| OCR Text |
Show concluded that, so far as the Upper Colorado River Commission is concerned, there will be no insistence upon that procedure in this case. I point to this conclusion as another bit of evidence of friendship for our California neighbors. The policy represented by existing statutory procedures in connection with the authorization of water resources projects is wise. The present departure therefrom in H. R. 5102 ought not, therefore, to be deemed a precedent. I am constrained to advise that there is disagreement as to the legal availability of water from the Colorado River System for the city of San Diego and its environs. I do not for one moment suggest that, because such disagreement exists, the project to transport water to the San Diego area should not be authorized. I do think, however, that this Committee and the Congress ought to be fully advised in the premises. The disagreement to which I refer is one in which two states, Arizona and California, are generally considered to be primarily concerned. It involves construction of the documents and statutes described in Section 6 of H. R. 5102 as well, perhaps, as the Mexican Water Treaty. If one view should prevail in all or virtually all respects and if the present California priority agreement should remain unamended, then it seems doubtful that Colorado River water will be available for transportation to San Diego. Should another view prevail in all or virtually all respects, there will probably be sufficient water legally available for transportation to San Diego. The question here is similar in a sense to questions posed other committees of the Congress in connection with the proposed authorization of the Central Arizona project. In that case, the Senate has twice resolved to authorize the project notwithstanding disagreement on the legal availability of a water supply therefor. The House, on the other hand, has not finally taken a position. Action taken by this Committee and by the House on H. R. 5102 may, therefore, constitute an interesting precedent in that respect. I have deliberately left untouched the question whether the existing priority agreement among California agencies, regarding their use of waters of the Colorado River System, should be amended. Just as the States represented on the Upper Colorado River Commission might resent suggestions from outside regarding their purely internal affairs, so might California properly object to any suggestions from me in that regard. I refer to that priority agreement only for the purpose of pointing out to this Committee that it could be so amended as to foreclose any doubts regarding the -29- |
