BOARD00983

• Board Meeting Date: 4/13/1966
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

'5075

I

the same gamut of testimony that was given
at the last hearings. We believe that the
committee will restrict testimony to any
new matters that are to be offered. There
has been no attack upon any of our projects.
In fact, we have no hydro-electric features
in any of them.

I

If anyone has a particular interest in
the history of Grand canyon and the argument
about a small amount of water backing up into
the lower end of the canyon, the Upper Colorado
River Commission staff has prepared a brief on the
history of the Grand Canyon National Park Act,
the Antiquities Act, the Reclamation Act, and
the other acts which bear upon reclamation
projects. The evidence is overwhelming by
Congressional act, by Congressional debate,
and Congressional records that, when Congress
created the various national parks, it did not
intend to exclude multiple-use of the land.
This is the basic theory upon which Congress
works, that it intends to make multiple-use
of our natural resources. In the Grand canyon
National Park Act this was brought out quite
forcefully by Senator Hayden who, at that
time, was United States Representative from
the State of Arizona. He was one of the pro-
ponents of the Grand Canyon National Park Act.
A specific exception was written into the
Grand Canyon National Park Act, because at
that time it was known that the Bridge Canyon
reservoir site existed. The legislative his-
tory and the Q.ct itself is clear that Congress
said that reservoirs could be constructed if
they did not interfere with the primary pur-
poses of the park. certainly the tail waters
of Bridge Canyon do not, by any stretch of
any reasonable imagination, interfere with the
primary purposes of the park or detract from
it in any way.

We have a brief written by Mr. Billhymer,
the General Counsel for the Upper Colorado
River Commission. The conservationists like
to ignore the record that Congress has made