WSP05673 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.-, ." \" ~..'f I..Ll.Ji i"l Arizona Project. Any bill to authorize a Central Arizona Project must embody protection for our 4.4 million acre-feet per annum. Sound language to accomplish this result, which has been de- veloped by thi, office, now appea.rs in the dralt bill that is the official recommendatIOn of the Srate of California. Thi, is essentially rhe same language that has appeared in your prior bill, and tho,e of Ihe other California Congressmen and Sen~tors. It is the language that Arizona had agreed to In 1966 and that was then included in the bills introduced by her Ihree Congressmen. H.R. 14834 (Johnson) contained t~e l~nguage giving existing water contractors a pnont~ over the Central Arizona Project as expressed III the Board's resolution of January 24, 1968. Briefly the bill eliminated Hualapai Dam; reduced the target quantity for "augmentation" to 2.5 mil- lion acre feet; defined "augmentation" as the in- troduction of new water into the river; fixed the size of the Central Arizona aqueduct at 2500 cubic feet per second; and limited the subsidy to the Central Arizona Project from Hoover, Parker, Davis revenues, after payout of those projects, to the portion of those revenues paid by Arizona, the balance to be reserved to help repay the cost of future works to augment the Colorado River. At a press conference on January 26, 1968, in Washington, D.C., Congressmen Johnson, Hosmer and Reinecke stated thar Califomia had made major concessions to advance the prospects of the Central Arizona Project legislation, but would make no concessions whatever with re- spect to the protection of existing uses in Cali- fornia. On January 29, 1968, the President sub- mined his message to Congress which included endorsement of the Central Arizona Project. Congressman Johnson presided at the hearings on H.R. BOO and S. 1004 during January 30- Februarv 2, 1968. Testimony was presented only by the Department of the Interior wit- nesses. The subcommittee met in executive session during February. On February 26, Congressman Johnson informed the Califomia negotiators that Chairman Aspinall had prepared amend- ments to language in H.R. 3300 modifying the priority protection of existing water contractors priority over the Central Arizona Project. The California Congressmen on the Interior Com- mittee also stated that their information indi- cated that the proposed amendments would pass \ the subcommittee. Messrs. Holburt, Ely and Steiner, Chief, Division of Resources Develop- ment, Department of Water Resources, reviewed the proposed amendments and found them unac- ceptable to California. The language would have terminated California's priority over the Central Arizona Project upon augmentation of the river in a quantity equal to the Mexican Water Treaty obligation or 2 million acre-feet per year instead of the 2.5 million acre-feet per year contained in the California bill. The proposed amendments would also have defined "augmentation" to en- compass additions to California's water supply on the Coastal Plain. Since the purported objec- tive of the language proposed in amendments by Chairman Aspinall was to achieve a usable main stream supply of 7.5 million acre-feet per year for the Lower Basin, Mr. Holburt recommended that California counter with language that elimi- nated any specific quantity that would end Cali- fornia's priority and simply state the priority would not apply when the supply of the Colo- rado River System was augmented so as to make available 7.5 million acre-feet per year for con- sumptive use by the three Lower Basin states. Augmentation was defined as additions of water to the Colorado River Svstem. Messrs. Holburt, Ely and Steiner presented the proposals to the Upper Basin negotiators and Upper Basin, Ari- zona and California Congressmen who accepted them. On March I, 1968, the Subcommittee com- pleted mark up of H.R. 3300 with language entirely satisfactory to California and reported the bill to the full Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. On March 26, 1968, H.R. 3300, as amended, was reported by the full House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee by a vote of 22 to 10 with one abstention. At a meeting of the Colo- rado River Board on Aptil 3, 1968, Mr. Ely analyzed the key provisions of the bill. The Board unanimously adopted the following reso- lution: The Colorado River Board of California unan- imously supports H.R. 3300, Colorado River Basin Project, as reported by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on March 26, 1968. The Board strongly urges the affirmative and aC- tive support of the bill by all Californians. H.R. 3300, a, approved by the House Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs on March 13