WSPC06552 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\983 --- - THE ARIZONA DAllY STAR "" "" I.I.\'. .aelegation has CAP in common Continued from Page One their beels among themselves in pri. vate. The two senators and five con- gressmen who represent the state are spread all over the political speclrum, ranging from such hard. righl Republicans as Reps. Eldon Rudd Ilnd Bob Stump. and tradition_ ally wnservative Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, 10 liberal Demo- crats like Reps. Morris K. Udall and Jim McNulty. The other members 01 Arizona's congressional delegation are moder. ates - Sen. Dennis DeConcini, a Democra!, and freshman GOP Rep. John McCain. The delegation Is almost always divided when it comes to votes on national policy issues like defense. foreign policy and overall budget priorities. But there's only one priority when it comes 10 water projects: Get as much money as poSSible for the CAP. Any personal dilferences are swept under the rug. "'The delegation can be looked at from Ihe standpoinl of a family," said Bruce Wright, Udall's top aide. "We may have some very healed connicts, bul In Ihe end we always come together," Said another staft member of the Ariwna delegation. "We have our disagreements, but we always try to have them back in Arizona., bettind closed doors." There were some healed family feuds surrounding this year's plea for a bigger CAP budget. Most members of the state's dele- - . ~ --- gation agreed that Interior Secre- tary James Watt had to be in. structed to spend $15 million to begin work on the Tucson CAP aqueduct. Stump, however, said he did not want to try 10 dicUlte to Watt. Stump told his fellow Arizonans It was wrong 10 interfere with Watt's policy-making decisions. He also said he did not want to jeopardize his good relations with the fiery Interior secretary. That touched at( three weeks of quiet negotiations, and in the end, Stump agreed to issue a separate statement generally supporting a larger allocation for the CAP. The amy displeasure displayed by Stump came later in an interview with Ihe Arizona Republic. Appear- ing in Ihat Phoenix newspaper, It generally escaped the noUce of Washlngton. The policy disputes are usually worked out in private at the stat( level. Each month, top aides from the delegation get together to work out joint positions on water and on other issues ot local interest. When It comes to the CAP, how- ever, the communication occurs daily. "As a rule. if anything is happen. ing on water and the CAP. the staffs immediately get in touch with each other by phone and start the beating ot tom-toms," said Deborah 5Hz, counsel to Udall's Interior Commit_ tee for water matters. Because of her position, 5Hz often Is the first to hear about a new CAP development - but not always. Linda Lewis. McNulty's staff aide fur water matters, was the first to discover a sentence hidden in the middle of a four-page "decision let_ ter" that would have frozen work on the tucson aqueduct unUl Oct. I, 1984. Within hours, word had spread throughout the delegation. ^ coun- terstrategy soon was being drafted by people like Jim Magner, Ot.>Con- cini'swaterexpen; TwtnkleThomp.. son of Goldwater's oUiee; and Lisa Boeppel, McCain's staff expert on walerissues. The circle spreads beyond con- gressional delegations. It includes George Brittain, a top aide to Ari. zona Gov. Bruce Babbitl. and to non-governmental entilies like the Salt River Project and the Southern Arizona Water Resources Associa. tion. quiCk communication helps the congressmen work together. When DeConcinl talked to Senate Appro- priations Committee Chairman Mark O. Hatfield, R-Ore., and tound that he could get funds tor the Tuc_ son aqueduct added to a $-1.6 billion tederal jobs bill, he contacted Udall, who cleared the amendment with House budget oUic.ials. That kind of cooperation seems to make so much sense that it should be common practice on Capitol Hill. But it's not. California's delega- tion, for example, is badly frag. mented when it comes to water issues. Congressmen from the north- ern end of thai state are at war with Southern Californians over attempts - ,~ en c.n r", to divert water from the Sacramento Delta. The only thing they do seem to t agree on is the CAP. California promised in 1968 to back the Arizona project. In exchange, Arizona agreed to absorb any shortages of Colorado River water. Evidence that the agreement still stands came when the Municipal Water District of Southern CalifornIa produced a letter supporting Arizona's requt$l for a bigger CAP budget. Unity isn't everything, of course. An equally important factor is the fact that Arizona congressmen lend to stick around for a lonft time. Udall's 21 years of seniority give him control of the House In:erior Committt't', a key vantage poht for water projects. Long on the Republican side was former Rep. John Rhodes. a JG.year congressional VNeran and fonner House minority leader who retired In 1982. Rhodes and Udall differed sharply I on philosophy. but they developed a close friendship through their coop- eration on water issues. I I That cooperation continues even now. Rhodes is employed as a lo~ byist for the CAP, and he joined his former colleagues last week in tf'Sti. fying for the larger construction budget. Several members of the House ap- propriations subcommittee sug- gested - only partly in jest - that the CAP should be renamed the John Rhodes Waterway. - -