South Vietnam people submit or shake their will to fight and win.

With the wholehearted sympathy and thorough support of the great 650 million Chinese people, the people of the various socialist countries, and all the peace-loving people throughout the world, our people in South Vietnam are resolutely taking up arms with the determination to fight to the last drop of blood in driving U.S. imperialism out of South Vietnam, liberating South Vietnam, and unifying the fatherland in order to contribute to the national liberation and the defense of peace in southeast Asia and the world.

Our people in South Vietnam exceedingly admire the indomitable revolutionary spirit of the Chinese people, whom we follow as an example. The Chinese people, under the brilliant banner of the CCP which regards the people as master, have victoriously carried on long-term resistance and, with their brilliant example, inspired all the oppressed people throughout the world to wage the struggle for their liberation.

Now, the Chinese people are building a prosperous and strong China through their laboring efforts and lofty spirit on self-reliance, and making an important contribution to the lofty causes of revolution of the world's people and of world peace.

The people of South Vietnam feel a great joy over all those brilliant achievements of the CCP and the great Chinese people and sincerely convey their wishes to the CCP and the Chinese people under your wise and brilliant leadership for still more brilliant suc

cesses.

I wish to take this opportunity in behalf of the people in South Vietnam and the Central Committee of NFLSV in expressing my most sincere gratitude to you and wishing

the best of health.

NGUYEN HUU THO, Chairman of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the NFLsv.

THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER
BASIN WATER PLAN

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, in the last several days a number of distinguished California citizens, public servants of my State in various fields, have testified before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in favor of legislation to provide for a Lower Colorado River Basin water plan. The whole southwest area is in dire straits with respect to the problem of water in the future. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in RECORD at this point the statements by the attorney general of California, Thomas C. Lynch; Northcutt Ely, special counsel for the Colorado River Board of California, and six Agency Committee of California Water Users; and the joint statement of W. S. Gookin, I. P. Head, W. E. Steiner, D. E. Cole, and W. D. Maughan; the individual statement of D. E. Cole, chief engineer of the Colorado River Board of California; and the Colorado River Basin seven-State

consensus.

There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT BY CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS C. LYNCH, APPEARING AT THE REQUEST OF GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 24, 1965

Mr. Chairman, my name is Thomas C. Lynch. I am the attorney general of California. I have the honor to appear not only

in that capacity, but at the request of the Governor of my State, Edmund G. Brown. He wants me to tell you that he would be here today but for the aftermath of the last two tragic weeks in our State. He wants me to tell you that he wholeheartedly and enthusiastically supports the legislation offered by 37 Representatives in Congress and by both California Senators.

I assure you that a California consensus— as close to unanimity as you will find in a State of nearly 20 million people-supports State of nearly 20 million people-supports the Governor in that position.

That position is urged by the Colorado River Board of California, a State agency whose members are nominated by the public entities which have Colorado River water rights: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles, the San Diego County Water Authority, Imperial Irrigation District, Palo Verde Irrigation District, and Coachella Valley County Water District. Each of these public agencies supports the pending bill.

Likewise, it has the most earnest support of our sister State our historic water antagonist with whom we are now in agreement-Arizona. It has the support of Nevada, which has a community of interest with both Arizona and California. It has

the support in principle of the U.S. Government, expressed by the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary of the Interior.

I hope and I believe that this legislation will come to have the strong support of other regions: the States of the Upper Colorado River Basin and Western States outside the Colorado River Basin which may be benefited. It deserves the support of the entire Nation. The most immediate benefit will be to the Lower Colorado River Basin, whose problems produced this agreement after decades of embittered and futile combat. Benefits, less immediate but fully as substantial, will later accrue to areas adjacent to the Colorado River Basin. The precedent and the principle mark a legal and political breakthrough as important as any new scientific discovery in man's fight against drought.

I was delighted to learn on Friday that representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States had agreed on basic principles for the entire Nation. for regional legislation. This is good news

The seven-State accord is a second great step toward making regional water development a reality. This accord will be as significant as the original agreement between Arizona and California which established unity among the Lower Basin States-Arizona, California, and Nevada-earlier this

year.

Many problems remain, but they will also yield to the constructive spirit with which the seven States have approached their problems. I am sure this committee will give thorough attention to the unresolved problems as the hearings progress. I should like to confine myself to the very significant subjects on which there now appears to be a meeting of the minds.

united Arizona, California, and Nevada is, as The lower basin agreement which has I am sure everyone in this room fully realizes, an astonishing development. It came about when men of good will from all over the Colorado River basin became fully aware that the interests of our region can be served only by agreement and not by combat. We shall all face a continuing struggle and problems far more serious than anyone could have realized in 1952 when Arizona and California squared off against each other for the fourth time in the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, our struggle is against nature. It is a struggle we can win if we are all together; which we shall surely lose if we are divided.

I had the privilege of watching the agreement happen. I shall tell you about it in some detail, because the time has come for

further agreement-this time in the Congress of the United States. We look to this committee to fashion a final agreement which will serve the West and set a pattern for the rest of the country which is reaching the limits of available water, and which must eventually turn to regional planning as the basis of regional accomplishment.

