WSP09658 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2088 Upper Basin states. On October 1, 1966, in a speech before the Colorado State Grange, Chair- man Aspinall discussed the above factors, the possible passage of the Saylor amendment and stated: "In these circumstances, it seemed to me that a lingering death in the Rules Committee was preferabie to bringing ihe bill to the Floor where we would not only run the risk of de- feat but face the possibility of having a bill passed which would be completely unacceptable to Colorado and the other upper basin states". The Chief Engineer and Principal Engineer attended a special meeting of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin states which was held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on No~.em- ber 16, 1966, to consider whether legislation for a Colorado River Basin Project proposed to be introduced in the 90th Congress might have the support of all the states. Douglas J. Wall, Chair- man of the Arizona Interstate Stream Commis- sion, stated that all commitments and guarantees made bv Arizona and included in H.R. 4671 were coilsidered to be null and void as of the date of adjournment of the 89th Congress. He further stated that Arizona would make a full scale effort for a federal reclamatinn project in the 90th Congress and would accelerate its own program for a Central Arizona Project without federal help so as to utilize Arizona's share of Colorado River water at the earliest possible date. Con- gressman Udall of Arizona expressed the view that federal legislation was the best approach for a solution of Arizona's problems and that there was a continued need for seven-state cooperation. On December 12, 1966, representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin states met again in the offices of the Colorado River Board. The State of Colorado presented three amendments to H.R. 4671 as the basis for compromise language which might be embodied in a new draft bill to be introduced in the 90th Congress. These amendments would provide for: 1. Elimination of proposed Marble Canyon Dam. 2. Lowering of proposed Hualapai (Bridge Canyon) Dam by 90 to 100 feet. 3. Downgrading the level of Colorado River au~mentation study from feasibility to recon- naissance. On January 4, 1967, the Colorado River Board adopted a resolution reaffirming its posi- tion statement of August 3, 1966, with respect 14 to 'proposed Colorado River Basin Project legis- lation; recommending introduction in the 90th Congress of a bill like H.R. 4671 as reported by the !~ouse Comm!n:ee on August. 11, 1966; rec- ~glllzmg the posslblhty of negotiated modifica- tions of the text; and urging additional seven- state conferences_ This resolution was transmitted to the Cali- fornia senators, to the California and Arizona congressmen and to certain officials of the State of California. A joint meeting of the Colorado River Board and the California Advisory Committee on Western States vVatet Planning was held in Sacramento on January 11, 1967, at which time the Board's resolution of January 4 was con- sidered. Mr. William Gianelli, newly appointed Director, Department of Water Resources, pre- sented a statement in which he concurred with the position of the Colorado River Board that California should begin where it left off in the last session of the Congress in negotiating Colo- rado River legislation. The Advisory Committee adopted a tesolution in support of the Colorado River Board position and by letter of January 11, 1967, Committee Chairman Carlev V. Porter so advised Governor Reagan. . Early in January 1967, following the opening of the 90th Congress, several bills were intro- duced with respect to a Colorado River Basin Project. These included: H.R. 30, a regional bill by Congressman Aspinall-subsequently re- introduced as H.R. 3300; an identical bill, H.R. 744, by Congressman Johnson of California; H.R, 9 by Congressman Udall-a Central Ari- zona Project bill; and H.R. 722 by Congressman Hosmer-identical to H.R, 4671 as reported by the House Interior Committee the previous year. On January 31, 1967, Senator Kuchel advised that after consultation with Chairman Aspinall and Subcommittee Chairman Johnson of the House Interior Committee and with Northcutt Ely, Special Counsel of the Colorado River Board, and Special Assistant Attorney General and others, the Senator proposed to introduce legislation which would retain the basic princi- ples of H.R. 4671 of the 89th Congress but would eliminate Marble Canyon Dam, reduce the size of the proposed Central Arizona Aque- duct and make certain other minor clarifying changes. During its regular meeting of February 1, 1967, the Colorado River Board unanimously . ,;