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

r'j;:,

4

210:.5

Governor designated the Director of Water Re-
sources to assume responsibility for the direction
of such negotiations on behalf of the Governor
and urged that all possible assistance be provided.
At a special meeting held on November 29, the
Colorado River Board unanimously "agreed to
support Governor Reagan's leadership of negoti-
ations with Arizona and the other states of the
Colorado River Basin as set forth in his letter
to the Chairman on November 28, 1967," and
pledged continuing cooperation "as in the past
in achieving a satisfactory solution to Colorado
River legislation."
Looking toward early consideration of Colo-
rado River Basin Project legislation by the House
Interior Committee in the second session of the
90th Congress, a draft of revision to H.R. 3300
was prepared by the State of Colorado for con-
sideration during a meeting of the seven Colo-
rado River Basin states to be held in Las Vegas,
Nevada, on December 7, 1967. On December 4,
1967, the Colorado River Board staff and ad-
visors, representatives of the Department of
Water Resources and the Attorney General met
to consider the draft proposal. A prime objective
of the seven-state meeting on December 7 was to
bring together the suggestions for revision and
develop areas of agreement on proposed legisla-
tive amendments to H.R. 3300 which could be
supported by the basin states. As a result of the
seven-state meeting, a new revision to the Colo-
rado draft of H.R. 3300 was developed.
Certain aspects of the legislation prepared by
the State of Colorado were not acceptable to
California so a draft of revision was also pre-
pared by the California interests: representatives
of the Colorado River Board, Department of
'Vater Resources, Attorney General and the
California Advisory Committee on Western
States Water Planning. Although the new draft
of a California bill deferred authorization of
Hualapai Dam, it did contain the three major ele-
ments essential to California's acceptance of a
bill.

j

,

1. Protection of existillg uses. We must insist
upon the principle stated in H,R. 3300 for the
allocation of water shore,ages, irrespective of how
it may be exptessed, This is the universal principle
of western water law I that existing uses shall not
be impaired to make water available for new ones.
The Boulder Canyon Project Act in 1929 limited
this protection for California to 4.4 million acre-
feet annually, The result is that California's pres-
ently existing projects, which were constructed

to use 5.4 million acre-feet at a cost exceeding
$600,000,000 and are now furnishing 5.1 million
acre-feet of water annuallv to more than half
of California's population, must bear the full im-
pact of shortages which reduce the Lower Basin's
total mainstream supply to 7.5 million, California
is then reduced to 4.4 million, while leaving 2,8
million for Arizona, 300,000 for Nevada, to make
possible large expansion of uses in those states.
California's legislature agreed to this in 1929 be-
cause Congress required it of us jf construction
of Hoo,'er Dam were to proceed notwithstanding
Arizona's rejection of the Colorado River Com-
pact, ,Ve will live up to that burdensome limita-
tion, but we did not agree then, and will not
agree now, to any deeper cut, below 4.4 million.
If the supply is less than 7.5 million, the next loss
must be borne by Ariz.ona. and diversions for
the Central Arizona project must he reduced, as
H.R. 3300 requires, in the amount necessary to
supply the requirements of existing projects in
Arizona and Nevada, and 4,4 million acre-feet of
the requirements of existing projects in Cali-
fornia.

2. Augmentation. lnasmuch as the assurance
of 7,5 million acre-feet of mainstream consump-
tive uses will require the introduction of about
2.5 million acre-feet of new water annually into
the river below Lee Ferry, the bill should author-
ize investigations of means to accomplish at least
this minimum objective. The protection of exist-
ing uses must continue until that objective is ac-
complished. To facilitate passage of the bill, we
would reduce the target figure for planning the
first stage of augmentation to a flat 2,5 million
acre-feet (it is now stated in H.R, BOO as a
"range" of 2.5 to 8.5 million). By "augmentation"
we mean the introduction of new supplies into the
rh'er for use below Lee Ferry, not salvage or
exchange or other devices. We must insist on ade-
quate priority protection for areas and states of
origin in the event that any of this water is taken
from Cali fornia rh'ers.

3, Fintmcing, To facilitate passage of the bill,
we would reluctantly agree [Q delete authorization
of Hualapai dam, deferring that issue to later con-
sideration, But if Hualapai is eliminated, we must
insist that the remaining sources of revenues for
the ildevelopment fund", primarily Hoover, Davis
and Parker Dam power revenues be earmarked to
finance augmentation works, and not be made
available to subsidize the Central Arizona project.
This accords with the Boulder Canyon Project
Act, which specifically prohibits use of any
Hoover power revenues to assist the AIl-AmerI-
can Canal, and denies use of sllch revenues to aid
Metropolitan's aqueduct. The cost of augmenta-
tion works attributable to the Mexican Treaty
burden and associated losses (about 1.8 million
acre-feet altogether) must be nonreimbursable,
carrying out the agreement which Senator Kuchel
obtained from the Budget Bureau on this point.

19