Apart from the pending issues as to water rights, equally unresolved are the questions of actual water supply. I have repeatedly asked the Department of the Interior for a current inventory of the water supply on the lower Colorado River. Despite recently agreeing when before our Irrigation Subcommittee to furnish such material, the Department has subsequently refused such information. The only figures of which I am aware cast grave doubt on the sufficiency of water for the central Arizona project. To hold hearings where only one side can state its case because the responsible department of the Government has refused to furnish the other side with the requested material would be a sham hearing at worst and a completely inadequate hearing at best. The Secretary of the Interior has announced that his Department will soon have ready for submission to the affected States and Federal agencies a new, far-reaching plan designed to meet the water resource needs of the entire Pacific Southwest region. That plan will include provision for the same purposes as would be served by the central Arizona project. To proceed now with piecemeal consideration of but one part of what will soon be presented to us as a coordinated whole would be poor practice. Haste now might impair the hope of all of us for the wisest conservation and utilization of the resources of the Colorado River. In view of these substantial objections, I do hope that you will agree to reconsider this matter and postpone any hearings on S. 1658 until the proper preliminary procedures which our committee has long followed with other and similar projects might also be followed in the case of the central Arizona project. I do not believe this is the time to abandon a decade-old congressional policy of awaiting final determination of the yet unresolved issues of both water rights and water quantities before giving further consideration to this project. Sincerely yours, THOMAS H. KUCHEL RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. On motion of Supervisor Hahn, unanimously carried, it is ordered that the following resolution be and it is hereby adopted: "Whereas U.S. Senators Thomas H. Kuchel and Clair Engle have just protested the decision of Senator Henry Jackson, of Washington, chairman of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, in scheduling hearings for August 27 and 28, 1963, on the grandiose central Arizona project, which announcement has come as a surprise to the water lawyers and water leaders of California; and "Whereas the further consideration by the Congress of additional appropriations of Federal money to provide for the diversion of 1.2 million acre-feet of Colorado River water to serve Phoenix, Tucson, and other areas in central Arizona should not be held until after the Supreme Court of the United States has rendered its final decree in the longstanding Colorado River litigation; and "Whereas Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall has publicly recognized that such further hearings should not be held, in fairness to California, until after the final decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. California; and "Whereas historically, congressional committees have recognized that it was improper for committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives to hold hearings on legislative matters still involved in litigation; and "Whereas such premature hearings have been scheduled in advance of the receipt by the Colorado River Board of California of either the Bureau of Reclamation's engineering report on the $1 billion project, or the Interior Department's regional development plan for the lower Colorado River, both of which reports had been assured for consideration and study by California before additional Federal moneys were considered for appropriation to the vast central Arizona project: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That in full support of the position taken by the Colorado River Board of California, Senators Kuchel and Engle, and also taken by State Attorney General Stanley Mosk, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles hereby protests further hearings on the central Arizona project as now scheduled for August 27 and 28, 1963, and hereby requests the Insular Affairs Committee to postpone such hearings until the Supreme Court of the United States has given its final decision in the allocation of water rights on the Colorado River; and be it further "Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to U.S. Senator Henry Jackson and all members of the Insular Affairs Committee, and copies to all members of the congressional delegation representing California." I, Gordon T. Nesvig, clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order which was adopted by the board of supervisors of said county on August 20, 1963, and entered in the minutes of said board. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the board of supervisors this 22d day of August 1963. GORDON T. NESVIG, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. RESOLUTION OF THE COLORADO RIVER Board of CaliforNIA, JULY 13, 1963 Be it resolved, the Colorado River Board of California recommends that the State of California pursue the following policies with respect to the Colorado River, in view of the Supreme Court's decision of June 3, 1963: I. PROTECTION OF 4.4 MILLION ACRE-FEET ANNUALLY FOR CALIFORNIA FROM THE COLORADO RIVER The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the special master's recommendation that if the water supply of the mainstream is insufficient to furnish annually 4.4 million acre-feet of consumptive use to California, 2.8 million to Arizona, and 300,000 to Nevada,' the water available shall be prorated among them, thus curtailing existing uses in California to supply projects in Arizona not yet authorized. By