Dam and Reservoir. Since the project is to include water supply benefits subsection (b) of section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (title III, Public Law 85-500; 72 Stat. 319), as amended by section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961 (Public Law 87-88; 75 Stat. 210), provides

That before construction or modification of any project including water supply provisions for present demand is initiated, State or local interests shall agree to pay for the cost of such provisions in accordance with the provisions of this section: And Provided Further, That not to exceed 30 per centum of the total estimated cost of any project may be allocated to anticipated future demands where State or local interests give reasonable assurances, and there is reasonable evidence, that such demands for the use of such storage will be made within a period of time which will permit paying out the costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project.

When the construction of the Bloomington Dam and Reservoir was authorized it was believed that the District of Columbia would have no present demand for water stored at this reservoir, so the District of Columbia was called upon by the Secretary of the Army to give assurances that it would, at a future date, contract to pay for its share of the non-Federal portion of the costs. Assurances given by the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia were determined by the Secretary of the Army to be insufficient in the absence of a present authority in the District of Columbia to enter into a contract for the payment of its share of the costs. For this reason, bills were introduced in the 90th Congress (H.R. 11158 and H.R. 11183) to authorize the Commissioners to so contract with the Secretary of the Army. Neither of the bills passed.

The Secretary of the Army, by law, determines only the non-Federal portion of a project's costs, and not the proportionate shares to be assumed by local interests responsible there for; nor does he identify the local interests. In the case of the Bloomington Dam and Reservoir, water users in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia will benefit, either initially or in the future, from the provisions of storage for water supply, and it is their obligation to determine among themselves the proportionate share of the non-Federal costs to be paid by each.

The Government of the District of Columbia believes it advisable that it have the authority to contract to pay to the United States its equitable share of the non-Federal costs of not only the Bloomington Dam and Reservoir but also of any other reservoir which may hereafter be authorized for construction by the Congress and from which the District of Columbia water system would derive benefits. Likewise, the District of Columbia should have latitude to work out with the States, their agencies and other competent authorities the respective equitable shares that will equal the total non-Federal costs, and the precise manners in which the respective shares will be paid by the several water users and to the United States. Moreover, as additional users take water from the river the equitable shares of the previous users could be reduced to reflect the changed situation, and as additional reservoirs

S. Rept. 91-625

come into operation some adjustments in equitable shares may be appropriate.

Supplemental water from the Bloomington Reservoir was needed in the summer of 1966 when the flow of the Potomac River was the lowest of record, approaching the total withdrawal of water in the Washington metropolitan area, and some restrictions were placed on the use of water in the Washington metropolitan area. With the increase in population since 1966, and a corresponding increase in water use, it is probable that another drought year will require drastic and extensive restrictions on water use, as was almost the case in July 1969, absent a supplemental flow from Bloomington. Since the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, requires contractual commitments for present demand and assurances of payment for future demand before construction may begin on a reservoir that includes water supply storage, such as Bloomington, it seems essential to the well being of the inhabitants of all parts of the Washington metropolitan area that this legislation be enacted.

Although the bill authorizes the District of Columbia to pay its fair share of the non-Federal costs of any such dam, nevertheless it must be recognized that the District's demand for water includes the demand of other jurisdictions in the Washington metropolitan area which are supplied water through District of Columbia facilities. If the demands of all Washington metropolitan area jurisdictions increase equally in the future, that part of the increase in demand attributable to the District of Columbia would be in proportion to the increase in the demand of the other jurisdictions. Estimates indicate, however, that the District's demand will not increase in the same proportion as the demands of the other jurisdictions of the area. For example, for the period between 1965 and 2000 the estimated increase in the District of Columbia water demand is 8 percent; that for the Maryland portion of the Washington metropolitan area, 56 percent; and that for the Virginia portion of the Washington metropolitan area, 36 percent. If the increase in any of the Maryland or Virginia jurisdictions in the Washington metropolitan area is greater proportionately than the increase attributable to the District of Columbia proper, the government of the District of Columbia will find it necessary to charge that jurisdiction receiving water through District facilities an amount which will take into consideration the disproportionate increase in demand in that jurisdiction as compared with the demand in the District.

