Congressional Hearings on Lower Colorado River Basin Project

Document: Report of Executive Director to Upper Colorado River Commission, August 16, 1965, page 5The Upper Basin and the LCRBP Ever since the passage of P.L. 485 in 1956 authorizing the Upper Basin's Colorado River Storage Project and participating projects, I have dreaded the time when another large Lower Basin, water consuming project would be proposed for authorization. This feeling was based upon the fact that a clash with the Lower Basin over the use of the remaining water resource of the river appeared inevitable. This feeling was accentuated by the Court's decision in Arizona v. California which favored Arizona by giving her the use of 2.8 maf from the main river and excluding the Lower Basin tributaries, especially the Gila River, from an accounting of the waters of the Colorado River system, at least, so far as Arizona's case against California is concerned. The Pacific Southwest Water Plan which was prepared for the benefit of the Lower Basin did not lend much solace to the Upper Basin, in spite of the honeyed words of the text. This apprehension stems from the fact that there is not enough water in the river from that available within Compact apportionments for all potential uses in either the Lower or the Upper Basin, and any large, new project such as the Central Arizona Project can exist only on presently unused, compact apportioned water belonging to the Upper Basin. There is simply not enough Lower Basin water available for the CAP after taking into consideration the Mexican Treaty obligation, Nevada's water uses, the guarantee of 4.4 maf to California, Lower Basin reservoir evaporation, and other losses in the Lower Basin. Mexican Treaty Burden It is still emphatically Arizona's contention that the water of the Gila River is not to be counted under the Compact as part of the river system supply. If this assertion were to be sustained by teh Supreme Court against the Upper Basin, as it was by the Court against California on the basis of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Upper Basin's share of the Mexican Treaty burden would be materially in creased. This we cannot allow to happen because the Upper Basin has always predicated its development on the belief that the Compact means literally what it says on this point; namely, that the Lower Basin tributaries are part of the Colorado River System. Therefore, a proper accounting must be made of the Lower Basin tributaries, or an importaion of water must be made into the Basin, earmarked to relieve the Upper Basin of the Mexican Treaty burden. The Arizona-California Agreement to Apportion Shortages An even more serious threat by teh Central Arizona Project to future water uses in the Upper Basin lies in the agreement by Arizona to have the CAP bear all shortages if the water available in the mainstream falls below 7.5 maf, while at the same time guaranteeing a delivery of 4.4 maf of water -5-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,733,643 byte

Congressional Hearings on Lower Colorado River Basin Project

Document: Report of Executive Director to Upper Colorado River Commission, August 16, 1965, page 9future projects of ours. Could we in the future successfully withstand the political weight of such a combined onslaught? Furthermore, the immediate political situation as described above makes mandatory a more statesmanlike and equitable approach. No one wants a stalemate that could affect the entire western states reclamation program. Third, we can negotiate with representatives of the Lower Basin States for the inclusion of amendements to H. R. 4671 that will provide, as well as legislative processes can do so, the necessary protection to the future water resources development program in the States of the Upper Colorado River Commission. To me, the use of the conference table is the rational and proper approach at this time. If subsequent events prove the impossibility of obtaining the required protection in this manner, I will be among the first to recommend more drastic measures. Legislative Protection For Upper Basin Water Supply After a careful examination of H. R. 4671 it appeared that in order to fulfill the stated objective of the Bill "for the provision of additional and adequate water supplies for use in the Upper as well as in the Lower Colorado River Basin," and to secure the required protection for the Upper Basin's presently unused, compact-apportioned waters, there would have to be amendments that would incorporate five basic principles. 1. In some manner there must be authorization for an importation of not less than 2.5 maf of water with the first 1.5 maf ear-marked for use in Mexico, or an accounting, as part of the river system supply, of all Lower Basin tributaries, in order to relieve the Upper Basin from its share of the Mexican Treaty obligation. Also, the next million acre-feet should be allocated to the Upper as well as the Lower basin, and on the same terms for both Basins, for the purpose of assuring the compact-apportioned consumptive use of 7.5 maf annually in each Basin. 2. The Secretary of the Interior should be required in future water supply studies to assume that the obligation of the Upper Division States is to deliver an aggregate of 75 maf in any 10 consecutive years at Lee Ferry, or, by exchange to alternate points. 3. The Bill must be amended to provide for the return of Upper Basin water being used in the Lower Basin in the quantities and at the times the Upper Basin may desire it for future water development projects. -9-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,656,805 byte

Memorandum Concerning Proposed Amendments to H.R. 4671

Memorandum: From Ival V. Goslin, to Upper Colorado River Commission, "Proposed amendments to H.R. 4671", August 14, 1965, page 5SEC. 402, Pages 26 and 27. This amendment was proposed by the Secretary of the Interior. We see no objection to it. SEC. 406, Pages 30 and 31. This amendment was proposed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Engineering and Legal Committees recommended that it be deleted from our draft. Commission does not object to amendment. SEC. 503, Pages 32 and 33. This was another amendment proposed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Engineering and Legal Committees recommended that it be deleted from our draft. SEC. 504, Pages 33 and 34. This is an entirely new section which we have proposed. This is another way of clinching some of our previous amendments except that we have made it mandatory on the Secretary to operate units and facilities in the Lower Colorado River Basin to the end that they will not interfere with the allocated water available to the Upper Basin and will not interfere with the production of power at the Upper Basin powerplants. SEC. 601, Pages 35 and 36. In the bill as now proposed, the Colorado-Pacific Regional Water Commission is created, but Colorado and Wyoming are omitted as members. It does not appear to us that any such commission should be appointed without specific membership from Colorado and Wyoming. We have also provided that one member shall be appointed by the Upper Colorado River Commission. Informal conferences with representatives of the Lower Basin indicate that they also would like to have one member to be appointed by concurrence of the three governors of the Lower Division States in order to provide balance on the commission and more unity in the Lower Basin. Since the commission is advisory only the suggestion seems to be a good one. We have made a few other changes which have the effect of broadening the functions of the commission. The foregoing explanation of the proposed deletions and additions to H.R. 4671 is in summary form only. The matter will be discussed in considerable detail at the meeting of the Commission on August 16th and at the conference with the Lower Basin technicians on August 18th. -5-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,763,553 byte

