« PreviousContinue »
South Vietnam people submit or shake their in that capacity, but at the request of the further agreement—this time in the Congress will to fight and win.
Governor of my State, Edmund G. Brown. of the United States. We look to this comWith the wholehearted sympathy and He wants me to tell you that he would be mittee to fashion a final agreement which thorough support of the great 650 million here today but for the aftermath of the last will serve the West and set a pattern for the Chinese people, the people of the various two tragic weeks in our State. He wants me rest of the country which is reaching the socialist countries, and all the peace-loving to tell you that he wholeheartedly and en- limits of available water, and which must people throughout the world, our people in thusiastically supports the legislation offered eventually turn to regional planning as the South Vietnam are resolutely taking up arms by 37 Representatives in Congress and by both basis of regional accomplishment. with the determination to fight to the last California Senators.
I became attorney general of California drop of blood in driving U.S. imperialism out I assure you that a California consensus- at the beginning of September 1964. The of South Vietnam, liberating South Vietnam, as close to unanimity as you will find in a constitution of California imposed on me the and unifying the fatherland in order to con- State of nearly 20 million people supports responsibility of representing California in tribute to the national liberation and the the Governor in that position.
interstate litigation. I was told by some defense of peace in southeast Asia and the That position is urged by the Colorado that the problems of the Colorado River were world.
River Board of California, a State agency insoluble. The U.S. Supreme Court had Our people in South Vietnam exceedingly whose members are nominated by the public entered a decree in Arizona v. California the admire the indomitable revolutionary spirit entities which have Colorado River water preceding March. The decree had not setof the Chinese people, whom we follow as rights: The Metropolitan Water District of tled the problems of the Colorado. It had an example. The Chinese people, under the Southern California, the Department of Wa- only framed some of the issues for renewed brilliant banner of the CCP which regards ter and Power of the City of Los Angeles, the combat. I made it my first business to study the people as master, have victoriously San Diego County Water Authority, Impe- the Colorado problem intensively. I have carried on long-term resistance and, with rial Irrigation District, Palo Verde Irriga- continued to do so. I discovered that these their brilliant example, inspired all the op- tion District, and Coachella Valley County reports were in substance correct. Winston pressed people throughout the world to wage Water District. Each of these public agen- Churchill once described Russia as "a riddle the struggle for their liberation. cies supports the pending bill.
wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." He Now, the Chinese people are building a Likewise, it has the most earnest support might well have been speaking of the prosperous and strong China through their of our sister State our historic water an- Colorado. laboring efforts and lofty spirit on self-reli- tagonist with whom we are now in agree
The decree concluded one of the greatest ance, and making an important contribution
ment-Arizona. It has the support of Ne- trials in history. The purpose of the suit to the lofty causes of revolution of the vada, which has a community of interest
was to answer yes or no to the question posed world's people and of world peace.
with both Arizona and California. It has in 1952 by the State of Arizona: Is there The people of South Vietnam feel a great the support in principle of the U.S. Govern
water to supply the Central Arizona project? joy over all those brilliant achievements of ment, expressed by the Bureau of the Budget
The decree failed to answer that question. the CCP and the great Chinese people and and the Secretary of the Interior.
Instead, it answered two others: First, how is sincerely convey their wishes to the CCP and I hope and I believe that this legislation 7.5 million acre-feet per year of consumptive the Chinese people under your wise and bril- will come to have the strong support of other
use from the main river to be divided among liant leadership for still more brilliant suc- regions: the States of the Upper Colorado Arizona, California, and Nevada ? It is to be cesses. River Basin and Western States outside the
divided 2.8 million to Arizona, 4.4 million to I wish to take this opportunity in behalf Colorado River Basin which may be benefited.
California, 300,000 acre-feet to Nevada. of the people in South Vietnam and the CenIt deserves the support of the entire Nation.
Second, how is water in excess of 7.5 miltral Committee of NFLSV in expressing my The most immediate benefit will be to the
lion acre-feet to be divided among them? It most sincere gratitude to you and wishing Lower Colorado River Basin, whose problems is to be divided equally between Arizona and the best of health. produced this agreement after decades of
California, except that the Secretary of the NGUYEN HUU THO, embittered and futile combat. Benefits, less
Interior may by contract give 4 percent of Chairman of the Presidium of the Cen- immediate but fully as substantial, will later
the excess to Nevada, coming out of Arizona's tral Committee of the NFLSV.
accrue to areas adjacent to the Colorado
Lest there be any doubt, I repeat what THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER as important as any new scientific discovery my predecessor said, “We accept those deciin man's fight against drought.
sions. We do not ask Congress to change BASIN WATER PLAN
the Court's decree.” I was delighted to learn on Friday that
Unfortunately, these omit the major quesMr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, in the representatives of the seven Colorado River tion which requires an answer: How is less last several days a number of distin- Basin States had agreed on basic principles
than 7.5 million acre-feet to be divided? guished California citizens, public sery
for regional legislation. This is good news Engineering opinion was unanimous that ul
for the entire Nation, ants of my State in various fields, have
timately there would be no excess over 7.5
The seven-State accord is a second great million acre-feet for the three States. In testified before the House Committee on step toward making regional water develop- time, there will be less than 7.5 million acreInterior and Insular Affairs in favor of ment a reality. This accord will be as sig- feet. But the court expressly refused to delegislation to provide for a Lower Colo- nificant as the original agreement between
cide how a supply of less than 7.5 million rado River Basin water plan. The whole Arizona and California which established
acre-feet would be divided. The court left southwest area is in dire straits with re- unity among the Lower Basin States—Ari
that question to be decided by the Secretary spect to the problem of water in the zona, California, and Nevada-earlier this of the Interior or the Congress. future. I ask unanimous consent to have year.
