WSP09658 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C\ < no t;.:.U 8. Authorization for the construction of the Central Arizona Project, as part of the re- gional plan, but on the condition that if the water supply of the Colorado River is insuffi- cient to satisfy the requirements of the proj- ects already in existence or heretofore au- thorized by Congress for construction in Ariz()n~ r:11ifnmi:l :md Nevada. then short- ages sh;iI be borne as provided in those bills. The e/fect is that California must bear the first burden of shortage, sacrificing nearly one million acre feet of constructed capacity whenever the supply shrinks to 7.5 million acre feet annually; but that the Central Ari- zona Project shail bear the next share of the shortage if the supply shrinks below 7,5 mil- lion acre feet before imported water arrives. To rhis end the priorities of existing and authorized projects will be protected as against the proposed Central Arizona Project, but onlv until works h:we heen constructed to import at least 2,5 million acre feet an- nually. The protection to existing and au- thorized projects in Arizona and Nevada would be unrestricted in quantities, but the protection to California's existing projects would he restricted to 4.4 million acre feet annually, [0 give effect to a limitation to which California agreed at the time of en- actment of rhe Boulder Canyon Project Act, II The Colorado River Board of California recom- mends against enactment of the bill recommended by the Secretary of the Interior in his report on the Aspinall bill. The Secretary's proposal fails to protect the interests of any state other than Ari- zona. I t abandons the regional solutions proposed by the Secretary in the last Congress, and which the seven states accepted in the bill (HR 4671) reported out of committee in the 89th Congress, California followed and supported the Secretary's leadership then, and regrets his abandonment of it now. California has not changed her position, \Ve hope t~at unity among the seven states can be reestabhshed under the leadership of Chairman Aspinall within the framework of the principles the sev.en states agreed upon last year which this resolution restates. Hearings were held in the House Subcommit- tee on March 13-17, 1967. Testimony was basi- cally limited to such pertinent information as had not been covered the previous year during the hearings on H,R. 4671. Statements were presented by Mr. Gianelli on behalf of Governor Reagan; by Chairman Rum- monds on behalf of the Colorado River Board, including the resolution adopted by the Board on March 1, 1967, and by Northcutr Ely on be- 16 half of Attorney General Lynch, all in support of the general principles expressed in H.R. 3300. Mr. Floyd L. Goss, Chief Electrical Engineer and Assistant Manager of the Department of \Vater and Power, City of Los Angeles, accom- panied by Mr. Gilmore Tillman, Chief Assistant City Attornev. Citv of Los AnQ'eles and Mr. Holburt, pre~~ntel important new testimony recommending the immediate authorization and construction of Hualapai Dam and power plant with an increase of generating capacity from the 1,500,000 kw originally proposed to 5 million kw as a combined hydro-pumped storage peak- ing plant. The staffs of the Colorado River Board, De- partment of \Vater Resources and Attorney General collaborated on the statements presented to the committee and assisted committee mem- bers in cross-examination of witnesses. Further action by the House Committee was delayed pending th-e outcome of Senate consid- eration. On April 5, 1967, the Board unanimously adopted a resolution endorsing Mr. Goss' recom- mendations: The Colorado River Board supports such amendment of the pending Colorado River bills now before the Congress of the United States as may be necessary to permit the full exploration and development of the hydro-pumped storage peaking plant fot Hoalapai Dam and Reservoir at Bridge Canyon, with an installed, capacity of 5 million kilowatts, This project was proposed by the Department of ,Vater and Power of the City of Los Angeles on Match 17, 1967, in hear- ings before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. The Board endorses the prin- ciples of the Department's proposal, which will help to optimize hydroelectric power develop- ment as well as to improve the recreational po- tential of the area and will expedite passage of the pending legislation, During the period May 2-5, 1967, hearings were held by the Senate Interior Subcommittee on \Vater and Power Resources on proposed Colorado River Basin legislation (S. 1013, S. 1004 and S. 861) . Testimony was again pre- sented by Messrs. Gianelli, Rummonds and Ely, and by Mr. Goss with respect to the Depart- ment's proposal for Hualapai Dam. A statement by the Chief Engineer on "California's Stake in the Colorado River" was also inserted in the record. During the hearings the differences among the several bills and the issue of parochial