Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Oil2JJ8 <br /> <br />ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PROBLEMS II <br /> <br />These Washington negotiations had been conducted in such secrecy <br />that neither the California Legislature, California's U.S. Senators, <br />members of our congressional delegation, nor the water agencies in <br />southern California whose water was involved were aware of the nego- <br />tiations. The meetings, which began in mid-April, did not conclude <br />until mid-June. <br />Representatives of southern California water interests having rights <br />to Colorado River water involved in the negotiations expressed concern <br />over this unusual interstate bargaining. This displeasure was shown <br />by the statement of James Krieger, Chairman of the Southern Califor- <br />nia Water Conference, a large group of southern California water <br />leaders, to this committee in August 1964: <br /> <br />On May 22, 1964 we discussed with the Governor the fresh draft <br />of what was then called the" Goldberg Amendment" to S. 1658. <br />Inasmuch as that bill had been drafted by members of the Gov- <br />ernor's staff in conjunction with representatives from Arizona and <br />the Interior Department it seemed to us an appropriate moment <br />to discuss the water-policy-making procedures of this state. ThB <br />six agency members of the Colorado River Board were the parties <br />immediately affected by the 1963 decree in Arizona v. California. <br />It was the responsibility of these six agencies to provide water for <br />their inhabitants and lands. St.ill their water wa.s in a. ~ense being <br />negotiated by state officials who did not have the primary respon- <br />sibility of supplying water to the people within these six agencies. <br /> <br />Mr. Krieger added that: <br /> <br />We urged the Governor to broaden the base of his policymaking <br />team to include representatives from the IJegislature and from <br />these affected agencies.3 <br /> <br />The negotiators returned to Washington, however, to continue their <br />secret negotiatiohs, without any additional consultation. <br />Substantially the same language as the Goldberg Amendment was <br />offered as an amendment to S. 1658 on July 21, 1964, by Senator Frank <br />Moss of TJtah, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Irrigation and <br />Reclamation. The full Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee <br />considered the amendment {n executive session and by a 15-to-l vote <br />(Senator Kuchel dissenting) reported the bill to the Senate floor on <br />July 31, 1964. <br />Mr. Goldberg and California's negotiators had previously returned <br />to California to resume their duties with the Department of Water Re- <br />sources. They returned to Washington, however, for the task of prepar- <br />ing a committee report for S. 1658. This report, No. 1330, was ordered <br />to be printed by the U.S. Senate on August 6, 1964. With regard to <br />authorship of this report, the following colloquy between Chairman <br />Porter and Mr. Goldberg at this committee's August hearing is of in- <br />terest: <br /> <br />Mr. Goldberg: . . . this is the official ~enate report, which under <br />their rules is required to accompany a bill going to the floor. <br /> <br />:1 Statement for Hearing, August 14, 1964, at 3, 4. <br />