must have increased attention in the future through one mechanism or the other. A final comment: You might be interested in knowing that the National Federation of State High School Associations has selected this year as its topic for the national debate topic, "Resolved: That the Federal Government Should Establish a Comprehensive National Policy To Protect the Quality of Water in the United States." So I am sure that high school students are going to be giving a lot of attention to water during the next year, and I think that is great. Thank you very much. Senator DURENBERGER. Good. It beats the other things they give their attention to. [Laughter.] Thank God my last one finally graduated this year. [Laughter.] Jim Magner, you are the third member of our panel, and we appreciate your appearing. Mr. MAGNER. I am Jim Magner, director of the National Water Alliance, and I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National Water Alliance for giving me the opportunity to testify at these hearings on S. 904, the Water Research Foundation Act of 1985. I would like to submit, as you suggested, my full statement for the record and simply summarize some of the major points. The statement we are submitting outlines the National Water Alliance programs in 1983 and 1984, which culminated in the recommendation of policy resolution which express strong support for current research programs and for a national water research council. That resolution was accompanied by a legislative summary in the form of a legislative draft. The national water research council described in that draft is very similar to the water research foundation proposed in S. 904. There were, of course, additionally, a number of suggestions as to how the policy resolution of the alliance board could best be implemented, and alliance members are encouraged to make independent comments and recommendations concerning the specifics of S. 904 directly to the committee. Mr. Chairman, from the hundreds of hours over the past yearand-a-half that I have spent talking to experts about water research, there are two comments in particular which probably sum up the whole situation. Incidentally, the two comments were made by officials in the administration. One was we have a lot of data in this country, but we don't seem to have much information; and the second one was, we simply don't know what we know and what we don't know about water. This is certainly not the fault of the Federal agencies or anyone else, for that matter. The agencies properly pursue missions and priorities set by Congress. As a country, we have simply not set the generic mission of having someone take an ongoing inventory of what is being studied and by whom. We don't have a mission of looking beyond the latest crisis which confronts the Nation, a mission that recognizes the legal, social, political, institutional, and financial aspects as well as the science and technical aspects of water problems. In final analysis, the major question is not if something should be done, there is enough agreement on that, but how it should be done and who should do it. We believe the best answer is S. 904. It creates a permanent but rotating panel of experts from around the country, appointed by the President, but recommended by their peers and allows them to use their collective judgment in water research planning. This is very similar in concept and structure to the National Science Foundation. It is very similar to the options presented to Congress in the report prepared by the Cheaspeake Research Consortium for the Council on Environmental Quality. It is probably closest to option No. 2, which is referred to in the report as the ideal extramural research center. What makes it ideal, Mr. Chairman, is with its independence and extramural grant authority, it would be effective. It would actually work. The ranking alternative to an independent agency is an advisory committee of some kind. But I would suggest that the Federal landscape is littered with the bones of advisory committees that died very lonely deaths. Unless the committee or a board could actually follow through on some of its own advice, it will be ignored. The dimensions and the role of the foundation in support of all Federal agencies, and local efforts in all of the States, requires independence. There are now a fair number of independent agencies which I am sure have important national goals, but I doubt that many, if any, are as important to the whole country as the water research foundation will be. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the National Water Alliance is not a research organization and would not participate in the Foundation Programs. But that is not to say that the alliance would not benefit from its research. Participants in our very first conference agree that developing policy recommendations relies on whatever knowledge and information happens to be available. The water research and information dissemination, supported through the foundation, would add a great deal of cohesion to our national research effort and make the Nation's job of protecting and managing the Nation's water resources a lot more attainable. S. 904, the Water Research Foundation Act, raises water research to its full level of importance in this country and gives recognition to water as being central to our national well-being. