OCR Text |
Show 204 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS the sale of power toward costs of needed augmentation. The Sierra Club's newspaper advertising in opposition to the dams led to an Internal Revenue Service audit and loss of its income tax exemption because of its efforts to influence legislation (see page 9, Twentieth Annual Report of the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission, July 1, 1966, to July 30, 1967). H.6.5. Compromise Attempts The hearings, therefore, concluded on September 1, 1966, with no unanimity among the Basin States but with differences on water supply, rate of Upper Basin development and depletion of water supply, and future net losses of water from the river in the Lower Basin, all of which affected the water supply for CAP. Furthermore, the opposition to Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon Dams jeopardized the anticipated source of revenues from the proposed powerplants. Following the hearings held in August and September 1965, there were a series of meetings of representatives of Arizona, California, and Colorado to resolve differences on the legislation which was indicated during the hearings. There emerged therefrom Committee Print No. 19, agreed upon on September 20, 1965. The major provisions were as follows: (1) Title 1 was changed from "Lower Colorado River Basin Project" to "Colorado River Basin Project" to indicate the benefit to the entire Basin. (2) The Upper Basin's demand for concurrent authorization of a project to import additional water was dropped but investigations and planning therefor were authorized. The Secretary was to submit by the year 1970 the first draft of an importation plan for not less than 2.5 maf per year in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation as well as planning of facilities to include an additional 2 maf for the Lower Basin, 2 maf for the Upper Basin and 2 maf to be used in other States along the importation route, or a total of as much as 8.5 maf. The Mexican Treaty obligation would be a National obligation. Greater protection would be given to areas of origin by giving them priority of right in perpetuity. (3) The capacity of the Central Arizona Aqueduct was modified by providing that the size be sufficient to divert annually 1.2 maf (which had nothing to do with the amount of water to which CAP may be entitled). This would be an increase in capacity from 1,800 ftVs to 2,500 ftVs. Any increased capacity above that will be paid for by funds other than those contributed to by California and Nevada. (4) The Southern Nevada and Dixie Water Projects were integrated into the Colorado River Basin Project to permit participation in the development funds. (5) Five Upper Basin projects were authorized at an estimated cost of $360 million. Other Upper Basin projects would be given priorities in planning studies. (6) Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon Dams would be authorized. (7) The Colorado River Development Fund would reimburse the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund for expenditures therefrom for deficiencies in Hoover generation due to the filling of Colorado River Storage Project reservoirs. (8) The Secretary would be required to promulgate equitable criteria for the coordinated long range operation of reservoirs on the river. Priorities for the storage and release of water were enumerated in the new committee print. (9) The Upper Basin rights to Colorado River water would not be impaired by the temporary use of water in the Lower Basin. (10) The Secretary would report on annual consumptive uses and losses of water from the Colorado River system at 5-year intervals and in the event of the Secretary's failure to comply with the "Law of the River" suit could be initiated by a State in the U.S. Supreme Court. (11) The Colorado-Pacific Regional Water Commission would be expanded to include reepresentatives of all of the Basin States and each State from which it is proposed to import water and from Federal departments (see pages 963 through 974, and 1058 through 1061, Serial No. 89-17, Part II). In order to resolve matters still in dispute, negotiating sessions were held among the seven Basin States in late 1965 and early 1966. Revised drafts of the bill were prepared on January 27, 1966, and February 8, 1966, which included Upper Basin projects. New Mexico still insisted on more Gila River water and the Upper Basin States wanted criteria included to prevent the drawdown of Lake Powell for power production at Hoover. |