Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Senator Goldwater, for your comments. We are pleased to have you come and sit with us this morning. The senior Senator from California, Senator Kuchel, is the ranking minority member on the full Interior Committee, and also on this subcommittee. Senator Kuchel is here with us this morning. He is a valued member of the committee. We have worked together over long years on many water projects. He represents the State of California, which is, of course, involved here as the statements have indicated, and we will ask Senator Kuchel if he would care to make any comments at this point. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS H. KUCHEL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator KUCHEL. I do. First, Mr. Chairman, I want this record to show that I very vigorously object to these hearings this morning. I have been a member of the U.S. Senate for 11 years. I have been a member of the Interior Committee for 11 years. Congress in 1944 passed legislation designed to establish orderly procedures under which reclamation and flood control projects would be considered by these two committees, the Interior Committee in the Senate and the Interior Committee in the House. As I recall, during the last 11 years, this committee, on which I have sat, has followed that law. It certainly has followed that law with respect to any project of the prodigious size of the one now before this subcommittee. The law is clear. When a Member of the Senate or House of Representatives introduces a bill to provide for the authorization for construction of a project, it quite wisely directs the affected agency of the executive branch of this Government to make a report, either recommending the legislation or objecting to the legislation, or recommending the legislation subject to amendments. The law quite wisely further provides that after the affected executive agency has made its report, the States affected, through the State governments involved, then have an opportunity to make their comments on the proposed legislation. There is nothing wrong with that law. And even if one objected to it, it is still the law of this land. Let this record clearly show that the Department of Interior has made no comment on this pending legislation introduced by my two beloved colleagues from Arizona, Senator Hayden and Senator Goldwater. Let the record further show that the people of California, acting through the government of their State, have obviously had no opportunity to comment on this legislation, because their comments must, under the law, await the comment of the Secretary of Interior. Surely it is a matter of regret that friends and neighbors in the U.S. Senate now sit here in what at best would be an exceedingly difficult problem for them and for their colleagues in the Congress to determine, without the recommendations of the Secretary of Interior and of the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to help guide them. As a matter of fact, I present for the record a letter from the Bureau of the Budget, which I shall read. The Budget Bureau, writing to Senator Jackson, the chairman of this committee, under date of Äugust 21, 1963, states: DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of June 6, 1963, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on S. 1658, a bill to authorize, construct, operate, and maintain the central Arizona project, Arizona-New Mexico, and for other purposes. The purpose of this bill is clearly stated in its title. The Department of the Interior has not submitted a report on the project proposed for authorization in this bill to the Bureau of the Budget under procedures set forth in Executive Order No. 9384. Until a report is received, together with the views and comments of the concerned States and Federal agencies, the Bureau of the Budget has no basis for appraising the merits of the proposed development. Accordingly, it is recommended that action on S. 1658 be deferred until a report is submitted to the Congress in accordance with established procedures. Sincerely yours, PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. Now, that statement does not come from a Californian. It comes from the Bureau of the Budget, objecting to these procedures and I think I can use the phrase "these procedures constitute an attempt to end run the law of the land." We had a meeting, Mr. Chairman, about 3 weeks ago in which most of us around this table participated. That meeting was called at the request of the dean of the Senate, for whom I have the most profound admiration, respect, and love. I mean it. The Senator from Arizona, Carl Hayden, is President pro tempore of the Senate and is held in higher respect, I think, than any other Member of the U.S. Senate. He asked that this hearing be had. I objected. I pointed out, for example, that the Arizona versus California lawsuit is not final. I pointed out that the people of California, acting through their attorney general, as the attorney general has a duty to perform, will on or before September 16 request the Supreme Court to permit the people of California a rehearing. There is nothing novel about that. The fact of the matter is the U.S. Supreme Court has not even entered a decree in the Arizona versus California lawsuit. Presumably, the Supreme Court will dispose of the petition of the State of California at its fall term. And, of course, I objected, further, that in America, a proponent must subject himself to the cross-examination of an opponent. That is part of our system. And then, the jury, which is in this case the Congress of the United States, will decide. And yet today we are told by the chairman of this subcommittee that only Bureau of