I became attorney general of California at the beginning of September 1964. The constitution of California imposed on me the responsibility of representing California in interstate litigation. I was told by some that the problems of the Colorado River were insoluble. The U.S. Supreme Court had entered a decree in Arizona v. California the preceding March. The decree had not settled the problems of the Colorado. It had only framed some of the issues for renewed combat. I made it my first business to study the Colorado problem intensively. I have continued to do so. I discovered that these reports were in substance correct. Winston Churchill once described Russia as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." He might well have been speaking of the Colorado.

The decree concluded one of the greatest trials in history. The purpose of the suit was to answer yes or no to the question posed in 1952 by the State of Arizona: Is there water to supply the Central Arizona project?

The decree failed to answer that question. Instead, it answered two others: First, how is 7.5 million acre-feet per year of consumptive use from the main river to be divided among Arizona, California, and Nevada? It is to be divided 2.8 million to Arizona, 4.4 million to California, 300,000 acre-feet to Nevada.

Second, how is water in excess of 7.5 million acre-feet to be divided among them? It is to be divided equally between Arizona and California, except that the Secretary of the Interior may by contract give 4 percent of the excess to Nevada, coming out of Arizona's 50 percent.

Lest there be any doubt, I repeat what my predecessor said, "We accept those deciWe do not ask Congress to change the Court's decree."

In

Unfortunately, these omit the major question which requires an answer: How is less than 7.5 million acre-feet to be divided? Engineering opinion was unanimous that ultimately there would be no excess over 7.5 million acre-feet for the three States. time, there will be less than 7.5 million acrefeet. But the court expressly refused to decide how a supply of less than 7.5 million acre-feet would be divided. The court left that question to be decided by the Secretary of the Interior or the Congress.

There are two limitations on the Secretary's power: (1) "Present perfected rights" must be given interstate priority by the Secretary before he allocates the remaining water among the States. (2) The court will review the Secretary's exercise of discretion. However, the quantities of "present perfected rights"-those exercised by use prior to 1929 when the Boulder Canyon Project Act became effective and all Federal rights existing on that date-are left to future agreement or litigation. The standards by which secretarial discretion is to be controlled are otherwise unspecified.

As an alternative to a secretarial allocation, Congress can enact legislation providing for allocation of shortages if the main river supplies less than 7.5 million acre-feet.

The court left unanswered the question Arizona had in effect asked the Supreme Court: "Is there water for the Central Arizona project?"

It left unanswered the question we in California face: "Is there to be a disastrous exception to the historic rule of law throughout the West that water is never taken from existing projects to supply new projects to be built in the future?" We thought there could be only one answer,

There was no possibility whatever that Arizona could be expected to yield that which Arizona had sought for a generation, and for which her need is increasingly great: the Central Arizona project.

There was no possibility whatever that California would yield water used by her projects in order to build the Central Arizona project, except as a decree by the Supreme Court had so determined. The Supreme Court had expressly and unanimously rejected the Special Master's recommendation that proration of shortages within the 7.5 million acre-feet should be imposed on the States. We demanded, as we had to, protection of existing projects. The Arizona Legislature twice sought the same protection for Arizona's existing projects.

Secretary Udall had suggested in two successive regional plans a way to avoid the hard question to which the answer appeared so ruinous to Arizona or California. Our entire region is indebted to his inspiration, stimulated I am sure by the dreadful responsibility the Court had thrust on him to destroy either the hopes of Arizona or the existing projects of California.

The resource of the Colorado is water. Water generates power. Power generates money. And through money the water supply can be made to replenish itself. Imports of water can avoid shortages in the 7.5 million acre-foot quantity. Water users in both States would be made whole to the extent of the decreed allocations out of that 7.5 million acre-feet.

The two Pacific Southwest water plans could not, however, overcome the handicap of lack of time. Arizona's need for a Central Arizona project was immediate and urgent. Investigations, engineering, and economic studies were necessary for a project to import water to replace Colorado River water exported to central Arizona. All three take substantial time, even on a crash basis. My State resisted-it had to resist a Central Arizona project which would deplete the water available to California projects so long as replacement of that water was only a hope or a promise.

After several months of study, I attended my first public meeting devoted to this unhappy dilemma. It was called in December by the Southern California Water Conference. Representatives from all over the Colorado River Basin were present.

There was a serious-even grimly somber mood-of men patiently willing to state and restate without rancor their deeply held positions. Theirs was a firm determination not to compromise or suggest compromise in matters essential to survival.

Californians protested they did not insist upon 4.4 million acre-feet from the Colorado and also water from some alternative source. But they could not yield that 4.4 million until the alternative source had been achieved. That would take time.

Californians also recognized Arizona's need. They did not want to insist that Arizona's overdrawn groundwater basins continue to be pumped without respite until a great regional plan to replace the central Arizona project supply could be readied for adoption as a whole. But they were determined to defend California's 4.4 million acre-feet.

At the end of the conference, this question emerged:

Is it possible to estimate the shortage in the Colorado River supply and provide for priority of existing projects until an import of water to make up that shortage has actually been achieved?

Next day, Secretary Udall came to Los Angeles. While the California group was waiting to meet with him, the question was put to the chief engineer of the Colorado River board. He estimated the probable ultimate shortage at 2.5 million acre-feet.

