Pacific Southwest Water Plan

Document: Pacific Southwest Water Plan, January 1964 (photocopy

Cover Sheet for Memorandum Concerning Central Arizona Project

Cover memorandum: From Deputy Director, Executive Office of the President, April 13, 196

Memorandum Concerning Central Arizona Project

Document: Memorandum for the President, Central Arizona Project, Draft, April 1965 (photocopy), page 35.1 million acre-feet versus the Supreme Court entitlement of a maximum of 4.4 million acre-feet. What the compromise proposes Senator Hayden's bill and the bill supported by the California delegation and Arizona's three congressmen differ in some respects, but both would initially authorize the following projects: see attached map) Project Estimated Cost Central Arizona project (primarily the aqueduct) $499 million Bridge Canyon Dam 511 million Marble Canyon Dam 239 million Water salvage (California bill only) 42 million Estimated initial cost$1,291 million Both proposals would commit the Federal Government to financing through a "development fund" or "basin account" future works to provide not less than 2.5 million acre-feet annually from sources outside the basin to guarantee the Lower Colorado River Basin against water shortages. The Secretary of the Interior would be directed to prepare a plan to accomplish this based on anticipated reqirements to the year 2030. He would be required to develop this plan on the basis that the additional water would be sold at prices not higher than would have prevailed if there had been no shortage in the Colorado River. "Areas of origin" of any imported water would receive similar guarantees that water exportation would not result in higher cost to them as a result of such -3-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,691,121 byte

Memorandum Concerning Central Arizona Project

Document: Memorandum for the President, Central Arizona Project, Draft, April 1965 (photocopy), page 11a. price guarantees to the Lower Basin and to areas of origin, and b. making available an additional 2.5 million acre-feet annually of water into the Colorado River at this time, since there is no immediate prospect of shortage and because of the potentialities of desalting and conservation. 6. Raise no objection to the 4.4 million acre-feet assurances to California. While Senator Hayden's bill limits the guarantee to 25 years, his public statement indicates that the will accept the California version. He is hopeful, however, that language along the lines of the following will be included in our report to the Congress: "We believe that the Congress may wish to consider whether provision should also be made for the termination of such limitation upon diversions for the Central Arizona unit within a fixed period of years after the effective date of the proposed legislation. Such provision would have the effect of giving all three of the States concerned a stake in the prompt initiation of conservation measures as well as in the investigation and eventual authorization of the necessary importation works." An alternative would be to take no position. Our report to Congress would be silent on this point. -11-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,512,893 byte

Memorandum Concerning Central Arizona Project

Document: Memorandum for the President, Central Arizona Project, Draft, April 1965 (photocopy), page 2We have not discussed our proposed modifications with Hayden, Brown, or Kuchel, who have been pricipally involved prior to having your views. We assume that you will wish to do this or have this done before taking a public position. Political issues involved The broad compromise proposal was developed at a meeting which took place immediately following the inauguration in January, between Senators Hayden and Kuchel, Governors Brown and Goddard, and representatives Secretary Udall of the Department of the Interior, the Metropolitan Water District The details were later worked in a three way (Southern California), Colorado River Board and the Arizona Commission. (See Attachment A) negotiation between suther, California and (??) draftment This compromise was hailed as a resolution of a long-standing fight between the two States which would clear the way for the Central Arizona Project and the Auburn-Folsom Project in California which has been held in the Senate Interior Committee for the past two years. The general attitude in both Arizona and California is that if it is not possible to reach a resolution generally along the lines of the proposal, the risk of losing the project will be great, with major political repercussions in both States. We do not understand either side to be completely frozen to the details of the compromise bill, but it is unlikely that a major modification would be acceptable to either side. If the compromise fails, California would simply continue to take more than her legal share of the water from the river. It now takes -2-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,792,065 byte

Pacific Southwest Water Plan

Document: Pacific Southwest Water Plan, January 1964 (photocopy), page 22 II. THE INTERIOR PROPOSAL The Pacific Southwest Water Plan includes these basic elements: (1) 8 projects for immediate authorization, including enlargement of the California State Aqueduct, and related programs in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah at a cost of $1.7 billion. (2) 4 projects for later authorization in California at a cost of$1.4 billion, making the total cost of the Plan $3.1 billion. (3) establishment of certain guarantees described below, which would be new in Federal water policy. (4) establishment of a Development Fund, consisting of revenues from sales of power and water as well as appropriations, to finance construction and the guarantees included in the Plan. Net power revenues from Hoover Dam would be credited to the Fund after repayment of its original cost in 1987. Attached are (a) an outline of the Department of the Interior's proposed bill, and (b) maps illustrating the various projects involved in the Plan. III. MAJOR POLICY ISSUES NEEDING RESOLUTION A. Federal Financial Guarantees to Lower Colorado States: Three guarantees are involved in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. California recommended them, and the Plan is unacceptable to California without all three. (1) Water Availability Guarantee. Guarantee, through construction and operation of necessary works with Federal financing, the equivalent of 7.5 million acre-feet annually in the Colorado River below Lee Ferry. This feature eliminates the necessity of the Secretary having to apportion any deficit in flow. The Department notes that this guarantee, though benefiting directly the Pacific Southwest, also makes it easier to meet Mexican Treaty obligations requiring delivery of 1.5 million acre-feet annually to Mexico. (2) Water Cost Guarantee. Guarantee that cost of water to users in Arizona, California, and Nevada would be no greater than if 7.5 million acre-feet were available in the future. Under this provision, the Plan would in effect subsidize the difference between the cost of water based on natural flow in the Lower Colorado River and the cost of water if importation is found to be necessary. (3) Water Export Guarantee. Guarantee that any additional costs of future Federal or non-Federal projects on north coastal California streams caused by the pre-emption under the Initial Plan of lower-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,468,381 byte

