Laserfiche WebLink
<br />:-..: (: r.~ <br />t,J..,-,V <br /> <br />LEGISLA liON <br /> <br />Colorado River Basin Project Act <br /> <br />After many years of controversy, the Colo- <br />rado River Basin Project Act passed Congress <br />and was signed by the President on September <br />30, 1968. The bill was generally favorable to <br />California and was supported by its representa- <br />tives in Congress. The broad objectives sought <br />by rhe Colorado River Board were achieved <br />wirh rhe one disappointmenr thar Congress chose <br />to apply a 10-year moratorium on reconnais- <br />sance studies of possible importation of Colum- <br />bia River water to rhe Colorado River. This <br />landmark bill provides the framework to solve <br />many of the problems of the Basin, however, <br />a great deal more work must be done to accom- <br />plish the objectives of the bill. <br />At rhe opening of the second session of the <br />90th Congress the proposed Colorado River <br />Basin Project bill (HR 3300) was still in the <br />hands of the House Interior on Insular Affairs <br />Committee. The seven Colorado River Basin <br />States were in the midst of the problem of de- <br />veloping amendments to the bill which could <br />be supported by all of the seven states. Repre- <br />sentatives of California, including the Colorado <br />River Board, Deparrment of Water Resources, <br />Attorn.ey General, and the California Advisory <br />Committee on Western States \Vater Planning <br />had prepared a draft of revision of legislation <br />which had been prepared by the State of Colo- <br />rado (see 1966-67 annual report). <br />A meeting was held in early January 1968 by <br />rhe California interests with representatives of <br />Utah, \Vyoming and Colorado to discuss the <br />California draft. Mr. Holburt represented rhe <br />Colorado River Board ar rhis conference. <br />On January 15, 1968, and again on January <br />24, 1968, joint meetings were held by rhe Colo- <br />rado River Board and irs advisors, the California <br />Advisory Committee on Wesrern Srares Warer <br />Planning, Mr. William K. Gianelli, rhe Direcror <br />of Water Resources and representatives of rhe <br />Attorney General in an effort to find ways and <br />means by which all interests of the Srare might <br />be brough r togerher on rhe key issues so that a <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />single front might be presented during further <br />negotiations with the other basin srates and dur- <br />ing hearings which were expected to be held in <br />the early part of rhe second session of the 90th <br />Congress. As a result of the January 24 meeting, <br />drafr of a bill which expressed the official posi- <br />tion of California was transmitted to Congress- <br />man Harold T. Johnson (California), Chairman, <br />Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on <br />Irrigarion and Reclamation. <br /> <br />Also on January 24, 1968, the Colorado River <br />Board unanimously adopted a resolution approv- <br />ing a statement with respecr to pending Colo- <br />rado River legislation in anticipation of the hear- <br />ings to be held before the House Interior and <br />Insular Affairs Committee on H.R. 3300 and <br />S. 1004. <br /> <br />Identical bills to authorize a Colorado River <br />Basin Project were introduced by California <br />Congressmen in the House on January 25, 1968, <br />(H.R. 14834, Johnson and 22 co-sponsors; H.R. <br />14835, Hosmer and 7 co-sponsors), on January <br />31, 1968 (H.R. 14994, Sisk and 2 co-sponsors), <br />and on February 27, 1968 (H.R. 15615, Tal- <br />cort). This proposed legislarion represented a <br />unity of purpose of California interests with <br />respect to rhe complex Colorado River problems. <br />By letter of January 25, 1968, Thomas C. <br />Lynch, Attorney General of California wrote <br />to Congressman Johnson: <br /> <br />I am delighled 10 reiterate whal you perhaps <br />already know-Ihat out state is united on the <br />language of a draft bill Ihat is the Official Recom- <br />mendation of the State of California. As in Ihe <br />past, Ihe Department of Water Resources, the <br />Colorado River Board, and the Attorney General <br />of California have labored logelher on il; and we <br />ha,'e had the as,istanee of the Ad,';sory Com- <br />mittee 10 California's delegation 10 the Western <br />Stales Water Council. I understand thallhe Gov- <br />ernor has accepted and 'upports this position. <br /> <br />He further stated rha t: <br />As California's lawyer, my chief concern with <br />the pending legislation has always related pri- <br />marily to its legal aspects. In particular, I have <br />insisted upon adequate priority for California's <br />existing projects as against any new Central <br />