That consists of 1.5 million acre-feet annually which the Mexican Treaty assures

to Mexico, and about 1 million acre-feet of annual channel and reservoir losses between Lee Ferry-where the lower basin beginsand the Mexican boundary. You can see that unless 2.5 million acre-feet is imported, the 7.5 million acre-feet annual average-which article III (d) of the Colorado River compact requires to be delivered at Lee Ferrywill provide only 5 million acre-feet of consumptive use.

Would it be possible to assure protection for existing projects until at least 2.5 million acre-feet was imported into the main river?

Stewart Udall gave a cautiously affirmative reply. This inspired negotiations which resulted in the legislation before you.

In the first week in February, Senator KUCHEL offered S. 1019 in the U.S. Senate. Counterparts were offered in the House, and Senator HAYDEN has said that he will press for prompt passage in the Senate if one of these counterparts is passed by the House.

I shall not try to discuss the details of the bill. I shall point out only how it answers the hardest questions.

First, it gives the same protection to existing projects of all three states, Arizona, California, and Nevada, except that California is limited in that protection to 4.4 million acre-feet. If there is less than 7.5 million acre-feet, shortage will be borne by the Central Arizona project before existing projects are forced to cut back. The 4.4 limitation on California exists because only California's existing projects use more than the quantity decreed out of the first 7.5 million acre-feet available each year from the river.

You would suppose that this was not a matter of consequence to Arizona projects, since Arizona's uses plus Central Arizona project use will be substantially less than Arizona's 2.8 million acre-feet. In fact, the problem was of universal concern. As I have said, Arizona's Legislature has twice sought protection for Arizona's present projects against demands of the Central Arizona project. This bill makes that principle applicable to both sides of the river, and to all three States.

Second, the bill makes it unnecessary to provide an answer to the truly unknown and unknowable "ultimate water supply" available from the Colorado. That requires study of hydrology and law. The law is the Colorado River compact which only the Supreme Court at the end of another 10 years of litigation may definitively construe. We must avoid that path. This bill requires an answer only to the easy question. How much water is probably available to the lower basin until imports from other regions become available? That question, I am assured, can be answered: Enough to justify the Central Arizona project for immediate authorization and construction on these conditions. That, I am sure, will be the subject of engineering testimony and evidence before you.

Third, the bill makes it unnecessary to face the cruelest dilemma ever imposed by man or nature on a great region: Either to go on letting temporarily unused upper basin water flow down the river, unused, to the Gulf of California; or put it to use with projects which must be abandoned when the upper basin requires that presently unused water to which it has a guaranteed right by compact. This bill uses that wasted water for its best purpose-a temporary resource to be replaced by imports.

Fourth, this bill gives every State and every region a continuing incentive to make the regional plan work. Arizona and California both need far more water than they can expect from their shares of 7.5 million acre-feet. This bill gives both States an equal interest in the excess above 7.5 million acre-feet which must be provided. It gives the maximum assurance now possible that a choice between an empty Lake Powell in the

upper basin or an empty Lake Mead in the lower basin need never be made.

I will conclude by telling you that there is still some controversy about the bill in California. However, it is a happy kind of controversy. Who is entitled to the most credit for launching the agreement?

Like victory of any kind, this plan has-I should say it has needed-many fathers. We are still, I think, in the negotiating stages. I hope that the members of this committee who are not from Lower Colorado River Basin States will promptly enter their claims to joint paternity. We need your support.

I would pay tribute to the three men who have done more than any others to further this concept of regional planning. The first is Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior, who offered two regional plans which contained basic principles of the bills before you.

The second is Governor Brown. First, in launching the California water plan as the first major business of his administration, he demonstrated to the Nation that regional animosities can be reconciled to the benefit of mutually hostile antagonists. Second, he defended Secretary Udall's plan when Arizona and California would otherwise have killed the concept with renewal of ancient hostility.

The third is Senator KUCHEL. He has provided leadership which has put regional water problems ahead of party politics, ahead of interstate hostilities, and ahead of personal advantage. His bill is S. 1019 in the Senate. The 37 House bills we heard first, in this committee, because this appears to be the best and quickest way to get the job done.

Mine is a rare privilege. To travel to Washington as attorney general of California and to urge approval on behalf of the Governor of California of a central Arizona project, with the assurance that I will be well received when I return to California. I think you will want to share with me the sense of great accomplishment that has come to all of us who have helped fashion the present agreement.

STATEMENT OF NORTHCUTT ELY, SPECIAL COUNSEL, COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, AND SIX AGENCY COMMITTEES OF CALIFORNIA WATER USERS BEFORE THE IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 27, 1965 Mr. Chairman and members of the com

mittee, my name is Northcutt Ely. I am a lawyer, a member of Ely, Duncan & Bennett, Washington, D.C.

Last week I had the honor to appear before you, accompanying Attorney General Thomas Lynch of California, in my capacity as special assistant attorney general in charge of the case of Arizona v. California. I shall therefore not repeat the analysis of that case given you by Attorney General Lynch, nor the historical background and statement of the issues which Senator KUCHEL gave you on the opening day.

