445 



costs-remaining benefits method of figuring costs and benefits of 



hydroelectric phmts."** 

 Dissatisfaction was expressed in the House of Representatives over 

 the stringent application of Circular A-iT, during 1955, and in 1956 

 the Senate adopted a resolution, Senate Resolution 281, July 26, au- 

 thorizing an investigation by the Committees on Interior and Insular 

 Affairs and Public Works — 



In consultation with other appropriate committees and executive agencies, 

 and to design and to formalize a comprehensive and particularized set of stand- 

 ards and overall criteria for the evaluation of all proposed projects for the con- 

 servation and development of land and water resources. 



As a result of joint committee study pursuant to Senate Resolution 

 281, the chairmen of the two committees proposed that recommenda- 

 tions for new water projects be accompanied by factual (where feasi- 

 ble, quantitative) data as to direct and indirect costs and benefits, as- 

 surances of physical feasibility, cost allocations (calculated by at least 

 three methods) over 50- and 100-year time spans, evidence of interest in 

 the project by Federal, State, and local government agencies, reim- 

 bursement schedules, and probable effects of the project on State and 

 local governments, including tax revenues and taxes foregone. They 

 also suggested that schedules of planning activities and projects for 

 river basin developments be provided.^^ 



This recommendation was explained in the joint report of the Com- 

 mittee on Interior and Insular Aft'airs and the Committee on Public 

 Works pursuant to Senate Resolution 281, 84th Congress, It noted 

 tluit— 



The Congress has, in general, established policies and criteria for the land and 

 water resources program through enactment of specific authorizations. In this 

 manner, modifications and extensions of policy have been evolved by the Congress 

 to meet changing conditions and needs. Possibly, the increased magnitude and 

 technical complexity of the land and water resources program might warrant 

 congressional reexamination or more explicit statement of criteria and require- 

 ments. Whenever such reexamination or restatement appears to be needed, 

 it is a proper function of the executive branch so to recommend to the Congress. 

 Regrettably, this course has not been pursued. Instead, the executive branch 

 apparently has instituted changes without congressional approval, and some- 

 times apparently without informing the Congress that such changes are made. 



The report went on to observe that there had been a ''tendency for 

 the Congress to lose, in part, its responsibility for determining the 

 land and water resources program." The causes were executive defini- 

 tion and delimitation of the program and lack of information on 

 potential projects until they had received "clearances*' within the 

 executive branch. 



Sub.sequently, the recommendations of the joint committee study 

 were embodied in Senate Resolution 148, which was agreed to January 

 28, 1958. In contrast with the findings of the President's Cabinet Com- 

 mittee, which had advocated a tightening of standards, local cost shar- 

 ing, and centralization of policy control in the executive branch. Sen- 



^ Conerress and the Nation, 1945-04. A review of government and politics In the postwar 

 years. (Washinfrton. Congressional Quarterly Service, lf)G5), n. 832. 



*" U.S. Congress. Senate. Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and Public Works. 

 Conservation and development of water resources. Supplemental memorandum of the ehnlr- 

 S.nth Cong.. 1st sess. Committee Print No. 4 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

 1957), 65 pages. 



