WSPC03421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002073 76 ARREMBLY INTERIM COMMITTEE ON WATER Central Arizona Project to the people of Arizona IS, therefore evident, However, while the project as presently planned meets current tests of economic feasibility under the reclamation program, it raises a number of serious questions similar to those under con- sideration in connection with the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. For example, the Department of the Interior's report states that present irrigation, efficiencies of only 50 percent prevail in the project area. Clearly, water imported from the Colorado River must be used more efficiently. Lining of conveyance and distribu- tion facilities on project lands would, of course, be a necessity. Also, further attention should be directed toward management of forested lands in the area and to the conservation of water through control and eradication of phreatophytes. In summary, it is essen- tial that steps be taken to develop an effective program for the use of ground and surface water that will assure an adequate and lasting solution to the critical water shortage in central Arizona. For these reasons, the Bureau of the Budget is unable at this time to recommend authorization of S. 1658 or of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. ' However, we believe that the work done to date on the regional plan constitutes a challenging response to the serious water prob- lems of the region. The tentative plan will benefit from review and criticism by the Congress and the people of the region, and from the continuing review which is going forward within the adminis- tration." In addition, Secretary Udall told the Senate committee: . . . I would be less than candid with the committee, however, if I were to attempt to gloss over the fact that the consensus in favor of a regional approach has not yct jelled into regional agreement upon all major aspects of a particular regional plan. Differences of opinion remain as to the particular uses to which the fund should be devoted, as to sources of import water which should be considered at this time, as to the matter of priorities in the event of shortage, and as to the details of some of the projects. Within the executive branch of the government, also, there remain divergent views as to the scope and content of a regional plan. Given the magnitude of the water problems facing the South- west, that there remain at this stage uncertainties and difficulties is disappointipg but not surprising."2 According to the Department of Water Resources' Chief Adviser on Colorado River matters: While the Department of the Interior draft bill was presented to the subcommittee for consideration and was printed as a committee print it has not been officially sponsored. The Udall proposal has, I believe, run its course and given way to alternative proposals13 11 Letter to Senator Henry M. .Jackson from Ph.illip S. Hughes, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference, Executive Offlce of the President, Bureau of the Budget, dated April 9, 1964. :HI Hearings on S. 1658. op. cit., at 318. J.a CaHf9rnia Water Commission, transcript of hearing, August 7 ,1964, at 15.