OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER XII 197 cither. On the same day, Secretary Udall presented the Committee with a draft PSWP bill and an analysis as an interim report pending resolution of several major issues and uncertainty of support for a regional plan. The PSWP would: (1) Establish as congressional policy a regional approach to the water problems of the Pacific Southwest. It would supply up to 1.2 maf of water per year from northern California to make up deficiencies in the 4.4, 2.8, and 0.3 maf apportioned annually to California, Arizona and Nevada, respectively, in the Supreme Court Opinion in Arizona v. California. The United States would not, however, be an insurer or guarantor of a supply of water in a legal sense. (2) Establish a Basin development fund which would constitute the bank account to finance the objectives of the Act. Hoover Dam and Parker Dam revenues after their payouts would go into this fund. (3) Authorize the Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon power projects with revenues therefrom also to go to the development fund. (4) Authorize programs to salvage approximately 800,000 acre-feet of water annually. (5) Authorize CAP to bring approximately 1.2 maf per year of water to central Arizona and to bring water, through exchange and construction of Hooker Dam, to New Mexico (6) Enlarge the capacity of the Central Valley facilities in California, then under construction, and the California State water project aqueduct by 1.2 maf to bring northern California water to southern California. It was Deputy Solicitor Weinberg's opinion that California law would not preclude Congressional authorization of a Federal project to utilize unappropriated California water (see page 485, Senate Hearings, April 17, 1964). The Attorney General of California concurred in that opinion (pages 594 through 596, Senate Hearings, Appendices) as did California Chief Deputy Director Goldberg, Department of Water Resources (pages 611 through 613, Senate Hearings, Appendices). Senator Kuchel attempted to but did not then elicit a clear answer to his question as to whether the acreage limitation provisions of Reclamation Law; i.e., the "excess land laws," would apply to the California State water project (see pages 350 through 381, April 10, 1964, and page 422, April 14, 1964). (7) Authorize the Southern Nevada and Moapa Projects in Nevada. (8) Authorize the Dixie Project in Utah. (9) Enlarge outdoor recreational and fish and wildlife facilities utilizing an additional 340,000 acre-feet of water (page 341, Hearings, April 13, 1964). (10) Increase Indian irrigation developments in Arizona and California utilizing an additional 400,000 acre-feet per year. (11) Establish a Pacific Southwest Regional Water Commission In testimony on April 13 and 14, 1964, California stated its opposition to S.1658, as a separate CAP bill and supported a regional solution primarily because of the need for augmentation of the mainstream water supply (pages 415 through 417, Senate Hearings, April 14, 1964). The need for augmentation was a cornerstone of California's position, the other being a priority for 4.4 maf over CAP. While California preferred the regional approach, it felt that if S.1658 authorizing only CAP were to be considered, the Kuchel amendment subordinating CAP to existing uses was needed (see Ely statement, pages 505 through 538, Senate Hearings, April 20, 1964). Secretary Udall, however, thought the Kuchel amendment destroyed "the economic feasibility of any proposal for projects in Arizona or Nevada" (pages 467 through 474, Senate Hearings, April 16, 1964). F. S.2760 - 88th Congress On April 22, 1964, Senator Kuchel introduced his bill, S.2760, which had the approval of all the southern California users of Colorado River water and some of the other water interests in California. Although California's legislature opposed the Udall plan, Governor Brown said it was acceptable with modifications. Senator Kuchel's bill substantially accepted seven of the above-listed features of the Udall PSWP including authorization of CAP but also proposed the following major changes (see pages 306 through 308, Senate Hearings on S.1658, April 9, 1964): |