.~· .

PACIFIC SOUTHWEST -vv ATER PLAN

A DIGEST

with

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Staff: Upper Colorado Rive r Commission November 8, 1963 ( \

COLORADO RIVER

N E A 0 A 0

""' (' ""' IAMtfkY~/ ~ < "' "'-· / .... " 0 -i> z ... E w 1-

/ E X c 0

..... - .~:.--- ,_j' '-... E X c 0 SfAl [ (7' C Al,.I F()fi'HtA THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN

Upper Colorado River Commission Staff

November 8, 1963

I. INTRODUCTION

The following statement is based upon an examination of the report on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan that was released by the Secretary of the Interior on August 26, 1963. Comments, opinions or suggestions have been prepared for the purpose of raising questions and aiding in evaluating the proposed Pacific Southwest Water Plan from the standpoint of the Upper Colorado River Basin.

The four Upper Division States, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, should be interested in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan (PSWP) because anything that.affects the development of the water resources in one of the Compact-created Basins of the Colorado River could have effects of some nature on the other Basin. Although we are primarily interested in the development of the water and land resources of the Upper Basin and its future destiny we must carefully analyze any resources development plans of the Lower Basin in order to ascertain their possible effects on the future of our Upper Basin.

In making our analyses we should strive to be objective and fair, and constructive and cooperative, in spite of the questionable tactics that have been used against us in the past by certain Lower Basin entities in their attempts to forestall the authorization of the Colorado River Storage Project and participating projects. We must, however, never lose sight of our objective of protecting the interests of the Upper Basin.

The information in Section II, Digest of PSWP Report was derived either from the De partment of the Interior Task Force report dated August 1963, or related back-up data and information.

- 1 - N E " V A D

!.OS ANG~l.~S . ~-AQUEDU CT

C A L F 0 R N I A

I' c

MAJOR .WATER FACILITIES ~",_ EXISTING ~ - UNDER CONSTRUCTION -.. - PROPOSED

UNITED STATES · DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PA'CIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN LOCATION MAP JVNE 1963

P;Jo~OENtX. ARIZOM I J / f l

A.

NEW MEX. A R (!) N A I CENTRAl I HE GATE ROCK ARIZON.A PROJECT DIV~ ~!j. ~<.AQUEDUCT SYST~M .. PALO VERDE ''-.:,-,\ l DIV. DAM ~ PHOENIX ...,..._...... HOOK DAM

0 lordsburg

•••••• II. DIGEST OF REPORT

A. NEED FOR THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN (PSWP)

l. Southern California and the Lower Colorado River Basin depend either partially or entirely upon the Colorado River and its tributaries for water supplies. The Task Force report treats these adjoining areas having common water supply problems and needs as a single region called 11 The Pacific Southwest. 11

2. " . .. the Pacific Southwest is defined as the Colorado River drainage basin, downstream from Lee Ferry to the Mexican border, plus the southern portion of California, bounded on the north by the Santa Barbara County line and the Tehachapi Mountains 1 and on the west by the Sierra Nevada Mountains northward to 1 and including, Mono County. 11

3. The Pacific Southwest is the most critically water-short region in the Nation. Its future growth is dependent on the provision of an adequate water supply. In area, it embraces about 190,000 square miles.

4. The acute water problem has been accentuated by the fact that the rate of population grow'.:h for the area has been phenomenal. The 1930 population of the Pacific Southwest, most of which was in Southern California, was about 3 1/2 million people. By 1960 the total population had increased to about 11 million. By 2020 the area is expected to have about 260% more people than in 1960. This pop­ ulation projection assumes the availability of water.

5. Uses of water have been changing. For instance, in the Phoenix, Arizona area 50, 000 acres of irrigated land have been shifted from crop production to housing and.industrial sites during the 1950's. In 195 0 Southern California had 5 70, 000 acres of urban­ ized land. By 19 60 there were 1, 080, 000 acres urbanized, and during the same period 60, 000 acres of irrigated land went out of crop pro­ duction.

B. THE WATER PROBLEM

1. The Pacific Southwest is an arid region where, historically speaking, the wa ter supply has always been a problem.

- 2- ( 2. Prior to 1951 the conflicting claims of the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin impeded Congressional consideration of legislation to authorize construction of projects to divert Colorado River water. Since 1951 the progress of water development in the Lower Basin has been more or less at a standstill as the result of the intent of Congress as expressed in a resolution that Bills relating to the proposed Central Arizona Project "be postponed until such time as use of the water in the Lower Colorado River Basin is either adjudicated or binding, or mutual agreement as to the use of the water is reached by the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin. 11

3. On June 3, 1963 the U. S. Supreme Court announced its opinion in the case of Arizona v. California . The Report claims that this opinion appears to clear the way for the development of a com­ prehensive plan to meet the present and future needs of the Pacific Southwest region. 11 The final decree of the Supreme Court will re­ move that uncertainty which has prevented Congressional consider­ ation of Lower Basin development since 195 1. 11

4. There is not sufficient water in the Lower Colorado River to provide for the needs of the area.

5. Except for the various Indian reservations where water supplies have been reserved for the expansion of irrigated acreage, it is not contemplated under the Pacific Southwest Water Plan that there will be any increases in irrigated acreage except where a local undeveloped water supply is available. Supplemental water will be made available to maintain the present agricultural economy only.

6. The present economy of the Pacific Southwest area is being maintained by the 11 mining" of ground water supplies. This process cannot continue indefinitely without certain local and over­ all detrimental effects.

C. PRESENT WATER SUPPLY AT LEE FERRY

As far as the mainstream of the Lower Colorado River is concerned the undepleted, or virgin, flow at Lee Ferry since 1896 has averaged about 14. 9 maf annually. Historically during the same period about 13. 4 rnaf annually have passed this point. The annual historic and virgin flows at Lee Ferry since 1896 are graphically portrayed on the following Figure 1.

- 3- COLORADO RIVER FLOW AT LEE FERRY, ARIZONA

28-

t4- , 'PROGRESSIVE ,,~ AVERAGE / tO - YEAR / VIRGIN FLOW 20- \ AVERAGE Of : \ : VIRGIN FLOW \ -,_1 ._~.. I B- I-" - " 1\' P\.OTtEO MEND Of YfJIR \; "::.::f 16- ..... ~ ~ ~· ~REAMFLOW 14:.-~t-tr--~rltltMf=J~~~~t:iHtlln-~tlit:-iHtfJhr-Jr~~~-t--1JJ-1t~jt~~~~~~~~-;JR----tr- IN MILLION I! II ~ 1'-- .._ •;:: ;:.': ::~ ,[II a , ·' ~..., !f lr ~- :J ~ t~~ ,:! ~ . 1 . if !I ,,

2- fill ii -"

"Tl WATER YEAR G) c ::u m D. FUTURE WATER DEMANDS AND SUPPLIES OF PACIFIC SOUTHWEST

1. Water demands projected to the year 2000 are shown on the following Table 1 .

.2 . From Tables No. 1 and No . 2 it is evident that the total annual uses of water in the area, including the 1. 5 maf per year which must be guaranteed for delivery to Mexico, is estimated a t about 17. 75 maf. The present total water supply available to the Pacific Southwest on a sustained yield basis is estimated to be about 16. 41 maf per year. The difference between these two figures, 1. 34 maf per year, represents the apparent overdraft of the ground water basins under long-term, water-supply conditions.

3. The possibilities for filling future demands from present sources of water are enumerated as follows:

(a) Redistribution of available water.

(b) Conservation of available water by such practices as river channelization, phreatophyte eradication, lining canals and ditches, improving irrigation practices, stopping trespassers from diverting water along the Colorado River between Davis Dam and the International Boundary, evaporation reduction, etc.

(c) Reclamation and reuse of available water.

(d) Water quality improvement.

(e) Improvement of watershed yield.

4. New sources of supply.

(a) Desalting the sea and brackish water.

(b) Importation of water from water surplus areas.