There are two limitations on the Secreprinted in RECORD at this point the state- yield to the constructive spirit with which must be given interstate priority by the Sec
Many problems remain, but they will also tary's power: (1) "Present perfected rights” ments by the attorney general of Cali- the seven States have approached their prob- retary before he allocates the remaining wafornia, Thomas C. Lynch; Northcutt Ely,
I am sure this committee will give ter among the States. (2) The court will respecial counsel for the Colorado River thorough attention to the unresolved prob
view the Secretary's exercise of discretion. Board of California, and six Agency lems as the hearings progress. I should like However, the quantities of "present perfectCommittee of California Water Users; to confine myself to the very significant sub- ed rights"—those exercised by use prior to and the joint statement of W. S. Gookin, jects on which there now appears to be a 1929 when the Boulder Canyon Project Act I. P. Head, W. E. Steiner, D. E. Cole, and meeting of the minds.
became effective and all Federal rights existW. D. Maughan; the individual state- united Arizona, California, and Nevada is, as
The lower basin agreement which has ing on that date-are left to future agreement of D. E. Cole, chief engineer of the I am sure everyone in this room fully realizes,
ment or litigation. The standards by which
secretarial discretion is to be controlled are Colorado River Board of California; and
an astonishing development. It came about otherwise unspecified. the Colorado River Basin seven-State when men of good will from all over the As an alternative to a secretarial allocaconsensus.
Colorado River basin became fully aware tion, Congress can enact legislation providThere being no objection, the state- that the interests of our region can be served ing for allocation of shortages if the main ments were ordered to be printed in the only by agreement and not by combat. We river supplies less than 7.5 million acre-feet.
shall all face a continuing struggle and RECORD, as follows:
The court left unanswered the question problems far more serious than anyone could Arizona had in effect asked the Supreme STATEMENT BY CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL have realized in 1952 when Arizona and Cali- Court: "Is there water for the Central Ari
THOMAS C. LYNCH, APPEARING AT THE RE- fornia squared off against each other for the zona project?”
we shall surely lose if we are divided. out the West that water is never taken from Mr. Chairman, my name is Thomas C. I had the privilege of watching the agree- existing projects to supply new projects to Lynch. I am the attorney general of Cali- ment happen. I shall tell you about it in be built in the future?" We thought there fornia. I have the honor to appear not only some detail, because the time has come for could be only one answer.
There was no possibility whatever that to Mexico, and about 1 million acre-feet of upper basin or an empty Lake Mead in the Arizona could be expected to yield that annual channel and reservoir losses between lower basin need never be made. which Arizona had sought for a generation, Lee Ferry—where the lower basin begins- I will conclude by telling you that there and for which her need is increasingly great: and the Mexican boundary. You can see that is still some controversy about the bill in the Central Arizona project.
unless 2.5 million acre-feet is imported, the California. However, it is a happy kind of There was no possibility whatever that 7.5 million acre-feet annual average-which controversy. Who is entitled to the most California would yield water used by her article III (d) of the Colorado River com- credit for launching the agreement? projects in order to build the Central Ari- pact requires to be delivered at Lee Ferry, Like victory of any kind, this plan has-I zona project, except as a decree by the Su- will provide only 5 million acre-feet of con- should say it has needed-many fathers. We preme Court had so determined. The sumptive use.
are still, I think, in the negotiating stages. Supreme Court had expressly and unani- Would it be possible to assure protection I hope that the members of this committee mously rejected the Special Master's recom- for existing projects until at least 2.5 mil- who are not from Lower Colorado River mendation that proration of shortages with- lion acre-feet was imported into the main Basin States will promptly enter their claims in the 7.5 million acre-feet should be im- river?
to joint paternity. We need your support. posed on the States. We demanded, as we Stewart Udall gave a cautiously affirmative I would pay tribute to the three men who had to, protection of existing projects. The reply. This inspired negotiations which re- have done more than any others to further Arizona Legislature twice sought the same sulted in the legislation before you.
this concept of regional planning. The first protection for Arizona's existing projects. In the first week in February, Senator is Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior,
Secretary Udall had suggested in two suc- KUCHEL offered S. 1019 in the U.S. Senate. who offered two regional plans which concessive regional plans a way to avoid the Counterparts were offered in the House, and tained basic principles of the bills before you. hard question to which the answer appeared Senator HAYDEN has said that he will press The second is Governor Brown. First, in so ruinous to Arizona or California. Our for prompt passage in the Senate if one of launching the California water plan as the entire region is indebted to his inspiration, these counterparts is passed by the House. first major business of his administration, stimulated I am sure by the dreadful re- I shall not try to discuss the details of the he demonstrated to the Nation that regional sponsibility the Court had thrust on him to bill. I shall point out only how it answers animosities can be reconciled to the benefit destroy either the hopes of Arizona or the the hardest questions.
of mutually hostile antagonists. Second, he existing projects of California.
