WSP11698

• File Number: 8210.470
• Description: Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 8/6/1964
• Author: Unknown
• Title: Lower Colorado River Basin Project - Report with Individual and Minority Views - To Accompany S 1658 - Calendar Number 1267
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

0017~3

THE LOVVER COLORADO RrvER BASLN PROJECT

within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado
River system below Lee Ferry, and also all parts of said States lo-
cated without the drainage area of the Colorado River system which
are now or shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters diverted
from the system below Lee Ferry. Thus, the south coastal plain of
California (Los Angeles) as well as central Arizona (Phoenix and
Tucson) are within the lower basin.

Section 102

Section 102 emphasizes regional, rather than local, objectives of the
bill. The net revenues from Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon
projects, instead of being used exclusively to aid in the development
of water for central Arizona will assist water users throughout the
Lower Colorado River Basin, Net revenues from the sale of power
at Hoover, Parker, and Davis Dams, after repayment of construction
costs and existing obligations, are also dedicated to providing finan-
cial assistance in meeting regional water needs. SectIOn 102 is one of
the major compromises between Arizona and California.
The Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, established
by, this se~tion, followsg~nerally the precedent of .the Upper Color!tdo
River Basm Fund established by the Colorado River Storage Prolect
Act. The Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, un ike
the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund, does not include the appor-
tionment of net revenues among the States concerned. There is good
reason for this difference. The fundamental water supply problem
in the lower basin is one of insufficiency rat,her than of underdevelop-
ment. Hence interests of the lower basin States will best be served
by using net revenues accruing to the fund to assist in the repayment
of costs of projects to be authorized to augment the basin's water sup-
ply. An apportionment of revenues for use within each State might,
therefore, impede rather than assist development.
Subsection (b) provides that appropriations and revenues shall be
credited to the development fund. The exception of entrance, admis-
sion and recreation user fees and charges, and proceeds received from
recreation concessions anticipates the passage of the land and water
conservation fund legislation.
Subsections (c), (d), and (e) dedicate revenues from the sale of
water and hydroelectric power to return the reimbursable costs of
water developments. Thus the users of water and power from the
project ultimately bear the burden of the reimbursable costs of the
project. .
Subsection (c) anticipates the repa.yment of the construction costs
of Hoover by 1989 and Parker and Davis by 2004, and provides for
the crediting of the net annual revenue (on the order of $15 million),
which will thereafter be available from their operation, for purposes
of the Lower Colorado River Basin project.
This provision, among others, is based on the suggestions in the
Pacific Southwest Water Plan Report submitted by the Secretary of
the Interior to the Federal Power Commission on February 14, 1964,
and on which the subcommittee heard testimony.
Subsection (d) makes revenues in the development fund available,
without further appropriation, for costs of operation, maintenance,
and replacement, and for repayment of construction costs within a
period not exceeding 50 years and for interest under subsection (e),
subparagraphs (1) and (2). Like the Colorado River Storage Proj-

,.

..,.. .

. ' :~. ,

. '.
..,:

., ,. ",'. :1'
, , .
,.' \ .,..>
, .
. ..
~ . ..' ,
'.' ,
. . ,
, '.;t.,'.}
~,' .. ,:J1\ti~

,",' ,

.',.' .
. '/.:::~'
'.,'.

""'.-:','., <,/ >.:

',' "
":-'..1<:.

, to'
;:.~-..