5. Future demand-supply relationships are shown by the following Tables No. 2 and No. 3 .

- s - Sheet 1 of 2 Table 1

Pacific Southwest Water Plan

Projected Water Uses

Unit: 1, 000 a. f. Develoement Year Item Present 1975 1990 2000

Depletions--Compact Point to Lake Mead Tributary depletions 11 260 350 370 390 Future reservoir evaporation 1:/ 100 100 100

Lake Mead gross evaporation 840 900 850 800

Southern Nevada uses from Lake Mead Y 20 90 140 160

Southern California uses Y Colorado River areas 470 470 470 470 Desert areas 3,590 3,830 3,930 3,980 Coastal areas 2,270 3,290 4,230 4,930 Conveyance losses Y 930 990 1,040 1,080

Arizona uses Y Colorado River areas 800 800 800 800 Bill Williams River Basin 25 30 30 30 Central Arizona Project area 4,490 4,880 5,370 5,780 Other Gila River Basin areas 270 280 320 360 Conveyance losses .§./ 800 840 890 940

Mainstream Indian uses below Hoover Dam 1/ Arizona 175 250 350 380 California 25 80 80 80 Nevada 10 10 10

Fish and wildlife use s 15 160 300 300

Net mainstream losses-- Hoover Dam to Mexico 8/ 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 lv'iexican Treaty obligation 1, 500 1,500 1, 500 1, 500

TOTAL 17,750 20,120 22, 050 23,360

- 6- Sheet 2 of 2

1/ Includes Little Colorado River and other tributary areas in the States of Arizona , Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. Future depletions include 70, 000 a. f. for Dixie Project in Utah and 20, 000 a. f. for Moapa Valley Project in Nevada. y Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams.

3/ Includes existing Lake Mead diversions and conveyance losses, proposed Southern Nevada Project, and Moapa Valley Pumping Project. Other requirements supplied from local sources.

4/ Colorado River areas include: Palo Verde District and non-Indian portion of Yuma Project. Desert areas include: Jmperial District, Coachella District, Whitewater--Coachella area, and Antelope-Mojave area. Coastal areas include the coastal drainage of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties.

5/ Conveyance losses associated with area imports .

6/ Colorado River areas include: Gila Projects and Yuma Projects. Central Arizona Project area includes most of Gila River Basin.

1/ Includes present Colorado River Indian Reservation in Arizona and Indian portion of Yuma Project in California. Future requirements include Ft. Mojave, Colorado River, Cocopah, Chemehuevi, and Yuma Indian Reservations.

8/ Includes 370,000 a. f. reservoir net evaporation, 230,000 a . f. regulatory losses, and 670,000 a. f. other net unmeasured beneficial and non­ beneficial uses, including present wildlife refuges.

- 7 - Table 2 Pacific Southwest Water Plan Estimated Water Supply

Unit: l 1000a. f. Develoernent Year Item Present 1975 1990 2000 Scheduled release--Glen Canyon DarrJI 10,350 91840 91 100 8 , 600

Paria River near Lees Ferry 20 20 20 20

Undepleted net/ains I Compact Point to Lake Mead£ 11060 11 060 1,060 1, 060

Release from storage--Lake Mead 120 210 350 450

Bill Williams River near Planet--Undepleted 100 100 100 100

Gila River above Wellton-Mohawk 3/ 0 0 0 0

Arizona water supply--Gila River Basin above Painted Rock Dam Undepleted surface flows 11 53 0 1, 530 11530 11530 Safe yields ground-water basins Y l, 510 1, 910 1, 910 1' 910 Reclamation of waste waters 110 270 610

California water supply Los Angeles Aqueduct 320 480 480 480 California Aqueduct 0 500 1,800 1,900 Safe yield of local surface and ground waters 1,400 1, 430 1, 450 11450

Colorado River salvage I recovery I and regulatory projects Y Mainstream salvage projects 290 290 290 Ground-water recovery project in Yuma area - 220 220 220 Senator Wash Dam 170 170 170

Total Supply 16,410 171870 18,750 18, 790

Total Demand 17' 75 0 201 120 22,050 231360 Indicated Deficiency 1,340 2,250 3,300 41570

_!/ Based on present and estimated upper basin depletions and historic flow 1930-1962. J/ Includes Lake Mead precipitation. 3/ Essentially fully controlled and used upstream. 4/ Includes future allowance for quality control. Y Salvage measures include channelization of the river and e radication of phreatophytes in advantageous reaches. Ground- water recovery will pre­ vent basin subsurface outflows. Senator Wash Dam will reduce regulatory losses at the International Boundary. - 8 - Table 3

Pacific Southwest Water Plan

Estimate of Colorado River Water Available for Use in the Pacific Southwest at and Below Hoover Dam

Unit: 11000 a. f. Development Year Item Present 1975 1990 2000

Release at Glen Canyon Dam Jl 10,350 9,840 9, 100 81600

Paria River inflow 20 20 20 20

Flow at Lee Ferry 10,370 9,860 91 120 81620

Unde pleted net gain -- Lee Ferry to Lake Mead 2/ 1, 060 11 060 11060 11060

Depletions--Lee Ferry to Lake Mead 1/ 260 450 470 490

Lake Mead evaporation 840 900 850 800

Lake Mead storage drawdown 4/ 120 210 350 450

Available for release at Hoover Dam 101 45 0 91780 91210 81840

Bill Williams River inflow 80 70 70 70

Net losses--Hoover Dam to Mexico Y 1, 270 1, 270 1,270 11270

Future salvage--Hoover Dam to Mexico.§/ 0 680 680 680

Mexican Treaty obligation 11500 1, 500 11500 11500

Available for use at and below Hoover Dam 7,760 7,760 71 190 61820 l/ Virgin flow 1930-621 less upper basin depletions . 2/ Includes Lake Mead precipitation. 3/ Includes tributary uses and mainstream reservoir evaporation. j/ Based on 1930-62 operation.

~ Includes net reservoir evaporation (3 70) 1 regulatory losses (230) 1 and other net losses (670).

_§/ Includes Senator Wash Dam (170) I ground-water recovery (220) I and other mainstream salvage (290). - 9 - The PSWP report data of Table l on projected water uses and Table 2 on e.stimated water supply can be more vividly portrayed by the graphs of Fig. 2. The graphs of Fig. 2 show the estimated water supply and the pro­ jected uses of water for four selected years, present, 1975, 1990, and 2000. One of the most interesting aspects of this chart is that although the water supply will be increased from 16. 4 maf to 18 . 8 maf by year 2000 as a result of operation of the PSWP 1 the projected demands are estimated to have in­ creased from 17. 8 maf to about 23. 4 maf during the same period I leaving an apparent deficiency of about 4. 6 maf. In other words the apparent deficiency in year 2000 is almost 3 1/2 times greater than at present. There­ fore 1 by the year 2000 the people of the Pacific Southwest will either have to change their ways of living to ways requiring less water per capita I or supplies of water far in excess of those contemplated under the PSWP will have to be imported to the area I or sometime prior to year 2000 the population of the region will have to become static.

Estimates of Colorado River water available for use at and below Hoover

Dam are illustrated by the graphic pictorials of Figs . 3 I 4 I and 5 for the present and for study years 1975, 1990 and 2000. The data were taken directly from the PSiNP report except for the figures for Upper Basin depletions which were derived by subtracting from the average virgin flow the ass~med release at Glen Canyon Dam and the flow of the Paria River.

Figure 6 summarizes the projected uses of the virgin flow of the Colo­ rado River at the Compact point, Lee Ferry, from 1965 to 2000 under the conditions of an operating .PSWP. The average virgin flow for the 1930-62 period is 13. 2 maf. The average historic flow is 11. 3 maf. The difference illustrated by the dark blue area represents the present average (1930-62) water supply depletion above Lee Ferry. The vertical distance in blue on the left side of the chart represents the present upper basin depletions. The slope of the line marked "scheduled release - Glen Canyon" shows the assumed projected rate of increase in development of water expected by the Secretary of the Interior in the Upper Basin or the decrease in water passing Glen Canyon during the 35 years between 1965 and 2000. Therefore, all of the blue area (dark +light) shows the amount of water use expected in the Upper Basin and the green area represents that in the Lower Basin.

