|
<br />26
<br />
<br />CALIFORNLA'S STAKE IN THE COLORADO RIVER
<br />
<br />However, these new Upper Basin projects as Sf't up in the legislation
<br />and the reports by the Bureau of FWdamation do not qualify under
<br />sound economic criteria and do pose a tbreat to California's rightl:l.
<br />The .financial plans depart very materially from existing reclamation
<br />law and entail immense bidden subsidies by tbe Nation's taxpayers
<br />on behaIt of the irrigators. The engineering studies of water supply
<br />and utilization are set up on arbitrary assumptions and erroneous
<br />interpretations of the Colorado River Compact which are detrimental
<br />to California's inlerel'its.
<br />California was forced into tbe task of focusing attention upon tbe
<br />fundamental issues and questions of policy involved, and of opposing
<br />or questioning the wL'idom of proposed legisl~ti~n, pending the ~solution
<br />of those issues and questions, and the furDlshmg- of complete !Oforma.
<br />tion including satisfactory evidence that the rights of the Lower Basin.
<br />and'of California in particular, would not be impaired by the proposed
<br />developments in the Upper Basin.
<br />Despite the opposition of California representatives, the Storage
<br />Project Bill was passed by the Congress in March, 1956, and sigued by
<br />the President 011 April 11, 1956 (Public Law 485, Eighty-fonrth Con-
<br />gress, Second Session). Still remaining to be resolved are the funda-
<br />mental issues as to the potential effects of the Project upon the Lower
<br />Basin. The Act specifically authorizes four of the proposed major
<br />storage dams and 11 participating projects, and directs that investi-
<br />gations be made looking toward authorization of many additional par-
<br />ticipating projects. Glen Canyon Dam and Reservoir, located upstream
<br />from Lee Ferry on the Colorado Rive.!: near the Utah-Arizona boundary
<br />is the largest of the four storage units, with a g-ross capacity of 28,000,-
<br />000 acre.feet, almost as larg-e as Lake ME'ad. Because of its location and
<br />size it will most directly and substlilltially affE'ct the water suppl:y
<br />available to the Lower Basin. Com;trllt'tioH of the Glen Canyon unit
<br />was started early in l!)Si and the resen'oir is expected to start filling
<br />in 1962,
<br />Also under construction fl.re the Flfl.lllillg' Gor~e IIl1it ill northeastern
<br />Utah on the Green River. the l\H\'ajo ullit ill 1I0rthwpsteru New MeI:ico
<br />on the San .Juan River aile! thp C\lrl'~Rllti ullil ill western Colorado
<br />011 the Gunnison River. Storag'e ~'l\r;H'ily of tht'SE' three will aggregate
<br />fl.bout 6,500.000 IH>rl'-fpet. P()\\...r plHllt'l will be built in conjunction
<br />with the Glf'n Cflllj'Oll, Fhl.llIiJ1!! Oorg't' Hm] Cllrecallti units.
<br />California is villl.lh' l'UIll'prllt't1 ill thp construction. filling and subse-
<br />qUPll1 operatiolL of tl~est' slorfl.!!e twils of thl' lJpPf'r Basin Project. For
<br />their fillillg- ami 'illb.'il:'qllE'llt OperH.tlOll thert'. must be formulated and
<br />pm illto t'ffel't opE'rHtilll! prilll'iplrs IIIRt Will ~dE'qull.t{'l:" protect the
<br />ri"hls IIml intt're'ils of Clilifol'tliH H,lItl its agf'Ill'le,'l, as w{'1I as those of
<br />th: I~ower Bll.'\il1 ill f.!t'lleral. ill the liSP of water and power from the
<br />Colorado Rin'r. Cliliforllia rt'prrsE'lltllth'es have bE'en active to this end,
<br />Hlltl must contilHlf' a COllstOllt dg-ilance o\'er the operations of tbese
<br />Upper Basiu de\.elopments ill an elldellsor to fort'stall any detrimental
<br />effects upon California's ri!;hts,
<br />
<br />C.)
