WSP02511 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, I .....l: .:. OD25:5 Federal Route Still Best: Udall " A few days after the bill was introduced, Congressman Udall returned to the state and publicly reaffirmed his com- mitment to a federal rather than state approach to CAP. He carefully refrained from predicting that it would go through the current Congress, but he said the situation was "far from hopeless." The most important thing at this moment, he, said, was to build the aqueduct-"in any way we, can." Mr. Udall WllS not unaware that he and his brother now had conflicting points of view on the project. Secretary Udall . was against the dams. Congressman Udal! was for them. The reason, he explained, was simply that he-the congressman- represented a single state, Arizona, while his brother was iden- tified with R nHtionHI administration. which, in the middle of a WHT in Vietnam, felt constrained to hold down non-military expenditures. Moreover, the administration-and thus its Sec- retary of the Interior-had to consider water problems on a nation-wide scale. For any CAP bill to pass Congress, said Congressman Udall, it would have to include a 4.4-million-acre-foot guarantee of some type for California and cre,ation of a national water study committee, the latter aimed at attracting votes of Eastern and Midwestern congressmen. The bill also. would have to be ac- ceptable to the Pacific Northwest, he said, The Northwest would Hgree to a study, but such H study, to be Hcceptable, would hllve to be made by >l. national water committee or com- mission Hnd not by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The North- .. we'st's position, in Mr. UdHIl's words, was: "Don't ask the big- . gest dam and aqueduct builder in the world if you can build some dams and aqueducts." . On the day that Mr. Udall spoke in Arizona, two CAP bills-differing only in minor respects-were introduced in the. e.s. Senate. One was sponsored by Senators Hayden and Fannin and ,dso Senlltor Jllckson of W1'lshington. The other was the administration's bill. Each carried a price tag of $719 million. Both proposed the construction of a WEST thermal plant to supply pumping power instead of building the two controversial . dams. Both contained no provision for water import studies, nor did they make any reference to California's requested guarantee of 4.4 million acre-feet per year. The administration bill called for enlargement of Grand Canyon National Park to take in Marble Canyon. The senators' bill did not. Senator Hayden said in a statement, "1 have been guided over the last 55 years by certain fundamentals. One is to keep a legislative proposal as simple as possible. Another equally important principle is to maintain a flexible position which permits the necessary compromise and adjustments as the pro- posal moves through the various stages of the legislative process. In addition, I have always tried in developing legislation to do it in such a way as to build the framework for future deve.Jop- -45-