First, it gives the same protection to ex- defended Secretary Udall's plan when AriThe resource of the Colorado is water. isting projects of all three states, Arizona, zona and California would otherwise have Water generates power. Power generates California, and Nevada, except that Cali- killed the concept with renewal of ancient money. And through money the water sup- fornia is limited in that protection to 4.4 hostility. ply can be made to replenish itself. Imports million acre-feet. If there is less than 7.5 The third is Senator KUCHEL. He has of water can avoid shortages in the 7.5 million acre-feet, shortage will be borne by provided leadership which has put regional million acre-foot quantity. Water users in the Central Arizona project before existing water problems ahead of party politics, ahead both States would be made whole to the projects are forced to cut back. The 4.4 of interstate hostilities, and ahead of perextent of the decreed allocations out of that limitation on California exists because only sonal advantage. His bill is S. 1019 in the 7.5 million acre-feet.
California's existing projects use more than Senate. The 37 House bills we heard first, in The two Pacific Southwest water plans the quantity decreed out of the first 7.5 mil- this committee, because this appears to be could not, however, overcome the handicap lion acre-feet available each year from the the best and quickest way to get the job done. of lack of time. Arizona's need for a Central river.
Mine is a rare privilege. To travel to Arizona project was immediate and urgent. You would suppose that this was not a Washington as attorney general of California Investigations, engineering, and economic matter of consequence to Arizona projects, and to urge approval on behalf of the Govstudies were necessary for a project to im- since Arizona's uses plus Central Arizona ernor of California of a central Arizona projport water to replace Colorado River water project use will be substantially less than ect, with the assurance that I will be well exported to central Arizona. All three take Arizona's 2.8 million acre-feet. In fact, the received when I return to California. I think substantial time, even on a crash basis. My problem was of universal concern. As I have you will want to share with me the sense State resisted—it had to resist—a Central said, Arizona's Legislature has twice sought of great accomplishment that has come to Arizona project which would deplete the protection for Arizona's present projects all of us who have helped fashion the preswater available to California projects so long against demands of the Central Arizona proj- ent agreement. as replacement of that water was only a ect. This bill makes that principle applicable hope or a promise.
to both sides of the river, and to all three STATEMENT OF NORTHCUTT ELY, SPECIAL COUNAfter several months of study, I attended States.
SEL, COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, my first public meeting devoted to this un
Second, the bill makes it unnecessary to AND SIX AGENCY COMMITTEES OF CALIFORNIA happy dilemma. It was called in December provide an answer to the truly unknown and
WATER USERS BEFORE THE IRRIGATION AND by the Southern California Water Confer
unknowable "ultimate water supply" avail- RECLAMATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE ence. Representatives from all over the able from the Colorado. That requires study COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFColorado River Basin were present.
of hydrology and law. The law is the Colo- FAIRS, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 27, 1965 There was a serious—even grimly somber rado River compact which only the Supreme Mr. Chairman and members of the commood-of men patiently willing to state and Court at the end of another 10 years of mittee, my name is Northcutt Ely. I am a restate without rancor their deeply held po- litigation may definitively construe. We lawyer, a member of Ely, Duncan & Bensitions. Theirs was a firm determination must avoid that path. This bill requires an nett, Washington, D.C. not to compromise or suggest compromise in
answer only to the easy question. How much Last week I had the honor to appear before matters essential to survival.
water is probably available to the lower basin you, accompanying Attorney General Thomas Californians protested they did not insist until imports from other regions become Lynch of California, in my capacity as speupon 4.4 million acre-feet from the Colorado available? That question, I am assured, can cial assistant attorney general in charge of and also water from some alternative source. be answered: Enough to justify the Central the case of Arizona v. California. I shall But they could not yield that 4.4 million
Arizona project for immediate authorization therefore not repeat the analysis of that case until the alternative source had been and construction on these conditions. That, given you by Attorney General Lynch, nor achieved. That would take time.
I am sure, will be the subject of engineering the historical background and statement of Californians also recognized Arizona's need. testimony and evidence before you.
the issues which Senator KUCHEL gave you They did not want to insist that Arizona's Third, the bill makes it unnecessary to face on the opening day. overdrawn groundwater basins continue to the cruelest dilemma ever imposed by man I appear before you today as special counbe pumped without respite until a great or nature on a great region: Either to go on sel for the Colorado River Board of Califorregional plan to replace the central Arizona letting temporarily unused upper basin water nia and the six California agencies that have project supply could be readied for adoption flow down the river, unused, to the Gulf of rights to Colorado River water; the Metroas a whole. But they were determined to de- California; or put it to use with projects politan Water District of Southern Califend California's 4.4 million acre-feet. which must be abandoned when the upper fornia; the city of Los Angeles and the San
At the end of the conference, this ques. basin requires that presently unused water Diego County Water Authority, which are tion emerged:
to which it has a guaranteed right by com- included within Metropolitan; Imperial IrIs it possible to estimate the shortage in pact. This bill uses that wasted water for rigation District; Coachella Valley County the Colorado River supply and provide for its best purposea temporary resource to be Water District; and Palo Verde Irrigation priority of existing projects until an im- replaced by imports.