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. Senator DURENBERGER. Thank you all very much. Let me ask each of you to respond to the same question that I asked of Dr. Mills. That is, we have talked a lot about the Federal role in this. What should the State and the non-Federal role be in participating in the Foundation Program as proposed? What specifically, or is there a role for State agencies and for non-Federal entities? Let's start with Dr. Rossillon. Mr. ROSSILLON. I firmly believe that if necessity is the mother of invention then adversity is the father of opportunity. I think you will discover that as the opportunities exist, the non-Federal or the private sector will, through "wisely selfish motivation," become involved in a lot of the research, the applied research that is neces sary and a great deal of the slack can be picked up if we look at research as income potential rather than as a pure research expenditures, as we did sometime in the past. We are finding that to be the case. Senator DURENBERGER. Mr. Smerdon? Mr. SMERDON. I think that the States are already accepting increased responsibility in looking at the issue. However, water problems transcend political boundaries, and I think it is worthwhile to look at what has happened in the last 50 years. It so happens that this September, I believe it is, will be the 50th anniversary of Hoover Dam. I venture to say that the development of this Nation as a strong industrial and agricultural Nation would not have occurred if it had been left up to the individual States to do the research to develop the necessary water programs which, at that time, were primarily the development of supply. Now we are facing the situation of fine tuning the management of the water system, a problem which, again, crosses State boundaries. So it seems to me that it is much more efficient for the Federal Government to play a strong leadership partnership role with the States in solving these problems. Certainly, the universities, all of the universities, are most anxious to participate in this in any way that they can. Senator DURENBERGER. OK. Jim? Mr. MAGNER. I think the major benefit role of this bill would be to give researchers in the various State and the private sector and others, a direct say in water research planning in this country. They would be on the board of directors and have a direct part in planning research and observing and approving the role of the two centers. Additionally, even though there is an authorization for grants, which is similar to the National Science Foundation, that is just an authorization, not necessarily a funding target. It may not be appropriated at that full amount. Even if it were, there would still be other research needs, and there would be a need for matching funds and other participation from the States and other entities and other research opportunities needed in addition to this. But all these would be coordinated in some way. I think that is the function that this provides. It gives information to people, but it doesn't mandate coordination. It doesn't force the agencies to do anything. But it gives the information that the researches and planners out there can use to supplement instead of duplicate what other people are doing. Senator DURENBURGER. Gentleman, thank you very much for your testimony. [The prepared statements of Messrs. Rossillion, Smerdon, and Magner follow:] TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS ON SENATE BILL S.904, THE WATER RESEARCH FOUNDATION ACT OF 1985 By Dr. Joseph P. Rossillon, President Freshwater Foundation My name is Dr. Joseph P. Rossillon. Foundation. I am president of the Freshwater The Freshwater Foundation is a non-advocacy, non-profit foundation which generates and distributes funds to support freshwater research (primarily related to water quality), and information and education programs designed to translate water issues and scientific information for the general public. It is in that capacity that I would like to speak in support of Senate Bill S.904 to establish a Water Research Foundation, to include a Water Research Planning Center and a Water Information Clearinghouse, to promote water research and to disseminate information relating to water resources. Introduction When we speak of the impending water crisis that we must be prepared to face in the United States, we are not speaking of massive flooding or drought, the common problems associated with water. We refer rather to the fact that the social, political and economic structure that sustains the water system in the United States is in a state of near chaos. From a social standpoint, the people of the United States are accustomed to safe, acceptable, drinkable (potable) water supplies. Yet today no water supply in the United States is guaranteed both safe and acceptable. From a political standpoint, the management structure for water is based on surplus supply. This structure is woefully obsolete, given the fact that the dominant issue across the United States is recurring water shortages. In addition, the present basis for water law in the United States is an issue currently under - state ownership - consideration by the Supreme Court. The economic structure of the United States is based upon "free water." Historically, payments for water have been for handling, but water at the source has always been free. Now, with the discussion of privatization of water and the increasing number of attempts to produce and sell water supplies, the economic structure of water is also suddenly under threat of major change. |