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

,

20~:J

endorsed Senator Kuchel's proposal and tele-
graphed him this message:

With regard to your telegram of January 31,
1967, the Colorado River Board endorses rhe
introduction of legislation along the lines you
propose, as such action would be consistent with
our resolution of January 4, 1967, which reads
in part as follows:
The Colorado River Board of California re-
affirms its statement of position adopted on Au-
gust J, 1966, and recommends the introduction of
proposed legislation in the 90th Session of the
Congress in the form of H.R. 4671, the Colorado
River Basin Project bill, reported favorably by
the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
on August 11, 1966, The Board recognizes that
the text of the bill as introduced may be subject
t? modIfication as the result of further negotia-
tion, prOVIded, however, that it must retain
language to protect existing uses in Arizona and
Nevada and those in California up to the quantity
of 4,4 million acre-feet annually.

i

Senator Kuchel's bill, co-sponsored by Senator
Moss of Utah, was introduced as S. 861.
While the Board was in session on February
], ]967, Senator Kuchel telephoned to inform
the Board of an announcement by the Secretary
of the Interior of a revised development program
for the Lower Colorado River which in parr
would. provide for a Central Arizona Project,
expansIOn of the boundaries of Grand Canyon
National Park to, include Marble Canyon, defer-
ment of any actIon on Hualapai Dam site, and
substitution for hydro-electric power of power
capacity to be purchased in thermal electric gen-
erating plants for pumping power needs of the
Central Arizona Project. This proposal by the
Administration represented a complete turna-
bout with respect to previous recommendations
of the Secretary of the Interior for a rcgional
concept of planning to meet the Colorado River
Basin needs.
Two more bills were introduced in the Senate
with respect to Colorado River legislation. On
February ]6, ]967, Senator Hayden, co-spon-
sors Senators Fannin and Jackson, introduced S.
] 004 to authorize only the Central Arizona
Project. The following day S. ]013, the Admin-
istration bill, was introduced by Senator Jackson.
Following announcement by the Chairman of
the House Interior and Insular Affairs Commit-
tee that hearings would be scheduled beginning
on March 13, 1967, before the Subcommittee
on Irrigation and Reclamation to consider H.R.
3300 and related proposals for a Colorado River

Basin Project or a Central Arizona Project, the
Board unanimously adopted this resolution on
March ], ]967:

The Colorado River Board of California recom-
mends enactment of S. 861, 90th Congress, intro-
duced by Senator Kuchel of California and Sena-
tor Moss of Utah, and counterpart bilIs in the
House, as introduced by Congressman Hosmer
(HR 6271) and others. These bills agree in prin-
ciple with those introduced by Chainnan Aspinall
of the House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs and Chainnan Johnson of that Commit-
tee's Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation,

The foregoing bilIs all embody the following
features, which the Colorado River Board has re-
peatedly endorsed, and which were contained in
the bill reported out by the House Committee in
the 89th Congress:

1, Recognition of the necessity for meaningful
steps to augment the inadequate flows of the
Colorado River,

2. Adequate protection for the states and areas
of origin of water exported to the Colo-
rado, including full protection of the priori-
ties of those areas in perpetuity.

3. Recognition of the Mexican Treaty burden
as a national obligation, and that an appro-
priate share of the cost of importing water
should be allocated to the performance of
that T reary. Whenever importations are ac-
complished to the extent of 2.5 million acre
feet annually, both basins should be relieved
of the danger of curtailment of their own
uses to perform the Nation's Treaty obliga-
dons to !\1exico.

4. Balancing of the operation of Lake Mead and
Lake Powell, so that the benefits of wet vears
and the burdens of drought shall be equitably
distributed between Upper Basin and Lower
Basin reservoirs. \Ve recommend the lan-
guage of the Kuchel-Moss-Hosmet bills in
this respect.

5. Authorization for construction of the five
projects in Colorado.

6. Reimbursement of the Upper Colorado River
Basin fund for payments out of that fund to
c.ompensate reduction of the power opera-
tions at Hoover Dam occasioned by filling of
Lake Powell.

7. Authorization for construction of Bridge
Canyon (Hualapai) dam and Power Plant
and creation of a basin account to help fi~
nance the Central Arizona Project and im-
portation works, fed by revenues from Hual-
apai Dam and by revenues from Hoover
Davis and Parker Dams after they have paid
out.

15