District. port of water to make up that shortage has Fourth, this bill gives every State and Dallas E. Cole, chief engineer of the Coloactually been achieved?
every region a continuing incentive to make rado River Board, has prepared an excellent Next day, Secretary Udall came to Los the regional plan work. Arizona and Cali- statement for you, describing these six agenAngeles. While the California group was fornia both need far more water than they cies and their relationship to the economy of waiting to meet with him, the question was can expect from their shares of 7.5 million California. I ask that it be printed with my put to the chief engineer of the Colorado acre-feet. This bill gives both States an own. River board. He estimated the probable ul- equal interest in the excess above 7.5 million These California agencies receive water timate shortage at 2.5 million acre-feet. acre-feet which must be provided. It gives through three great projects: The Colorado
That consists of 1.5 million acre-feet an- the maximum assurance now possible that a River aqueduct serves Metropolitan and its nually which the Mexican Treaty assures choice between an empty Lake Powell in the constituent agencies, which encompass the major portion of the southern California would investigate are northern California accord with it. It is an important docucoastal basin. The All-American Canal and rivers and the Columbia downstream from ment. For emphasis, I quote its four points: Imperial Dam, its diversion structure, serve its lowest dam.
“This consensus, without affecting the both Imperial
Imperial Irrigation District and California, as a potential State of origin, accord heretofore arrived at among the Coachella Valley County Water District, 10- has pioneered in protection of area of ori- Lower Basin States, as set forth in H.R. 4671, cated in the Salton Sink in the southeast gin law. It is a pillar of our State water 89th Congress, expresses certain principles corner of California. The All-American plan which has successfully reconciled re- with respect to the rights, obligations, and Canal also serves the portion of the Yuma gional differences as sharp as any which requirements of each basin as against the project in California. Palo Verde Irrigation exist in the West. We are gratified by the other. These principles are: District, located along the Colorado around direction in section 201(a) (2), page 3, line "1. The upper basin's right to the use Blythe, diverts its Colorado River water by 19, that in making his investigations: of water of the Colorado River, pursuant to use of its Palo Verde Diversion Dam. In ad- “The Secretary shall make provision for the Colorado River Compact, shall not be dition to these projects, there are also cer- adequate and equitable protection of the jeopardized by the temporary use of unused tain other rights to Colorado River water in interests of the States and areas of origin, upper basin water by any lower basin California: small Federal rights (primarily including assistance from the development projects. Indian reservations) and minor rights of in- fund established by title IV of this Act, to "2. The importation of substantial quandividuals, including riparians, independent the end that water supplies may be available tities of water into the Colorado River Basin of the organized districts.
for use therein adequate to satisfy their is essential to the adequate development of I. THE FIVE FEATURES OF THE PENDING BILLS ultimate requirements at prices to users not both the Upper and Lower Colorado Basins.
adversely affected by the exportation of water It is recognized that this importation must The bills before you—of which H.R. 4671 to the Colorado River system.”
be accomplished under terms which are fair is a counterpart-embody a compromise between the water users of California whom I
to the areas of origin of the water so imCalifornia is pleased also by the direction in section 201(b), page 4, line 18:
ported. The pending legislation should represent here today and the sponsors of the Central Arizona Project in Arizona.
“The Secretary shall, after submission of authorize the Secretary to construct imporThe bill has five main features-one of
his reports thereon to the affected States in tation works which will deliver not less than pirmary concern to Arizona, one of primary trol Act of 1944, recommend to the President accordance with section 1 of the Flood Con- 2,500,000 acre-feet annually, upon the Presi
dent's approval of the Secretary's finding of concern to California, two which affect all
and the Congress an initial group of proj- feasibility. seven States of the basin, and one which pri
ects and programs for authorization pursu- "3. Such importation works should be marily affects the States from which water
ant to paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of planned and built so as to make the immight be imported into the Colorado. Cali
subsection (a) and shall submit feasibility ported water available, if possible, not later fornia is one of these.
reports on such projects and programs. * * *" than 1980. Water supply prospects on the The feature of overriding importance to Arizona is authorization of construction of
The Flood Control Act of 1944 gives the
Colorado River, based in part upon the the Central Arizona Project, which appears
affected States a right to see and comment temporary use of water allocated to the in sections 302 and 303 of the bill. Section
upper basin, appear adequate to furnish a upon the proposed plans, and requires the
Secretary to forward these comments to full supply to the central Arizona project 302 describes the main stream reservoir unit, consisting of Bridge and Marble Canyon Congress along with his project report.
accompanied by the safeguards for existing Dams and powerplants, while section 303 au
California, as a potential State of origin, projects agreed to by Arizona and California, thorizes the central Arizona aqueduct unit.
until some time during the last decade of also welcomes the provisions of section Arizona has made her case in support of the
the present century. Thereafter, the cen601(a) (2), page 24, line 14, directing the aqueduct and made it well. I shall not re
creation of a Federal-State regional planning tral Arizona project supply would diminish peat it. commission, to include not only members
unless supplemented by importation. A feature of primary concern to California from the five Lower Basin States (they would
“4. Satisfaction of the Mexican treaty burthus have for the first time a commission water users appears in section 304(a) and
den should be the first priority to be served comparable to the Upper Basin Compact by the imported water. The costs of im(b), p. 7, line 19. This is protection of the Commission), but also a member from every
portation allocable to the satisfaction of existing uses of California projects up to affected State. This would include the
that burden, which is a national obligation, 4.4 million acre-feet per annum as against
should be nonreimbursable.” the Central Arizona Project until at least States of origin. 2.5 million acre-feet of water is imported into
We were particularly careful, in the section We are prepared to sit down immediately which would terminate the priority protec
with representatives of the other six States the main stream of the Colorado below Lee Ferry from sources outside the natural draintion of existing projects as against the Cen
and draft amendments to H.R. 4671 to carry
out those principles. I will return in a age basin of the Colorado River. Attorney tral Arizona project, to write it in terms General Lynch of California, who, as much which, in our opinion, fully protect Cali
moment to the amendments that the upper as any other man, helped to develop this
fornia as a potential State of origin, as well States submitted to the committee this compromise, spelled out the basis for this as the other possible States of origin. It morning. reads:
III. BUDGET BUREAU RECOMMENDATIONS provision in his statement. In addition to protecting California's projects up to 4.4
"(b) The limitation stated in paragraph The Budget Bureau has approved the bill million acre-feet, section 304 also protects
(a) shall cease whenever the President shall in principle, with these four reservations (all existing uses in Arizona around the Yuma proclaim that works have been completed
accepted by the Secretary of the Interior). area and existing uses in Nevada, primarily and are in operation, capable in his judg
First. The Budget Bureau recommends in Clark County.
