Senator ANDERSON. We don't mind the burden. Why don't you trust the Congress? Mr. LAZARUS. Because my client has a need to know and have certainty. Secretaries change and membership of this committee changes. When this will be recommended by the Secretary and what he will recommend and whether the Hualapai will like it and whether the Congress will like it are all uncertainties. Senator ANDERSON. When they built a large multipurpose project, do they go to the whites in advance and tell them what they are going to get per acre? Mr. LAZARUS. The Federal Government does not have a responsibility toward these white landowners equivalent to the responsibility it has toward the Indians. Senator ANDERSON. Therefore, if the Secretary uses them fairly and responsibly Mr. LAZARUS. I am suggesting that he will discharge it much better if he deals with them fairly and properly before the project is offered. Senator Moss. Do you have any questions, Senator? Senator GOLDWATER. No, but I do have a statement I would like to make a part of the record. Senator Moss. The statement of Senator Goldwater will be placed in the record as though read in full. I was hoping we would have time to hear from him orally. Thank you, Mr. Lazarus. We appreciate your testimony. I think you have made your point very clear in representing the Haulapais and what you believe should be done as far as they are concerned in dealing with this project. If you wish to add to your statement it will be made part of the record at this point and the attachments submitted will follow that. (The additional testimony and attachments submitted follow :) WASHINGTON, D.C., April 29, 1964. Re Hualapai Tribe of Indians-Bridge Canyon Project. Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MOSS: During the course of my statement last Thursday morning on behalf of the Hualapai Tribe of Indians with respect to the central Arizona project and the Pacific Southwest water plan, Senator Anderson asked a series of questions about the right of Indians to be paid just compensation for powersite values where tribal lands are taken for a public work, particularly in view of the Twin City Power case and the Yellowtail Dam controversy. As a supplement to my testimony before your subcommittee, I am submitting the following facts for the record. In 1956, the Federal Government filed suit to condemn lands within the Crow Reservation, Mont., for use in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Yellowtail Dam. In an opinion issued May 15, 1958, District Judge Jameson, after distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Twin City Power Co. (350 U.S. 222 (1956)), expressly ruled that the Crow Tribe of Indians was entitled under the applicable law to water-power values as an element of just compensation for the taking of its property. United States v. 5,677.94 Acres of Land, Etc. (162 F. Supp. 108 (D., Mont., 1958)). This holding was not, and, in the light of subsequent events, could not have been, appealed to a higher court. Two months after Judge Jameson's decision, Congress passed and the President signed Senate Joint Resolution 12, a joint resolution to provide just compensation to the Crow Tribe of Indians for the taking of a right-of-way across tribal lands in connection with the Yellowtail Dam. Public Law 85-523, 72 Stat. 361, approved July 15, 1958. Public Law 85-523 directed the payment to the Crow Tribe of $2,500,000 and also authorized the tribe, should it so desire, to file suit against the United States "to determine whether an amount additional to that specified *** is due as just compensation. Public Law 85-523 further declared: "Nothing contained in this joint resolution shall be taken as an admission on the part of the United States that just compensation is required for any particular element of value, including powersite and damsite value, now or hereafter claimed by the Crow Tribe, but the same shall be determined in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States." Thereafter, the Crow Tribe did institute appropriate legal proceedings against the Federal Government seeking additional compensation for tribal property condemned in connection with the Yellowtail Dam. On January 3, 1964. Judge Jameson entered a judgment in favor of the tribe in the gross amount of $4,500,000 plus interest-the major portion of the award being for waterpower values. Crow Tribe of Indians v. United States, F. Supp. (D., Mont., 1964). The Department of Justice decided not to appeal that decision, and the time for appeal has expired. -- I believe the foregoing record makes clear, as indicated during the course of my testimony, that the payment of powersite values as an element of just compensation to the Crow Tribe of Indians in the Yellowtail Dam taking case resulted from the application of general constitutional principles and not from any specific legislative directive to pay. Respectfully submitted, ARTHUR LAZARUS, Jr. HUALAPAI TRIBAL COUNCIL, Peach Springs, Ariz., April 7, 1964. Hon. STUART L. UDALL, DEAR SECRETARY UDALL: I am writing you at the request of the Hualapai Tribal Council which has been concerned for some time regarding the articles members of the council and the Hualapai Tribe have been reading appearing in the Phoenix papers as well as in the Kingman-Mohave Miner, regarding activities surrounding your Pacific Southwest water plan as well as the central Arizona project. Working with our tribal attorneys, Royal D. Marks and Arthur Lazarus, Jr., we have reviewed the Pacific Southwest water plan and we are concerned with the apparent lack of proper protection of our Hualapai lands and consideration for the future of our tribe, especially when we consider statements in the Pacific Southwest water plan, as well as in the supplemental information report which was included as an exhibit with the said plan, in comparison with what we have been able to negotiate and reduce to a written contract in connection with the application of the Arizona Power Authority for the building of the dam at Bridge Canyon. We note that your plan does not refer specifically to the Hualapai Tribe but does include the following paragraph on page 7: "I am not unmindful either of the special relationship of the United States to the various Indian tribes that will be affected by construction of works proposed in the initial plan. I suggest that wherever Indian lands are to be acquired in connection with implementation of the initial plan, you should submit recommendations to the Congress for appropriate payments to the Indians in addition to amounts paid as just compensation for lands acquired." In our opinion a grant from Congress of rehabilitation funds for the Hualapai Indians, as is apparently your proposal, would be a poor substitute for the concrete recreation and industrial benefits provided for the Hualapai Tribe under its contract with the Arizona Power Authority. The supplemental information report on the Bridge canyon project, which is included as an exhibit with your water plan, includes the following statements: "Indian lands. All of the features required for the construction of the project except the dam and a portion of the reservoir area will be located within the boundaries of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. It is estimated that approximately 20,132 acres of Hualapai Indian Reservation land would be required for rights-of-way" (p. 15). "Exchange lands.