a vote of 5 to 3, the Court has referred to the Secretary of the Interior and to Congress the question of whether, in the event of a water supply of less than 7.5 million acre-feet, existing projects shall be protected against proposed new projects, in accordance with the law of equitable apportionment and priorities of appropriation, or whether the insufficient supply shall be prorated among the States. (Three Justices voted in favor of interstate priorities, and against reference of this issue to the Secretary.) We commend Attorney General Mosk and his staff and counsel for the defendant agencies upon their success in obtaining that rejection of the special master's recommendation on this crucial issue. At stake is the survival of one or more of the California projects now serving over 5 million acre-feet annually to more than 8 million people and to major components of California's agricultural economy. The interstate priorities of the existing California projects must be protected against any future Arizona projects to the extent of 4.4 million acre-feet annually from the Colorado River, in all further proceedings before the Secretary of the Interior, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. No compromise is possible on the issue of protection of existing projects against future ones, except with respect to Nevada's relatively small allocation. There appears to be a reasonable prospect of supplying Nevada's 300,000 acre-feet, California's 4.4 million acre-feet, and Arizona's presently existing projects without shortage. The priorities of Arizona's existing projects should be given the same protection as California's. II. WATER FROM THE COLORADO RIVER IN EXCESS OF 4.4 MILLION ACRE-FEET Permanent availability to California of water from the Colorado River in excess of 4.4 million acre-feet per annum is dependent, under the terms of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and the California Limitation Act, upon the availability of water for use in the lower basin in excess of 7.5 million acre-feet, of which excess California is permitted to use one-half. The physical existence of such an excess depends, for all practical purposes, upon the Court's reversal of its holding that the tributaries are to be excluded from the calculation of the lower basin's total supply. The Colorado River Board recognizes that if California prevails upon a petition for rehearing on this issue, our half of the "excess," according to present estimates of the water supply, will nevertheless 4 Figures throughout are in consumptive use, diversion less returns to the river which must be distinguished from the flow of water at a particular point. fail to furnish a dependable supply for the full requirements of California's Colorado River projects, and that a deficiency problem will remain. The deficiency will be accelerated and enlarged if a central Arizona project is constructed. The Colorado River Board accordingly believes that if in discussions initiated by the Secretary of the Interior, a statement of California's position with reference to Federal assistance to alleviate water shortages in Arizona should become necessary, California may properly assert that on the same grounds, Federal assistance to alleviate shortages in California would be proper. It should be plainly understood that any such action relates to the furnishing of water in addition to, and not in substitution for, any part of the 4.4 million acre-feet of water per annum from the Colorado River to which the priorities of California's three Colorado River projects relate. All such discussion must necessarily be conducted upon the basis that the Supreme Court decision is not now final and will not be final until the Court rules on petition for rehearing and the decree is thereafter settled. III. NECESSITY FOR AN INVENTORY OF THE WATER SUPPLY The Supreme Court's decision makes imperative the necessity for an accurate inventory of the water resources of the Colorado River system and of the demands upon those resources, as the State of California has repeatedly urged. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Hon. STEWART L. UDALL, MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: 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 that 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 a central Arizona project be submitted to the affected States, including California, for review as required by the Flood Control Act of 1944. 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 opportunity to study carefully and fully. I would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible. Hon. THOMAS H. KUCHEL, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor. LOS ANGELES, CALIF., August 16, 1963. I heartily agree with both California Senators in their objection to hearings on a central Arizona project bill on August 27 and 28. Neither the State of California nor Members of the Congress have yet seen a report from the Secretary of the Interior on the central Arizona project or on the Secretary's proposed basinwide project. Obviously, hearings at the present time cannot accomplish a useful purpose. My staff will be ready to assist you as requested, if the hearings are held. STANLEY MOSK, Attorney General. Senator KUCHEL. The California Legislature passed an act in 1929 limiting California to taking 4,400,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Colorado River, plus, if I recall correctly, a half of what would be declared surplus under the terms of the Colorado River compact. Over the years, California has received and utilized and placed to beneficial constructive use far more than the 4,400,000 acre-feet. No one today has come forward to testify how much water is in that river. California has projects in being. Before this kind of a new 1,200,000 acre-feet project, at the cost of a