ment of delivering annually not less than against present authorization of Bridge A third major feature, one which concerns
2,500 million acre-feet of water into the Canyon Dam and powerplant, suggesting that all seven States in the basin, is title II.
mainstream of the Colorado River below Lee the dam's effects on scenic values and its This authorizes the Secretary to investigate Ferry, from sources outside the natural
need as part of the overall regional project be the water requirements of both the Upper drainage area of the Colorado River system;
studied further by a commission. The Caliand Lower Basins of the Colorado River to
and that such sources are adequate, in the fornia water users believe that Bridge Canyear 2020, and the sources from which the President's judgment, to supply such quan
yon Dam should be authorized now. Comdeficiencies might be supplied. I will return
tities without adverse effect upon the satis- missioner Dominy's testimony shows that the
faction of the foreseeable water requirements reservoir will not harm scenic values, but later to the conditions placed upon him in this investigation for the protection of States of any State from which such water is im
to the contrary, would make accessible to ported into the Colorado River system.” of origin of imported water.
millions of ordinary visitors the incompa
My statement today will deal primarily rable beauty heretofore restricted to a few The fourth major feature, one which concerns all seven basin States, is title IV. This
with the changes in the bill suggested by hundred people with time and money enough
the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary creates a basin account, into which reve
to "run the river" in special boats. And the of the Interior, the Upper Basin States, and nues from Marble Canyon and Bridge Can
Commissioner has testified that in 75 years, the members of this committee during the Bridge Canyon powerplant would put yon powerplants are to be paid, along with
these hearings. I will tell you which of revenues from Hoover, Davis, and Parker
about $1 billion into the development fund these changes in my opinion are improveDams, after payout of these structures, to
to help finance import projects. This comfinance importation works as well as help and which ones require further negotiation.
ments, which ones seem to be acceptable, mittee is quite competent to resolve the ispay out the cost of the Central Arizona
sues without the aid of a commission. We Project. Of these the principal revenue pro
Before I do, however, I would first like to would prefer to face up to this issue right ducer is Bridge Canyon.
discuss the seven-State consensus that was now and have it decided.
reached here last week, The fifth major feature, one which affects
Second. The Budget Bureau recognizes the potential States of origin of imported
II. THE SEVEN-STATE "CONSENSUS"
that the Mexican treaty burdon is a national water, is of particular concern to California Congressman UDALL and others have re
obligation which should be nonreimbursable. as a possible State of origin, as well as to ported to the committee the consensus
It equates this burden with the quantity the States dependent on the Columbia River reached last week by a group of representa
which must be delivered at the boundary, system. This is so in view of the Secre- tives from the seven Colorado River Basin 1.5 million acre-feet annually. The burden tary's statement during these hearings that States. We participated in the discussions is greater than that, because the delivery the two major stream systems which he that led to this consensus, and we are in of the Mexican treaty water also requires a pro rata share of evaporation losses in con- projects should only be built if thereafter vada. We are content that the Supreme veying that water downstream through the authorized by Congress. This seems a fair Court's decree be made applicable to imriver channel and reservoirs to the delivery solution here. I would have no objection to ported water within the lower basin in the point at the boundary, and unavoidable reg- a further condition requiring the Secretary, same way the decree now applies to the naulatory losses. David Dam, for example, is even if no State objected, to submit his pro- tural Colorado supply. a treaty structure.
posal to this Committee and its counterpart The upper basin amendments would strike The nonreimbursable treaty allocation in the Senate, to remain under submission out the proposal in section 304(c) of H.R. should be related to the full treaty burden, for a specified period subject to disapproval 4671 to make the 2.5 million acre-feet of to be determined by the Secretary, not just by either committee. This is the pattern of imports available at Colorado River prices. 1,500,000 acre-feet.
the Reorganization Act, followed by several I have already indicated my views with ref. Third. The Budget Bureau objects to the others.
erence to the Budget Bureau's recommenda
Allocation of imported water: The Upper principle of guaranteeing Colorado River
tion on this point. prices for the imported water required to Basin States propose that imports be subject Bridge Canyon: The upper basin disagrees firm up a supply of 7.5 million acre-feet for to the following priorities:
with the Budget Bureau's recommendation the lower basin, even though the guarantee 1. A first priority to satisfy the Mexican to delete the bridge canyon authorization. is limited to the availability of funds in the treaty burden. This is quite proper.
