| OCR Text |
Show 8 DIXIE PROJECT, UTAH area. That is why I have thrown my full support behind the Dixie project- a project which will benefit both Washington County and Cedar City. Since hearings were conducted in Washington, D. C., on May 7 and here in St. George on May 17 by the Senate Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee, several significant events have occurred which have a bearing on the proposed Dixie project. First and foremost, it gave us all great pleasure when the Senate Interior Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation on July 31 favorably reported the Dixie project. However, since that time the bill has remained before the full Senate Interior Committee with no action taken to consider the legislation for its report to the floor of the Senate. I have written a letter to the chairman of the committee, Senator Henry Jackson, urging that action be scheduled without further delay. Also of great significance was the Department of Interior issuance on August 26 of a report on the Pacific Southwest water plan. Unfortunately, the announcement by Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall implied that he intends to link the vital Dixie reclamation project in Utah with the $ 1.9 billion Lower Colorado River Basin projects. This, of course, has serious implications. It will probably take years to get this mammoth, controversial project through Congress. By linking the Dixie project with the vast lower basin developments, Secretary Udall has made Dixie a hostage. This step will make it even more difficult to obtain congressional approval of Dixie separately, particularly in the House of Representatives. I fervently hope that in these additional hearings being conducted by the House Interior Committee with the able assistance of our own Congressman, Laurence J. Burton, we may be able to stress the urgency of the Dixie project and its importance to the economy and future well- being of southern Utah. We also need to emphasize the fallacy of the ill- advised attempt of the Kennedy administration to make the Dixie project a hostage of the Lower Colorado River Basin bill. It is a well- known fact the projects included in the overall Lower Colorado River Basin legislation have been the subject of long litigation between the States of Arizona and California over rights to the waters of the Colorado River. The Supreme Court, on June 3, 1963, announced its opinion in the case of Arizona v. California, et al. This opinion appears to clear the way for the Lower Colorado River Basin developments, though California has filed an appeal to the decision and will oppose bitterly the legislation in Congress. However, Utah's only use of water within the lower basin is from the Virgin and the Santa Clara tributaries- the right to which the Court did not adjudicate. Accordingly, Utah's right to expand its present lower basin tributary uses is not limited by the Court's decision, and likewise should not be included in the package of legislation for the Lower Colorado River Basin. The Virgin River is a* captive stream and not an issue in the Arizona v. California decision. It should be developed and considered on its merits alone, and the time for action is now, not a year or several years from now. Another significant event which may have a bearing on this vital project is that the Department of Interior will soon send to Congress proposed legislation establishing a formula for the determination of |