Because the amounts that would be paid by the District of Columbia under the contracts that would be authorized by section 1 of the draft. bill are properly a part of the cost of supplying water to consumers, section 2 of the draft bill specifically provides that such payments shall be made from, as well as any reimbursements being deposited in, the water fund, because existing law restricts use of that fund to "maintenance, management and repair of the system of water distribution" (D.C. Code, sec. 43-1522). And for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph, section 2 also specifically authorizes adjustment of charges for water delivered from the District system for use outside the District of Columbia to reflect the portions of the payments made under contracts that would be authorized by section 1 which are equitably attributable to such use outside the District.

S. Rept. 91-625

The authority which would be granted by the proposed legislation is not, however, without important limitations. The authority to contract may be exercised only with respect to reservoirs whose construction has been authorized by Congress, so that, in effect, the scope of the draft bill is limited to the same subject matter as the bills which were before the 90th Congress, until such time as the Congress may act affirmatively by authorizing construction of an additional reservoir that would benefit the District of Columbia. While the draft bill would authorize the District to contract with, for example, the Maryland Potomac Water Authority "with respect to" the District's payment of its equitable share of the cost of Bloomington Dam and Reservoir, this authority, by the terms of the Maryland statute, is limited to the costs of storage for present demand, and could relate only to mutually acceptable methods of determining respective equitable shares.

HISTORY OF LEGISLATION

The legislation authorizing the Commissioner to enter into contracts to pay the District's equitable share of costs for construction of water supply facilities on the Potomac River was submitted to the Senate by the District of Columbia government and introduced October 9, 1969, by Senator Joseph Tydings, chairman of the Senate District Committee.

On December 2, 1969, hearings were held by the full committee at which time representatives of the city government expanded on their need for the legislation. During the hearings testimony was also received from representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which will construct the Bloomington Dam; the Maryland Department of Water Resources; and the Maryland Department of State Planning. All witnesses favored enactment of this legislation, and the committee has been informed that the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the legislation from the standpoint of the administration's program.

S. Rept. 91-625

Mr. SPONG, from the Committee on the the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1626]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill (S. 1626) to regulate the practice of psychology in the District of Columbia, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. The amendments are as follows:

1. Page 2, line 3, beginning with the words "The Commissioner." strike out all through line 5.

2. Page 4, line 7, strike out all beginning with the words "charitable agency" through line 11 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

* * * or research laboratory: Provided, That the services performed by such an employee, which services shall not include psychotherapy, are a part of his office or position and are provided only within the confines of the organization or are offered to like organizations.

3. Page 4, line 12, after the word "services" insert ", exclusive of psychotherapy,'

4. Page 5, line 7, immediately before the word "professions" insert "businesses or".

5. Page 5, line 9, beginning with the word "the" strike out all through the word "professions" in line 10, and insert in lieu thereof "any code of ethics provided by their respective businesses or professions"

6. Page 6, line 21, strike out the word "shall" and insert in lieu thereof "may"

7. Page 9, beginning with line 16, strike out all through line 22, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Sec. 10. (a) The District of Columbia Council is authorized to make regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act but may delegate the responsibility to any Board of Psychologist Examiners which may be appointed.

(b) The Commissioner is authorized to fix, increase, or decrease from time to time fees to be charged in such amounts as may be reasonably necessary to defray the approximate cost of administering the provisions of this Act.

8. Page 11, line 10, strike out the word "Commissioner" and insert in lieu thereof "Government of the District of Columbia" 9. Page 12, line 22, after the period, add the following:

Prosecutions shall be in the name of the District of Columbia by the Corporation Counsel or one of his assistants.

10. Page 13, line 1, strike out the words "United States Attorney" and insert in lieu thereof "Corporation Counsel"

11. Page 13, beginning with line 19, strike out all through line 24 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

*** psychologist is being sued by a former client or his legal representative, such as an action against a psychologist for malpractice, (2) where the validity of a will or deed of a client is placed in issue, and (3) where the mental capacity of a defendant in a criminal action has been placed in issue.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to protect the public from unqualified and unethical practitioners of psychology in the District of Columbia. Under present law, anyone can advertise himself as a psychologist and offer psychological services to the public.

Forty States now have laws which require the certification or licensure of psychologists. The fact that Maryland and Virginia have such legislation while the District does not poses the added danger that the District will become a haven for unqualified persons alleging that they are practicing psychology.

LIST OF STATES AND PROVINCES WITH LAWS REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF PSYCHOLOGY