OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER XII 209 H. 7. Arizona's Go-it-Alone Plan A special meeting of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States was held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on November 16, 1966, to consider whether legislation for a Colorado River Basin Project proposed to be introduced in the 90th Congress might have the support of all the States. Arizona stated that all commitments and guarantees made by Arizona and included in H.R.4671 were considered to be null and void as of the date of adjournment of the 89th Congress. It further stated that Arizona would make a full scale effort for a Federal reclamation project in the 90th Congress and would accelerate its own (go-it-alone) program for a Central Arizona Project without Federal help so as to utilize Arizona's share of Colorado River water at the earliest possible date and that Arizona should pursue its efforts to obtain an FPC license to build Marble Canyon Dam. Nonetheless, Congressman Udall of Arizona expressed the view that Federal legislation was the best approach for a solution of Arizona's problems and that there was a continued need for seven-State cooperation (pages 12 through 14, Colorado River Board of California, Annual Report 1966-1967). Arizona's Interstate Stream Commission and Power Authority studied feasibility of a State financed CAP. This led to enactment in March 1967 of a State Water and Power Plan for CAP. Thus, Arizona proceeded on a dual path of Federally financed construction of CAP and a State financed project. H.8. 90th Congress -1967 Following the opening of the 90th Congress in January 1967, twenty-six bills were introduced with respect to a Colorado River Basin Project. These included: H.R.30, a regional bill by Congressman Aspinall-subsequently reintroduced as H.R.3300 (this called for Bridge Canyon Dam but not Marble Canyon Dam, a 4.4 maf guaranty for California, a diversion study, and five Colorado projects); an identical bill, H.R.744, by Congressman Johnson of California; H.R.9 by Congressman Udall-a Central Arizona Project bill (this called for Bridge Canyon Dam but not Marble Canyon Dam, no 4.4 maf guaranty for California, and no water importation studies); and H.R.722 by Congressman Hosmer-identical to H.R.4671 as reported by the House Interior Committee the previous year (see page 2, House Subcommittee Hearings, Serial No. 90-5). On January 31, 1967, Senator Kuchel advised that after consultation with Chairman Aspinall and Subcommittee Chairman Johnson of the House Interior Committee and others, the Senator proposed to introduce legislation which would retain the basic principles of H.R.4671 of the 89th Congress but would eliminate Marble Canyon Dam, reduce the size of the proposed Central Arizona Aqueduct and make certain other minor clarifying changes. Senator Kuchel's bill, cosponsored by Senator Moss of Utah, was introduced on March 3, 1967, as S.861. Senator Jackson also introduced S.20 which would have established a National Water Commission. The purpose was to prevent any importation study of water from the Northwest by Interior which was part of the regional water program for the Colorado River Basin. S.20 passed by the Senate and became part of Title II of H.R.3300. H.8.1. Interior's More Limited Plan On February 1, 1967, the Secretary of the Interior announced a revised development program for the lower Colorado River which, in part, would provide for a Central Arizona Project; expansion of the boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park to include the Marble Canyon Dam site; deferment of any action on Hualapai Dam site; substitution for hydroelectric power from either Bridge Canyon or Marble Canyon Dams of power capacity to be purchased in thermal electric generating plants for the pumping power needs of the Central Arizona Project; and establishment of a National Water Commission to study water supply problems on a National scale. The latter was an effort to eliminate opposition from the Northwest States, though it was not favored by either California or the Upper Basin States. The Administration also left the 4.4 maf guaranty for California up to Congress. Nor was there a provision for a study of water importation from the Northwest (pages 40 through 41, Twentieth Annual Report of the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission, July 1, 1966, to June 30, 1977). This proposal by the Administration was attacked by |