Even so, it cannot be anticipated that a central Arizona project would make available enough water to fully meet the needs of the project service area under present conditions and certainly no water would thereby be made available for the increasing needs which will inevitably develop as municipal and industrial requirements grow. The Pacific Southwest water plan as set forth in the August 1963 report of the Secretary of the Interior includes in it every feature contained in the central Arizona project as conceived in 1947 and subsequently updated by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Were the central Arizona project to be authorized it could be constructed immediately to provide a measure of relief from our existing water crisis. The details of the broader plan could then be developed and ultimate constuction of the Pacific Southwest water plan could be carried out at a later time using the central Arizona project as a nucleus without any detriment to the broader plan. Completion of the central Arizona project at an early date is not only desirable but imperative. We must have our water today if we are to continue in our role as a healthy, integral part of the national economy. (The chart referred to follows:)

Senator HAYDEN. Thank you for your statement.

Senator Kuchel?

Senator KUCHEL. Mr. Gookin, the Hayden-Goldwater bill authorizes the construction as an integral part of this central Arizona project of Bridge Canyon Dam Reservoir and powerplant.

Mr. GOOKIN. Yes, sir.

Senator KUCHEL. And the income to be derived from the sale of energy at Bridge Canyon Dam would be used to provide a basis for the economic feasibility of the project overall, would it not?

Mr. GOOKIN. Senator, if I may state a minor technical difference of opinion with you there, I think of economic feasibility and financial feasibility as two different things.

Senator KUCHEL. All right.

Mr. GOOKIN. Now, insofar as financial feasibility is concerned, certainly the large bulk of the revenue would be devoted to Arizona. Some of them most certainly would be diverted into New Mexico, speaking again of the direct revenues from the sale of power as opposed to the benefits from sale of that power.

Senator KUCHEL. The fact is that the revenues from Bridge Canyon are dedicated exclusively to the central Arizona project, is that not a fact?

Mr. GOOKIN. To the central Arizona project; yes, sir, that is my understanding.

Senator KUCHEL. So, are you quite right, Mr. Gookin, when you say that the broader plan could then be developed and ultimate construction of the Pacific Southwest water plan could be carried out at a later time using the central Arizona project as a nucleus without any detriment to the broader plan?

Is your statement accurate in view of the fact that the Secretary's recommended basin development would sequester the revenues from Bridge Canyon for a basin account rather than for this central Arizona project alone?

Mr. GOOKIN. Senator, referring to the subsequent authorization of the Pacific Southwest plan and the incorporation into it of a central Arizona project, I would assume, sir, that there would necessarily be some adjustments made in the financial structure.

The complete compatibility of the two plans to which I referred primarily is the compatibility insofar as the physical makeup of the structures involved, the power rates as proposed in the Pacific Southwest water plans are, as I understand it, identical to those proposed for the central Arizona project plan.

The water rates to the irrigators are identical, so that where the money might be routed to different people or different areas, I see no inconsistency between the two either financially or economic.

Senator KUCHEL. You say that the water rates are identical. Which water rates are we talking about?

Mr. GOOKIN. I am referring to the water rates for the irrigators which are keyed to the ability of the irrigator to repay.

Senator KUCHEL. Under the central Arizona bill?

Mr. GOOKIN. It is my understanding, Senator, that this policy applies under both bills.

Senator KUCHEL. You say that, but have you got any authority for that statement? I don't think that is correct.

Mr. GOOKIN. Senator, if the principle of charging the irrigator to the extent of his ability to pay be valid, you couldn't increase it under any other plan.

Senator KUCHEL. Well, then you are dealing with the amount of subsidy that the Congress is going to write into one reclamation project as against another, aren't you?

Doesn't that present a political problem to Members of Congress? Mr. GOOKIN. I don't understand that it does; no, Senator. I see the same power rates, the same water rates. I don't understand the problem.

Senator KUCHEL. I think just in the last few weeks the Department has revised its estimate of the cost at which the water will be sold in central Arizona, so I think they are still studying this. They revised upward.

Mr. GOOKIN. I would imagine, Senator, that the cost would be subject to revision up to the time of the signing of the contract.

Senator KUCHEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOOKIN. That, in my understanding, is the general history of the reclamation projects.

Senator KUCHEL. But what I mean is that if the revenues from Bridge Canyon Dam were taken out of this bill and made available to a basin account in connection with a lower basin development, which is what would be done, how can we then say as you do that this bill could become enacted into law without detriment to any broader plan?

Mr. GOOKIN. Senator, as I understand the revenues under the central Arizona project they are designed as they are under the Pacific Southwest plan to repay the reimbursable costs in accordance with the policies set forth in the plan.

If the revenues from Bridge Canyon Dam were taken and applied to some other area, presumably then revenues from some other structure would have to be brought into the central Arizona project area to provide the necessary reimbursement. I visualize the larger plan as operating as a pool into which a number of facets are draining in the form of revenues, and you are dipping out of this pool as needed to provide the repayment requirements, and it is rather difficult to identify which facet that the water you dipped out came from.

Senator KUCHEL. Surely isn't it a fact that repayment schedules and costs of water, under this legislation, would be affected, if you took away from this legislation the exclusive benefits of the revenues derived from Bridge Canyon?

Mr. GOOKIN. I think not, Senator, if you replace those revenues from some other source.