The fact that the feasibility of the PSWP appears to be predicated upon a published report figure of 10. 35 maf in 1965 I decreasing to 8. 6 maf in 2000 I is expected to be a subject of serious consideration as we shall see later.

- 10- l'AC1F1C SOUTHWEST

PJtESENT~

DEP.LETIONG-COM. Pf. 1D LAKE MEAD ­ ~~=--:-~:::--:...,.....,..-...... _,...,.----~-/ TRIB. DEFUT/Ot-JS LAKE MEAD GROSS EVAPORATION ------~SO. NEVADA USES FROM LAKE MEAD

SOUTl-IERN CALIF USES

SCHEDULED RELEA9E ---­ GLEN CANYON DAM PAR\A R\VER NEAR LEES FERRY

RHEAS£ FROM ~R~~KEM~\~------~ ARIZONA USE8 BILL WILLIAMS RIVER \'b-;;;;;;;;;;VN-~=P.;;;;. =NIT==G=N=NS=,=COM==.=p[=. ==TO==LA==KE===M==EAD===~ NEAR PLANEr- LNOCP. - ARIZONA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~MAINSTREAM INDIAN WAlEf.l SUPPLY· LSES BELOW HOOVER NET MAINSTREAM LffiSES HOOV. DM1 TDMEX. DAM CAUFORNIA WATER SUPPLY MEXICAN TREAIY OBUGA.1i0N F\81-1 AND WILDUFE USES WATE1t SUVPLY PROJECTED USES FIGURE 2 VAC1F1C SOUTHWEST 1975

DEP- COM. PT. TO /LAKE MEN)-TRI B. DEP. =L=A=KE'="" =M=EAD~G=R=O=OO~EV._'A_PO_RA_:ll_IO_N_.....;_FUT RES. EVAP. ---_.:..._------...... :~\00. NE\l-USE.S FROM LAKE MEAD

:------'------> SO. CALl FORNIA SCHEDULED RELEASE USES GLEN CAN'YON DAM PLUS PARIA RIVER NEAR LEE8 FERRY

/

RELEASE FROM STORAGE--LAKE MEA~ BILL WILL\Atv1S RIVER\ UNDEPLETED NET GAINS. COM.Pfto L.MEAD > ARIZONA USES NEAR PLANEf-UNDEP{ ARIZOtJJ\ ------~ WATER SUPPLY / MAINSIRE.AM INDIAN USE BELOW HOOV. ~ ======~ ~§§§§§§§§§~, FISH AND WILDUFE CALIFORNIA hl IT MAl NSTRH\M LOSSES+!OOV. ~ i1i,.. WATER SUPPLY l------­ COLORADO RIVER MEXICAN 1RfA1Y OBUGATiON SAL. REC. B REG. ffiQJ. WATER_ SUPPLY PROJECTED USE FIGURE 2-A l'AC1F1C SOUTHWEST 1990

OCPl.BiONS-COM. l7r. ======-=='oi.....-TO LAKE. MEAD.-1RIB. OCP. =~L=~K~E~M~EA~D=:G:::::R::=OO=S==:BI===::AP.O::::. ==:RA::::::i\l=ON===...... "-fur. RES. EVAP. ~------·'\; SO. NEVADA IJ9fS FROM LAKE MEAD

SDUll-lERN CALIFORNLL\ USES SCHEDULED RELEA8f­ GLHJ CANYON [}\M PLU9 PAR\A RIVER NEAR LEt£ FERRY

RELEASI::. FROM STORAGE- LAKE MEAD\ UNDEP. NET GAINS, COM.Pr TO MEAD -1 BILL WILUAMS RIVER\ LA~ NEAR PLAN IT - UNDEP. -[~=====-======>ARIZONA UGE8 AR\20NA I WATER SUPPLY

I

<'AU RJRNIA r ::~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~/ MAINSTREAMUSES BELOW HOOVE~INDIAN DAM WA.TER SUPPLY < !------I NET MAIN8TRE"Af'.A LOSSES- HOOVER DM1 TO MEX. I"'-FtSH AND WILOUF£ USES MEXICAN 1REA1Y OBLIGATION WATE1\_SUPPLY 1'1\.0JECTED USES FIGURE 2- B l'AC1F1C SOUTHWEST 2000

I' 0EP. COM. PT. TO ===:=7:=:::==::~~~~~:=="':"===:====-/LAKE MEAD --TR\8. DEP. lAKE MEAD GROOS EVAR:>RATION "'-FUT RES. EVAP- I ~SOUmERN NEVADA USES FROM LAKE MEAD

I >SOUTHERN CAUfU>.NIA USES SCHEDULED- RELEASE GLEN CANYON DAM PLlJS- PA~IA RIVER NEAR LEES FERRY

RELEASE FROM STDAAGE-LAI

~~W~~tnti~ \ UMDEP. NIT GAit-13 OJM P[ llliAK£ MFAD >P..R\ZONA U8EB ARIZONA I WATER SUPPL'Y <

~------~ I MAINSTREAM INDif\N CALIFORNIA [ ~ U9ES BELOW HOOVER DM1 NET MAINSTRIJ!M WSSE9 -HOOVER rnM tl!t "'-FISH M--ID WIW Uf£ L\9EB WATER SUPPLY l ------~ ! MEXICAN TR~lY OBUc:ATION SALroWMDOR\~ REC AND REG. ffiOJ. [ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WATEl\_SUPPLY 1?1\PJECTED USES FIGURE 2-C ESTIMATE Or COlOT\t\00 1\}VER._ \VATER 1\VAll.AULE rOl\_ USF lN T'HF FAClFlC SOUTHWEST AT ANV 13ELOW H00\7E1\ DAM Pl{_ESE'NT UN DEPI£TED SURFJ.\Cf FLOWS UPPER BASIN DEF'Jj::!j0N8

GILA RIVER

AVAilABLE: FOR USE AT AND BELOW HOOVER DAM Ult·Site of~)

BILL WIWAM8 RIVER UNDEPLETED 1J'J

FIGURE 3 ESTIMJ\TE OF COlOl{.AVO 1\JVEl\_ 'WATE1\_ AVA1l.A13LE FOJ{_ USE lN THE PAC1F1C SOUTHUJ£SI AI 7\'NV BELOUJ HOOV£1\_ DAM -2000--- UPPER Bt>SIN DEPLETIONS UNOEPLETED 8URW'\CE FLOWG USES OF SURFACI: FLOWS

GILA RIVE~

AVAILABLE FOR USE. AT AND BELOW UN DEPLETED lAKE MtAD BIU- WIWAMS HOOVER DAM - (atsireol'uoo) Nff GAl N sroRAOC RIVER LEE FERRY OI MEXICO

SCALE: I " ~ 1,000,000 A.F. FIGURE 4 ESTIMATE OF COWRAOO lZlVER WATEIZ 7\VAllABLE fOl\ USE fN THE P-AC1F1C SOUTHWEST -AT ~NV l3EtoW HOOVEJ{ PAM

GiLA RIVER GilA RIVER

VJ{ESENT P.· UPI'ER BASIN O!'Jli£TlOill 1975 9· ROW Al LEE fER~

C· UNOEMfD IJET Gf>IN Uf FER2t' 1l> IJ1I(f MOO

D· OO'lflKIHS-LE£ FffiR'I GilA RIVER l1l w GilA RIVER UNOfJlt£ltD ustof UNDEI'lETID USfOF E· IJII

f' 1-AK< INW> ~e: -u ~· ~DOWN

G- AVI'JL/>$Ui rtliZ m£AS{ AT ~COlER PA"' u K· Blll-\'JllWMS RJVER IN R-OW

r-1'£1" \$$- l-lOOJER' ~1Z>M.X.OO

J . fU1\!111 SAL\1'11)£- tlO

K- MEXICA!>I 1REA1Y ()f;(!GIIT>OI\I

I: WAIII\IIIf FOR U9f ;\T JW1)1lfU)<,o~!>J>M (ot ~of..,.)