Reclamation witnesses will testify, and not one single sentence of opposition from any other witnesses will be heard. I learned today for the first time that we will have hearings in September. This is something new. Again, those hearings, presumably, will take place in the absence of any position on this bill by Secretary of Interior Udall, or the States affected. I observe my friend from New Mexico, Senator Anderson, here. have a great respect for him. New Mexico may well be actively interested in further developments or proposed developments on the Colorado River. I doubt very much that my friend from New Mexico would want to have hearings proceed in the absence of his State being given a full opportunity to determine whether there is anything in this legislation that would affect the good people of his State. And I say that for the other States in the Colorado River Basin, also. Now, the regrettable fact is that water is scarce in that part of the Nation from which my able friends from Arizona and I come. When I was a boy, I remember reading the vigorous dispute in the U.S. Senate between one of my illustrious predecessors, Hiram Johnson, a great personal friend of Senator Hayden, as they were contending with respect to the construction of what is now known as Hoover Dam. Congress finally determined that Hoover Dam was to be built in the interests of the American people. Arizona was fighting it. And finally Senator Johnson triumphed. I think it fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that Hoover Dam today represents the difference between economic life and economic death in southern California. I want this record to show that the people of California are grateful to Carl Hayden for helping my predecessors when the Central Valley project was created by the Congress of the United States; and, for helping me and my colleagues in implementing it in the years I have been in the Senate as we are continuing to do. For in northern California, I want this record to show in my judgment the Central Valley project, built by the Government of the United States, represents the difference between economic life and economic death in northern California. Arizona has a problem and a serious one. So do the people of California. I think ours is just as urgent-that is my point. Just a few years ago, the people of California bonded themselves in an amount of $1,750 million to help themselves by ponying up their own money, to try to bring water from the north of my State to the south of my State to help give a reasonable amount of water to the millions of people who were coming into my State at the rate of 600,000 new people every year, in order to sustain the economy there and provide some measurement for growth. Fifteen minutes ago I first received a copy of Secretary Udall's basinwide proposal-a plan by which the Congress might hope that the people of Arizona and the people of California, working together, might jointly solve their problems. Is not that document something that ought to be given the most prayerful consideration of this committee and the people of the States involved? Of course it is. My able friends from Arizona said this central Arizona project must go forward as it is and not as a part of the basin plan. This is not what the Secretary of Interior has recommended in his Pacific Southwest water plan, as I hurriedly reviewed it. I shan't go into specifics at this point, except to say that money is a problem with respect to providing additional supplies of water to thirsty people in parched lands. The money to construct the central Arizona project which is now before this committee would in part result in the language of the bill from a full and complete commitment of one new, gigantic dam, entirely to pay for this project-whereas, Secretary of Interior Udalĺ suggests that a similar large reservoir be built, but that the revenues from the hydroelectric energy produced by the waters behind that dam be utilized for the benefit of the entire Pacific Southwest. Perhaps it is inevitable that some of the difficulties between our States in the past be spread onto the record. I wipe a little bit of the blood off my face from the recollections my distinguished friend from Arizona, Carl Hayden, has set forth. And I shall not try at this point to reconstruct what my understanding is of the history of a controversy involving two sovereign States except to say that when the Colorado River compact was being ratified, it was ratified by every State, every State, that is, except the State so ably represented by my two friends from Arizona. Their ratification came on later. And except to recall, too, that when my fellow Californian, a very great American, Earl Warren, made these statements he was reflecting then what the good people of California want now. The people of California want to see their neighbor be able to sustain a growth, but they want that same opportunity for their own fellow citizens who live in my State. So when my able friend from Arizona says "Californians are utilizing the Pacific Southwest water plan as an instrument of delay,” I deny it. When my able friend says, "We must wait," they say, "until the affected States have had an opportunity to comment on it," I agree with it, because that is the law. And when my able friend says, "Our experience with California is that it takes California close to a year to make comments that are required by law in 90 days," I say the 90 days have not run, and won't start to run until the Secretary of the Interior makes a correct report of the project covered by this bill, and then gives it to the States involved. I ask consent that a copy of my letter to Senator Jackson, objecting to this hearing, go into the record. I ask