-The Indian lands required for rights-of-way for Bridge Canyon Dam and Reservoir are tribal lands held in trust for the benefit of all members of the tribe, and these lands constitute, to all intents and purposes, the only source of their livelihood. "The Hualapai Indians are increasing in number and consequently the available resources per individual are shrinking. The acquisition of the lands for the Bridge Canyon project further reduces these resources. Adequate compensation would be provided either by cash payment or exchange of lands for acquisition of right-of-way prior to start of construction" (p. 16). We feel that the Federal Government's plans for our tribe, as submitted by you in connection with a proposed public work, are certainly substantially less imaginative or rewarding than the plans and program to which the Arizona Power Authority has agreed. We do not want you to misunderstand and feel we are taking any particular sides in regard to the building of the proposed dam at Bridge Canyon, but whoever builds this dam should certainly recognize in full detail, such as was done by the Arizona Power Authority, the rights of the Hualapai Tribe and the future of the tribe. We spent over a year working out the details of the contract finally approved, with the Arizona Power Authority, and this was after consultation with top consulting engineers employed by the tribe as well as conferences between our consulting engineers and those of the Arizona Power Authority, and we sincerely believe that a reasonable and equitable contract was arrived at, and that in the event the Federal Government or any other body builds a dam at Bridge Canyon on the Hualapai Reservation the terms and conditions as outlined in our contract with the Arizona Power Authority should be recognized and serve as the guideline for any new contract. Sincerely, STERLING MAHONE, Chairman, Hualapai Tribal Council. STATEMENT OF HON. BARRY GOLDWATER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Senator GOLDWATER. First, I want to thank the chairman and the members of this subcommittee for permitting me the privilege of sitting as a participant during these hearings. This is a courtesy that I deeply appreciate because of the vital interest of my State in the legislation before us. I would like to request that before this record is closed, within the next few days, I would be able to file, with Senator Hayden, a more complete statement which would deal point by point with some of the issues raised during the past 2 weeks of hearings. However, prior to that, I think it can be said that what we are seeking to develop is some sort of a workable regional water plan which will satisfy the needs of the lower basin States. I recognize many of the problems which California faces, but I recognize also that we have the decision of the Supreme Court of the Arizona v. California case behind us and that we must work forward to implement this decree. For this reason, and I speak for himself, I would not be opposed to a regional plan which establishes a lower basin account, provided such a proposal embodies the central Arizona project as set forth in S. 1658, as first priority, and provided, further, that such a regional plan is not used as a vehicle to delay the construction of the central Arizona project. I cannot, of course, commit myself to the details of such a regional plan at this point, but I believe that the hearings so far have shown that it is entirely possible for a reasonable plan to be developed. Because of the natural limitations of the Colorado River, I think it is evident that eventually we must look to a solution to a broad western plan or an expanded concept of a combination of Canadian. and American water to meet the needs of the entire West. Two weeks of testimony have shown me that California's intentions are to upset the findings of the Supreme Court by legislation. I believe also that we would be tampering dangerously with western water concepts if we were to adopt the proposed amendment guaranteeing California 4.4 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado above considerations to the other States. I believe there are valid constitutional arguments against such a law and I believe also that we would be setting an unwise precedent if we were to accept this amendment. I suggest that the problems of all the States concerned can be reasonably solved in the absence of such a guarantee. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the committee has ample evidence to proceed with its consideration of legislation which would result in the delivery of Arizona's share of the Colorado River water into Arizona where it is so urgently needed. Senator Moss. Your joint statement with Senator Hayden will be printed at this point following your oral statement. (The joint statement referred to is as follows:) JOINT STATEMENT OF SENATORS CARL HAYDEN AND BARRY GOLDWATER The testimony at these hearings has conclusively established that Arizona is in critical and immediate need of a supplemental water supply not to expand but merely to sustain her existing economy; that the Colorado River constitutes Arizona's only immediately available source of such supplemental supply; that this source can be developed through the central Arizona project which is physically, economically, and financially feasible, using only water decreed to Arizona by the Supreme Court. It is important to remember that even with the construction of the central Arizona project, Arizona will still have a critical need for a further and additional supplemental supply of water. It is equally apparent that in addition to the immediate needs of Arizona, the growing needs of California and Nevada and for that matter the entire lower basin will soon exceed the presently available supplies. For this