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

21U1

.....

versus regional approach became more apparent
as well as the need for continued negotiations by
all interests, On June 26, 1967, Congressman
Tunney commented before the House on the
importance to California of an augmentation
program and inserted in the Congressional Rec-
ord the statement by Dallas E. Cole before the
Senate Interior Subcommittee, as well as a pres-
entation by Mr. Cole before Northwest water
experts at- Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon, on May 11. 1967. In considering Cali-
fornia's future course of action in view of these
legislative difficulties, the Board adopted a reso-
lution in reaffirmation of its position:

The Colorado River Board of California en-
dorses the statement of Governor Ronald Reagan
to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, presented by William Gianelli, Director
of \Vater Resources, and that of Attorney Gen-
era! Thomas C. Lynch, presented by -Special
Assistant Attorne;' General Northcutt Elv, in
support of Senator Kuche!'s Colorado Ri,'er bill,
S, 861.
The Board expresses to Senator Kuchel its ap-
preciation, and that of California's water users,
for his leadership in the fight to protect Cali-
fornia's rights in the Colorado River.
The Board reaffirlns the policies outlined in its
resolution of March I, 1967, It now appears ap-
propriate to restate California's position with
respect to the three major issues which developed
during the Senate heatings.

I. With Respect to the Protection of Existing
Uses of IVater
The consttuction of the Centtal Arizona Ptoj-
ect will in time result in water shortages for
existing projects on the Colorado River. If that
project is to be authorized in advance of congres~
sianal authorization of works to augment the
Lower Basin water supply, -the Central Arizona
Project must bear a portion of the shortages it
will create, and existing projects in Califotnia,
Arizona and Nevada must have priority protec~
tion. We recognize that the protection to Cali-
fornia's existing projects must be limited to 4.4
million acre-feet annually to conform to the Su-
preme Court decree. This means that California.
not Arizona, actuallv bears the first burden of
the shortage, losing 662,000 acre-feet of the
Metropolitan \Vater District supply when Cali-
fornia's is reduced to 4,4 million. The protection
to California's remaining supply must not end
until the river is augmented to firm up the 7.5
million acre-feet annually which the Supteme
Court apportioned among' Arizona, California and
Nevada. This was our agreement with Arizona in
the 89th Congress, \Ve will not agree to terminate
this protection of California's 4,4 million acre-
feet at the end of any specific number of years,

,I'

I
,
10,
J
r

or to reduce it to a lesser quantity at some future
date, 3S Arizona now proposes.

2, With Respect to lmpOrtLltiollS

California cannot support a bill to authorize the
Central Arizona Project lInless that bill also au-
thorizes an immediate and meaningful study of
ways to au~men~ the water s~pply i!l the m:ain
Colorado RJVer, mcluding stud,es of lmpOrtatlon
possihilities, by at least the quantity necessary to
firm lip the 7.5 million acte-feet apportioned by
the Supreme Court decree. \Ve are willing that
this investig:ltion include sources in northwestern
California, but only on a parity of intensity and
of timing with stlldies of all other possible sources.
The bill must contain adequate protection for
areas and states of origin. \Ve have no objection
to the creation of a National \Vater Commission
to exercise jurisdiction over these investigations,
provided that this is not used as a device for de-
lay, The investigation should get lInderwa)' at
once.

3. With Respect to Hltalapai Dam

It is essential that Hualapai Dam and power
plant be included in the Central Arizona Project
bill, as they always have been. HlIalapai Dam is
an essential source of low-cost power for the
economy of the Southwest, as well as an essential
source of fnnds to finance works to add water to
the Colorado River. \Ve endorse the proposal of
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
that the Hualapai power plant be built as a 5
million kilowatt pumped storage peaking plant.
'.\Ie \vill not agree to the creation of a basin ac-
COUIlt or development fund which mortgages the
future power revenues of Hom"'er, Davis and
Parker Dams unJess revenues from Hualapai
(which will have more capacti)' than all three of
these dams combined) are also included in the
fund,

The Kuchel bill, S. 861, and its counterparts in
the House, include all three of these- essentials, as
did the bills in the 89th Congress on which Ari-
zona, California and the other Basin states agreed,
California has not changed her position, will keep
the agreement she then made; we therefore sup-
port the Kuchel bilL Bur California must oppose
the Havden bill, S. 1004, and the Administration
bill, S, 'I 01 J, which leave out all tlll'ee of these
esse-ntials to which previously Arizona agreed,
and by which she secured California's support for
her Central Arizona Project.

As a consequence of the Senate Interior Sub-
committee hearings, there followed a series of
conferences with Upper Basin representatives in
an attempt to reconcile various positions and
reach compromise agreements before the Senate
and House committees' markup of the respective
bills.

17