| OCR Text |
Show 198 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS (1) The source of a supplemental water supply would be broadened to other areas and not limited to northern California. The source would depend on the Secretary's investigations. The possible utilization of Columbia River water was strongly opposed by Senator Jackson of Washington. (2) The imported water would be delivered directly into the Colorado River and not into the California State water project aqueduct. This would permit continued use of the MWD Aqueduct; all water apportioned to California under the Decree would come from one source; i.e., the Colorado River, and water quality would be improved. These two changes were the principal reasons for California's objections to PSWP. (3) CAP as a new project would bear all shortages as junior in right to existing uses and decreed rights and to 4.4 maf of such uses in California; i.e., permanent protection of existing uses. (4) Postponement of some of the proposed expansion of reclamation on Indian Reservations and proposed expansion of consumptive uses for wildlife refuges. (5) The Secretary would report upon the water supplies and requirements of the seven Colorado River Basin States, not just the Lower Basin States, in order "to meet in full the deficiencies in water supply." California urged Arizona to join it in augmenting the supply of water in the river so that CAP could be a part of a regional plan California could advocate (pages 511 through 513, Senate Hearings on S.1658, April 20, 1964). On April 23, 1964, Senator Goldwater testified before the Senate Subcommittee that he and Senator Hayden were not opposed to a regional plan provided that CAP had a first priority and that the regional plan would not be used to delay CAP (page 575, Senate Hearings on S.1658, April 23, 1964). G. Was California's Priority an Effort to Overrule Arizona v. California? In connection with California's advocacy that CAP be subordinated to California's existing rights up to 4.4 maf, Senator Anderson asked whether California was not "trying to do legislatively what you (California) lost in the Supreme Court?" and "are you not asking us to override the decision of the Supreme Court?" (page 519, Senate Hearings on S.1658, April 21, 1964). California's response was that the Supreme Court: "...did not decide the shortage issue at all; it remitted that question to the Congress. The Special Master did undertake to decide it and he said in the event of shortages the shortage should be prorated. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously-and this was the only issue upon which they were unanimous-rejected the Special Master's holding that the Boulder Canyon Project Act required proration of shortages. It said there was as yet no law on this subject; that Congress had not established a shortage formula, but had left that question in the first instance for the Secretary of the Interior and that Congress might enlarge or restrict his authority. In any event, the Court will review the Secretary's formula." • ? •» "There is no formula now in existence for treating water shortages in the Lower Basin. This committee has that problem before it is a matter of first instance. The problem now is: Shall this committee, for the first time in 100 years of western water law, approve a formula which destroys an existing use, whether in New Mexico or Arizona or California, to make way for a new project? You have never done it." (pages 521 through 522, Senate Hearings on S.1658, April 21, 1964). Congressman Saylor later made the same argument-that subordinating CAP to California's 4.4 maf controverts the Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California (see pages 252 and 253, 311, and 1011, Serial No. 17, House Hearings, August 25, 1965). H. Amendment of S. 1658 On July 27, 1964, Senator Hayden agreed to amend S.1658 (Arizona's bill) to authorize a "Lower Colorado River Basin Project" including substantially the same project authorization as in S.2760, as sponsored by Senator Kuchel, but limiting the protection of California's prior rights (up to 4.4 maf) to a period of 25 years from the date of enactment and limiting the Secretary's studies of water supplies and requirements to those of |
