Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br />, <br /> <br />OD-2'5~ <br /> <br />I: <br />, <br /> <br />Dam but not Marble Canyon and omitting the 4.4-million-acre- <br />fcot guarantee to California. Another was the administration's <br />so-called "bare-bones" proposal for a $719 million CAP without <br />either dam. Chairman Aspinall of the parent committee spon- <br />sured still another, calling for construction of Hualapai Dam <br />but not Marble, plus five projects in C(,lorado, for a total of <br />$1.5 billion. The Aspinall measure inclIicied the 4.4-million-acre- <br />foot guarantee to California. A duplicate of the Aspinall bill <br />was introduced by the chairman of the subcommittee, Repre- <br />sentative Johnson of California. <br /> <br />Also to be considered by the subcommittee was a Senate- <br />passed measure sponsored by Senator Jackson to create a <br />national water commission. Northwesterners wanted this to be <br />the official body to study interstate water diversions instead of <br />. the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. <br /> <br />Congressman Udall was the first witness. Much of his <br />testimony turned on the fact that the Arizona bill this time con- <br />tained no guarantee to California, a faCt which moved the Asso- <br />ciated Press to observe that "Colorado basin unity, nearly <br />achieved by compromise a year ago, appeared to be. shattering." <br />Mr. Udall acknowledged that exclusion of the guarantee would <br />draw objections. But to include it, he said, would be to give <br />up much of the victory that Arizona won in the Supreme Court. <br />n would, moreover, give California a guarantee in perpetuity <br />though no shortage in the river could be expected for 20 years. <br />Arizona was willing to accept the risks involved in the 4.4- <br />million guarantee the previous year', explained Congressman <br />Udall, because the bill embraced such safeguards as the dams <br />and specific importation studies. This year the risks implicit <br />in the California guarantee were "simply too high" in the ab- <br />sence of the dam-and-importation safeguards. <br /> <br />Mr.. Udall asked California congressmen to support the <br />Arizona proposal as ::In initial but feasible step in meeting the <br />water shortage confronting both states. He said the 1966 legis- <br />lation failed to pass because it was too ambitious, coping with <br />problems that would not arise for decades. "After careful soul- <br />searching-after a thorough and painful analysis of the legis- <br />lative situation and after another hard look at our rapidly <br />deteriorating water situation-the Arizona delegation is now <br />convinced that Arizona cannot wait to solve all the water supply <br />problems of the Southwest. . . Arizona must be rescued before <br />it is too late-and the Congress can start by taking the first <br />step now," said Mr. Udall. <br /> <br />He reminded Californians that they had potential water <br />Bources not only in the Colorado River but in the rivers of <br />northern California and through desalinization of Pacific Ocean <br />water. In fact, he said pointedly, he had supported a California <br />bill earlier that month to authorize federal participation in a <br />big desalting plant in the Los Angeles area at a cost to the <br />government of $72 million. Arizonans would continue to support <br />such projects, said Mr. Udall, but "we will not stand idly by <br />while these projects receive priority and funding and let our <br /> <br />-51- <br /> <br />