Pacific Southwest Water Plan

Document: Pacific Southwest Water Plan, January 1964 (photocopy), page 1PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN I. BACKGROUND AND SUPREME COURT DECISION In deciding Arizona v. California on June 3, 1963, the Supreme Court allocated the disputed entitlement to the 7.5 million acre-feet annual flow of the Lower Colorado River in the following manner: Arizona - 2.8 million acre-feet; California - 4.4 million acre-feet; and Nevada - 0.3 million acre-feet. The Court also decreed that, if and when the 7.5 million acre-feet were not available, the Secretary of the Interior should allocate the deficit between the three States. Arizona is presently using about 1.8 million acre-feet less than its full entitlement. California, on the other hand, is diverting about 0.7 million acre-feet more than its entitlement. The Supreme Court decision opened the way for Arizona interests, led by Senator Hayden, to press for authorization of the Central Arizona irrigation project ($499 million) and the Bridge Canyon power project ($511 million). These projects have been before Congress since 1948. They are designed to enable Arizona to make full use of its entitlement to Colorado River water for irrigation and municipal water supply. Since construction of this project would mean cutting off water now being diverted to California, California is bitterly opposed. The overall problem is complicated by a new Interior estimate that future availability of 7.5 million acre-feet in the Lower Colorado River is doubtful. The Secretary of the Interior in mid-June 1963 announced, with President Kennedy's concurrence, his intention (1) to formulate a regional water plan (similar to the Upper colorado River Storage Project) for the Lower Colorado River area; (2) to present it to the five affected States (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) for comments; and (3) to have it ready for presentation to Congress in January 1964. Announcement of this course of action immediately after the Court decision was a deliberate effort to forestall controversy between Arizona and California over authorization of the Central Arizona Project. In the months following the Secretary's announcement, the Department developed under "forced draft" a regional plan designed to achieve a consensus between Arizona and California. Features which the other States could be expected to support were also included. The Pacific Southwest Water Plan was then submitted to the States and Federal agencies involved for review and comment. Upon receipt of comments the Plan was substantially revised, principally to accommodate the recommendations of California. Secretary Udall believes this revised Plan will be supported on the Hill by all the States involved. The revised version of the Plan is now informally before the Budget Bureau for clearance. The individual project reports comprising the Plan are concurrently being forwarded to States and Federal agencies for review.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,518,567 byte

Cover Sheet for Memorandum Concerning Central Arizona Project

Cover memorandum: From Deputy Director, Executive Office of the President, April 13, 1965EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT BUREAU OF THE BUDGET WASHINGTON, D. C. 20503 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR April 13, 1965 MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY UDALL SUBJECT: Central Arizona Project Attached is a copy of the memorandun which we discussed this morning. In view of the length of the memorandum we will prepare a very brief one or two page summary. Personally, I think the President will want to read the whole thing because of its political importance. We would appreciate it if this memorandum could be regarded as solely for your own perusal until the President has had a chance to react to it. Perhaps you will want to suggest some language changes in this draft, plus an accompanying note of your own. We want to get the matter to the President on Friday. Deputy Director Attachment (Personal - eyes only)Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,591,418 byte

Memorandum Concerning Central Arizona Project

Document: Memorandum for the President, Central Arizona Project, Draft, April 1965 (photocopy), page 13 April 12, 1965Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,024,808 byte

Memorandum Concerning Central Arizona Project

Document: Memorandum for the President, Central Arizona Project, Draft, April 1965 (photocopy), page 8either should be constructed. An important argument for authorizing Marble Canyon now is that the Federal Power Commission has a pending license application for a power project which it is likely to grant upon the expiration of a congressional moratorium for such a license expiring December 31, 1966. Because of the political importance to California of authorizing both dams, it might be possible to support authorization of a low dam at Bridge Canyon as well as Marble with the proviso that prior to construction further study should be given by the Secretary, with the help of an advisory group, as to the height of the dams and their precise location so as to minimize any damage to the natural beauty of the Canyon. What kind of study for future water needs should be made? The water shortage problem is a particularly serious problem for the long run future of California and the Pacific Southwest. It is an increasingly serious problem, however, for other areas as well--the Great Lakes area, the Southwest area, the upper New York area--are examples. Water is becoming an increasingly critical item in industrial development generally, particularly for possible new developments such as oil shale. During the next few years we should be in a much better position to assess these requirements as well as the potentialities of desalting, anti-pollution programs, and repricing to assure the most efficient use of water. In addition, there have been several long range proposals for -8-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,562,937 byte