|
<br />28
<br />
<br />CALIFORNIA'S STAKE IN TIlE COWRAOO RI\"ER
<br />
<br />COllstructiQ!\ or the Gila Projec_t hB.8 been under wa.y since the ot'ig-
<br />illal authorization and is l'iubstantiallf completed except for major
<br />drainage works !'illce found to be needed. Initial delivery of water to
<br />the Yuma !\.Ipsa nnit cOlllmenced in 1943; and to tbe new Well ton-
<br />l\fohllwk unit ill 1%2_
<br />
<br />Central Arizona Project
<br />
<br />The proposed Central Arizona Project contemplates the diyersion of
<br />1.200,000 acre.feet annually of Colorado River water into Central Ari-
<br />zona. The final report of the Bureau of Reclamation on the proposed
<br />project (Project Planning Report No. 3-8b.4-2 dated December, 1947)
<br />was transmitted to the Congress by the Secretary of the Interior on
<br />September 16, 1948. after having been referred to the affected states
<br />and interested federal departments for comment. The official comments
<br />of the State of California opposing the authorization and construction
<br />of the proposed projl'-Ct were submitted to the Secretary of the Interior
<br />by Go\-ernor Earl Warrl'1l on December 29, 1948.
<br />Bills to authorize tbis project were introduced in tbe Eigbtieth Con-
<br />gress in 194i and in subsequent Congres<;es. Extensive heariugs were
<br />held before the Senate and House Interior aod Insular Affairs Com-
<br />mittees. The Senate twice (H)50 and 1951) approved 8. bill in different
<br />forms but the House Committee refused to 8.pprove.
<br />Tbe proposed project would involve a cost estimated (1951) by tbe
<br />Bureau of Reclamation at $iB8,265,OOO. The official report of the State
<br />of Ca.lifornia, referred to above, clearly shows that the project as then
<br />proposed is not economicaUy feasible under existing reclamation law
<br />or any rea.'ionable modifications therl'of, and that substantial subsidies
<br />would be required from the l"edE'ral TreMur,)" or from other sources to
<br />finance the project. Of mORt serious concern to California is the fact
<br />tbat. the contemplated diveMlion of 1,200,000 acre-feet of ColoradO
<br />River water for this project threatenR to invade California's rig-Mil to
<br />Colorado River water by a like amount.
<br />
<br />Waul' Budget
<br />The depeudable water supply of the Colorado River Systt'm is insuffi-
<br />cient to furnish any part or the quantity required for the proposed
<br />C~ntral Arizona Project, in audition to meeting the water requirement!!
<br />of existing and allthorizE'd projects covered hy the California water
<br />appropriations and contracU:i, of existing and anthorized projects in
<br />Arizona, including the Gila Project, of comIIlitment'i to other stales
<br />of the Lower Basin. and tbe l'xisting aDd contemplated uses in the
<br />Upp.er B8.8in. The deficiency in the water ~uppty of the bllSin has been
<br />accentuated by the extremely low runoff of recent years and the COD6e~
<br />quent prolongation of the period. of drought conditions that began
<br />about ]930. In fact, according to the best information now at hand,
<br />the long-time average annual water suppl)' that will be available to the
<br />Lower Basin, if the Upper Basin cootinnes to devel.op according to
<br />announced plans and the Mexican Treat)' requirements are met, will
<br />
<br />: '" -.>.'~-;..
<br />
<br />t')
<br />!~~...
<br />C~
<br />'~>J
<br />
<br />.,
<br />;,
<br />
<br />"j".
<br />
<br />.";
<br />
<br />t
<br />
<br />..._...o;oc,~ .--.t"~:.
<br />
<br />j'
<br />
<br />CALlFORNJA'S STAKE IN THE CQI.A)RAOO RIVER
<br />
<br />29
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />be far from suffident to meet tb.e consumptive use rp.f:luircments of eVCll
<br />the existing projects in the Low('r Basin. It is ob\-ious, therefore, that
<br />if any new projects are authorized and constructed in the Lowl'r Basin
<br />the water used thereby must be at the ultimate expense of existing
<br />projects in the Lower Basin states, or of contemplated projects in the
<br />Upper BRSin states.
<br />
<br />1
<br />
<br />Water Allocation
<br />
<br />C(lntroyers}' has long pl'rsisted over the division of the waters of the
<br />Colorado River Srst('m available to the Lower Basin under the terms
<br />lIf the Colorado Rh'er Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act and
<br />th(' California Limitation Act. Efforts were made for many years to
<br />negotiate an agreement betwP-P-1l California and Arizona in parficular,
<br />bllt these efforts proved unsuccl'ssful.
<br />Arizona's interpretations of the compact and the California Limita-
<br />tioll Act haw b('en widely at variaDce with California's interpretations.
<br />In accordance with Arizona's contentions, the net annual amnunt of
<br />water that Cali.fornia would be entitled to and that would be a,.aHable
<br />to the California agenciPR from the Colorado River, would hardly bt!
<br />sufficient to co\'er the first, second, and third priorities allotted to irri-
<br />gation under the Seven.Party Water Agreement as set forth in tbe
<br />Hoo\'er Dam water contracts, and would leave little, if any, \Vater for
<br />the mptropolitan Rrea. Furtbermore, such amount of water would be
<br />\'err little more, if any, than was actually used in California from the
<br />Colorado Rivl'r bf'fore Hoover Dam was built.
<br />h became evident that litigation in the Snpreme Court of the United
<br />States offered the only hope of final determination of the fundamental
<br />l'onflid between Arizona and California as to the division of water
<br />available to tbe Lower Basin. To this end legilllation W8lI introduced
<br />by California's representatives and senatorij in the Eigbtidh C01\greu
<br />in 1947, and in snbsequent Congresses, to authorize lIuch litigation.
<br />Hearings were held on the proposed legislation ill 1948 and 1949
<br />before the Senate Committee on Intl'rior and Insular Affairs and
<br />before the House Judiciary Committee. Representatiyes of Arizona
<br />and the UppE'r Basin States opposed the legislation and it dit!d in
<br />committee.
<br />Arizona officisls long contended that all matters as to divi...~ion of
<br />wstE'r were settled already in accordance with thl'ir own interpretation
<br />of the basic documents. They opposed all California proposals for set-
<br />llemt'nt, including litigation. Instead, Arizona's representatives lIonght
<br />1:1. political determination in the Congress. by endea\'oring to secure
<br />the pa&;a.ge of legislation to authorir.e the Central Ari:wna Project.
<br />However, after thorough consideration of all the cllntro\'ersial mat-
<br />ters, the House Committee on Intf'rior and Insular Affairs refused to
<br />approve the Central Arizona Project legislation by initial action on
<br />April 18, 1951; and filially on October 10, 1951, adopted a motion to
<br />defer action indpflnitely "to give the proponents an opportunity to
<br />
<br />".-"..:
<br />
<br />~_T~, '~.' .
<br />
<br />.<.,
<br />
<br />
<br />.~ . .
<br />
<br />.':'
<br />
<br />,~..
<br />
<br />.,".,
<br />
<br />
<br />-.
<br />
<br />.. .~
<br />
<br />"..,'.
<br />
|