So do we, for the reasons indicated earlier. basin account. It believes that if the costs 2. A second priority to firm up the annual
Upper basin's Mexican treaty obligation allocable to the Mexican treaty are made main stream supply for Arizona, California,
under III(C) of the Colorado River Compact: nonreimbursable, this will have the same and Nevada to the 7.5 million acre-feet of The obligations of the upper and lower effect, at least for a protracted period of main stream water which Congress thought
basins under III(C) of the Colorado River time. I would recommend that we concede it was dividing among those three States in
Compact present an exceedingly complex this point, repeating here that the burden 1928. H.R. 4671 is designed to do this, and
legal problem. We had hoped to have this properly allocable to the treaty is greater we welcome the upper basin's concurrence,
question decided by the Supreme Court in than 1.5 million acre-feet. if this is what it means. But Governor
the Arizona v. California litigation, but the Fourth. The Budget Bureau recommends Love's statement reads as though this 7.5 upper States' successful resistance to our efthat any study of importation works be un- million, to be firmed up, includes Arizona's
fort to join them as parties in that suit predertaken by a National Water Commission uses on the tributaries, leaving us only 5.5
vented that resolution of the problem. as part of a full-scale study of the entire Na- million on the main stream. The three
The upper division States seek immediate States are already using more than 5.5 mil
relief from whatever obligation article III(C) tion's water problems, instead of by the
of the compact imposes upon them with reSecretary. We think this proposal should lion acre-feet from the main stream, and, be reconsidered. of course, could not agree to this if such is
spect to the Mexican burden. Article III(C) Time is of the essence. The Colorado intended.
says, in substance, that the 1945 Mexican 3. A third priority to firm up 7.5 million
burden (its extent and form being unknown River's problems have already been thor
when the compact was written n 1922) shall oughly studied by the Secretary of the In- acre-feet of consumptive use for the upper terior, and the responsibility for the Colorado
be satisfied first out of surplus over the basin contemplated by the Colorado River should remain in that department, where Compact. The principle is fair, if the upper
quantities specified in articles III (a) and (b) the Congress has placed it. It would be a basin can pay for the added 2 million acre
of the compact. If that surplus is insuf
ficient, the two basins shall bear the defimistake to submerge the immediate, critical feet of importations that the Tipton report ciency equally, and the upper division will problems of the southwest in the broader indicates may be needed (6.3 million acre
add water to make up its half of the defiproblems of the entire Nation. New York feet depletion as forecast by Tipton for the City should not wait on the Colorado, and upper basin, less
ciency to the 75 million acre-feet which it reservoir evaporation,
must deliver each decade under article the Colorado should not wait on Lake Erie. equals about 5.6 million acre-feet of con
III(d). sumptive use (diversion less returns) for IV. UPPER BASIN AMENDMENTS the upper basin).
The first question, therefore, is this: Is The Upper Colorado River Compact Com
But there are a number of practical dif
there any surplus, and, if so, how is it calcumission and the Colorado Water Conservaficulties. If the imported water is delivered
lated? The compact defines surplus, for tion Board have proposed today a number into the Colorado below Lee Ferry the upper
this purpose, as the excess over the quantiof specific amendments to H.R. 4671, some of States would presumably reduce their article
ties specified in articles III (a) and (b). them encompassed by the principles in the III (d) deliveries below °75 million acre-feet
Articles III (a) and (b) allocate 8.5 million seven-State consensus, some going beyond per decade to the extent that they buy and
acre-feet to the lower basin and 7.5 million them. They kindly gave us advance copies. deliver to lower basin users imported water
acre-feet to the upper basin, a total of 16 In my view, all of the upper basin proposals
million acre-feet.1 in excess of, not a part of, the first 2.5 mil
Arizona says that the are proper subjects for negotiation, although lion. This is because the 2.5 million is nec
lower basin's 8.5 million must all be supplied some of the language presently proposed is essary to supply the lower States 7.5 million
from the main stream. If so, there is no surnot acceptable. They deal with seven sub
plus. The upper basin says that these speceven if 75 million per decade is delivered at jects, as follows: Lee Ferry. The upper basin will probably
ified quantities are to be supplied from the Conditional authorization for importation
main stream plus the tributaries. not begin to need imported water until near works: The proposal is that this act author
there may be surplus. There is not 16 milthe turn of the century, according to point 3
lion acre-feet available for consumptive use ize the Secretary to construct works to im
in the consensus of August 20, which I have port 2.5 million acre-feet annually into the previously quoted. Meanwhile, imported
in the entire basin. However, there is a surColorado, on condition that he finds that water above 2.5 million, which is required
plus over the 8.5 million in the lower basin, such a project has a favorable benefit-cost for priorities 1 and 2 of the present upper
say the Upper Basin States, because Arizona's ratio, and the President approves his find basin proposal, will be needed in the lower
tributaries support some 2 million acre-feet ings. This has been objected to by a number basin commencing as early as 1975. This is
of consumptive use along those streams. of committee members as a blank check takso because the Metropolitan Water District
If this issue goes to Court, I think Ariing the decision out of the hands of Congress of Southern California will get only 550,000
zona—and California would support herand of the affected States, including the acre-feet, under the priorities set out in the
will win it, for two reasons: First, Arizona States of origin.