billion dollars, out of the Federal Treasury, were to be created in the State of our neighbor, is it not fair for the people of the United States to ask where does the water come from? Will you have to take it away from what California has been using in order to give it to somebody else? And, on that basis, how do you determine what people shall be deprived of water in what State, and who shall not be so deprived? In order for this committee to make an honest judgment there ought to be at every hearing people representing an honest opposition, people entitled to cross-examination of the witnesses who appear here, people able to come forward themselves, and demonstrate as best they can to the members of this committee their point of view with respect to a project as tremendous and as prodigious as this. I simply say, therefore, that my position today is one of objecting with all the vigor I can command against a hearing that is indecently premature, that affronts the people I have the honor to represent at the moment in the U.S. Senate, and that it ought not to be heard by this committee until the Secretary of Interior, under the law, has made his recommendations and until all the States involved have the opportunity which the law gives to them to come forward. Those are some of the comments, Mr. Chairman, I make as we begin what I would describe as an illegal hearing, and a very regrettable one. Senator Moss. Thank you, Senator Kuchel, for your vigorous statement, representing the point of view of California, and your own point of view. The Senator referred to the meeting, informal meeting, held by Senators from the lower basin States and others with the Secretary of the Interior some 3 weeks ago, at which time this very problem was discussed, and at which time we talked about the hearing to be held, which was already tentatively scheduled for this date. It was generally agreed, although the Senator from California raised his objection then-I give him credit for that he stated then his position of objecting to the hearing; but it was generally agreed, with the Secretary of the Interior, and with the other members of the committee who happened to be in that meeting, that we would go forward at this time. The Senator from California need not worry that there will be no opportunity to cross-examine, because whatever is put into the record today will be printed and will be available to all members of the committee, and for others to read and see, and there will be later hearings when they may come forward and contest any statements that are made, or demand explanations; any witnesses who appear now from the Department will be subject to recall by this committee and will be examined further. As a matter of fact, from the standpoint of crossexamination, I would think that the opportunity would be enhanced, because of the chance that the opposition would have to carefully examine minutely all of the testimony, and to research it in order to ask the kind of cross-examination questions they would like to have. Now, there are no further hearing dates set by this subcommittee at this time for September or any given future time. There may be hopes that we could continue on this matter. Certainly this subcommittee would never expect to act on a bill until we had had the fullest hearings, and we have had all the reports that would be made by the Federal departments. But I see nothing improper about beginning to make the record, to put together the basic information that this committee will need, especially on a project that has been before us for about 20 years, and on which there has been extensive basic information gathered. Senator KUCHEL. Will the Senator yield? Senator Moss. Certainly. Senator KUCHEL. Does the Senator recall any instance where this committee has gone forward with hearings in the absence of the report of the Secretary of Interior and the affected States? Senator Moss. Well, I can recall one or two hearings we have had where the report came walking in and was put on the table as we sat down. But it was done by this committee in order to stimulate, I think, the preparation of the report. This is rather an unusual case. I think we will all admit-because of the tremendous size of the project, the long period of time it has been under consideration. But it is the judgment of the chairman of the full committee, and I am sure the majority of the committee, that it is proper to proceed at this time. And that is the reason we are proceeding. And his The senior Senator from New Mexico, the ranking member of this committee, is here, former chairman of the full committee. State is involved to a small degree in the lower basin. Do you have any comments to make, Senator Anderson? STATEMENT OF HON. CLINTON ANDERSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Senator ANDERSON. No. I simply received today-this is only a portion of the report of the Secretary of Interior on the Pacific Southwest water plan. I suppose we will spend some time on that when we get down to cases. But, if so, we are here for quite awhile. I want to say that I don't believe the committee has ever before gone into an irrigation project of any size without a report from the Department. I have been on it for 14 years. I think that is true. I don't think that necessarily stops us. I do think it causes us to be a little careful. I have served on this committee while the central Arizona project has been twice favorably reported and twice passed by the Senate of the United States. I do think there may be some changes. I think the Senator from California-maybe I misunderstood him-but when he said California was entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet plus one-half the surplus in the river, he meant one-half of the surplus over 71⁄2 million acre-feet. Senator KUCHEL. In the lower basin; yes, sir. |