Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002078 <br /> <br />ARIZONA Y. CALIFOP.NL".. AND P1..CH'IC SOUTHV1EST WATER PRonLE~fS 81 <br /> <br />basic point: a priority to California of 4.4 million acre-feet annually <br />from the Colorado. <br />The project is basically similar to the other proposals for a Pacific <br />Southwest water development (although far less comprehensive), inas- <br />much as the Central Arizona Project is its key and its first element to <br />be constructed. Major features of the project are as follows: <br /> <br />1. Construction of Marble and Bridge Canyon Dams. <br />2. Construction of the Central Arizona Project. <br />3. Authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to prepare esti- <br />mates of long-range water supply available for the Lower Basin, <br />eurrent water requirements in the basin, and the rate of growth re- <br />quirements to the year 2030. Authorization from the secretary to in- <br />vestigate alternative sourees in the State of California and various <br />methods of meeting the current and anticipated water requirements <br />in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Recommendations supported by <br />feasibility reports for project construction would be submitted within <br />five years. <br />4. Creation of a regional commission composed of representatives <br />of the federal agencies concerned and of all affected states. <br />5. Establishing a development fund. <br />6. Construction of Hooker Dam and Reservoir. <br />7. Construction of the Southern Nevada Water Supply Project. <br />8. Provision of a 25-year priority to California of 4.4 million acre- <br />feet annually from the Colorado River. <br /> <br />This plan has not been well received in California. The principal <br />objection has becn to thc limited protection to California embodied in <br />the 25-year priority provision. This matter of protection to the state <br />is discussed in greater detail in the following chapter. <br />As introduced, the amendment provided for a study by the secretary <br />and an investigation of alternative sources in the State of California <br />or elsewhere" to meet the eurrent and anticipated water requirements <br />of the Lower Colorado River Basin." 17 The words "or elsewhere," <br />were stricken from the bill in the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs <br />Committee and were not in the bill as reported to the Senate floor. Prior <br />to deletion of these two words by the committee, the bill was supported <br />by the state administration in California. Thereafter, the state adminis- <br />tration opposed the bill, as follows: <br /> <br />Last Friday (July 31) the Senate Committee on Interior and <br />Insular Affairs took the seeond step by reporting out an amended <br />version of the Moss Compromise. Unfortunately, this was not a <br />step satisfactory to California. Senator Jackson, chairman of the <br />committee, was successful in amending the bill to authorize investi- <br />gations of alternative sources of supply for the Pacific Southwest <br />in the State of California only, rather than in California and else- <br />where. Governor Brown immediately withdrew his support of the <br />bill because of this change and promised to vigorously oppose the <br />Jackson Amendment in future congressional actions.'8 <br /> <br />The language requiring that the replacement sources of water be <br />found in California exclusively, has brought the state through a full <br /> <br />"Sec. 103(a) (2). <br />18 California Water Commission, hearing transcript August 7. 1964, at 22. <br />