I appear before you today as special counsel for the Colorado River Board of California and the six California agencies that have rights to Colorado River water; the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; the city of Los Angeles and the San Diego County Water Authority, which are included within Metropolitan; Imperial Irrigation District; Coachella Valley County Water District; and Palo Verde Irrigation District.

Dallas E. Cole, chief engineer of the Colorado River Board, has prepared an excellent statement for you, describing these six agencies and their relationship to the economy of California. I ask that it be printed with my

own.

These California agencies receive water through three great projects: The Colorado River aqueduct serves Metropolitan and its constituent agencies, which encompass the

major portion of the southern California coastal basin. The All-American Canal and Imperial Dam, its diversion structure, serve both Imperial Imperial Irrigation District District and Coachella Valley County Water District, located in the Salton Sink in the southeast corner of California. The All-American Canal also serves the portion of the Yuma project in California. Palo Verde Irrigation District, located along the Colorado around Blythe, diverts its Colorado River water by use of its Palo Verde Diversion Dam. In addition to these projects, there are also certain other rights to Colorado River water in California: small Federal rights (primarily Indian reservations) and minor rights of individuals, including riparians, independent of the organized districts.

I. THE FIVE FEATURES OF THE PENDING BILLS

The bills before you-of which H.R. 4671 is a counterpart-embody a compromise between the water users of California whom I represent here today and the sponsors of the Central Arizona Project in Arizona.

The bill has five main features-one of pirmary concern to Arizona, one of primary concern to California, two which affect all seven States of the basin, and one which primarily affects the States from which water might be imported into the Colorado. California is one of these.

The feature of overriding importance to Arizona is authorization of construction of the Central Arizona Project, which appears in sections 302 and 303 of the bill. Section 302 describes the main stream reservoir unit, consisting of Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams and powerplants, while section 303 authorizes the central Arizona aqueduct unit. Arizona has made her case in support of the aqueduct and made it well. I shall not repeat it.

A feature of primary concern to California water users appears in section 304 (a) and (b), p. 7, line 19. This is protection of the existing uses of California projects up to 4.4 million acre-feet per annum as against the Central Arizona Project until at least 2.5 million acre-feet of water is imported into the main stream of the Colorado below Lee Ferry from sources outside the natural drainage basin of the Colorado River. Attorney General Lynch of California, who, as much as any other man, helped to develop this compromise, spelled out the basis for this provision in his statement. In addition to protecting California's projects up to 4.4 million acre-feet, section 304 also protects existing uses in Arizona around the Yuma area and existing uses in Nevada, primarily in Clark County.

A third major feature, one which concerns all seven States in the basin, is title II. This authorizes the Secretary to investigate the water requirements of both the Upper

and Lower Basins of the Colorado River to year 2020, and the sources from which the deficiencies might be supplied. I will return later to the conditions placed upon him in this investigation for the protection of States of origin of imported water.

The fourth major feature, one which concerns all seven basin States, is title IV. This creates a basin account, into which revenues from Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon powerplants are to be paid, along with revenues from Hoover, Davis, and Parker Dams, after payout of these structures, to finance importation works as well as help pay out the cost of the Central Arizona Project. Of these the principal revenue producer is Bridge Canyon.

The fifth major feature, one which affects the potential States of origin of imported water, is of particular concern to California as a possible State of origin, as well as to the States dependent on the Columbia River system. This is so in view of the Secretary's statement during these hearings that the two major stream systems which he

would investigate are northern California rivers and the Columbia downstream from its lowest dam.

California, as a potential State of origin, has pioneered in protection of area of origin law. It is a pillar of our State water plan which has successfully reconciled regional differences as sharp as any which exist in the West. We are gratified by the direction in section 201 (a) (2), page 3, line 19, that in making his investigations:

"The Secretary shall make provision for adequate and equitable protection of the interests of the States and areas of origin, including assistance from the development fund established by title IV of this Act, to the end that water supplies may be available for use therein adequate to satisfy their ultimate requirements at prices to users not adversely affected by the exportation of water to the Colorado River system."

California is pleased also by the direction in section 201(b), page 4, line 18:

"The Secretary shall, after submission of his reports thereon to the affected States in accordance with section 1 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, recommend to the President and the Congress an initial group of projects and programs for authorization pursuant to paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of subsection (a) and shall submit feasibility reports on such projects and programs. ***"

The Flood Control Act of 1944 gives the affected States a right to see and comment upon the proposed plans, and requires the Secretary to forward these comments to Congress along with his project report.

California, as a potential State of origin, also welcomes the provisions of section 601(a)(2), page 24, line 14, directing the creation of a Federal-State regional planning commission, to include not only members from the five Lower Basin States (they would thus have for the first time a commission

comparable to the Upper Basin Compact Commission), but also a member from every affected State. This would include the States of origin.

