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

Mead so dJGj:J>~ih-;-reservoirs share the benefits
of wet vears ananeither of them bears alone the
burden of drawdowns during drouths, and provi-
sions for reimbursing the Upper Bosin's fund for
payments that must be made out of that fund to
keep the Hoover power contractors whole under
their contracts if water is \vithheld from power
generation at Hoover to build up Lake Powell.

6. The bill retains the careful protection for
areas of origin.

7. A key feature of the seven-state bill is Title
II, directing the Secretary to investigate shortages
in the entire ColoT:ldo River Basin, and to formu-
late and report to Congress a regional plan for
their alleviation through importations of water or
otherwise. This is retained.

The Committee added a new feature, a seven-
man national water commission under \vhose gen-
eral direction the Secretary is to make his study
and reporr. He is to first make a reconnaissance re-
port and if this is favorable as to availability of a
water surplus in the areas of origin, and as to the
benefit-cost ratio of the importation works and
the probability of repayment of their cost, he is
authorized to proceed with a feasibility report on
these importation works without further direction
from Congress. Of course authorization of actual
construction must await action from Congress on
his feasibility reporr.

I
r.

On August 19, 1966, Governor Hansen of
Wyoming advised the President of withdrawal
of Wyoming's support of H,R. 4671 on the
grounds that the amendments by the House In-
terior and Insular Affairs Committee pertaining
to augmentation had eroded the fundamental
principles deemed to be essential bv the State of
Wyoming. Of growing concern - to California
and other basin srates was the possibility that
when the bill reached the floor of rhe House
there would be a concentrated effort on the part
of some eastern congressmen to introduce substi-
tute amendments which would eliminate the re-
gional aspects of the bill to essentially a Central
Arizona Project authorization. Bv the end of
August the House Rules Committee had not
granted a rule on rhe bill. Accordingly, on Au-
gust 31, 1966, the Board adopted a resolution
reaffinning the essentials stated in its resolution
of August 3 and adding this statement:

We are not prepared to endorse any modifica-
tions of that bill which do not result from full
consultation among all of the states of the Colo-
rado River Basin before the bill goes to the House
/loor. Two years of successful interstate negotia-
tions. resulting in the present degree of unity in
the Basin, should not be sacrificed.

I'
l

Chairman Rummonds on September I, 1966,
sent a telegram to the California congressional
members of the House Interior and Insular Af-
fairs Committee and to California members of
the House Rules Committee reiterating the
Board's position on H.R. 4671 as reported by
the full Interior Committee; he also telegraphed
certain other members of rhe California congres-
sional delcgation, the Secretary of the Interior,
and kev officials of the seven Colorado River
Basin states reaffirming the Board's endorsement
of H.R. 4671 and urging that any renegotiation
of the provisions of rhe bill be done in meetings
of all seven Colorado River Basin states before
rather than afrer the bill went to the House floor.
In response to the September I telegram, the
Executive Director of the Arizona Interstate
Stream Commission replied that Arizona's en-
dorsement of H.R. 4671, without change, con-
tinued to be in effect; that Arizona wished to
procced with the bill in its present form; but that
Arizona could not guarantee that the provisions
as reported would survive floor debate.
By the close of September 1966 it was ap-
parent that the Rules Committee would not grant
a rule on H.R. 4671 and that the bill was dead.
Charges were made that southern California in-
terests had prevented progress of H,R. 4671 to
the floor of the House. In reality, Congressman
\,yayne N. Aspinall, Chairman of the House
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and
others did not support the granting of a rule
because passage could not be assured due to the
following reasons:

I. Lack of support by the Administration for the
bill as approved by the House Interior Com-
mittee.
2. Opposition of the "preservation" groups to
the power dams proposed on the river.
3. Opposition of the Pacific Northwest to the
regional study proposals.
4. Evidence of weakening of the seven-state
unity.
5. Opposition of the economy bloc in the House
in view of the high cost of the proposed
projects.

In addition, one of the dangers of bringing the
bill to the floor of the House was the possibility
that a substitute bill by Mr. Saylor would have
becn adopted. This bill would have eliminated
the major features desired by California and the

13