Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002077 <br /> <br />Of) <br />uu <br /> <br />ASSEI"iBLY INTERIIvl COIvIIvIITTEE ON V'v-ATER <br /> <br />might be imported into the Colorado River Basin. The secretary's report <br />would also include recommendations for the construction of such proj. <br />ects. <br />The estimated cost of the Pacific Southwest Project is shown in the <br />following table: <br /> <br />TABLE XXII <br /> <br />ESTIMATED COST <br />PACIFIC SOUTHWEST PROJECT ACT <br />(S. 2760) <br />Central Arizona Project * n_____________________________ ____ ___ __ $527,000,000 <br />Bridge and Marble Canyon Dam_____________.__________________.____..__ 750,000,000 <br />Dixie Project ___ _______________________________________________ 45,000,000 <br />Southern Nevada Water Supply Project .___________n___.___________ 81,OOO,Oon <br />Three-year investigation by Secretary of Interior___________ ____._____ 5,000,000 <br />Moapa Valley Pumping ProjecL___________________________ _________ 12,000,000 <br />Water salvage <br />Channeliza tion ____ ____________ __ _ __ _ ____________ _ __ ___ _______ ____ <br />Senator VVash ________________________________________________ <br />Fish and wildlife and recreation___________________________________ <br />Indian projects __~_______________________~__________________~___ <br /> <br />35,000,000 <br />8,7oo,oon <br />6,OOn,Ooo <br />10,OOO,noo <br /> <br />Total ___n_____________ ______n_ _ ___ _______ ______ ______ __ $1,479,700,000 <br />. Incluaes Hooker Dam.. <br /> <br />One of the major differences between Pacific Southwest Water <br />Project Act and the Revised Pacific Southwest Water Plan is the fact <br />that the revised plan called for immediate authori.ation of import facil- <br />ities to provide replaccment water for the Colorado River. In addition, <br />the revised plan called for these imports from northern California. On <br />the other hand, S. 2760 called for an intensive federally-financed study <br />of all alternative sm.roes including northern California and other areas <br />of the Colorado River Basin, with later authorization of replacement <br />supplies. <br />Wheu S. 2760 was before the Senatc Committee on Interior and <br />Insular Affairs, a favorable recommendation on the bill was defeatcd <br />1-15. This action took place on the same day that S. 1658, as amended, <br />was favorably reported to the floor of the Senate. <br /> <br />5. LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN ACT <br /> <br />(S. 1658, as amended) <br /> <br />Thc Lower Colorado River Basin Project Act was proposed as an <br />amendmcnt to the original Hayden-Goldwater bill, S. 1658. The amend- <br />ment was introduecd on July 21, 1964 by Senator Moss of Utah on <br />behalf of its principal proponent, Senator Hayden of Arizona. The <br />amendment, which completely replaced the original Hayden-Gold- <br />water Bill, was introduced following completion of hearings on the <br />original Central Arizona Project Act. It was developed over several <br />months of negotiations between Senator Hayden's office and certain <br />representatives of California. It has been referred to variously as the <br />"Haydcn-Brown Compromise," "the Moss Amendment," and, as used <br />in this report, the" Abbott Goldberg Amendment. " As introduced, the <br />amendment attempted a compromise between the proponents of S. 2760 <br />and the proponents of the original Central Arizona Project Bill on one <br />