WSP09658

• File Number: 8210.140.20
• Description: Colorado River Basin Organizations and Entities - Colorado River Basin States Forum - California
• State: CA
• Basin: Western Slope
• Date: 1/1/1968
• Author: Dallas E Cole
• Title: Colorado River Board of California Report for Period July 1 1966 - December 31 1967
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

!'\ ~ C' ('
l:.LJu

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Colorado IUVGi Basin Prclect

During the period July I, 1966, to December
31, 1967, legislative proposals concerning the
utilization and augmentation of the water re-
sources of the Colorado River basin were re-
viewed and analyzed by the Board's staff and
counsel and brought before the Board for policy
decision. The Board and its staff participated
in extensive negotiations with representatives of
other western states and the Federal Govern-
ment, drafting of new bills and revisions of ex-
isting bills to reflect Board policy. Close coop-
eration was furnished by the Attorney General
and by the Departmerir of ,,, ater Resources.
Studies were conducred of the probable effects
of proposed legislative language upon the rights
and interests of California water and power
users.
During July and August, 1966 considerable
attention was devoted by the Congress to the
proposed Colorado River Basin Project bills,
H.R, 4671 and S. 1019. The Board's annual
report for 1965-66 discussed in detail the legis-
lative problems concerning these similar bills, in-
cluding hearings before the House Interior Sub-
committee on Irrigation and Reclamation in May
1966. The Subcommittee on June 27, 1966, re-
ported to the full committee the proposed Colo-
rado River Basin Project bill, H.R. 4671 as
amended.
During the National Governors Conference
on July 5, 1966, a letter signed by each of the
governors of the seven basin states was for-
warded to the President urging active support
of the Colorado River Basin Project by the
Administration.
The House Interior and Insular Affairs Com-
mittee amended H.R. 4671 on July 21, 1966, by
rewriting the provisions of Title II pertaining to
augmentation of the river. In part, this amend-
ment was objectionable to California and others
because it weakened the augmentation study pro-
visions by placing the investigation of the Colo-
rado Basin water shortages and means of aug-
mentation of the Colorado in the hands of a
newly created National Water Commission,

12

t""lrlnlT t'hil;: Ant' Af rh", h'1nrh: nf rhp Sprrpt-:.rv'
......nu.LO "'U'-' .......... OJ" '-..- ..~..~~ ~~ ~..._ ~__~_.__.' J
and the end product was to be a reconnaissance
report, instead of a feasibility report, necessi-
tating a second act of Congress to authorize a
feasibility investigation and report. There fol-
lowed negotiations among the representatives of
the Colorado River Basin states which resulted
in the substitution of a Title II amendment
which was satisfactory to and could be supported
by California and most of the basin states. The
new amendment was approved and on July 28
the full House Interior Committee reported H.R.
4671, as amended, by a vote of 22 to 10. All the
California members -of the committee as well as
all the Colorado River Basin congressmen voted
in support of the bill.
On August 3, 1966, the Colorado River Board
adopted the following resolution:

The Colorado River Board of California sup-
ports the Colorado River Project bill, HR 4671 as
:lpproved by the House Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs July 28, 1966,
This bill retains the fe:lrures on which ~111 seven
states of the Colorado Ri\'er Basin had agreed in
interst:lte negori:ltions over the past year. These
include:
1. Authorization for construction of the Cen-
tral Arizona aqueduct. Bridge ~anyon (Hualapai)
and Marble Canyon dams and power plants, and
fi\'e projects in Colorado,
2. Protection of existing uses in Arizona and
Nevada, and those in California up to the decreed
quantity of 4.4 million acre-feet annually: The
Central Arizona project is to bear the rIsk of
shortages until importation works 'dre constructed
to bring at least 2.5 million acre-feet of water an-
nually into the main stream of the Colorado River.
J. The portion of the cost of the imporrarion
works fairly allocable to the performance of the
Mexican 'Vater Treaty, a national obligation, is
made nonreimbursable.
4. A development fund is created, fed by power
re\'enucs from Bridge, J\1arble, Hoover, Davis and
Parker dams, to subsidize the Central Arizona
aqueduct and help par for imporration works.
5, The compromise between the Upper and
Lower Basins is retained. Its features include rc-
lief of both basins from the Mexican Treaty
burden when works to import 2.5 million acre-
feet annually are in operation, a plan for coordi-
nating the operation of Lake Powell and Lake