WSP10564 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . ~: 7 The ~otal estimated cost of all of those works after the bill was amended by the Senate lCommittee to leave out the Bluff dam..con the San Juan River in Southern Utah~ and to make it clear that Glen Canyon dam--it was never in the plan--but to njake it clear that Glen Canyon dam was not included, the total re- maining works jestimated cost is just a little in excess of $700,000,000. Of that amount, proba~ly $250,000,000 would be required to divert main stream Colorado River water. 1 Calif;ornia fought Arizona in the beginning on the question of the water right and cla~ed that that was all the interest they had in the matter. The Governor of C~ifornia in his comments on the Central Arizona Project report stated that t~at was the sole California interest; and if Arizona had the right to the use of ~he water, they would not fight the project, Then an their suit resolution and in the hearings on the Central Arizona Project befor~ both Committees, California fought the question of the water right on three main points: (1), that the water mentioned in Article III (b) of the Colorado Riverl Compact was not apportioned to the Lower Basin; (2), that bene- ficial consump~ive use must be measured at the point of use instead of by deple- tion of the st~eam; and (3), that California should bear no part of any evapora- tion losses bu~ that Arizona would have to bear all evaporation losses in the Lower Basin, e~en though the water was stored mainly for the benefit of Califor- nia. And their reasoning there,of course, springs from the desire to avoid the California Self-Limitation Act, which is clear, plain and unambiguous in 011r view. The Compact isl clear and plain. The Boulder Canyon Project Act is clear and plain, and thel California Self-Limitation Act is clear and plain. This pommittee'in a meeting at Salt Lake on October 2nd, 1947, adopted a statement of pt'inciPles in which this C.ommittee held that III (b) water was appor- tioned to the ,ower Basin; that under the Compact the Upper Basin could deplete the flow of thp river at Lee Ferry by 7,500,000 acre-feet, and the Lower Basin at the International Boundary by 8,500,000 acre-feet; that beneficial consumptive use must be me~sured by the resulting depletion of the stream; that reservoir evaporation lo,ses must be shared ratably and proportionately by the people benefiting .fro~ the storag.e of water which made possible the evaporation losses. And Arizona's position is in strict accordance with all of those matters. Then !Uring the course of the hearings before the two Committees, why that matter wa~ gone into extensively as well as. every detail of the Central Arizona Projecy from an economic point of view, an engineering point of view, its financ1a1l!'epa;rability, and the legal right to the water, The Senate Commit- tee adopted the amendmont oxcluding the Bluff Dam on the San Juan and provided that no works ~o be used solely for the diversion of main stream water into AriZona should1be built H CaUfornia filed a suit challenging Arizona's right to the use of that water within six mqpths of the effective date of that Act, until that suit had ~een decided. , , CHAI~ STONE: That suit had to be on very definite conditions. MR. CkSON: Yes, and it limited that to the availability of the water to Arizona forlthis Central Arizona Project. \. CHAlm.iAN STONE: Under the Colorado River Compact. i ~