Senator KUCHEL. Where would you replace them from? You would replace them from the general fund of the U.S. Government, wouldn't you?

Mr. GOOKIN. That is not my understanding, Senator.
Senator KUCHEL. Where would you get them?

Mr. GOOKIN. From the other power developments on the river, Hoover, and so forth, which as I understand it is part of the plan. Senator KUCHEL. So that your testimony is that it would not affect central Arizona by denying central Arizona the exclusive benefits of the revenues derived from Bridge Canyon. Is that your statement?

24-493-63-pt. 1- -12

Mr. GOOKIN. Clearly that is my statement, Senator, if an equivalent amount of money is made available from some other source, which is as I understand it again the basic principle.

Senator KUCHEL. Let's talk about that a little bit, Mr. Gookin. You can educate me. What source would you use? You mentioned Hoover Dam. What would you do with Hoover Dam's revenues?

Mr. GOOKIN. I understand-and believe me I have not studied the Pacific Southwest water plan in detail-I understand that it employs the general principle of basin accounting, whereby all revenues from all sources go into a common fund, and all expenses to all components of the project are repaid from the common fund, and among the expenses that are repaid from the common fund are the expenses of amortization and repayment as required.

So that again if I may use an analogy, sir, you have a tub, if you will, or a pool into which you are pouring water from many different sources, and out of which you are dipping water for many different uses. It is difficult, nay, impossible to identify what water came out of what faucet.

Senator KUCHEL. You lose me a little bit.

Mr. GOOKIN. I am sorry, sir.

Senator KUCHEL. Have you studied the basin development proposal of the Secretary of Interior?

Mr. GOOKIN. No, sir, Senator, I have not. I am in a very general way familiar with it. I think I am familiar with the principle, but I am not familiar with the details of it.

Senator KUCHEL. In your statement to this committee, you say that this legislation should be passed into law, and it would pose no detriment to a subsequent basin development.

Mr. GOOKIN. That is my opinion, sir, financially or physically.

Senator KUCHEL. Do you think maybe if this legislation was adopted into law and these revenues were committed to one project, that it would be easy for the Congress later on to say these revenues are now going to be uncommitted to this project, and be committed to another project?

Mr. GOOKIN. That, sir, goes into the field of

Senator KUCHEL. Votes.

Mr. GOOKIN. Law, and it goes into the field of congressional actions in which I have no expertise at all.

Senator HAYDEN. It would seem to me perfectly feasible, Senator Kuchel, to have the Secretary provide an alternative situation that in the event the absin project was developed, revenues from all sources would go into one pot and be sent out again.

We can provide for that in this leigslation just as well as anything else on the recommendation he has given us.

Senator KUCHEL. We don't even know what the Department of the Interior thinks about your bill yet.

But we do know do know that they have a basin development

recommendation.

Senator HAYDEN. We do know that we are just in a hell of a fix for water in Arizona. That is what we are telling you.

Any further questions.

Senator KUCHEL. No, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Can I ask him one question?

Senator HAYDEN. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. I regret I really haven't been able to be here very much because of the discussion of the debt reduction in the Finance Committee today, and we are probably going to have more talk on that later on.

But you mentioned Hooker Dam and Reservoir and its construction. Where would the water go from Hooker Dam? Where would it be utilized?

Mr. GOOKIN. Hooker Dam, sir, is proposed as a multiple-purpose development which would regulate the flows available to the downstream irrigated areas as far downstream as the Duncan and Virdon Valleys at least and, of course, to some extent into Safford and which would in addition provide rather extensive recreational benefits. Senator ANDERSON. But no water for New Mexico.

Mr. GOOKIN. Well, sir, the irrigated lands downstream from New Mexico above the Duncan-Virdon Valley are in large part-the irrigated lands below Hooker Dam are in large part in New Mexico. Senator ANDERSON. They are?

Mr. GOOKIN. Yes, sir. The only irrigated lands that are in Arizona downstream in Hooker Dam until you get to the Safford Valley are those in the Duncan Valley.

Now the Virdon, the Redrock Valley, the Cliff-Gila area are all areas in New Mexico.

Senator ANDERSON. Have you had any discussion recently with New Mexico officials trying to get just a small, tiny portion of the Gila River water from New Mexico?

Mr. GOOKIN. Not recently; no, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Who does the negotiating for Arizona then? Mr. GOOKIN. The negotiators are appointed by the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission.

I was on the previous negotiations.

Senator ANDERSON. Aren't you water engineer?

Mr. GOOKIN. State water engineer; yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Doesn't the water engineer have anything to do with water?

Mr. GOOKIN. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Then you have been, haven't you, in the discussions?

Mr. GOOKIN. Recently, sir?

Senator ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. GOOKIN. During the Supreme Court litigation; yes, sir. I am sorry, I thought you meant since.

Senator ANDERSON. Even since it.
Mr. GOOKIN. No, sir; I have not.

Senator ANDERSON. Has there been any attempt on the part of New Mexico to discuss this with Arizona?

Mr. GOOKIN. Not to my knowledge. Your legal staff, sir, has discussed the decree with our attorneys, but no other attempt at negotiation of which I am aware, and I think I would be aware of any.

Senator ANDERSON. They have all been in here talking to me by the hour trying to explain what the difficulties are with Arizona, and hoping that they might be able to get just a little cupful of water out of Hooker Dam.