consent that a letter from the Governor of California, Edmund G. Brown, addressed to Secretary Udall, be placed in the record. And I want to tell my Democrat colleagues on this committee what he says: In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. California, I have heard that you have been requested to submit to Congress a report on a proposed central Arizona project without following the usual procedures for new projects. I am confident these reports are inaccurate. However, because of the importance of this matter to all of us, I want to take this opportunity to request now that any report on the central Arizona project be submitted to the affected States, including California, for review as required by the Flood Control Act of 1944. I ask parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with following the law? Governor Brown concludes: The affected States are entitled to review not only the engineering aspects, including water supply, but also the legal aspects, including the ramifications of the Supreme Court opinion, which we have not yet had an opportuity to study carefully and fully. I would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible. The Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles has passed a resolution along these same lines. I ask consent that go into the record. 24-493-63-pt. 1- -2 I ask consent, also, that a resolution of the Colorado River Board of California along the same lines go into the record at this point, as well as a telegram which I received from the Honorable Stanley Mosk, attorney general of California, along the same lines. Senator Moss. All of those documents will be printed in the record. (The documents referred to follow :) Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. SENATE, DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I deeply and vigorously protest your apparent decision to direct the Senate Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation to hold hearings on the bill to authorize the $1 billion central Arizona water project at this premature time. This project, hastily revived by Senators Hayden and Goldwater within 24 hours of the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona v. California, would remove 1.2 million acre-feet of Colorado River water from an already overtaxed system. Its authorization poses a very real hazard that someday the water faucets throughout southern California might well run dry and that the burgeoning population, expanding factories, and welltilled fields and orchards of that great area might be without nature's most essential resource. As you know, I have previously voiced and interposed my vigorous objections to the request for hearings on this bill at this time. I believe such "quickie" hearings are not only a wanton affront to the people of California, but that they also constitute a disregard of the usual and historic procedures of our committee. Both law and custom provide, quite wisely, that before a bill to establish a water resource project—particularly a highly controversial one—is to be heard, the Secretary of the Interior shall study it and make his findings and recommendations known to interested Federal agencies as well as to the governments of the States which would be affected by such a project. Only then is such a project recommended to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of both Houses of Congress and hearings subsequently scheduled. The central Arizona project proposal is no ordinary, run-of-the-mill reclamation bill. It involves the question of California's being able to continue its use of Colorado River waters as it has done since, and before, the construction of Hoover Dam. Elementary justice demands that every word and every sentence, every claim and every proposition, of those who would testify in favor of this project be subjected to the most careful, penetrating cross-examination by those who question the project's fairness and doubt its feasibility. Proponents should not be permitted to build an unanswered-but definitely not unanswerable-record, so far in advance of the actual recommendations by the Department of the Interior and the State governments who are deeply concerned. Not only have the recommendations and detailed project proposal of the present administration not been received or reviewed by the States, but even more important, the pending litigation between Arizona and California has really not been concluded. While the opinion has been announced, no decree has been entered into nor will it be until after the parties submit their suggestions for such a decree this fall. California, moreover, is petitioning for a rehearing of this case. In light of the facts upon which the Court based its decision, this is not an idle gesture. Even if one wishes to assume that the Court has spoken with finality, which it has not, the crucially important question of the allocation of water in times of shortage is unresolved by either the Secretary of the Interior or the Congress. Secretary Udall has announced that he agrees with the position which has been taken by both the Governor of California and myself that any such decision by him should await a final decree by the Court. Thus, with final judicial determination not yet made and the administrative decision which must flow from that still unresolved, it is simply impossible for Congress to pass an intelligent judgment on the feasibility of a project so far reaching, so vast, and so expensive as that of the central Arizona. Congressional action under these conditions and at this time would simply be a deadly serious game of blindman's buff from not only the standpoint of California's water rights, but also the standpoint of the public interest. |