Hoover Dam water contracts, even if the presents the interpretation of the Colorado I suggest a compromise. Section 9(a) of lower basin's annual consumptive use from
River Compact that Congress gave in 1928 the reclamation project of 1939 gave the the main stream reaches 7.5 million. Thus,
when it approved the Compact. Second, even Secretary this authority (as did the 1902 imported water in addition to the 2.5 million
if the upper basin is right as a matter of Reclamation Act). But the authority is con- acre-feet required to firm up the 7.5 million
law, nevertheless, as a mater of fact, the ditioned on a finding, among others, that in the main stream in the lower basin is Mexican water treaty, when finally formuthe project's revenues will repay the reim- needed to enable Metropolitan to recover
lated 23 years after the compact, requires bursable allocations of the Government's the 662,000 that it is now using but must
daily delivery to Mexico of specified quaninvestment, not merely that it has a favor- relinquish as the central Arizona project goes
tities, 365 days per year, whereas the flow able benefit cost ratio. The Grand Coulee into operation. The problem is to match up,
of the Gila, coming down in great floods project in the State of Washington was first on one hand, security of the right to use
only a few days in the year in a state of authorized in this way, by the Secretary, in the imported supply with, on the other hand,
nature, would not have been usable to any a feasibility finding approved by the Presi- the obligation to pay for it. Perhaps some
appreciable extent in satisfying these fixed dent, later by act of Congress. Davis Dam, special consideration for Metropolitan's ex
daily requirements. There is no site for a the Salt River project, and many others were isting capacity and need for 662,000 acre-feet regulatory reservoir
regulatory reservoir in Mexico. Conseauthorized by feasibility findings. But in annually can be worked out.
quently, even if the Gila's potential con1944, in section 1(c) of the Flood Control
The upper States also propose that imports
tribution to satisfaction of the Mexican treaty Act of 1944, Congress amended this author available in the lower basin in excess of 2.5 ity by requiring the Secretary to submit his million acre-feet be allocated in such fashion 1 Article III (a) apportions 7.5 million acreproposal to each affected State for comment, as Congress may later direct. H.R. 4671 pro- feet of beneficial consumptive use to each the requiring him to forward the State's com- vides that such excess be allocated in ac- upper basin and the same quantity to the ments along with his report to Congress, and cordance with article II (B) (2) of the decree lower basin. Article III (b) permits the directing that if the Governor of any af- in Arizona v. California, that is, 50 percent
in Arizona v. California, that is, 50 percent lower basin to increase its beneficial confected State disapproved the proposal, the to California, 50 percent to Arizona and Ne- sumptive use by 1 million acre-feet.
were to be credited against the quantities meet the article III (d) requirement, Glen Second. It is impossible to evaluate a prothat the lower basin could otherwise de- Canyon must be kept at least at rated power posed amendment without seeing its lanmand from the upper States under article head. I do not see the connection. Rated guage and perhaps other language changes in TII (c), the reduction might not amount to power head is the reservoir level (i.e., the the bill. much.
head) required for the turbines to provide Third. The decision on some issues is priMoreover, if the interpretation of the their nameplate power production. I have
their nameplate power production. I have marily Arizona's, not ours. For example, if compact has to be litigated, the upper basin seen no figures that show why rated power Arizona wants to stand and fight for Bridge might remember that the Special Master in head is the measure of the minimum carry- Canyon Dam, even with a consequent delay Arizona v. California determined that the over storage required to permit the upper in the central Arizona project authorizaColorado River Compact is not a grant of basin to meet the article III (d) requirement tion-so will we, and with determination. If rights to the upper basin, but a ceiling on and still make its present or future consump- she will not, then with great regret we will the appropriations in both basins. Hence, tive use requirement. So far as I know, rated retreat with her on that particular issue. each basin would be free to appropriate any power head is relevant only to power produc
power head is relevant only to power produc- But, as Arizona knows better than most, we quantity of water up to the respective ceil- tion.
have had very little practice at retreating. ings—7.5 million acre-feet in the upper basin Reimbursement to the upper basin fund I conclude with this comment, the most and 8.5 million acre-feet in the lower basin. for payments to Hoover Dam power allottees: important lesson of the past several months
In short, if this issue remains unresolved, The upper States propose to have the upper is this: We can work out mutually acceptsome very expensive litigation will be re- basin fund reimbursed for payments hereto- able solutions to our problems; and we have quired over an insignificant quantity of wa- fore made to Hoover Dam power allottees, in the kind of people throughout the West to ter. It would be an even sadder result to accordance with the Glen Canyon filling cri- do so. have that question over just a little water teria, for impairment of power operations We all need this regional legislation, either hold up legislation involving potentially at Hoover caused by filling operations at Glen for present or for future needs, or for both. many millions of acre-feet for all the States. Canyon. We might have no objection to I can say to the upper basin that this legis
I believe that a satisfactory compromise making such payments out of the $500,000 lation may be as vital to their aspirations as can be worked out.
per year which these same allottees now pay it is to ours. Arizona's overdraft or New York Immediate relief of the upper basin from as a surcharge on Hoover power rates for City's shortage of today may be yours and any obligation to deliver water in excess of channeling into the Colorado River Develop- ours tomorrow unless all seven States work 75 million acre-feet each 10 years required ment Fund set up pursuant to the Boulder together to bring more water into the Coloby article III(d): The Upper Basin States Canyon Project Adjustment Act. However, rado. We face a common challenge and it propose this as a technique to eliminate we would strongly oppose tapping Hoover requires a united response. immediately any obligation under article revenues after payout in 1987, as the upper
"Never send to know for whom the bell III(C) to deliver water at Lee Ferry to sup- basin proposes. Instead, if the committee tolls; it tolls for thee." ply the Mexican treaty in addition to the sees fit, any remaining deficit may be paid to article III (d) delivery. I have already dis- the upper basin fund from the general Treas- JOINT STATEMENT OF W. S. GOOKIN, I. P. cussed that. But the language proposed- ury, to be repaid to the Treasury from the HEAD, W. E. STEINER, D. E. COLE, AND W. D. although probably not the intent-clearly new development fund created by H.R. 4671. MAUGHAN BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON does more than this. It writes articles III The problem will probably not recur, but,
IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION OF THE COM(e) and IV (b) out of the compact. if it does, the existing power contracts at
MITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Article III(e) says: Hoover Dam must be honored, or the con
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN SUPPORT OF “The States of the upper division shall tractors compensated if the Government does
PROPOSED LEGISLATION (H.R. 4671, H.R. not withhold water, and the States of the not perform them.
