OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD BASIS OP SUPPORT All of the witnesses from Arizona in support of the bill expressed confidence that the project sought to be reorganized would be an improvement over the old project by reducing it from 150,000 acres to 141,000 acres in area, leaving out some of the higher mesa lands and including in lieu thereof the 75,000 acres of distressed valley lands lying adjacent to the project and along the Gila River. They agreed with the Bureau of Reclamation officials that the proposed reorganized project, when completed, would require diverted out of the Colorado River at least 300,000 acre-feet of water annually less than the present uncompleted project would require when it is completed. There is no other water supply for these lands in Yuma County, and it was the unanimous testimony of the Arizona witnesses that unless the 75,000 acres of bottom land sought to be added by H. R. 5434 could be included in the existing Gila project, that there was no hope of their restoration to productivity, but that eventually they would be lost entirely to the desert. THE OPPONENTS OF H. R. S434 Those who appeared as witnesses in opposition to the enactment at this time of H. R. 5434 during the hearings in June and July were chiefly representatives from certain agencies in Southern California, although some of them stated they were representatives of the State of California and spoke as such. Mr. M. J. Dowd gave the most extensive testimony against the bill representing the Imperial Irrigation District of Southern California. Mr. James H. Howard appeared in opposition representing the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and other municipalities as his clients. Mr. Raymond Matthew appeared on behalf of the Colorado River Board of the State of California, being an engineer of that board. Mr. Arvin B. Shaw, Jr., as an assistant attorney general of California, appeared as a representative of the State, to serve the agen- cies in expressing opposition. Certain Members of Congress from Southern California and from Nevada appeared as witnesses who offered opposition to the immediate enactment of the bill. GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION TO H. R. 5434 In general the opposing witnesses declare that they are opposed to favorable action on H. R. 5434 at this time. By emphasizing "at this time" they imply that later their opposition might be removed or modified. To give point to their opposition to the measure "at this time," they point out that the Bureau of Reclamation recently issued a Colorado River report, tentative in form, which lists numerous projects in a total basin plan, the development of which would require more water than the whole basin furnishes, and their contention is that no new projects should be authorized until further study has screened the included list of 134 suggested projects and eradicated those which could not possibly be developed because of the shortage of water. They further contend that no development should proceed until definite decision has been made as to how much Colorado River water each of the Colorado River basin States, especially the three in the lower basin, should receive. As one of the substantiating arguments, they contend that the recently adopted water treaty with Mexico creates a new, uncontemplated, and greatly enlarged draft on the firm supply of the Colorado River, which makes it imperative, in order to carry out that treaty, that we must figure carefully on any future drafts on the river supply. ARGUMENTS AND COUNTERARGUMENTS ON H. R. £434 The sponsors and supporters of the bill claim that not more than 600,000 acre-feet of water annually "in consumptive use" would be required for this proposed reorganized Gila project when completed, while the opponents place it at a much larger amount. The 600,000 acre- |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |