OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER XII 199 the Lower Colorado River Basin (see page 24, Annual Report 1963-1964, Colorado River Board of California). The 25-year priority had been proposed by Senator Moss of Utah and endorsed by Governor Brown. However, California's Attorney General Mosk and Senator Kuchel strongly opposed it. On August 6, 1964, the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, having rejected Senator Kuchel's bill, S.2760, reported S.1658 favorably, with the bill further amended to restrict investigations of sources of water for importation to the Colorado River Basin to sources in California. H.I. S.3104 Thereafter, on August 11, 1964, Senators Kuchel and Salinger introduced S.3104, to authorize studies, investigations and reports on water resources and requirements of the Colorado River Basin and on alternate sources of supplemental supply, and to protect in perpetuity existing lower Colorado River uses against CAP. Companion House bills were also introduced by 23 California Congressmen. The bill was designed to enlist the support of the Upper Basin States. No further action on legislation concerning CAP or PSWP was taken by the 88th Congress which adjourned on October 3, 1964. However, the House Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee held hearings in Phoenix, Arizona, on November 9-10, 1964, but all pending legislation was dead. In a meeting on December 15, 1964, between California representatives and Secretary Udall to discuss a compromise with Arizona, it was suggested that the protection of California's 4.4 maf per year could be relinquished when works were constructed and in operation to deliver a minimum of 2.5 maf per year of water into the lower Colorado River from an outside source. The 2.5 maf is the total of the Mexican Treaty obligation of 1.5 maf and net river losses of 1.0 maf between Lee Ferry and the Mexican boundary; i.e., the portion of Lee Ferry flow not available for use in the Lower Basin. In addition, the need for augmentation of the river was emphasized (page 18, Colorado River Board of California, Annual Report 1964-1965). H.2. S. 294 and S. 75 On January 6, 1965, in the first session of the 89th Congress, Senator Kuchel introduced S.294, which differed from S.2760 (88th Congress) in two important respects: it provided (1) conditional authorization of an importation project instead of the authorization of only a feasibility study; and (2) protection of existing uses; e.g., California's 4.4 maf, until completion of an importation project delivering at least 2.5 maf into the mainstream below Lee Ferry, instead of protection in perpetuity. Also on January 6, 1965, Senators Hayden and Fannin of Arizona introduced S.75. This retained the California priority of 4.4 maf for 25 years, but differed frm their prior bill S.1658, in that it authorized the Secretary to investigate all alternative sources of water for meeting requirements in the Lower Basin rather than being restricted to alternative sources in California. This was a regional plan but without PSWP's more controversial provisions. It included a Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, directed the Secretary to investigate augmentation, would authorize Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon Dams, provided for water exchanges outside the CAP service area, proposed a Colorado-Pacific Water Commission, and would authorize the Southern Nevada Water Project. H.3. S.1019 and H.R.4671 On January 18, 1965, Secretary Udall proposed that California and Arizona merge California's S.294 and Arizona's S.75 into one bill. This was done and the compromise agreement resulted in S.1019 being introduced in the Senate by Senator Kuchel on February 8, 1965, and H.R.4671, introduced in the House by the three Arizona Congressmen and 35 California representatives. On February 1, 1965, although the Arizona Senators did not sponsor the bill, Senator Hayden accepted Senator Kuchel's provision for a California priority of 4.4 maf over CAP on the condition that the House of Representatives must first pass the bill. This condition was prompted by prior actions where the Senate had passed CAP legislation, but the House had not. It was the initial joinder by the two States in a single approach to the CAP efforts. |