.9CAI£' I" • 2,00QOOO M 1990 2000

FIGURE 5 ( E. ELECTRICAL ENERGY IN THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST

In the future hydroelectric generating capacity will continue to in­ crease, but its relative magnitude will be dwarfed by the increase in thermo­ generation. Under the Pacific Southwest Vvater Plan the Bridge Canyon Dam and Marble Canyon Dam would be constructed and their powerplants would develop about 2, 100 megawatts. These plants would be designed with maximum peaking capability and their capacity in generation would be utilized within the power market area .

F . GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT

l. Objective-- to develop water supplies and facilities to meet the area 1 s present deficiency and to provide for the increase in water requirements for future municipal and industrial growth.

2. Except for Indian reservations and small tributary areas where local water supplies are available no additional irrigated lands are reserved for imported water supplies. Present level of irrigation wi ll be maintained.

3 . In order to meet the most urgent needs at the earliest possible date it will be necessary to establish a priority of develop­ ment. The proposed plan is divided into Phase I---Immediate Action Program, and Phase II---Continuing Project Development. Phase I facilities are feasible units which are proposed to be authorized for immediate construction. Phase I1 items Will require additional in­ vestigation prior to starting construction.

4. Reimbursable costs for all proposed features could be repayed in 50-year concurrent periods with financial assistance from the Pacific Southwest Development Fund.

5. The estimated construction costs of Phase I and Phase II are summarized in the following Table No. 4, and in Figs. 7 and 8 .

Fig. 7 shows a comparison of the costs of the various projects and units of the PSWP with costs of the individual Storage Units and principal divisions of the Colorado River Storage Project.

In Fig. 8 the cost s of the two phase s and the total cost of the PSWP are compared with the construction cost of Colorado River Storage Project and participating projects authorized in P. L. 485 and including the sub­ sequently authorized Navajo Indian, San Juan-Chama, and Fryingpan-Arkansas projects.

-16- Table 4 ( Pacific Southwest Water Plan Estimated Construction Cost

Project Estimated Construction Cost Phase I--Immediate Action Program

Bridge Canyon Darn & Powerplant $ 504,797/000 California Aqueduct Increment 474, 110,000 Central Arizona Project 504,736,000 Desalting Plant/ California 37,300,000 Dixie Project/ Utah 44,868,000 Ground-Water Recovery 38,800,000 Hooker Darn Project/ New Mexico (28, 128, 000) J/ Indian Irrigation, Arizona-California-Nevada 10,000/000 Marble Canyon Darn & Powerplant 239/500,000

Recreation, Fish & Wildlife I and Other Agency Programs 5,000,000 Southern Nevada Water Supply Project, First Stage 42,551,000 Tributary Projects, Arizona-New Mexico-Utah 10,000,000 Water Salvage 9,200,000 TOTAL--Phase I $1,920,862,000

Phase II--Continuing Project Development

Canal Lining, California $ 105,000,000 Central Arizona Project Increment 353,240,000 Indian Irrigation, Arizona-California-Nevada 40,000,000 Lake Havasu Aqueduct & Supply Reservoirs 914,500/000 Recreation, Fish & Wildlife and Other Agency Programs 51 185/ 000 South Fork Trinity River Project, California 387,000,000 Southern Nevada Water Supply Project, Second and Third Stages 29,557/000 Terminal Storage, California 122/00'0/000 Tributary Projects, Arizona-New Mexico-Utah 40,000,000 Trinity River Project, California 150,000,000 Water Reclamation, Arizona 18,000,000 TOTAL -- Phase II $2/164/482/000

TOTAL -- Phases I and II $4,085,344,000

J/ included in Central Arizona Project.

-17- :a 0 .

CONSTRUCTIOn COST 100,000,000 DOLlARS ? 8 ~ § ?

NA~O r ~NSMIS~lON VI \ 18101) J _ 11C IZ1G-1n.Al- T??Zl.1ZTIC1 TfnG LfEClB I. I ~- , NA~O. S ~1l) JUAN CHAD?A, F"'mq H l)-~1ZW\.~ .

(J l3tZ1DGF CA))YOD I 0 UFORN Aqu fr) z I I ~· (J) -\ -~ • DinTJG- P~"'nT. CAJIFORNR. - D\Xl P~OJE T, UTAI-1 I ~~ (".) - f(ROylTJO \N~TER ~VERY -1 C/)~ l lDblAT)Il RRlG-ATipO~ -ARtzpNA-GAUFOR~- NEVADA -0 f!l --·--· IDAlZBLE CAl'J OT) z I I I I RECREA101), flSH AND WIf.uFE. AN 011-JER !1-CtE NCY PROQI{ArllS l 0 - SO ERN EVADA JET{ 8 PVLY P ifECT. F11($T S E 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ I I CAN~ Unln& - CAU ORl)lA I I I I CEfTRAL A. lWr]A P OJECT IN t{ErT)EnTf I I + - lr)DI N lr{Rl4110N, A+ZONA - CturoRNlA -TJ~ l ~ ' ' ~ ~ ' .. ,. ~ ,. d

iw m ------·- ·- -- ·

CONS1R_UCTION COSTS - 131ll10~ POLlAlt$

0

C~P lN11lALAUTl-IORJZA110N - PL485

CIZ§P lNlT\AL AUTl-IQR!ZATION 1963 COST ESn~

PSWP "PHASE I

~WP ~ETL

) 6. Construction would need to proceed conc urrently in the

five States of Arizona 1 California I Nevada I New Mexico and Utah. The construction schedule is programmed over about 35 years.

G. PHASE I--IMMEDIATE ACTION PROGRAM

The Immediate Action Program includes the following projects and programs:

l. The Central Arizona Project. This system would bring Arizona •s available mainstream Colorado River water from Parker Dam to the areas around Phoenix and Tucson. (Same as in the

CAP in 194 7 - See House Doc. 136 1 8lst Congress, 1st Session.) The initial capacity of the system would be 1. 2 maf of water per

year. Under overloaded conditions I 11 45 0, 000 acre-feet could be diverted. Hooker Dam in western New Mexico is included as part of the CAP.

2. Enlargement of the California Aqueduct. The basic Cali- fornia Aqueduct is under construction. It would be enlarged under the PSWP to supply an additional 1, 200, 000 acre-fee t to Southern California from surplus waters of the Sacramento - San Joaquin River Delta area. This wate r would provide replacement water for a decreasing Colorado River supply as well as water for the projected growing demands beyond those which will be met l;>y the California Aqueduct under present de s i gn. Also include d in Phase I is a second e nlargement of the California Aqueduct through the Tehachapi Mountains to the location where the Havasu Aqueduct proposed in Phase II bifurcates. This additional

enlargement is for the importation of a second unit of 1 1 200, 000 acre-feet of Northe rn California water to Central Arizona.

3. Desalting plant of 50 million gallons per day capacity in Southern California. The output of this plant, probably about 40,000 to 50,000 acre-feet per year, would be used in Southern California.

4. Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon Dams and Powerplants.

5. Sout hern Nevada Water Supply Project for municipal and industrial uses of the c ities of Henderson and Las Ve gas.

6. The Dixie Project on t he Virgin River in Southern Utah.

7. Wate r supply facilities for the Chemehuevi, Cocopah, Colorado River, Fort Mojave, and Yuma Indian Reservations.

-20- 8. Colorado River mainstream projects. These projects are considered to be for the overall benefit of the Pacific Southwest area as a whole. They include such items as channel improvement, re­ ducing non-beneficial vegetative consumptive uses and ground- and surface-water operational losses.

H. PHASE II--CONTINUING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

l. Phase II would include additional water conservation facilities and aqueduct expansion to deliver water from surplus sources to the Pacific Southwest Area.

