WSP10564 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . 6 I kn~.that the National Reclamation Association has had a Legislative Committee working on that, of which Judge Stone is Chairman. And they worked on it and prepar~d House Bill 1770, which is now held up in the Rules Committee; but it.seems fromlthe statements of the President as I gather them, that bill will have to be retised. And I wondered if it wouldn't be an adVisable thing or a helpful thingi Judge Stone, if this Colorado River Basin States Committee, which is a small co~esive group, could appoint a subcommittee to get in and see what could be donela10ng that line with our various Congressional delegations and working with ~he National Reclamation Association and the Bureau of Reclamation. I wo~ld like to throw that out as a suggestion and have you people con- sider it. It jseems to me it would be very valuable and it seems to me that that ties right in 'with the plan of all these states. As I understand, in signing the :C'ieber River Aulthorization Bill, the President stated he did so reluctantly and made the stat~ment that no future aPPropriations.would be approved until this basic policy question was worked out. CHAIR,MAN STONE: Mr, Carson, in line with your suggestions as to matters Which the Co~ttee might consider, may I suggest that because of the fact all those who are pere present may not fully understand the nature of the authoriza- tion of the Cehtral Arizona Project, you briefly explain that authorization. Many of us her~ do know but others may not have followed that closely. The rkason I make that suggestion is this: These States represented on this Committeelhad a direct interest in some of the matters involved in the au- thorization of1the Central Arizona Project. That interest was precipitated because of the I effort of California to initiate litigation through the McCarran Resolution andlsubsequent proposals by California for consent of the Congress that the United Sta~es be joined in an action before the Supreme Court of the United States on the ~olorado River. That matter and some of the questions raised before Committees of Congress by California, directly and adversely affected the intere&s of these States which have recently negotiated a Compact. And I believe it well for you to bri~fly--not in any great detail--explain that matter. We kn4>w that the Committee which you mentioned, namely, the Interior and Insular Affair$ Committee of the Senate, has favorably reported on that Authoriza- tion Bill; but;at the time the authorization was before the Committee there was also conducted,a hearing on the Resolution by California to throw this river and the states int$rested in the river, into the Supreme Court of the United States in a type of Ittigation which many of us suspected meant readjudication of the rights of the qolorado River, irrespective of the Colorado River Compact. I think it might be we11 to briefly state that. , MR. a:ARSON: Well, the Central Arizona Project Authorization Bill, which is s. 75 and H~R. 934 and 935 in the House, is a bill to authorize the construc- tion of the Ce~tra1 Arizona Project, including works on the main stem of the river in the Lower B4sin at Bridge Canyon Dam, and a power plant and transmission lines at that point;;a dam on the Little Colorado River at the Coconino damsite; a dam in Arizona at ~he junction of the Verde and Salt Rivers called the McDowell dam- site; the Butt~s Dam on the Gila River just below its junction with the San Pedro River; and a d4m on the upper reaches of the San Pedro at the Charleston site; and a dam in New M~xico on the Gila at the Hooker site. ."