WSP10564

• File Number: 8210.120
• Description: Colorado River Basin States Committee ‎(AKA Colorado River Compact Commission)‎
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 9/20/1949
• Author: CRBSC
• Title: Proceedings of the Meeting of the Colorado River Basin States Committee
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

<

.

.

8

MR. C4RsONI Under the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon
Project Act an~ the California Self-Limitation Act. But that would permit still,
during the penaency of any suit if any is filed, the construction of Coconino Dam;
the B,ridge canf. on Dam, power plant and transmission lines; the Hooker Dam, over in
New Mexico; the Charleston Dam on the San Pedro; the Buttes Dam 011 the Gila, the
McDowell Dam a~ the juncture of the Salt and the Verde; and also the raising of
the Horseshoe gates at Horseshoe Dam on the Verde and the conservi.ng of approxi-
mately l50,OOOiacre-feet of water in Central Arizona which now goes to waste and
would to that ~egree aid in relieving the acute water shortage through which
Arizona has be~n passing for the last few years; and salvage to the extent of the
local water av~ilable, the agricultural economy of Arizona, which is in great
danger of, coU,psing to the detriment of all the West.

And t&en they adopted one other amendment which related to the acquisition
of Indian righis on Indian lands and rights-of-way and so forth, that ,are neces-
sary, mainly r$l~ting to the Hua1apai Indian Reservation, on which the Bridge
Canyon Dam is tocated, but also incidentally affecting perhaps the Indian lands
on the Gila Riyer Reservation and the Colorado River Reservation near Parker and
the Salt RiverlReservation on the Salt River. But I think there is no particular
objection to t&at although I do know that there were some attorneys for aome of
those Indian ttibes that were objecting to those amendments which were p~oposed
by the Departmtnt of the Interior. Some of the attorneys wanted the veto\power
within their hands, and, we thought, to get hold of the money, but I don't\know.
I .

But t*e Senate Committee worked out so far as we could tell, the objec-
tions of California so far as they were limited merely to water rights. And then
California goe~ on this other mass of propaganda now which is going over the
country withou~ regard to any of the law of the river or legal doc~~ents or legal
or moral justification, and attack the Arizona Project on economic grounds as being
too costlyandlexpensive.
!
,
MR. W!LLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)

CHAI~.N STONE: Mr. Carson, may I ask this question. In effect, the
Authorization ~ill approved by the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the
Senate did thi~: First, it authorized the Project conditionally.

MR. C~ON: That is right.

"

I
CHAI~ STONE: One important condition was that consent would be given
to jo;lining thejUnited States in such litigation provided suit was started in six
months and provided further that the suit would be confined to a determination of
the availability of water for the Central Arizona Project--and th~ important
thing--under t~e Colorado River Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act, and
California's S~lf-Limitation statute.
.~
MR. CARSON: That is right.

,

,
CHAIRMAN STONE: And then it withholds the authorization of appropriations
for that part pf the Project that diverted water until the determination of this
suit, if the s~it is initiated by California.

i
I
I

,

'-.'"