OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER XII 203 (4) That the diversion of money from the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund as payment for the so-called Hoover Dam deficiencies, pursuant to the Glen Canyon Filling Criteria, be terminated forthwith and reimbursement be made in full (see pages 338 through 345, Serial No. 17; pages 48 through 52, Seventeenth Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, September 30, 1965). Wyoming endorsed the position of Colorado (see pages 363 through 365, Serial No. 17; pages 21 and 22, Nineteenth Annual Report of the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission, July 1, 1965, to June 30, 1966). New Mexico also favored authorization of CAP but as a condition of its approval sought an additional 46,000 acre-feet of water from the Gila River system and an agreement therefor with Arizona and the United States in the event the Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California required amendment (see pages 376 through 387, Serial No. 17). This condition was likened to holding CAP for ransom, although Hooker Dam on the Gila River in New Mexico was already programed. Utah favored CAP but only if its water needs would not prejudice the Upper Basin's compact apportionment of water and agreed with the points advocated by Colorado. Also, as a part of the regional program, the Dixie Project in Utah was made a part of the Lower Basin project as a participant in the new Lower Basin Fund (see page 415, Serial No. 17). H.6.3. Northwest States Views Idaho noted that H.R.4761 fails to list the source of augmentation and, like Oregon, would require the area seeking importation to prove the highest feasible use of water in their areas (see pages 427 through 428, Serial No. 17). Idaho feared that diversions from the Snake River would be attempted (page 701, Serial No. 17). The National Parks Association was opposed to the Bridge Canyon Project on the basis that alternative thermal power was as cheap (see pages 716 through 736, 742, Serial No. 17). Oregon first wanted a demonstration of more efficient use of water before any importation would be authorized; that the source of import be identified and the exporting area represented by those considering the problem; that a National water commission study the Nation's water problems rather than a limited regional study; that the import of water from Canada be studied; and that it had appropriated $332,000 to study Oregon's water needs which needed completion (see pages 407 through 413, Serial No. 17). The State of Washington would give consideration to export of water only if a surplus was assured and wanted a study made of its own State's water needs as well as the Lower Basin resources (see pages 434 through 439, Serial No. 17). The foregoing led Arizona to comment that its initial proposal for a single CAP project was now tied to solutions of Nation-wide water problems (see page 442, Serial No. 17). The Upper Colorado River Commission agreed as to the need for augmentation of the Colorado River water supply and for the ability to recall Upper Basin water that will be available temporarily for CAP. It cited the Tipton and Kalmback, Inc., report as to shortages in the Basin about 1990-2000. The Commission urged that the quantity imported should not be less than 3.4 maf in order to satisfy the Mexican Treaty obligation of 1.5 maf plus losses of 1.0 maf and the use of 7.5 maf in each Basin. It urged that the deficiency payments under the Filling Criteria be discontinued and that the Upper Basin Fund be reimbursed from the Colorado River Dam Fund for all payments made from the Upper Basin Fund (see pages 500 through 512, Serial No. 17). Colorado had substantially the same position as the Upper Colorado River Commission (see pages 555 through 562, Serial No. 17). H.6.4. Conservation Groups' Views The conservation groups, such as the National Audubon Society and the Sierra Club, totalling 25 witnesses, did not oppose CAP but did object to both Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon Dams, contending that the former was in conflict with the law establishing the Grand Canyon National Park and urged either steam or nuclear energy as a more economical alternative source of energy for pumping CAP water (see pages 751, 783, and 798, Serial No. 17). Reclamation denied this and noted the contribution from |