengthens flexibility and assures the widest possible choice of qualified research personnel and institutions. The matching funds available under title I are on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Title II funds should not be so limited. For many types of research purposes the latter arrangement is essential to provide flexibility in negotiating financial arrangements to suit particular needs. Funds available under title I are simply too limited to do the job. The provisions of title II should permit selective Federal support of water research at a pace more nearly suited to the need. We support the passage of this additional legislation. At the same time, we urge that it be administered in a flexible way so that regional combinations, as sociations and research strategies may merge to assure optimum use and development of the rare and critically needed multidisciplinary research skills which this field so thoroughly needs. Thank you for the opportunity to make this statement. Very sincerely, F. P. THIEME, Vice President. Mr. ROGERS. The Chair will now recognize Dr. Roland R. Renne, Director of the Office of Water Resources Research. Dr. Renne, you may come forward. I believe Dr. Bates was going to come with you, too, and such other assistants as you may require. STATEMENT OF DR. ROLAND R. RENNE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH; ACCOMPANIED BY E. D. EATON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH; AND THOMAS F. BATES, SCIENCE ADVISER TO THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Dr. RENNE. Mr. Chairman, I have our Associate Director, Mr. E. D. Eaton, with me. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement which I think has been distributed to the members. I would like to submit that for the record, if that is favorable with you. Mr. ROGERS. Dr. Renne, your statement will be included in the record at this point as if read in full, unless there is an objection. The CHAIRMAN. (Mr. Aspinall). Dr. Renne, I want to know whether or not you will offer any new material as you make your presentation that is other than that which is in your statement. Dr. RENNE. Yes, I will. The CHAIRMAN. Will you tell us when you come to the place where you are offering some new material that is not found in your statement? Dr. RENNE. Very good, Mr. Aspinall. Mr. ROGERS. Without objection, your statement will be included as heretofore specified, and I would presume that you would want the attachments that are included with your statement to be included as a part of your statement. Without objection, it is so ordered, Doctor, and you may proceed. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY ROLAND R. RENNE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the legislative report of the Department of the Interior, my testimony is in favor of S. 22 and the companion House bills (H.R. 3606, H.R. 5930, H.R. 6282, and H.R. 8916). These bills complement the provisions of the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-379). They provide for utilizing the full range of scientific and engineering research competence in urgently needed water resources research which is the purpose of the act. At the present time such fullrange competence is not being utilized. I would like to report briefly on the progress that has been made thus far under title I of the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, and in doing so indicate some shortcomings and inadequacies in our program that could be reduced or removed with implementation of title II of the act through enactment of the bills under consideration. |