2. In Arizona these facilities would include developments on tributary streams within the State, water reclamation of available sewage effluent, a second Central Arizona aqueduct system to convey additional water into Central Arizona, the conveyance to Lak,e Havasu through a branch aqueduct from the enlarged California Aqueduct and other facilities to provide for increased water demands.

3. Additional storage reservoirs would be required in northern

California in order to make possible the conveyance of 1 1 200, 000 acre-feet of water into southern California and the 1, 200, 000 acre­ feet into Lake Havasu through the enlarged California Aqueduct.

4. The Report states that all .vater exportations from areas of surplus to areas of deficiency should protect the areas of origin within the States and the States themselves. It is proposed that this protection be in the form of legislative policies recently adopted by the Congress in connection with the New Melones Project authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962 (P ~ L 87-874).

The pertinent language of this Act is as follows:

11 Provided further, That before initiating any diversions of water from the Stanislaus River Basin in connection with the operation of the Central Valley Project, the Secretary of the Interior shall determine the quantity of water required to satisfy all existing and anticipated future needs within that basin and the diversions shall at all times be subordinate to the quantities so determined:"

5. Seven alternative plans for transporting water from northern California to southern California in Phase II are discussed in the report.

- 21- 6. The report further s tates in its discussion of Phase II that

"For Arizona, incremental aqueduct capacity could be staged as assumed in the proposed plan, or built during the initial construction. The enlargement during initial construc­ tion could provide a means to deliver Arizona' s adjudicated water and additional water available in the river during early years of project operation before Upper Colorado River Basin depletions reduce the flow . This initial incremental capacity would cost about $19010001000 more than the basic Central Arizona Project Aqueduct. Initially, it could double the quantity of water diverted to central Arizona and would also initially overcome the ground-water overdraft . "

7. Priority of Planning. An extensive overall planning pro- gram also will be required to formulate the final plan prior to initiation of construction on the units designated as Phase II. A priority of planning of the various units is listed in the report.

I. BASIS OF ESTIMATES OF WATER AND POWER SUPPLY

"The estimates of future main-stem Colorado River water supply available to the Pacific Southwest region used in formulating the plan of development were based on the most critica 1 period of Colorado River flows of record (1930- 1963), combined with a liberal estimate of future Upper

Basin depletions. This, of course, represents a conservative approach 1 which is believed appropriate in evaluating the effectiveness of the pro­ posed plan in meeting water requirements under adverse conditions.

Although such conditions could occur 1 they would not be the normal expectancy. Therefore, in evaluating power revenues, studies were based on the expectancy of the more normal conditions which govern the latest power operation studies for the Upper Colorado River Storage Project."

J. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

1. With the exception of an item called "Area Redevelop- ment Benefits'' the usual benefits and costs used in evaluating water development projects are used in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. Area redevelopment benefits are believed to accrue to temporarily unemployed people in the Southwest t.~rough the opportunities for employment during construction and operation of the project facilities.

2. Attention is called to the fact that municipal and indus- trial water inve stments are to be subsidized by revenues derived from the sales of power.

-22- 3. Benefit: cost ratio. A comparison of annual benefits and the annual equivalent of economic costs indicates a benefit cost ratio of 2. 1 : 1. 0 over a 100-year period of analysis using interest at 3 per cent.

4. Commercial power sales. It was assumed in the report that:

(a) Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon power would be sold at 6 mills per kilowatt hour.

(b) Hoover Dam energy would be priced at 4 mills and Parker-Davis energy at 4. 7 mills per kilowatt hour after these plants have paid out existing costs and obligations.

(c) A payment of $185 I 000 per year would be made to the Upper Basin Account as compensation for en­ croachment on power generation at Glen Canyon Dam.

(d) The matter of power rate determination will be under continuing consideration as the Pacific Southwest Water Plan proceeds.

{e) The payout study shows a repayment of the total · comme rcial power investment in 1998 with an earned

surplus of $2 1 185 1 000 I 000 accruing to the end of the payout period in year 2044.

K. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN

1. The Pacific Southwest Water Plan cannot be implemented through the individual or collective authorization of previously in­ vestigated projects because sufficient water cannot be made available from the Colorado River.

2 . The presently planned projects I such as Central Arizona I

California aqueduct enlargement, Southern Nevada 1 Dixie I and the water salvage and conservation programs must be initiated now in order to provide for urgent needs.

3. Congress would be asked to enact authorizing legislation that would provide for:

(a) The Pacific Southwest Development Fund to be supported by revenues available after payout from

-23- all present or proposed hydroelectric plants on the Lower Colorado River and revenues from water sales which would be pooled to provide financial assistance for future water development .

(b) Immediate construction of presently planned projects needed to alleviate present and near- future water shortages. These would be the projects in Phase !-­ Immediate Action Program.

(c) Construction of additional projects needed to provide for more long-range water demands after a finding of feasibility has been made upon the basis of future studies. These would be the projects in Phase I1 - ­ The Continuing Project Development Program.

(d) A system of priority of planning for long-range future water resource development programs.

(e) Studies and research, as required, to provide technical data and information of a general nature needed to support future water resource develop­ ment programs.

4. Corollary Construction. Conservation and conveyance of surplus water from northern California to the Pacific Southwest area will be accompanied by appropriate provision of water supply facilities for areas in need in northern California. It is proposed that specific additional Central Valley Project facilities be constructed concurrently with features of the proposed Pacific Southwest Water Plan.

5 . Study and Research. The last chapter of the report is de- voted to a dissertation on the need for further study and research in the following fields; (a) Canal Lining and Sealants (b) Evaporation Reduction (c) Weather Modification (d) Water Reclamation and Reuse (e) Watershed Management and Improvement (f) Ground Water Investigations (g) Surface Water Resources Investigations (h) Vvater Quality and Waste Management (i) Water Salvage (j ) General Hydrology (k) Topographic Mapping (1) Geologic and Mineral Resource Investigations (rrV Classification of Federal Mineral Lands (n) Fish and Wildlife (o) Saline Water Conversion

- 24- III. COMPARISON OF PSWP WITH CRSP

A. Like the Colorado River Storage. Project of the Upper Colorado River Basin the Pacific Southwest Water Plan should be regarded as a comprehensive, coordinated plan formulated to provide for the present and future water needs of the rapidly growing Pacific Southwest region. The PSWP is unlike the CRSP in that it provides not only for the construc­

tion of a series of water development projects within the area I but also

provides for the importation of water from areas of surplus 1 for the de­

salting of sea water and brackish water I and for salvage, conservation and reclamation of water Within the re

B. Both the Colorado River Storage Project and the Pacific South- west Water Plan were born as the result of settling intra- basin disputes. In the Upper Basin we settled our inter-state problems by action of the States through the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. The CRSP is the result of the Upper Division States acting in concert and in cooperation with the Federal government. Lower Basin controversy precluded develop­ ment in one State, t hus forcing that State to institute action in the Supreme Court to establish it s right to develop by securing legal e ntitlement to a block of water. The Supreme Court rendered a decision purporting to make a division of the Lower Basin water supply. The Secretary of the Interior then proposed the PSWP which avoids the problems created by the Supreme Court' s decision and at the same time allows a comprehensive water re­ sources development for the area.

C. The CRSP Act authorized an initial program of four storage units and e leven participating projects . The ps·wp would initially authorize a

Phase I program consisting of two large power generating units 1 several water utilization projects, and water reclaiming and salvage projects .

D. The CRSP Act provided priority for completion of planning reports for 25 projects. The PSWP would provide the same type of priority for its Phase II projects.

E. Under both the CRSP and PSWP the costs allocated to the irri- gation of Indian lands would be non-reimbursable.

F. The CRSP provides the means by which the Upper Basin States can develop and meet their Compact obligations . Under the PSWP water would be substituted through e xchange s or replacements to compensate for taking water from sources of supply of existing projects in order to supply water to water-deficient areas .

