OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER XII 211 New Mexico sided with Arizona while demanding an increase of 18,000 acre-feet of consumptive use from the Gila River, but increasing to 48,000 acre-feet when the Colorado River has been augmented. As a consequence of the Senate Interior Subcommittee hearings, there followed a series of conferences with Upper Basin representatives in an attempt to reconcile various positions and reach compromise agreements before the Senate and House committee's markup of the respective bills. Senator Hayden agreed to amendments to include a 27-year priority for California's 4.4 maf to gain California support and authorization of five Upper Basin projects and assistance to the Dixie Project in Utah to gain Upper Basin support. H.8.3. Senate Approval of S. 1004 On June 29, 1967, the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee approved S.1004, primarily a Central Arizona Project authorization bill, with the above modifications. Senator Kuchel of California with Colorado and Wyoming prepared minority views to accompany the Interior Committee's Senate Report 408, together with minority and individual views. Following floor debate which culminated on August 7, 1967, the Senate by voice vote approved S.1004. This bill was unacceptable to California for several reasons: (1) It provided protection of California's 4.4 maf per year for only 27 years. (2) It contained no provision for commencement of water augmentation studies, which prompted criticism from Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, but drew support from Senator Jackson of Washington. (3) It did not provide for construction of Hualapai Dam. (4) It earmarked Hoover and Parker-Davis power revenues to help contribute to payoff of the Central Arizona Project with higher rates for Southern California and Nevada power users. The CAP bill did, however, provide: (1) Authorization of a $786 million CAP. (2) Construction of a prepaid thermal plant, to supply CAP pumping power. (3) A 4.4 maf priority to California for the 27 years remaining before payoff of the MWD Aqueduct. (4) Hoover and Parker-Davis power revenues after payout are to be deposited in the Lower Basin Development Fund to help pay for augmentation. Arizona's contribution to those revenues would be used to help repay the costs of CAP until that Project has also been paid off, after which time Arizona's share of surplus power revenues from Hoover and Parker-Davis and surplus revenues from the CAP will be used to help pay the costs of augmentation. (5) Protection of existing Colorado River water uses in Arizona. (6) The Dixie Project for Utah and five projects for Colorado. H.8.4. House Delay on CAP Legislation - Power Politics Chaiiman Aspinall of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs was critical of the Senate action in failing to provide for augmentation and on August 17, 1967, stated that his committee would take no action on the legislation in the first session of the 90th Congress. This rekindled Arizona's go-it-alone plan since it could kill CAP. In an effort to force House action, Senator Hayden, on September 21, 1967, sought to defer an $11.5 million appropriation for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in Colorado. And, on September 28, 1967, Senator Hayden announced a move to amend the House Public Works Appropriations measure by adding to it as a rider the text of the Central Arizona Project bill, S. 1004, as passed by the Senate, and, in effect, to circumvent the House Interior Committee and Chairman AspinalPs refusal to act. Senator Hayden withdrew his motion after assurances that the House Interior Committee would consider the Colorado River Basin Project legislation early in the second session of the 90th Congress (pages 41 through 75, Nineteenth Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, September 30, 1967). Because of the major differences between the Senate legislation, S.1004 in the Senate and H.R.3300 pending in the House, many suggestions were made by the interested parties as to possible shifts in policy |