| OCR Text |
Show 212 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS and lines of cooperative action which would perhaps achieve the desired results without sacrifice of basic regional principles. Arizona was proceeding on its go-it-alone plan which, if successful, was viewed as the end of Federally financed projects, and Governor Reagan of California wanted to meet with Governor Williams of Arizona. H.8.5 H.R.3300- S.1004 Looking toward early consideration of Colorado River Basin Project legislation by the House Interior Committee in the second session of the 90th Congress in 1968, a draft of revision of H.R.3300 was prepared by the State of Colorado for consideration during a meeting of the seven Colorado River Basin States in Las Vegas, Nevada, on December 7, 1967. A principal change was a priority of 4.4 maf for California until such time as the President found that the Mexican Treaty requirements had been met by augmentation, but that augmentation would require the express permission of the States involved (pages 21 through 28, Twenty-first Annual Report, Arizona Interstate Stream Commission, July 1, 1967, to June 30, 1968). Following the seven-State meeting, a new revision to Colorado's draft of H.R.3300 was developed (pages 12 through 19, Colorado River Board of California, Annual Report 1966-1967). Identical bills to authorize a Colorado River Basin Project were introduced by California Congressmen in the House on January 25, 1968 (H.R. 14834, Johnson and 22 cosponsors; H.R. 14835, Hosmer and seven cosponsors), on January 31, 1968 (H.R. 14994, Sisk and two cosponsors) and on February 27, 1968 (H.R. 15615, Talcott). The California bills contained areas of compromise and was viewed as a most encouraging development for CAP. H.R. 14834 (Johnson) contained the language giving existing water contractors a priority over CAP. The bill also eliminated Hualapai Dam which was a California concession; reduced the target quantity for "augmentation" to 1.3 million acre-feet; defined "augmentation" as the introduction of new water into the river; fixed the size of the Central Arizona Aqueduct of 2,500 cubic feet per second; and limited the subsidy to the Central Arizona Project from Hoover, Parker, and Davis revenues, after payout of those projects, to the portion of those revenues paid by Arizona, the balance to be reserved to help repay the cost of future works to augment the Colorado River. H.8.6 House Approval of H.R.3300 and S.1004 Congressman Johnson presided at the hearings on H.R.3300 and S.1004 during January 30-February 2, 1968. Testimony was presented only by the Department of the Interior witnesses and dealt with Interior's answers to questions posed by Congressman Aspinall; e.g., the adequacy of the water supply for CAP, rate of Upper Basin development, inclusion of Upper Basin projects, the substitution for Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon hydroelectric power of power from a coal-fired plant, the problems involved in Arizona's "go-it-alone" policy, and the Peabody Coal Company contract with the Navajo and Hopi Indians for the mining of coal from the Indian Reservations for a thermal plant. On March 1, 1968, the Subcommittee completed its markup of H.R.3300 and reported the bill to the full Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Congressman Saylor's bill authorizing CAP and only two Colorado projects was rejected 18-5. The approved bill was Congressman Aspinall's compromise version of the CAP legislation. Its salient features included: (1) Authorization of CAP at a cost of $779 million plus up to $ 100 million for distribution systems. (2) Authorization of five Colorado projects at $398 million. (3) A 4.4 maf guaranty to California until the river was augmented sufficiently to meet the Mexican Treaty demand. This was a major compromise. (4) Transfer of the Treaty burden to the Nation as a whole. This minimized the California priority issue. (5) Creation of two Lower Basin funds. (6) $100 million prepayment of a thermal plant to be built by private utilities to generate power for CAP; i.e., no hydroelectric dams. |
