WSP02511 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

! I ! I , . - '.. ;OaZ5~9 for s.uch exemption by vi~tue of "substantial legislative activity," carned on not only against the two Colorado River dams but also against d~str~ction of the California red.woods. The ruling affected contrIbutIons to the club but not Its operations and properties. Sierrans called it "attempted coercion" and said they would take it to court. "We a.re deeply concerned about what this action does to the entire conservation movement in the United Stlltes," sHid Executive Director. Brower. ~'The IRS in effect penalized us in advance of giving us a chance to prove our innocence of unspecified charges." He estimated that the club had lost $125,000 in contributions since' the IRS first made lj:nown that it was investigating Sierra's tax status. . On January 3, 1967, the L08 Angele8 Ti'rncs made its con- tribution to the chorus of journalistic comment concerning the interstate impasse over water. Arizonans reading the Time8 edi- torial might have been surprised at its friendly tone. While acknowledging the various controversies and cross-currents stirred up by the Colorado River legislation, the Times insisted that "nothing during the past year has changed the basic prin- ciples upon which the original regional plan was built. Only ,the stubbornness-and political muscle-of Northwest senators and House members prevents serious consideration of diverting surplus Columbia River water. Only the vehemence of Sierra Club members and like-minded special interests could cause the abandonment of reclamation dam projects in the name of 'con- servation.' California's congressional delegation must not yield to this counsel of despair. We have joined in a sound and proper compromise to further the common cause of Western water development. We recognize the water rights of every other state except the. 'rig-ht' to hoard wHter thllt it can never use. If water justice cannot be achieved this year, let us continue to .. fight. California; however, must never surrender its fundamental .. rights on the river for any kind of a spurious political 'deal.' " A New Start A new political year for CAP began on January 10 when three identical bills were introduced in the House by Arizona's representatives-Congressmen Udall, Rhodes and Sam Steiger, . newly-elected Republican from the third district. The new ver- sion was somewhat more modest than its predecessors. It called for a high dam at Bridge Canyon but none at Marble. It con- tained no mention of a 4.4-million-acre-foot guarantee to Cali- fornia. There was no provision for a study of how. water might be diverted from the Columbia River. It did provide for a Basin fund to pay for Hualapai Dam and the aqueduct system. Two other pieces of legislation on the Colorado River were introduced Ht the SHme time. Chllirman Aspinall of the House Interior Committee introduced one. It called for a low dam at Bridge, none at Marble, a 4.4-million-acre-foot guarantee to California, a diversion study and the building of five Upper Basin projects in Colorado. Congressman Hosmer and fellow -38- . .,,_,,' h'.~"" ': -