- 25- G . The CRSP is financed through the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund that receives all appropriations of funds e xcept those for certain non­ reimbursable items and all revenues from project operations. The re venues are to be used to pay for 0 . M . & R. of storage units I costs allocated to power and municipal water I interest on unamortized balances of power and municipal water costs 1 costs of storage units allocated to irrigation, and costs of irrigation projects that are beyond the ability of iiTigation water users to repay.

Under the PSWP there would be a Pacific Southwest Development Fund. This Fund would be used in a l most the same manner as the Upper Basin Fund. In addition excess revenues would pay for wate r salvage programs, desalting plants, and other projects .

One striking diffe re nce be twee n the CRSP and the PSVlP i s the fact that under the CRSP the municipal wate r costs plus interest must be paid in fifty years from municipal wate r revenue s; while under the PSWP the costs of munici pal and industrial water would be subsidized by power revenues .

- 26 - IV. PROBLEM OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF PSWP

As pointed out above it is proposed that the Congress should immediately authorize Phase I of the PSWP to cost over $1. 9 billion and later a Phase II that would bring the total cost to over $4 billion. In the light of all prior reclamation programs the propose d PSWP in size and cost far overshadows anything e lse. To date the CRSP is the largest sing.le re clamation program that has ever been approved by the Congress . In re cent ye ars it has bee n taking about one-third of the c onstruction funds appropriated by the Con- gress for reclamation in the 17 re clamation States . We have had a real struggle to pe rsuade the Congress to raise t he ceiling on appropriations to about $3 00 million for the e nt ire reclamation program.

Figure 9 portrays the: magnitude of the PSWP as compared with the Congressional appropriations for the e ntire reclamation program for 195 7-64, and as compare d with the CRSP. For the period 1967-1980 the PSWP would constitute almost another re clamation program as measured by past Congres­ sional appropriations for this purpose. According to the Report appropriations of funds by the Congress for the PSWP alone would have to reach about $124 million by 1966 and would increase to about $32 7 million by 19 71-- not including appropriations for '1 corollary" projects for northern California that are anticipated to be necessary and c onsrructed concurrently with features of the PSWP. After 1971 the appropriat ions for the PSWP would have to be in the $15 0 - $35 0 million category for about ten years. This would mean that if other parts of the 17 western recla mation States are to be able to carry forward their anticipate d reclamation project construction programs during the next 25 years Congress and the Executive Branch of the Fe deral Government will have to be pe rsuade d to approve appropriations of about $75 0 millions to $1 billion annually for the reclamation program.

There is nothing wrong with a $3/4 billion or a $1 billion dollars recla­ mation program, especially when our e xplodi ng population is facing an acute water crisis . In fact, it is about time the entire nation realized the serious­ ness of this problem from economic, social and technological viewpoints . The fac t that should be apparent is that it may take some time to e ducate our political leaders to a point where Congre ss will be willing to e xpend these sums of money ea ch year on a reclamation program. In other words, the legislation to authorize the PSWP may have tough going in the Congre ss. It will take a large amount of forceful, wi s e lea dership to put it across .

- 2 7 - $ ffi &1 ( co ~ ~ ('j) t--- t- t- ff2 ~ tt fQ ~ ,....._ t- R ~ en co t- ~ (0 w(j) <0 >-~ <0 0::: ~ cot!) a~ gj:.L.. $ Ul co ~ CD C\l <0

,...... (!)

0 <0

0) U')

r::f) L!)

t--- 1.!) V. FURTHER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

A. In response to a request by the Chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee the Secretary of the Interior through a special Task Force formulated the Pacific Southwest Wate r Plan as one possible. answer to the dire needs of the area for additional water supplies . Repre­ sentatives of the Department freely admit that the plan was put together and the report written in a very short time . No final judgments have been made concerning its component parts. As the Secretary has said, the 11 •• • report is, in essence, a search for the essentials of a basin- wide plan which could become a long-range vehicle for mutual cooperation,'' 11 and ••• the second phase was sketched in largely to indicate what might be accomplished in t he long run if a sound regional plan . .. sup­ ported by a basin-wide development fund--were established. 11

B. The Report on the PSWP is more a statement of broad general principles regarding the method of developing the water supply for the Pacific Southwest than it is a de tailed plan. It is apparent that at this time all details, all component parts of the plan 1 could not be presented because many of these details will have to be developed in cooperation with the Lower Basin States and local entities. Furthermore 1 as the details of the plan unfold many changes can be expected as new and better pro­ cedures are deve loped. As these details unfold through additional studies, consultations with affected States and agenr.les, the collection of additional data, etc. , many changes can be expected as new and better plans and procedures are develope d . For this reason it is suggested that our Upper Division Governors should confine their comments regarding the physical aspects of the PSWP to statements of a gene ral nature, perhaps discussing and approving the concept of the Plan instead of the details of its com­ ponent parts, e xcept in instances , if there are any, where there may be suggestions regarding a speciHc function or feature of the Plan that should be improved, changed, or e liminated in the interests of a State or the Upper Basin.

C. According to the PSWP Report the recent (June 3, 19 63) opinion of the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California appears to clear the way for the development of the PSWP to meet the water needs of the region. The Upper Division States were not parties in Arizona v . California. The Court refused to construe the Colorado River Compact or specifically relate it to the Lower Basin problem presented to the Court. The Court' s opinion was based almost e ntirely on the construction of the Boulde r Canyon Project Act. The Upper Division States are not bound by the Court's opinion in Arizona v. California. The Upper Division States should carefl!lly examine the PSWP

- 29 - in order to ascertain that there will be nothing in the authorizing legislation, either directly or by implication, that could jeopardize the rights of the r Upper Basin to its entitlements under the Colorado River Compact. For this reason it is suggested t hat , in addition t o including general statements regarding the physical aspects of the PSWP, t he comme nts of our Governors should include specific references to protecting the future development of the Upper Basin under t he rights established by the Colorado River Compact. This protection could be afforded either by having it included in the original authorizing legislation, if agreement could be reached be forehand with the PSWP sponsors, or by the addition of amendments to the original authorizing legislation through Committees of Congress. At this time it would be impos­ sible to design the language of specific amendments because we do not know what the authorizing legislation is going to say. However, we can give serious consideration to some of the problems as we now see them and offer suggestions that might have a chance of being included in the language of the authorizing Bill when it is introduced in the Congress. Some of the items regarding which we might wish to make recommendations are:

l. By re ferring back to Figure 6 you will recall that the scheduled releases from Glen Canyon Reservoir started at 10: 35 maf in 1965 di­ minishing to 8. 6 maf in 2000. For a ll practical purposes this is the delivery of water at Lee Ferry by the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin upon which the feasibility of the PSWP is predicate d . Under the Colo­ rado River Compact the Upper Basin delivery must not drop below 75 maf in any 10-ye ar period (or an ave rage of 7. 5 maf per year) .

Or, stating it anot her way 1 the Upper Basin may deplete the river so that the delive ry at Le e Ferry becomes 7. 5 maf pe r year on the average. The PSWP re port recognize s deliverie s far in exce ss of this figure, at least until the year 2000. Two que stions be come important at this time:

(a) Has the PSWP allowe d for a realistic rate of wate r re source de velopment in t he Upper Basin between now and year 2000? The re is a good c hance that t he Uppe r Basin might develop more rapidly than assume d in the PSWP re port and the amounts of wate r be lie ve d available for de live ry at Lee Ferry may not be prese nt in 19 75- 199 0-or 2000. This situation c ould a ffect the fe asibility of t he Plan. If the water in e xce ss of 75 maf in 10 years is subject to recall by the Upper Basin a t any time , and can actually be re called in spite of the economic or political situation pre vailing at the t ime , the answer to this quest ion may not be so important to the Upper Basin as it ot he rwise might be. Howe ve r,

- 30- (b) If the PSWP is authorized by the Congress on the basis of the report which shows deliveries by the Upper Basin of 10. 35 maf to 8. 6 maf between 1965 and 2000 does the legislation supersede the Compact so that the Upper Basin would be required to deliver these amounts of water instead of 75 maf in 10 years? If, by the remotest possibility the answer to this question might be affirma­ tive, the feasibility of the PSWP is based upon a water study that limits the Upper Basin's development to a rate consistent with the assumed Upper Basin depletion

in the Report. Further 1 if this be the case I the Upper Basin might be committed by legislation based upon the Report to deliver the amount of water to the Lower Basin that would make the PSWP feasibile. This hypothesis becomes more realistic if you recognize that one of the major objectives of the PSWP is to provide the Secretary of the Interior with a means of avoiding the apportionment of "shortages" which the Supreme Court in its opinion in Arizona v. California said he must do.

