OCR Text |
Show 770 REAUTHORIZING GILA PROJECT August 2,1946. CONCLUDING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MURDOCK, COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES To the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation: When it became apparent in June that the legislative schedule was so crowded that it would probably be difficult to continue hearings before the full committee on H. R. 5434, a subcommittee, consisting of Congressman White, Congressman Fernandez, Congressman Rockwell, and Congressman Phillips, with your chairman as chairman of that subcommittee, was appointed to finish the hearings. This subcommittee continued with the hearings almost until the time of adjournment. The testimony was so voluminous and much of it so intricate that it was difficult for the members of the subcommittee to formulate their ideas from the oral testimony alone, and as there was not time enough to get the printed hearings before the committee, no action was taken on this bill prior to adjournment. The Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, sent several witnesses in support of the bill, the Department having previously made a favorable report on it. Also several competent witnesses from the State of Arizona appeared in support of the measure. However, very strong opposition was offered by several witnesses from California who opposed action on the measure "at this time" and indicated possible opposition at a subsequent date. The voluminous hearings will give Congress in detail the arguments for and against the proposal, but as chairman of the whole committee and also chairman of the subcommittee and author of the bill, I should like to give this informal report on our progress and at the same time I feel it may aid our study to outline some of the arguments both for and against the measure. The sponsors and supporters of H. R. 5434, in the testimony included in the hearings, are asking that the existing authorized Gila project be reauthorized and modified so as to exclude some of the less desirable higher lands in the original authorization and include some better lands along the Gila River, which have formerly been tilled but are now in distress for lack of good water and which lack may only be supplied from the nearby Colorado River. Those favoring the measure are convinced that the completed project, under this new proposal, will require less than 600,000 acre-feet of water annually "in consumptive use," which was the amount formerly estimated for the 150,000 acres in the original authorization. In fact, it is certain that the new proposal will call for much less water to be diverted when completed than the original proposal would require. The supporters of the bill are mindful that there is another project for Arizona, •especially one known as the central Arizona water project, which should be considered in conjunction with the Gila project, whether the old or the new plan is followed through, and that both these projects together must call for no more water from the main stream of the Colorado River than is Arizona's rightful •quota from the Colorado River. The supporters of the bill are convinced that both the reauthorized Gila project, calling for a "consumptive use" of less than 600,000 acre-feet, and the proposed central Arizona water project, calling for a "consumptive use" of 1,100,000 acre-feet annually, can both be developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and still keep safely within the total firm supply of Arizona's water out of the main stem of the Colorado River. This total development in Arizona, they maintain, is possible both from the physical standpoint of water in the Colorado River furnished by nature and made available by the hydraulic engineers and also within the legal provisions of the various statutes, covenants, and legal instruments governing the development of the river. The recently ratified water treaty with Mexico must be taken into consideration in the development of the Colorado River Basin. The supporters of H. R. 5434 are convinced that the changes sought in the Gila project area will have a material Itearing on the fulfillment of the Mexican Water Treaty, enabling the furnishing of approximately 1,000,000 acre-feet of water annually to Mexico as a part of the treaty requirement but not until after such water has been used to irrigate land in the State of Arizona. This is as it should be, rather than to furnish all of the water requirements of the Mexican Treaty out of storage on the river and before it has been used for irrigation in our country. A failure to enact H. R. 5434, or •similar legislation, or a thwarting of any legislation to divert water from the main stem of the Colorado River into Arizona for irrigation purposes, will increase up to one and a half million acre-feet annually the supply of water which must te furnished to Mexico under the treaty from stored water on the river. That "would greatly increase the cost of carrying out the treaty and result in a great |
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] : |