We were particularly careful, in the section which would terminate the priority protection of existing projects as against the Central Arizona project, to write it in terms which, in our opinion, fully protect California as a potential State of origin, as well as the other possible States of origin. It reads:

"(b) The limitation stated in paragraph (a) shall cease whenever the President shall proclaim that works have been completed proclaim that works have been completed and are in operation, capable in his judgment of delivering annually not less than 2,500 million acre-feet of water into the mainstream of the Colorado River below Lee Ferry, from sources outside the natural drainage area of the Colorado River system; and that such sources are adequate, in the President's judgment, to supply such quantities without adverse effect upon the satisfaction of the foreseeable water requirements ported into the Colorado River system." of any State from which such water is im

My statement today will deal primarily with the changes in the bill suggested by the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary of the Interior, the Upper Basin States, and the members of this committee during these hearings. I will tell you which of these changes in my opinion are improveand which ones require further negotiation. ments, which ones seem to be acceptable,

Before I do, however, I would first like to discuss the seven-State consensus that was reached here last week.

II. THE SEVEN-STATE "CONSENSUS" Congressman UDALL and others have reported to the committee the consensus reached last week by a group of representatives from the seven Colorado River Basin States. We participated in the discussions that led to this consensus, and we are in

accord with it. It is an important document. For emphasis, I quote its four points:

"This consensus, without affecting the accord heretofore arrived at among the Lower Basin States, as set forth in H.R. 4671, 89th Congress, expresses certain principles with respect to the rights, obligations, and requirements of each basin as against the other. These principles are:

"1. The upper basin's right to the use of water of the Colorado River, pursuant to the Colorado River Compact, shall not be jeopardized by the temporary use of unused upper basin water by any lower basin projects.

2. The importation of substantial quantities of water into the Colorado River Basin is essential to the adequate development of both the Upper and Lower Colorado Basins. It is recognized that this importation must be accomplished under terms which are fair to the areas of origin of the water so imported. The pending legislation should authorize the Secretary to construct importation works which will deliver not less than 2,500,000 acre-feet annually, upon the President's approval of the Secretary's finding of feasibility.

"3. Such importation works should be planned and built so as to make the imported water available, if possible, not later than 1980. Water supply prospects on the Colorado River, based in part upon the temporary use of water allocated to the upper basin, appear adequate to furnish a full supply to the central Arizona project accompanied by the safeguards for existing projects agreed to by Arizona and California, until some time during the last decade of the present century. Thereafter, the central Arizona project supply would diminish unless supplemented by importation.

"4. Satisfaction of the Mexican treaty burden should be the first priority to be served by the imported water. The costs of importation allocable to the satisfaction of that burden, which is a national obligation, should be nonreimbursable."

We are prepared to sit down immediately with representatives of the other six States and draft amendments to H.R. 4671 to carry out those principles. I will return n a moment to the amendments that the upper States submitted to the committee this

morning.

III. BUDGET BUREAU RECOMMENDATIONS The Budget Bureau has approved the bill in principle, with these four reservations (all accepted by the Secretary of the Interior).

First. The Budget Bureau recommends against present authorization of Bridge Canyon Dam and powerplant, suggesting that the dam's effects on scenic values and its need as part of the overall regional project be studied further by a commission. The California water users believe that Bridge Canyon Dam should be authorized now. Commissioner Dominy's testimony shows that the reservoir will not harm scenic values, but to the contrary, would make accessible to millions of ordinary visitors the incomparable beauty heretofore restricted to a few hundred people with time and money enough to "run the river" in special boats. And the Commissioner has testified that in 75 years, the Bridge Canyon powerplant would put about $1 billion into the development fund to help finance import projects. This committee is quite competent to resolve the issues without the aid of a commission. We would prefer to face up to this issue right now and have it decided.

Second. The Budget Bureau recognizes that the Mexican treaty burden is a national obligation which should be nonreimbursable. It equates this burden with the quantity which must be delivered at the boundary, 1.5 million acre-feet annually. The burden is greater than that, because the delivery of the Mexican treaty water also requires

a pro rata share of evaporation losses in conveying that water downstream through the river channel and reservoirs to the delivery point at the boundary, and unavoidable regulatory losses. David Dam, for example, is a treaty structure.

The nonreimbursable treaty allocation should be related to the full treaty burden, to be determined by the Secretary, not just 1,500,000 acre-feet.

Third. The Budget Bureau objects to the principle of guaranteeing Colorado River prices for the imported water required to firm up a supply of 7.5 million acre-feet for the lower basin, even though the guarantee is limited to the availability of funds in the basin account. It believes that if the costs allocable to the Mexican treaty are made nonreimbursable, this will have the same effect, at least for a protracted period of time. I would recommend that we concede this point, repeating here that the burden properly allocable to the treaty is greater than 1.5 million acre-feet.

Fourth. The Budget Bureau recommends that any study of importation works be undertaken by a National Water Commission as part of a full-scale study of the entire Nation's water problems, instead of by the Secretary. We think this proposal should be reconsidered.

Time is of the essence. The Colorado River's problems have already been thoroughly studied by the Secretary of the Interior, and the responsibility for the Colorado should remain in that department, where the Congress has placed it. It would be a mistake to submerge the immediate, critical problems of the southwest in the broader problems of the entire Nation. New York City should not wait on the Colorado, and the Colorado should not wait on Lake Erie.

