OCR Text |
Show 196 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS Water Plan (PSWP), a regional development plan whose financial success depended on revenues derived from the sale of power and energy generated at those sites. California also opposed the requests for permits. The National Parks Association and the Sierra Club of California opposed both dams for environmental reasons. Nevertheless, in September 1962, a hearing examiner recommended issuing a license to APA to build Marble Canyon Dam. To delay such a grant and to provide time to allow Congress to act on the CAP authorization which included Bridge Canyon Dam, Senator Hayden introduced S.502 on January 24, 1963, to withdraw jurisdiction from FPC to grant licenses for dams in the reach of the river from Glen Canyon Dam to the Mexican border. A companion bill, H.R.9752, was introduced in the House by Congressman Rhodes of Arizona. APA and the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission were in dispute over the role each envisioned for these dams, but in March 1962, the Arizona Legislature sided with the Stream Commission and memorialized Congress to pass S.502. Congress did so in July 1964 and the bill was signed on August 27, 1964, as Public Law 88-491, with the period of prohibition on the issuance of permits extending through calendar year 1966. D. Objections to S.1658 In a letter of August 21, 1963, the Bureau of the Budget stated it had no basis for appraising the merits of the proposed project since the Department of the Interior had not submitted a report to the Bureau of the Budget under the procedures set forth in Executive Order No. 9384, 8 F.R. 13782, dated October 4, 1943, and for that reason recommended that action on S.1658 be deferred. Senator Kuchel of California emphasized that the hearings did not comply with the Flood Control Act of 1944, Public Law 78-534, dated December 22, 1944, 58 Stat. 887, which required a Departmental report and the receipt of comments thereon within 90 days thereafter from the affected States prior to the hearing; that a decree had not yet been issued in Arizona v. California (the decree was handed down on March 9, 1964); and that the petitions for rehearing filed by the State of California, The Metropolitan Water District, and Imperial Irrigation District, would soon be filed (these were filed on September 16 and were denied by the Supreme Court on October 21, 1963) and would need to be acted upon prior to hearings. He noted that on August 26, 1963, the day before the Subcommittee hearing, Secretary Udall had released a Departmental report on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan (PSWP), which was a comprehensive plan, regional in scope, covering the Lower Colorado River Basin and Southern California. It included CAP as an integral unit but differed from S.1658 in that the revenues from Bridge Canyon Dam Powerplant would be utilized for the whole southwest area and not just for CAP, and that CAP power for pumping would be derived from Marble Canyon Dam to be built under PSWP (see pages 11 through 32, Senate Hearings on S.1658, August 27, 1963). It was Secretary Udall's position that CAP was part of a larger, regional problem (see Interior's report of April 9, 1964, to Senator Jackson on S.1658 and PSWP), although it should be noted that Congressman Aspinall, Chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, had written the Secretary on January 18, 1968, suggesting a regional approach. ^Senator Kuchel's other major contention throughout the hearings was that California's rights to 4.4 maf per year for existing uses be given a priority over CAP, a new project, similar to the priority accorded existing Arizona uses over CAP uses, by the March 1961 Arizona Legislature in appropriating $200,000 to update the CAP report. Senator Kuchel's proposed amendment of S.1658 to provide such a priority was drafted by California's Attorney General Mosk (it appears at page 274, Senate Subcommittee Hearings, April 9, 1964, and was incorporated in the record at page 339, April 10, 1964). His stated reason therefor was that existing California water uses through non-Federally financed facilities should not be prejudiced by subsequent new uses in Arizona. He urged that the States "ought to get together" and have Congress assist the people in the entire southwest (see pages 87, 104, Senate Hearings on S.1658, August 28, 1963). The demand for this priority was a cornerstone of California's position and was ultimately adopted. E. Pacific Southwest Water Plan (PSWP) On April 9, 1964, the Bureau of the Budget reported to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on both PSWP and S. 1658, but in the absence of further study could not recommend authorization of |