4706, AND H.R. 9248) TO AUTHORIZE THE lower division shall not require the delivery
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT, AS
Conclusion of water, which cannot reasonably be ap
PRESENTED BY W. DON MAUGHAN plied to domestic and agricultural uses.” During the course of these hearings, many
Mr. Chairman and members of the comThe upper division must thus deliver more of the States' representatives have been asked
mittee, I am W. Don Maughan, regional than 75 million-deliver whatever quantity if they would support or oppose the bill if
planning staff specialist, department of waexceeds its own domestic and agricultural one provision or another were omitted or
ter resources, for the State of California. I uses—if required for like uses in the lower added.
make this statement not only for myself basin. Some of the upper basin statements To some extent, these questions can be an
but also on behalf of Mr. W. S. Gookin, implicity recognize this. swered because they have been carefully
State water engineer, Arizona Interstate I will come to article IV(b) in connection studied by the States before the hearings.
Stream Commission, State of Arizona; Mr. I. with the next upper basin proposal. For example, the California water users would
P. Head, administrator, Colorado River ComDrawdown of Glen Canyon below rated oppose any central Arizona project bill that
mission of Nevada, State of Nevada; Mr. power head: The Upper Basin States propose did not contain a provision like section 304
W. E. Steiner, assistant chief engineer, dethat Glen Canyon reservoir shall never be to protect our existing projects up to 4.4
partment of water resources, State of Calidrawn down below rated power head, except million acre-feet annually.
fornia; and Mr. D. E. Cole, chief engineer, to meet the upper division's III(d) obligation To a great extent, however, many of the Colorado River Board of California, State of or by consent of the Upper Colorado River questions from the committee members can- California. We appear before you now to Compact Commission.
not be answered now. For example, Cali- present our joint memorandum on the ColoThis proposal would violate not only article fornia's Attorney General Lynch made clear rado River water supply in response to the III(e), but also IV(b), which says:
that he could not answer now the question question posed by Chairman ASPINALL in his "Subject to the provisions of this compact, whether California would support the bill
whether California would support the bill letter of May 22 as to the availability of water of the Colorado River System may be without title II, which authorizes the study
water to the central Arizona project. impounded and used for the generation of of importations. I can give a categorical an- Before reading our memorandum, we will electrical power, but such impounding and swer that we will oppose the elimination of summarize the response to the question posed use shall be subservient to the use and con- title II with all the resources at our com
by Chairman ASPINALL. He asked each State sumption of such water for agricultural and mand. Of course, an investigation of ways to for its views as to the availability of water domestic purposes and shall not interfere avoid disaster in the Southwest is necessary, for the central Arizona project “taking into with or prevent use for such dominant pur- just as it is in New York City, and, of course, consideration present uncommitted uses in poses." all available sources of water should be in
the upper basin, the filling of upper basin resGlen Canyon reservoir must be drawn vestigated, concurrently and rapidly, not in ervoirs, and, further, taking into considerabelow rated power head if necessary to use leisurely sequence. Who's afraid of facts? tion the ultimate use by the upper basin of of water for agricultural and domestic pur- Naturally, all reasonable safeguards for areas its share of water under the provisions of poses in the lower basin.
of origin, including California, must be the Colorado River Compact." This proposal, moreover, might result in obeyed in planning projects based on these Our joint studies indicate that there is Lake Mead being drawn below rated power investigations, as I indicated earlier in my better than an even chance that by 1975, head (or even emptied) to enable Glen to stay statement. In short, we are not contemplat- the earliest date that the central Arizona above that minimum, a result which would ing defeat on this issue, and the question of project could be completed, Lakes Mead and be unacceptable to the lower basin. We
what we would do next if we lost it is an Powell together will contain more than 40 think the task is to develop equitable operat. iffy question.
million acre-feet of water in a total storing criteria which will prevent either Lake Powell or Lake Mead being drawn down solely immediate answer. For example:
On some issues, other reasons prevent an
age capacity of about 55 million acre-feet.
There is an even chance, taking into considto benefit power operations at the other.
First. It is often necessary to consult with But, in any event, power operations at both
eration projections of upper basin depletions
in the amount of 5.5 million acre-feet per dams should remain subject to consumptive many persons on major policy questions.
annum that a full supply of 1.2 million acreuse requirements in each basin, as articles Attorney General Lynch, for California, made
feet per annum would be available for the III(e) and IV(b) of the Colorado River Com- clear that he would have to consult our Gov
proposed central Arizona project until about pact require. ernor on several questions of policy that he
the turn of the century. If there is no imUpper basin representatives have argued was asked about. Governor Hansen of Wyo- port of water by that time, the water supthat in order to make the consumptive uses ming indicated, quite properly, that he would ply available to the central Arizona project that their present projects require and still have to consult with his experts.
would then gradually reduce as the upper