<br />c
<br />""
<br />~.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />"j
<br />FACT SHEET CONCERNING THE CEKTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT (Ml:ly 2;5, 1951)
<br />WHAT IS THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT?
<br />
<br />'~
<br />
<br />-
<br />r:".
<br />,Co
<br />c.
<br />
<br />The Central Arizona Project is a reclamation project. It would bring 1,200,000 acre-
<br />~eet of water from the Colorado River to Central Arizona, and vrould generate 750,000
<br />kilowatts of power at 13rir:ge Canyon ram. The water would be stored at Bridge Canyon
<br />oem, then would flow dow'1"~i.vE;r, generating power at Hoover and Davis Dams, and would
<br />be lifted from the rive~ near Parker, Arizona. The pump lift WOQld be 985 feet. The
<br />~ter then would flow b:T gt.avity th:::,ough a 245-.mile system of aqueducts and canals to
<br />~storically cultivated iarnls direly in need, because of the worst drouth in history,
<br />0:( a supplemental water supply obtainable only from Arizona's share of the Colorado
<br />R;j.ver.
<br />
<br />WHAT WILL THE C~ITRAL ARIZONA PROJECT COST?
<br />
<br />The Central Arizona Project .nll cost) according to present estimates, $788,000,000.
<br />This cost vdll vary with prices of materials and labor. It has been estimated as low
<br />801$ $596,000,000.
<br />
<br />HOW WILL THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT PAY FOR ITSELF?
<br />
<br />The Central Arizona Project vr.ill be paid for by re'~nues from the use of water and
<br />J;lower. Only It percent of the cost will be nonreimbursable directly to the Federal
<br />T~easury, and that It percent vall be reimbursed indirectly many, many times. This
<br />P~oject is planned on precisely the same standard~california's Central Valley,
<br />Colorado's Big-Thompson, and other big, sOlli,d Projects.
<br />
<br />WHAT ABOUT THE COLORAOO RIVER WATER FIGHT?
<br />
<br />For nearly 30 years California has blocked all attempts by Arizona to obtain her
<br />r;tghtful share of Colorado River wat'3r. The Law of the River, establishing distribu-
<br />tion of its vmters, includes the 'Santa Fe Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act,
<br />the California Self-Limitation Act, and state contracts vdth the Federal government.
<br />This Law gives California 4,400,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water, and Arizona,
<br />2,800,000, plus half the surplus to each state after October 1, 1963. The essence of
<br />the ,mole Colorado River quarrel is that California seeks to block reclamation deve-
<br />lopment of the river in the hope that eventually all the Colorado River can be Cali-
<br />fornia's. In this bold attempt, California has seemed at times to be fighting only
<br />Arizona's right to delivery of 1,200,000 acre-feet of contracted waters; actually,
<br />California'S threat extends to every other Basin State.
<br />
<br />~\lHAT THE CE!'Y'l'RAL ARIZOl-iA PROJECT IS NOT 1
<br />
<br />California propagandists have said many things, mostly false, about the Central Ari-
<br />zona Project---and have said them often through the mouths of du]:S s and stooges. One
<br />of the most vddely distributed capsules of California truth-distortions says the Pro-
<br />ject would "use water it doesn't own, lift it nearly twice as high as the Washington
<br />Monument, convey it more than 200 miles at a cost to Federal taxpayers of $2 billion,
<br />to irrigate 200,000 acres of privately ovmed land on which to raise crops already in
<br />surplus", The truth is that Arizona is so certain of her right to the disputed water
<br />that she has tried thrice to get SUpreme Court settlement and provides an avenue of
<br />Court action in the present bill. The aqueduct length and the pump lift height have
<br />been proved feasible by California vdth an aqueduct similar in length and a pump lift
<br />twice as high. The cost to the taxpayers will be not a cent, for the Project is to-
<br />tally reimbursable directly or indirectly. The crops raised are normally specialty
<br />crops, not in surplus; and the acreage is 750,000,8011 historically cultivated.
<br />
<br />THE S1'ATUS OF THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT
<br />
<br />A joL~t Federal-State survey has deemed it economically and engineeringly feasible,
<br />and Congressional authorization is being sought. Hearings have been held and the
<br />U. S. Senate has acted favorably, not once but twice.
<br />
|