IV. UPPER BASIN AMENDMENTS

The Upper Colorado River Compact Commission and the Colorado Water Conservation Board have proposed today a number of specific amendments to H.R. 4671, some of them encompassed by the principles in the seven-State consensus, some going beyond them. They kindly gave us advance copies. In my view, all of the upper basin proposals are proper subjects for negotiation, although some of the language presently proposed is not acceptable. They deal with seven subjects, as follows:

Conditional authorization for importation works: The proposal is that this act authorize the Secretary to construct works to import 2.5 million acre-feet annually into the Colorado, on condition that he finds that such a project has a favorable benefit-cost ratio, and the President approves his findings. This has been objected to by a number of committee members as a blank check taking the decision out of the hands of Congress and of the affected States, including the States of origin.

I suggest a compromise. Section 9(a) of the reclamation project of 1939 gave the Secretary this authority (as did the 1902 Reclamation Act). But the authority is conditioned on a finding, among others, that the project's revenues will repay the reimbursable allocations of the Government's investment, not merely that it has a favorable benefit cost ratio. The Grand Coulee project in the State of Washington was first authorized in this way, by the Secretary, in a feasibility finding approved by the President, later by act of Congress. Davis Dam, the Salt River project, and many others were authorized by feasibility findings. But in 1944, in section 1(c) of the Flood Control Act of 1944, Congress amended this authority by requiring the Secretary to submit his proposal to each affected State for comment, requiring him to forward the State's comments along with his report to Congress, and directing that if the Governor of any affected State disapproved the proposal, the

projects should only be built if thereafter authorized by Congress. This seems a fair solution here. I would have no objection to a further condition requiring the Secretary, even if no State objected, to submit his proposal to this Committee and its counterpart in the Senate, to remain under submission for a specified period subject to disapproval for a specified period subject to disapproval by either committee. This is the pattern of the Reorganization Act, followed by several others.

Allocation of imported water: The Upper Basin States propose that imports be subject to the following priorities:

1. A first priority to satisfy the Mexican treaty burden. This is quite proper.

2. A second priority to firm up the annual main stream supply for Arizona, California, and Nevada to the 7.5 million acre-feet of main stream water which Congress thought it was dividing among those three States in 1928. H.R. 4671 is designed to do this, and we welcome the upper basin's concurrence, if this is what it means. But Governor Love's statement reads as though this 7.5 million, to be firmed up, includes Arizona's uses on the tributaries, leaving us only 5.5 million on the main stream. The three States are already using more than 5.5 million acre-feet from the main stream, and, of course, could not agree to this if such is intended.

3. A third priority to firm up 7.5 million acre-feet of consumptive use for the upper basin contemplated by the Colorado River Compact. The principle is fair, if the upper basin can pay for the added 2 million acrefeet of importations that the Tipton report indicates may be needed (6.3 million acrefeet depletion as forecast by Tipton for the upper basin, less reservoir evaporation, equals about 5.6 million acre-feet of consumptive use (diversion less returns) for the upper basin).

previously quoted.

But there are a number of practical difficulties. If the imported water is delivered into the Colorado below Lee Ferry the upper States would presumably reduce their article III (d) deliveries below 75 million acre-feet per decade to the extent that they buy and deliver to lower basin users imported water in excess of, not a part of, the first 2.5 million. This is because the 2.5 million is necessary to supply the lower States 7.5 million even if 75 million per decade is delivered at Lee Ferry. The upper basin will probably not begin to need imported water until near the turn of the century, according to point 3 in the consensus of August 20, which I have Meanwhile, imported water above 2.5 million, which is required for priorities 1 and 2 of the present upper basin proposal, will be needed in the lower basin commencing as early as 1975. This is so because the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California will get only 550,000 acre-feet, under the priorities set out in the Hoover Dam water contracts, even if the lower basin's annual consumptive use from the main stream reaches 7.5 million. Thus, imported water in addition to the 2.5 million acre-feet required to firm up the 7.5 million in the main stream in the lower basin is needed to enable Metropolitan to recover the 662,000 that it is now using but must the 662,000 that it is now using but must relinquish as the central Arizona project goes into operation. The problem is to match up, on one hand, security of the right to use the imported supply with, on the other hand, the obligation to pay for it. Perhaps some special consideration for Metropolitan's existing capacity and need for 662,000 acre-feet annually can be worked out.

The upper States also propose that imports

available in the lower basin in excess of 2.5 million acre-feet be allocated in such fashion as Congress may later direct. H.R. 4671 provides that such excess be allocated in accordance with article II(B) (2) of the decree in Arizona v. California, that is, 50 percent to California, 50 percent to Arizona and Ne

vada. We are content that the Supreme Court's decree be made applicable to imported water within the lower basin in the same way the decree now applies to the natural Colorado supply.

The upper basin amendments would strike out the proposal in section 304(c) of H.R. 4671 to make the 2.5 million acre-feet of imports available at Colorado River prices. I have already indicated my views with reference to the Budget Bureau's recommendation on this point.

Bridge Canyon: The upper basin disagrees with the Budget Bureau's recommendation to delete the bridge canyon authorization. So do we, for the reasons indicated earlier. Upper basin's Mexican treaty obligation under III (c) of the Colorado River Compact: The obligations of the upper and lower basins under III (c) of the Colorado River Compact present an exceedingly complex legal problem. We had hoped to have this question decided by the Supreme Court in the Arizona v. California litigation, but the upper States' successful resistance to our effort to join them as parties in that suit prevented that resolution of the problem.

