AZ vs. CA:25 California Exhibits, Vol. XXV; Nos. 7501-7859

page 98

98 CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT an overdraft upon the river in order to correct the results of Arizona's misuse of ground water resources. It can only be approved if new legislation is passed by Congress spreading the cost of repayment over a very long period of years, and allocating a part of reclamation to power. Do you think the Bureau of Reclamation is within its authority in promoting the special legislation necessary to make such a project legal? One answer to this question could be that it is just as important to maintain present development or more so, than to create new developments. However, such an unjustifiable development should not be maintained at the cost of water to other existing projects. Arizona was shortsighted in allowing overdevelopment before determining if they could rescue themselves economically. If you set this project up on such grounds is it not a dangerous precedent? Very probably California is now in the same boat in regard to some projects. Later on others could develop in other States. 8. With reference to paragraph 8, page 13, which sets out four prerequisites to the construction of Granite Reef aqueduct (an elemental part of the project) subsection (a), provision for future protection of ground water is specified. It seems that this provision, as well as a determination of available water, also might well have been prerequisite to making a detailed study, in consideration of the public funds required for it, and the uncertainty as to whether Arizona will enact such a protective law. It is also assumed in the report that one-fifth of the interest component on power over a 78-year period be included as project revenue. There is no legal provision for this, hence the major financial summary (page 3, letter to the Secretary) is somewhat a matter of conjecture. Farm land in the Salt River Valley has an average value of $300 per acre. Land values there are high and may decrease due to agricultural competition. The cost of supplying water for irrigation under this project will be about $1,469 per acre. In addition there will be operation and maintenance. Is this seemingly unsound set-up justified on a socialistic instead of an economic basis? It is clear that as a new project it would not be feasible. 9. The report apparently does not contemplate the irrigation of new lands. The water is to be used for supplemental irrigation of existing cultivated lands, and for municipal purposes. It would seem that the project does not provide for much new population, or the establishment of new families, which is one of the objectives of reclamation projects. There are other prospective developments in the Colorado River Basin which would provide such new farms for veterans and their families, and for the increasing number of home seekers. Why were not such other projects for new land development considered before recommending a vast expenditure of public funds on this project? 10. Some engineers have expressed an opinion that the Bridge Canyon Dam and Reservoir cannot be utilized properly and to its full extent as a power project because of the limited storage behind the dam, 3,720,000 acre-feet. In a few years the reservoir would fill with silt, and power service would depend on natural fluctuating river flow. Would it be desirable at the same time to construct Glen Canyon Dam and Reservoir which provides 8,600,000 acre-feet capacity for river control and silt protection? A combination of these two dams and power plants would create an effective river control and power project which may not be accomplished by construction of Bridge