| OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER XII 205 On February 19, 1966, representatives of the three Lower Basin States agreed to several proposed changes in the draft of February 8, 1966, concerning the sizing of the proposed Central Arizona Aqueduct and the pricing of imported water. The Upper Colorado River Commission on February 22, 1966, adopted a resolution endorsing the February 8, 1966, draft of H.R.4671 with the modifications agreed to by the Lower Basin conferees and urged that this draft as modified be submitted to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives for consideration and enactment into law (pages 36 through 41, Eighteenth Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, September 30, 1966). The California analysis of the changes appears at pages 1154 through 1165 of Serial No. 89-17, Part II. Despite this so-called agreement, the Upper Basin had reservations as to supporting H.R.4671 without provision for an impact study which they deemed vital. The Northwest States were critical of the bill. In hearings in May 1966, Oregon cited the proposed increase of imported water from 2.5 maf to 8.5 maf annually and noted the further request of Texas for inclusion in the study of water needs. It rejected claims on Columbia River water for areas 1,500 miles away and was opposed to studies for water importation in a bill to authorize a reclamation project, urging the separation of these two matters. Washington, Oregon, and Idaho also urged deletion of the importation studies and cited the need for their own studies of water requirements (see pages 1125, 1134, and 1145, Serial No. 89-17, Part II). On the plus side for CAP was the compromise between Arizona and New Mexico. Interior stated the Administration's support for the objectives of H.R.4671 but not all of its details. It would defer Bridge Canyon Dam pending further study and favored Marble Canyon Dam and the study of importation of water by the National Water Commission rather than by the Secretary. This position served to favor the Northwest States position and a setback to the Basin States. It had, however, found the operating criteria guidelines were reasonable and workable (see pages 1336 through 1339, Serial No. 89-17, Part II; see also page 1358 for Reclamation's analysis of the operating criteria provisions). The hearings elicited Reclamation's statement that the operating criteria were not inconsistent with the filling criteria (pages 1344, and 1381, Serial No. 89-17, Part II); that steam generating plants as a source of CAP pumping was being considered (see pages 1365, 1367, and 1387, Serial No. 89-17, Part II); and that the excess land laws would apply to CAP (see page 1412, Serial No. 89-17, Part II). Hearings on the expanded H.R.4671 were resumed before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation on May 9, and concluded on May 18, 1966. Among the items testified to were water supply for CAP, Bridge Canyon Dam despite the Bureau of the Budget recommendation for its deferral, New Mexico's condition for increased Gila River water supplies, a request that Texas be included in an augmentation program which meant further demands on an export of water from the Northwest, the Administration's request for deferral of Bridge Canyon Dam and three of the five Upper Basin projects, and the substitution of nuclear plants for the two dams on the river. The bill under consideration, Committee Print No. 19, dated April 25, 1966, incorporated the changes agreed to by the seven Colorado River Basin States after the August 1965 hearings. Among the principal changes in H.R.4671 which were incorporated in the September 20, 1965, draft were: (1) Size of Central Arizona Project Central Arizona unit to be of such size as to provide for an average annual diversion not to exceed 1,200,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water. This would be an increase from 1,800 to 2,500 ff/s with project financing with the cost of any increase above 2,500 ftVs to be borne by Arizona. (2) Upper Basin Projects Number of projects that would be authorized or construction reduced from 14 to 5 (Animas-La Plata, Dolores, Dallas Creek, West Divide, San Miguel). Planning reports authorized for the nine other projects. (3) Operating Criteria These were expanded to provide priorities in the storage and release of water. H.6.6. Subcommittee Approval of H.R. 4671 The House Subcommittee on June 27, 1966, reported to the full committee the proposed Colorado River Basin Project Bill, H.R.4671, as amended (Committee Print No. 24), by a vote of 13 to 5 with all five |
