| OCR Text |
Show 226 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS modification of the projects, and authorizes the appropriation of funds for construction of the works authorized in Section 202. As part of the House Committee's record during the hearings of March 4, 5 and 8, 1974, the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, received reports on the bills it had before it from the State Department dated March 1, 1974; the Department of Interior, dated March 1, 1974; the Department of Agriculture, dated March 6, 1976; and Environmental Protection Agency dated March 11, 1974. Each report advocated adoption of the Administration Bill, H.R. 12834, and postponement of consideration of the H.R. 12165 as it related to salinity management facilities and upstream improvements pending resolution of policy issues involved in the matter of the pollution of inter-State waters, the assessment of its national and international implications, equitable cost sharing arrangements and completion of feasibility studies. Further, that the Mexican Treaty provided that the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission should have jurisdiction of works to be constructed on or along the boundary and that improvement of salinity, a domestic and costiy problem, should not be joined with settlement of an international problem (see also pages 87 through 106, pages 122 through 123, 130 through 132, 135, 149 through 151, 158 through 160, 162, and 215 (Serial No. 93-45)). C.2. Basin States Position The reasons ascribed by Congressman Harold T. Johnson, Chairman of the Subcommittee, in behalf of H.R. 12165, the Committee's Bill, rather than H.R. 12834, the Administration's Bill, were that, in addition to providing the programs to settle the Mexican issue, first, it would authorize a companion program of salinity management facilities in the Colorado River Basin for the improvement of water quality; second, that water resource programs should be under the control of the Secretary of the Interior and under overview of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs rather than the State Department; and third, that the Administration Bill was silent on and did not come to grips with the boundary pumping problem. Arizona's Governor Williams supported this position (pages 164 and 165, Serial No. 93-45) as did Nevada (pages 170 through 174, Serial No. 93-45). The Committee of Fourteen analyzed the need for Title II of H.R. 12165 and submitted a series of correspondence between the Colorado River Basin States, the White House, the Congressional Committee, Honorable Herbert Brownell and the Congressmen and Senators of the Basin States (pages 191 through 211, Serial No. 93-45). C.3. Need for Senate Ratification of Minute No. 242 Asked why Senate ratification was not requested for Minute No. 242, Mr. Brownell responded that Article 24 of the 1944 Mexican Treaty authorized the International Boundary and Water Commission to settle all differences that may arise between the two governments regarding the interpretation or application of the Treaty, subject to the approval of the two governments, and that both the House and Senate are now asked to authorize the works required by the Minute (Serial No. 93-45, pages 106 and 107, 120, and 153 and 154). Also discussed during the hearings were the portions of Minute No. 242 which could be operative without Congressional action (Serial No. 93-45, pages 109 through 114, and 122). These included Article l(b), which provided that the United States continue to deliver to Mexico at the land borders near San Luis, approximately 140,000 acre-feet per year with salinity substantially as before; i.e., higher than Imperial Dam quality; Article 2, which governs operation of the Minute and the water deliveries for the period betweeen August 30, 1973, and the date Mexico is notified that Congress has appropriated funds for the necessary works; Article 5, which limited ground-water pumping on either side of the border to 160,000 acre-feet; and Article 6, which required consultation between the two countries prior to new developments of surface or ground-water resources. The Administration bill included no funds for the lining of the Coachella Canal since these were included in Interior's appropriation request. It was pointed out that the only program costs to be repaid were for the Coachella Canal and that repayment would be made by the Coachella Valley Water District except for the in- |
