OCR Text |
Show 210 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS California as a reversal from previous recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior for a regional concept of planning to meet the Colorado River Basin needs and by the Upper Basin for dropping a water augmentation program (pages 42 and 43, id.). H.8.2. S.1004 Two more bills were introduced in the Senate with respect to Colorado River legislation. On February 16, 1967, Senator Hayden and cosponsors Senators Fannin and Jackson, introduced S.1004 to authorize only the Central Arizona Project. This did not include California's priority of 4.4 maf or water import studies, omitted Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon Dams and authorized CAP pumping power from a thermal plant built by non-Federal entities. It also omitted any Upper Basin projects. The following day, S.1013, the Administration bill, was introduced by Senator Jackson. This omitted three key features deemed essential by California. These were protection of existing uses of water, augmentation of the Colorado River, and construction of Hualapai Dam. Three days before hearings were held by the House Subcommittee on March 13-17, 1967, on these bills, the Arizona Legislature authorized development of a State go-it-alone plan for CAP. This included construction of Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon Dams whose revenues would retire the bonds to pay the costs of the project. Governor Williams signed the bill on March 14, 1967. Testimony during the Congressional hearings was basically limited to such pertinent information as had not been covered the previous year during the hearings on H.R.4671. On March 17, 1967, the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles recommended construction of Hualapai Dam and Powerplant with an increase in generating capacity from the 1,500,000 kW originally proposed to 5 million kW as a combined hydro-pumped storage peaking plant. This would provide pumping power for CAP and peaking capacity for participating utilities. This unexpected proposal appeared to be a threat to the sale of power by the Northwest. California opposed the Hayden bill because it lacked California's 4.4 maf priority over CAP and opposed the Administration's bill because it omitted augmentation. Colorado opposed the Hayden bill because it omitted Colorado's projects. Wyoming supported CAP but only if the Colorado River was augmented with water from northern California. During the period May 2-5, 1967, hearings were held by the Senate Interior Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources on proposed Colorado River Basin legislation (S. 1013, S. 1004 and S.861). Arizona's Senator Hayden (for the fourth time before this Subcomittee) reviewed Arizona's efforts to obtain CAP and to further reclamation projects in other States. He defended Arizona's unwillingness to guarantee California's 4.4 maf priority in perpetuity as placing on Arizona and the other so-called inland States the entire burden of augmenting the water supply of the Colorado River in preparation of times shortage. To do so, he said, would reverse the Supreme Court Opinion. He also noted that California could look to the Colorado River, northern California and the Pacific Ocean, while Arizona's only water source was the Colorado River. The issue, over simplified, was between a bare bones CAP, sponsored by Arizona, Washington and Nevada, and a regional approach with hydroelectric dams and inter-Basin studies favored by California and the Upper Basin States. The Administration supported authorization of CAP, water studies by a National Water Commission, deletion of three of five Colorado projects, elimination of Bridge Canyon Dam and deferral of Marble Canyon Dam, and the purchase of generating capacity in a coal-fired plant to be constructed by private and public power companies near Page, Arizona, adjacent to Lake Powell, in lieu of the hydroelectric dams as a means of minimizing controversy. Southern California Edison Company, Salt River Project, and Arizona Public Service Company had indicated their interest in the proposal. It was Secretary Udall's position that California's 4.4 maf priority was a matter for the States to decide. The Sierra Club opposed both dams and urged that the entire Grand Canyon area be placed within the National Park System. It also favored the Administration's proposal of prepayment for power to be generated by a thermal plant as "an imaginative approach." |