OCR Text |
Show 200 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS In essence S.1019 and the companion House bills would provide: (1) Investigation of importation projects. Instead of the conditional authorization of construction of the initial stage of importation works, the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to investigate sources of water and to plan projects for the importation of at least 2.5 million acre-feet annually into the mainstream of Colorado River below Lee Ferry, and to report thereon to Congress within 3 years. (2) Protection for existing users. Existing mainstream users in Arizona, California and Nevada would be protected against shortages in the basic supply for consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet a year as against the Central Arizona Project, although California's protection would be limited to 4.4 million acre-feet per annum of consumptive use. The protection would cease when works were completed to permanently deliver at least 2.5 million acre-feet a year into the mainstream below Lee Ferry from outside sources which the President proclaimed could supply this quantity without adverse effect on the satisfaction of the foreseeable water requirements of the areas of origin. The quantity of imported water needed to bring the consumptive use from the mainstream in the Lower Basin up to the 7.5 million acre-feet a year would be made available at Colorado River prices. If importations made more than 7.5 million acre-feet per annum available for consumptive use in the three States, the excess would be apportioned as under the Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California, one-half to California and the other half to Arizona and Nevada. (3) Authorized units. The Secretary would be authorized to construct the Central Arizona, Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon Projects. (4) Protection of areas of origin. The Secretary would be directed to provide for adequate and equitable protection of the interests of the States and areas from which water would be exported to the Colorado River, including assistance from the development fund to be established by the Act, so that ultimate water requirements of the areas of origin could be satisfied at prices to users not adversely affected by the exportation. (5) Regional Development Fund. There would be deposited into the fund all authorized appropriations and all project revenues, including the power revenues from the Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon Projects and from the Hoover, Davis and Parker Projects after these latter have paid out. The fund would be applied to repayment of the cost of the entire project including the cost of importation works when subsequently authorized (pages 19 and 20, Colorado River Board of California Annual Report 1964-1965; pages 47 and 48, Seventeenth Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, September 30, 1965). H.4. Comparison of Prior Legislative Proposals A tabular analysis of the foregoing bills, dated March 4, 1965, was prepared by the Attorney General of California. It shows the comparison of the foregoing legislative proposals for the Lower Colorado River Basin (page 22, Annual Report 1964-1965, Colorado River Board of California). H.5. Administration's Views In a report of May 10, 1965, on S.1019 and S.75, the Bureau of the Budget stated it had no objection to the authorization of CAP except that Bridge Canyon Dam be deferred pending further study. Commissioner Dominy noted that Bridge Canyon, with over 5 billion kilowatthours annually, ".. .as far as power production, is the giant of all the potential on the River..."; that for comparison purposes Glen Canyon produces 3,820 million kilowatthours of energy annually; Marble Canyon, 2,200 million; Hoover, 3.5 billion; Davis, 976 million; and Parker, 472 million (page 165, Serial No. 17, August 25, 1965). Thus, the Administration gave its support to the pending legislation. On May 17, 1965, Interior gave impetus to the Bureau of the Budget report and recommended enactment of H.R.4671 or one of its counterparts which have the same major objectives as PSWP (see page 9, Serial No. 17, August 23, 1965). Secretary Udall advised that deferral of Bridge Canyon Dam would affect only the |