The upper division States seek immediate relief from whatever obligation article III (c) of the compact imposes upon them with respect to the Mexican burden. Article III (c) says, in substance, that the 1945 Mexican burden (its extent and form being unknown when the compact was written n 1922) shall be satisfied first out of surplus over the quantities specified in articles III (a) and (b) of the compact. If that surplus is insufficient, the two basins shall bear the deficiency equally, and the upper division will add water to make up its half of the deficiency to the 75 million acre-feet which it must deliver each decade under article III (d).

The first question, therefore, is this: Is there any surplus, and, if so, how is it calculated? The compact defines surplus, for this purpose, as the excess over the quantities specified in articles III (a) and (b). Articles III (a) and (b) allocate 8.5 million acre-feet to the lower basin and 7.5 million acre-feet to the upper basin, a total of 16 million acre-feet.1 Arizona says that the lower basin's 8.5 million must all be supplied from the main stream. If so, there is no surplus. The upper basin says that these specified quantities are to be supplied from the main stream plus the tributaries. If so, there may be surplus. There is not 16 million acre-feet available for consumptive use in the entire basin. However, there is a surplus over the 8.5 million in the lower basin, say the Upper Basin States, because Arizona's tributaries support some 2 million acre-feet of consumptive use along those streams.

If this issue goes to Court, I think Arizona-and California would support herwill win it, for two reasons: First, Arizona presents the interpretation of the Colorado River Compact that Congress gave in 1928 when it approved the Compact. Second, even if the upper basin is right as a matter of law, nevertheless, as a mater of fact, the Mexican water treaty, when finally formulated 23 years after the compact, requires daily delivery to Mexico of specified quantities, 365 days per year, whereas the flow of the Gila, coming down in great floods only a few days in the year in a state of nature, would not have been usable to any appreciable extent in satisfying these fixed daily requirements. There is no site for a Conseregulatory reservoir in Mexico. quently, even if the Gila's potential contribution to satisfaction of the Mexican treaty

1 Article III (a) apportions 7.5 million acrefeet of beneficial consumptive use to each the upper basin and the same quantity to the lower basin. Article III(b) permits the lower basin to increase its beneficial consumptive use by 1 million acre-feet.

were to be credited against the quantities that the lower basin could otherwise demand from the upper States under article III (c), the reduction might not amount to much.

Moreover, if the interpretation of the compact has to be litigated, the upper basin might remember that the Special Master in Arizona v. California determined that the Colorado River Compact is not a grant of rights to the upper basin, but a ceiling on the appropriations in both basins. Hence, each basin would be free to appropriate any quantity of water up to the respective ceilings-7.5 million acre-feet in the upper basin and 8.5 million acre-feet in the lower basin. In short, if this issue remains unresolved, some very expensive litigation will be required over an insignificant quantity of water. It would be an even sadder result to have that question over just a little water hold up legislation involving potentially many millions of acre-feet for all the States. I believe that a satisfactory compromise can be worked out.

Immediate relief of the upper basin from any obligation to deliver water in excess of 75 million acre-feet each 10 years required by article III(d): The Upper Basin States propose this as a technique to eliminate immediately any obligation under article III (c) to deliver water at Lee Ferry to supply the Mexican treaty in addition to the article III(d) delivery. I have already discussed that. But the language proposed although probably not the intent-clearly does more than this. It writes articles III (e) and IV (b) out of the compact.

Article III(e) says:

"The States of the upper division shall not withhold water, and the States of the lower division shall not require the delivery of water, which cannot reasonably be applied to domestic and agricultural uses."

The upper division must thus deliver more than 75 million-deliver whatever quantity exceeds its own domestic and agricultural uses-if required for like uses in the lower basin. Some of the upper basin statements implicity recognize this.

I will come to article IV (b) in connection with the next upper basin proposal.

Drawdown of Glen Canyon below rated power head: The Upper Basin States propose that Glen Canyon reservoir shall never be drawn down below rated power head, except to meet the upper division's III(d) obligation or by consent of the Upper Colorado River Compact Commission.

This proposal would violate not only article III (e), but also IV (b), which says:

"Subject to the provisions of this compact, water of the Colorado River System may be impounded and used for the generation of electrical power, but such impounding and use shall be subservient to the use and consumption of such water for agricultural and domestic purposes and shall not interfere with or prevent use for such dominant purposes."

Glen Canyon reservoir must be drawn below rated power head if necessary to use of water for agricultural and domestic purposes in the lower basin.

This proposal, moreover, might result in Lake Mead being drawn below rated power head (or even emptied) to enable Glen to stay above that minimum, a result which would be unacceptable to the lower basin. We think the task is to develop equitable operating criteria which will prevent either Lake Powell or Lake Mead being drawn down solely to benefit power operations at the other. But, in any event, power operations at both dams should remain subject to consumptive use requirements in each basin, as articles III(e) and IV (b) of the Colorado River Compact require.

Upper basin representatives have argued that in order to make the consumptive uses that their present projects require and still

meet the article III (d) requirement, Glen Canyon must be kept at least at rated power head. I do not see the connection. Rated power head is the reservoir level (i.e., the head) required for the turbines to provide their nameplate power production. I have seen no figures that show why rated power head is the measure of the minimum carryover storage required to permit the upper basin to meet the article III(d) requirement and still make its present or future consumptive use requirement. So far as I know, rated power head is relevant only to power producpower head is relevant only to power production.