Several people have expressed the fear that the PSWP may be outside the limitations of the Colorado River Compact because it recognizes a use of Upper Basin water delivered to the Lower Basin in quantities in exce ss of the 75 maf in 10 years as stated in the Compact. This fear may or may not h r :e realistic foundation. Those people who have heard members of the Task Force or their aides say that they were told to throw away all of the rule books when they were instructed to produce a PSWP have a reason to wonder about this poi nt, We do not know how the evidence might be construed

by a future Supreme Court. It, therefore r seems prudent for our four States to include in their comme nts a request that authorizing legis­ lation be made absolutely clear that the future de velopment of the Upper Basin will be protected under the terms and intent of the Colo­ rado River Compact, and that notwithstanding the assumptions of streamflow or deliveries of water by the Upper to the Lower Basin assumed in the PS\"!P report I t he Upper Basin will be permitted to develop its water resources within its Compact apportionment at a rate consiste nt with its needs and without curtailment or retardation due to the construction and operation of the facilities of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan.

2. The PSW P report mentions that "squatte rs" along the Colo- rado River between Davis Dam and Mexico are diverting about 2001 000 acre-feet of water pe r year. This might be a good time to re quest legislation to require the Secretary of the Interior to either enter into

- 31 - water contracts with these "squatters" and charge their uses against

the apportionment of the State in which used1 or to provide enforce­ ment in some manner to prevent these illegal uses of water. Presently these illegal uses of water are included in unaccounted for losses.

3. Under the Upper Basin reservoir filling criteria the Upper Basin Fund is charged for diminutions in hydroelectric generation at Hoover Dam that are attributed to the operation of Upper Basin reser­ voirs. If a Pacific Southwest Development Fund is to be established under the PSWP we should consider requesting that the authorizing legislation provide for complete reimbursement to the Upper Basin Fund of the cost of energy and interest charged against it while the reservoir filling criteria are in effect.

4. It is noted in the Report that by the use of revenues derived from the sale of power there is a considerable subsidy of municipal and industrial water. This is an entirely new idea in the reclamation field. Whether one agrees with it or not, we should make known the fact that we are aware of it and recommend that such an idea be given extra careful consideration as a matte r of resource development policy. It is extremely doubtful that Congress would approve such a policy by authorizing a PSWP that would in­ clude this type of subsidy.

5. The PSWP Report states that a payment of $185, 000 annually will be made to the Upper Basin Accountas compensation for encroachment by Marble Canyon reservoir on power generation at Glen Canyon Dam. This figure will require careful checking, e specially in view of the fact that the Report does not describe or present data relative to an integrated operation of the various power­ plants on the Colorado River. In testimony before the Senate Sub­ committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on August 28, 1963 on S. 1658, the present Bill to authorize the Central Arizona Project, a Department of the Interior witness stated that the Glen Canyon Dam was not contemplated in 194 7 when a former CAP Bill was before the Congress and that was t he reason the USBR had planned to con­ s truct Bluff and Coconino Dams at that time. This witness further testified that the installed generating capacity at the Bridge Canyon powe rplantwould be increased from 750,000 kw to 1, 500, 000 kw because it is now possible to take advantage of the upstream regu­ lation provided by the construction of Glen Canyon Dam upstream so that Bridge Canyon powerplant can be operated at high head for peaking.

- 32- There should be compensation to Glen Canyon Dam, i.e. , to the Upper Basin Fund, for the benefits to Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon powerplants created by Glen Canyon Dam and reservoir. This compensation could be determined in much the same manner as the Federal Power Commission computes upstream benefits under Section 10 (f) of the Federal Power Act. Legislation would be necessary for the Marble-Bridge-Glen Canyon case mentiore d above in order to have the compensation accrue to the Upper Basin Fund because the Federal Power Act would not apply in this instance.

- 33 - LEGAL PROBLE MS

The Pacific Southwest Water Plan proposed by the Secretary of the Interior as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Cali­ fornia, et al. , 3 73 U. S. 546, presents difficult and speculative legal problems so far as the Upper Basin is concerned. Any legal consideration of the plan must of necessity be speculative inasmuch as there has been no proposed legislation submitted to Congress . The plan in legislative form is actually not before us. All we have is a preliminary report as to the nature of a plan which is possible. As a matter of fact, all that is actually presented to us are certain stated objectives which should be accomplished in order to insure a full development of a specific region in the United States. The Secretary indicates that the method of imple­ mentation of these objectives has not at this time been crystallized to the point that legislation can or has been drafted.

It is noted that the Secretary has suggested in his preface to the plan that the securing of the objectives will require the highest degree of water statesmanship. Apparently there is an area open for negotiations in order to develop the necessary legislation to carry into effect this water plan . Assuming this to be a valid premise upon which the Upper Basin can work, it would seem that the Upper Basin should become intimately aware of its own objectives of development; and, being thus aware of its objec­ tives of the development , the Upper Basin should want to insure itself that the method chosen to implement the Pacific Southwest Water Plan will in no way interfere or preclude the full development of the objectives set for the Upper Basin by its needs.

We would first want to view the Secretary's proposal within the context of the history of the Colorado River. The understanding of this historical context may provide the foundations for the Upper Basin's con­ sideration of any legislation which will carry out the. objectives of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. Without involving ourselves in the minutia of details, perhaps an outline of this history with certain of its legal implications would be beneficial for the Upper Basin in its consideration of its relationship to the Pacific Southwest Water Plan.

We shoul d start the history of the Colorado River with the Colorado River Compact of 1922, negotiated by the seven Colorado River Basin States. The genesis of this Compact was the conflict which existed among the Colorado River Basin States. The Lower Basin was plagued with spring floods and late summer water shortages. Thus the Lower Basin was demanding flood protection. The Upper Basin States were faced with the possibility that any flood control structure s on the Colorado River would make possible the establishment of appropriative rights in the Lower Basin which might ultimately preclude full develop­ ment in these slower developing Upper Basin States. With this back­ ground the States got together with a representative of the Federal Govern­ ment and evolved the Colorado River Compact which has as its purpose the allowing of the Lower Basin development and the reservation of the sufficient water for development in the Upper Basin. The interbasin conflict between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin was resolved by providing in Article III the following:

l. Each Basin was apportioned 7 I 5 00 I 000 acre-feet of bene­ ficial consumptive use pAr year from "the Colorado River system ...

2. In addition the Lower Basin was given the right in Article III (b) to increase its beneficial consumptive use "of such

water by 1 1 000 1 000 acre-feet per annum."

3. A provision was included to provide ways and means of sharing any burden which might arise from tile recognition by the United States Government of rights in Mexico to the use of water from the Colorado River system.

4. There was a provision included which provided that the States of the Upper Division would not deplete the flow of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry below an aggregate of

75 1 000 I 000 acre-feet for any ten years consecutive periods.

5. The provision was included which would prohibit the with­ holding or the demand for water which could not be used for domestic and agricultural uses .

6. A provision was provided for further division of the water after a 40 year ~eriod.

Although th8re was some disagree ment among the hydrologists I the Compact seems to have bee n predicated upon the premise that there was adequate water for the ne e <:: s of the Colorado River Basin for a number of years i n the future . In fact Mr. Hoover at one place indicated that it would take more than 75 years to use the water which was originally apportioned to the two Basins.