reason every means must be exhausted to locate and develop further supplemental supplies of water. To this end there should be immediate intensive and continuing investigations made to determine the source or sources from which any additional supplemental supplies of water for the Lower Colorado River Basin can be obtained and the means by which they can be made available in that basin. Legislation directing such investigations should be immediately passed and funds made availbale for that purpose. This quest for new water sources moreover must include an expanded and accelerated program of research in weather modification, demineralization of saline water, and a never ending drive on inefficient and wasteful use of water wherever such uses occur. The testimony presented to this committee has clearly demonstrated that as additional sources of water supply are developed, there will be an increasing need for financial assistance to provide for repayment of the projects necessary to make these new waters available. In keeping with the long-established policy of Congress, we should look to the hydroelectric power potentials of the area to provide such assistance. Plans for the full development of these potentials are well advanced. Clearly the Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams are financially and economically feasible. We should, therefore, proceed to make full use of these renewable resources. We should construct both the Bridge and the Marble Canyon Dams at the earliest opportunity. We should also provide for the establishment of a development fund into which the revenues from the hydroelectric power potentials and other revenues would flow and from which the financial assistance needed for water resource development would be made available. No question can now exist as to the feasibility of the central Arizona project in any respect. No testimony was offered at these hearings which argues against the feasibility of this project. We are particularly pleased that Mr. Northcutt Ely, in his testimony, conceded the feasibility of the central Arizona project and the necessity for its authorization and construction. Certain witnesses before this committee have advanced the proposition that any legislation authorizing the central Arizona project should contain provisions under which Arizona's right to the use of main stream water of the Colorado River should be made subordinate to California's right to use 4.4 million acre-feet of such water. Arizona spent more than 12 long years at the suggestion of the Congress to secure a determination of her rights to 2.8 million acrefeet of water from the mainstream of the Colorado River. We do not propose by any means or at any time to surrender or dilute the rights which Arizona secured under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona v. California. Nonetheless, we do recognize that the Court decree leaves California facing a situation that is roughly analagous to Arizona's. Over the years a demand for water to supply a burgeoning economy has developed. It must be observed that much of this demand has come about through developments which were encouraged and promoted for California's southland since the filing of the Arizona v. California suit and based in part at least on the water supply that even then was being litigated. Be this as it may, the economy of southern California like that of Arizona is one from which the entire Nation derives benefits. Were these economic resources of either State to be lost or severely damaged, every American would suffer. However, unlike Arizona, California has available to it right now an alternate source of water supply from California's own streams. Of course, it will take time and great financial investments to develop these sources and make them available for use in California's southland. Much has been said about the shortage of water in the lower basin of the Colorado River and the dire effect upon California which would result when Arizona uses her full share of that water. In that connection, two facts should be made crystal clear: (1) It is debatable whether a significant shortage will ever occur; and (2) under no conceivable circumstance will any shortage occur in the near future. It is unrealistic to assume that the problems of water supply can be resolved by testimony before this committee. During the course of the Arizona v. California litigation this problem was the subject of testimony which consumed literally months of courtroom time. Voluminous exhibits were submitted covering the full spectrum of conclusions varying all the way from one that there would be no shortage, even under ultimate conditions, to the conclusion that shortages would be experienced before the turn of the century. The net result of all of this evidence was to lead the special master to conclude that"The evidence in this case simply does not permit a prediction of future lower basin supply with that refined degree of accuracy necessary to show whether existing California uses can be satisfied from the percentage of future supply apportioned to California. On the contrary, the mass of evidence which has been presented shows only that the science of hydrology is not capable of sustaining a prediction accurate enough to shed light on this question" (final report, p. 103). The master did not discredit the science of hydrology nor did he hold that it was of no utility in planning projects. He merely concluded that in the unique situation presented here the application of established hydrologic techniques would not permit a prediction of future water supply sufficiently accurate to be of any utility in the case. The reason that this is so is that we are here dealing with a prediction of the amount of water which will be available in a period beginning many decades in the future and extending well into the next century. The quantity of water available to the lower basin in any given year must await a host of findings that cannot be made in advance. The considerations going into such findings are many and must include such unpredictables as what projects not now planned will be authorized by the Congress and constructed at some future date and what impact future technological attainments in the field of phreatophyte control, evaporation control, weather modification, and efficiencies in water use will have on net usable supply in the river. Notwithstanding all of these intangibles which were debated before the master for many months, there are those who would ask that you act upon an assumption that a shortage in the river is a foregone conclusion and that |