Reimbursement to the upper basin fund for payments to Hoover Dam power allottees: The upper States propose to have the upper basin fund reimbursed for payments heretofore made to Hoover Dam power allottees, in accordance with the Glen Canyon filling criteria, for impairment of power operations at Hoover caused by filling operations at Glen Canyon. We might have no objection to making such payments out of the $500,000 per year which these same allottees now pay as a surcharge on Hoover power rates for channeling into the Colorado River Development Fund set up pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act. However, we would strongly oppose tapping Hoover revenues after payout in 1987, as the upper basin proposes. Instead, if the committee sees fit, any remaining deficit may be paid to the upper basin fund from the general Treasury, to be repaid to the Treasury from the new development fund created by H.R. 4671.

The problem will probably not recur, but, if it does, the existing power contracts at Hoover Dam must be honored, or the contractors compensated if the Government does not perform them.

Conclusion

During the course of these hearings, many of the States' representatives have been asked if they would support or oppose the bill if one provision or another were omitted or added.

To some extent, these questions can be answered because they have been carefully studied by the States before the hearings. For example, the California water users would oppose any central Arizona project bill that did not contain a provision like section 304 to protect our existing projects up to 4.4 million acre-feet annually.

To a great extent, however, many of the questions from the committee members cannot be answered now. For example, California's Attorney General Lynch made clear that he could not answer now the question whether California would support the bill without title II, which authorizes the study of importations. I can give a categorical answer that we will oppose the elimination of title II with all the resources at our command. Of course, an investigation of ways to avoid disaster in the Southwest is necessary, just as it is in New York City, and, of course, all available sources of water should be investigated, concurrently and rapidly, not in leisurely sequence. Who's afraid of facts? Naturally, all reasonable safeguards for areas of origin, including California, must be obeyed in planning projects based on these investigations, as I indicated earlier in my statement. In short, we are not contemplating defeat on this issue, and the question of what we would do next if we lost it is an iffy question.

On some issues, other reasons prevent an immediate answer. For example:

First. It is often necessary to consult with many persons on major policy questions. made Attorney General Lynch, for California, clear that he would have to consult our Governor on several questions of policy that he was asked about. Governor Hansen of Wyoming indicated, quite properly, that he would have to consult with his experts.

Second. It is impossible to evaluate a proposed amendment without seeing its language and perhaps other language changes in the bill.

Third. The decision on some issues is primarily Arizona's, not ours. For example, if Arizona wants to stand and fight for Bridge Canyon Dam, even with a consequent delay in the central Arizona project authorization-so will we, and with determination. If she will not, then with great regret we will retreat with her on that particular issue. But, as Arizona knows better than most, we have had very little practice at retreating. I conclude with this comment, the most important lesson of the past several months is this: We can work out mutually acceptable solutions to our problems; and we have the kind of people throughout the West to do so.

We all need this regional legislation, either for present or for future needs, or for both. I can say to the upper basin that this legislation may be as vital to their aspirations as it is to ours. Arizona's overdraft or New York City's shortage of today may be yours and ours tomorrow unless all seven States work together to bring more water into the Colorado. We face a common challenge and it requires a united response.

"Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

JOINT STATEMENT OF W. S. GOOKIN, I. P. HEAD, W. E. STEINER, D. E. COLE, AND W. D. MAUGHAN BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION (H.R. 4671, H.R. 4706, AND H.R. 9248) TO AUTHORIZE THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT, AS PRESENTED BY W. DON MAUGHAN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am W. Don Maughan, regional planning staff specialist, department of water resources, for the State of California. I make this statement not only for myself but also on behalf of Mr. W. S. Gookin, State water engineer, Arizona Interstate Stream Commission, State of Arizona; Mr. I. P. Head, administrator, Colorado River Commission of Nevada, State of Nevada; Mr. W. E. Steiner, assistant chief engineer, department of water resources, State of California; and Mr. D. E. Cole, chief engineer, Colorado River Board of California, State of California. We appear before you now to present our joint memorandum on the Colorado River water supply in response to the question posed by Chairman ASPINALL in his letter of May 22 as to the availability of water to the central Arizona project.

Before reading our memorandum, we will summarize the response to the question posed by Chairman ASPINALL. He asked each State for its views as to the availability of water for the central Arizona project "taking into consideration present uncommitted uses in the upper basin, the filling of upper basin reservoirs, and, further, taking into consideration the ultimate use by the upper basin of its share of water under the provisions of the Colorado River Compact."

Our joint studies indicate that there is better than an even chance that by 1975, the earliest date that the central Arizona project could be completed, Lakes Mead and Powell together will contain more than 40 million acre-feet of water in a total storage capacity of about 55 million acre-feet. There is an even chance, taking into consideration projections of upper basin depletions in the amount of 5.5 million acre-feet per annum that a full supply of 1.2 million acrefeet per annum would be available for the proposed central Arizona project until about the turn of the century. If there is no import of water by that time, the water supply available to the central Arizona project would then gradually reduce as the upper