<br />
<br />.-:. ".C::>~'''''''~7-:'.",' ",.,.,.,.
<br />
<br />!.'~.""
<br />
<br />, -).
<br />',:04
<br />
<br />CALIFORNIA'S STAKE IN THE COLORADO RIVER
<br />
<br />+
<br />
<br />The Storage Project Act (Sections 7 and 14) directa the Secretary
<br />of the Interior, in tbe operation of all facilities under his jurisdictiou
<br />and in the storage and release of water from reservoirs in the Colorado
<br />River Basin, to comply with the Colorado Rivf'r Compact, the Boulder
<br />Canyon Project Act and other statutes and documents comprising the
<br />f'.1istin~ Law of the River and not to interfere with the operation of
<br />the provisions of those laws as well as all,,: contract lawfully entered
<br />into thereunder. The Act further provides that should the Secretary
<br />fail to so comply, any state of the Basin may bring suit in the Supreme
<br />Court of the United States and join the United States as a party,
<br />defendant or otherwise. ' __
<br />. ... . . ---- --....
<br />! Frying-pan-Arkansas Project bills were passed by the Senate in sev- ,
<br />. eral different Con~resses, but failed of passage in the House primarily \,
<br />because of the criticism voiced by California and Western Colorado I
<br />interests. Following a series of conferences, representatives of the two )
<br />statf'S reached suhstantial agreement in 1960 on amendments proposed
<br />by California which are deemed essential to the protection of CaliIor.
<br />nia's intereslll ill the Colorado Rh'er, including restriction of the an. ....
<br />nual use of water by the project to a relatively small amount (90,000
<br />acre-feet). Such amendments were incorporated in tbe project bills
<br />introduced in the 87~h Congre~ (1_~61). . _ .
<br />iils-[oautboriiethe Na-vajo irrigation and San Juan.Cbama proj.
<br />ects passed the Sellate in the 85th and 86th Congresses but were not
<br />acted upon by the House. A bill again passed the Senate ill the 87th
<br />Congress, with action pending in the House, California has proposed
<br />amendmf'uts directed to the safeguarding of its interests in the Colo-
<br />rado Rh'er,
<br />
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />Gila Project
<br />
<br />A bill to authorize the new WelltOD-Mohawk unit and to reauthorize
<br />a reduced area of the original Yuma Mesa unit of the Gila Project
<br />which was authorized in 1937, was passed by the Eightieth CongreM,
<br />but only after baving been amended at the insistence of California. to
<br />limit the aggreg-ate consumptive use of water on both the old and new
<br />unihl of the project to the same amount (600,000 acre.feet a.nnuaUy)
<br />contemplated under the 1937 authorization. With this limitation. the
<br />Gila Projf'ct as reconstituted and reauthorized is intended to be un-
<br />changed from tbe originally suthorized project insofar as use of
<br />Colorado River water is concerned, and the hiU was passed by the
<br />Congress with Ihis understanding.
<br />During the heariuJ!s, California's representatives Ilerved Ilotice that
<br />the Gila Project as authorized would utilize the last water available that
<br />was not in conflict. The House Committee on Public Lauds, in its report
<br />on the bill, recognized thill ",ituation, recommended that the water rights
<br />contro\'ersy be settled by agreemeut or court action, and Rtated in effect
<br />that authori1.8tioll of any add it ional new projf'cts for dh'ersion of water
<br />from the main !ltream of the Colorado River in the Lower Busin would
<br />ha\'e to be delayed unless and ulltil a settlemellt is reached,
<br />
<br />e..._..,",;
<br />
<br />:-"-.'-.', ,.,....-.'.-,..-..
<br />
<br />~; :
<br />
<br />'. .
<br />,..,~'''<
<br />
<br />27
<br />
<br />'/
<br />
<br />
<br />'. .,
<br />',.,'
<br />
<br />
<br />,,:"
<br />
|