Upper Colorado River Commission Cover Letter

Cover letter: From Ival V. Goslin, Executive Director, Upper Colorado River Commission to Stewart Udall, October 1, 196

Memorandum Concerning Proposed Amendments to H.R. 4671

Memorandum: From Ival V. Goslin, to Upper Colorado River Commission, "Proposed amendments to H.R. 4671", August 14, 1965, page 3SECS. 301 and 302, Pages 7, 8, and 9. The Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of the Budget have recommended that Bridge Canyon Dam be eliminated. As you will recall, this was done primarily to be relieved of pressure brought by various conservation groups. Bridge Canyon Dam is a key structure to the success of the entire project. It is needed to provide revenue for any outside water importation, and for regulation of the Colorado River. Without Bridge Canyon, the primary burden of regulating the river between Glen Canyon and Hoover Dam falls upon Glen Canyon. Such regulation could conceivably reduce the power revenues which would otherwise be available from the Glen Canyon operation. We feel that Bridge Canyon is a must. If it is necessary, therefore, to challenge the Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau of the Budget, and any and all conservation groups, then it should be done at this time. If the authorization for Bridge Canyon is deferred, it is almost a certainty that it will never be constructed, and without it an importation of water, which will materially benefit the Upper as well as the Loer Basin, will be financially impossible. SEC. 304, Pages 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. The deletions and amendments that we propose start on page 12. This section states the disposition of water which may be imported into the Colorado River Basin. Without our proposed amendments, this section allocates imported water only to the Lower Basin states. No mention is made of the Mexican Treaty nor of any water being made available to the Upper Basin. We feel that the first call upon imported water should be for satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty to end once and for all any further argument as to what states should be making up dficiencies in delivery to Mexico. We therefore propose a new subsection (c) setting up a priority of imported water as follows: 1. For satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation; 2. For releases to Arizona, California and Nevada to satisfy their consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water annually from the main stream of the Colorado; and 3. To satisfy, by exchange, the annual consumptive use in the Upper Basin states of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water annually. Without importations and without a priority on such importations, the water supplies available to the Upper Basin, as I will indicate in my report on Agust 16, 1965, would only be about 5,600,000 acre-feet. -3-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,953,776 byte

Congressional Hearings on Lower Colorado River Basin Project

Document: Report of Executive Director to Upper Colorado River Commission, August 16, 196

Memorandum Concerning Proposed Amendments to H.R. 4671

Memorandum: From Ival V. Goslin, to Upper Colorado River Commission, "Proposed amendments to H.R. 4671", August 14, 1965, page 2SEC. 102, Pages 1, 2, and 3. This section, among other things, declares that the object of the act is to make provision for additional and adequate water supplies for use in the Upper as well as the Lower Colorado River Basin. However, most of the language in this section refers only to the Lower Colorado River Basin. The deletions and additions which we have proposed were for the purpose of making it clear that the benefits of additional water should accrue to projects anywhere in the Colorado River Basin. SEC. 201, Pages 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. We have included in Title II on page 3 the words "and conditional authorization." The matter of importing additional water into the Colorado River Basin is so important that we do not believe it can rest on the mere premise of "investigations." We have, therefore, reworked most of this section to the end that the Secretary is directed to plan works to import water into the Colorado River Basin from sources outside the Basin and that the Congress authorize such importations in accordance with the new subsection (c) that we have inserted on pages 6 and 7. In addition to the major change above stated we have made another very significant addition in subsection (d) on page 7. In the various studies made by the Secretary of the Interior, he has hedged on the matter of whether or not the Upper Basin is required to make additional deliveries to satisfy deficiencies under the Mexican Treaty. We consider that the Upper Basin should not be obligated to deliver water in excess of 75,000,000 acre-feet in any ten-year period; although we realize that for several years it will be advisable to exceed this figure in order to enhance payout of the CRSP. If we obligate ourselves to exceed such 75 maf deliveries, the water supplies available to the Upper Basin would be even more deficient than I will point out in my report to you at the Commission meeting on August 16, 1965. In subsection (d) we have also added that the Secretary is directed to assume that Glen Canyon Reservoir will not be drawn below its rated head, except as may be necessary to deliver 75,000,000 acre-feet of water in any consecutive ten-year period. We do not want Glen Canyon Reservoir to bear the burden of regulating the flow of the river to its detriment and the benefit of the Central Arizona Project. Already Glen Canyon Reservoir has been made subservient to the power operations at Hoover Dam. It is our opinion that this must be stopped. It is our hope that the proposed amendment will accomplish this end. -2-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,032,705 byte