Arizona imme dia tely tnvk the position following the negotiation of the Compact that she could not accept the Compact inasmuch as the Gila had be en included in the Compa ct and she was not protected against California appropriations in the Lower Ba sin.

- 2- The period from 1923 until 1929 on the Colorado was a battle in the United States Congress for the passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act which originally contemplated the development of flood control works in the Lower Basin to protect the Lower Colorado, particularly Imperial Valley and the Yuma area. In 1929 Congress passed the Boulder Canyon Project Act over the vigorous opposition of the State of Arizona. Primarily the Project Act provided for the consitutional requirement of Congressional consent to the interstate agreements. Secondly, it provided for the build­ ing of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal upon condition should only six States accept the Compact that California would limit herself to 4, 400, 000 acre- feet ''of the waters apportioned to the Lower Basin States by Paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River Compact, " plus no more than one- half of any excess or surplus apportioned by the said Compact.

California passed the necessary limiting legislation to make effective the provisions of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and also subscribed to the necessary power purchases from Hoover Dam in order to make the project feasible. Parenthetically it might be pointed out at this point that a number of provisions in the Boulder Canyon Project Act were insisted upon by the Upper Basin in order to insure the integrity of Upper Basin rights in view of the fact that Arizona apparently would not ratify the Colorado River Compact. An example of this was the requirement that no one could secure water from Hoover Dam except by contract with the Secretary of the Interior and all such contracts were required to be sub- ject to the provisions of the Colorado River Compact.

The Upper Basin also sought to protect itself under the Colorado River Compact by insisting that the Hoover power contracts were to be subject to the Compact.

The next ten years of history, so far as the Colorado River was concerned, were primarily fought in the Supreme Court of the United States, for immediately after the passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, Arizona filed its first suit against California and the other Basin States, 283 U. S. 483. Arizona challenged the constitutionality of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. The case was decided on a Motion to Dismiss and the Supreme Court determined that the Boulder Canyon Project Act was a result of the exercise of valid constitutional power. Arizona was granted the right to file an application for future relief in case the water stored in Hoover was used in such manner as to preclude Arizona the enjoyment of her perfected rights, or the right which Arizona might have to make additional legal appropriations from the Colorado River.

- 3 - Again in 1933 Arizona sought relief in the Supreme Court against California and the other Basin States, in 292 U . S. 341 wherein she sought to perpetuate c ertain testimony which Arizona alleged was necessary in order to properly interpret the meaning of the Boulder Canyon Project Act under which she was claiming rights. At this t:articular time Arizona was c laiming that t here was a side-deal with reference to the Colorado River Compact so far as III (b) was concerned and it was given to the Lower Basin to compensate Arizona for her uses on the Gila and that the Gila under III (b) exclusively belonged to Arizona ,

The Supreme Court refused to allow Arizona to perpetuate this testimony pointing out 'i:hat Ari zona's interpretation of the Compact could not be established by statements or agreements made by Commissioners and not communicated to the legislatures of the States and Congress at the time of ratification. The Court also pointed out that the meaning of the Compact would not be material, inasmuch as Arizona was not claim­ ing under the Compact but was claiming under the Boulder Canyon Project Act.

In 1935 we have the famous naval battle case in which the United States sued Arizona, 295 U. S . 174 , to e njoin Arizona from the use of her navy to interfer in the building of Parker Dam. Arizona won this suit on the basis that Parker Dam had not been properly authorized by Congress. However, the next year Congress passed the necessary legislation for the building of Parker Dam, and it was built.

Finally in 1935 Arizona sued the other Basin States, 296 U.S. 558, for a judicial apportionment of the Colorado River outside the Compact. The Supreme Court declined to assume jurisdiction inasmuch as the United States Government was not made a party and could not be made one with­ out her consent and therefore this case was dismissed.

In 1939 the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act was passed by Congress whereby Congress changed the method of computing power rates at Hoover Dam.

The Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act was the result of the semi-official Committee of Sixteen. During the work on this legislation, Lower Basin promises were given that if the Upper Basin States would help in securing a realistic power rate for the Hoover power, the Upper Basin could expect help from the Lower Basin in any future Upper Basin development. This promise lasted little longer than the time that it took to allow the ink to dry on the President's signature on the Act.

- 4- Two events occurred in 1944, namely the Senate ratified the Mexican Treaty guaranteeing to Mexico basically 1, 5 00, 000 acre-fee t of Colorado River water delivered according to a certain pattern each year. Also, Arizona at last ratified t he Colorado River Compact, and executed a c on­ tract with the Secretary for 2, 800, 000 acre-feet of beneficial consumptive use from waters stored in Hoover Dam subject to the a vailability of such waters to the State of Arizona under the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act.

In 1949 the Upper Basin States solved their water division problems with t he Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, In 1956 the Colorado River Storage Project Act (P. L. 485) got Upper Basin development on its way. This, too , was within the Colorado Rive r Compact framework .

After postponement of authorizing legislation for the Central Arizona Project, Arizona filed suit against California and California agencies to quiet title to Arizona's share in the Lower Basin of Colorado River system water. This suit is the one that resulted in the recent decree by the Supreme Court, 373 U , 8 . 546. The determinations and the implications of this suit must concern t he Upper Basin with reference t o any future plans of development in the Lower Basin.

Prior to 195 7 t here seemed to be a consensus of understanding t hat the Lower Basin tributaries were somehow related to Compact and Project Act. The exact method of accounting for these tributaries, it is true, was subject to disagreement as between Arizona and California. The California theory was that tributary water supply was part of the res With which the Compact dealt as a totality. Arizona' s theory at this time was that III (a ) uses were from the mainstream and III (b) included the Gila. Arizona had not come to any definitive position with reference to other tributary uses . It was also pretty we ll agreed that the Boulder Canyon Project Act was dealing with Compact definitions so far as the Lower Basin was concerned. California' s theory on thi s was that all uses in the Lower Basin were first to be accounted for under III (a) of the Compact until 7, 5 00, 000 acre-feet were made and t hat t he Lower Basin had the right to increase its uses by a million acre·- fee t , but this was not a ppor­ tioned water and t hus California could share in this under its rights granted by the Boulder Canyon Projec t Act to one -half of any water excess or surplus unapportioned by the Colorado Compact as provided for in Section IV (a) of the Boul der Canyon Proje c t Act. Arizona had taken the position that III (a) dealt with the mainstream and California was limited to 4, 400, 000 acre-feet of mainstre am water, that the Gila was III (b) and apportioned water in which California had no right to claim an interest. In 195 7 and 1958, during the course of the trial of this law­ suit, Arizona swit ched her position taking t he position ultimately t hat

- 5 - the tributaries in the Lower Basin were not a part of the Compact account­ ing and were not a part of the res with which the Boulder Canyon Project Act dealt. The Boulder Canyon Project Act dealt only with mainstream water and that also the Compact dealt only with mainstream water. Arizona further stated that III (a) and III (d) were equivalent; that Cali­ fornia was limited to 4, 400, 000 acre-feet of water from the mainstream, plus one-half of any mainstream surplus. Arizona also further took the position in her arguments that III (b) was mainstream water, and that such water could be demanded from the Upper Basin subject to the Upper Basin's right to withdraw sufficient water to make its III (a) uses.

The Supreme Court did not accept t ne Arizona position with respect to the integration of the Arizona construction of t he Compact with the construction of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. It should be noted how­ ever that Arizona's Compact construction was not totally rejected for the Court merely said on t his point:

"We need not reach that question (Compact only deals with mainstream in the Lower Basin) however for we have concluded that whatever water the Compact apportioned the Project Act itself dealt with water of the mainstream. ''

What had heretofore been considered the whole law of the river to be construed together, namely, the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Can­ yon Project Act, the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Ac t , and other relevant statutes and Acts, ·now seems to have been fragmented, particu­ larly the Compact and t he Boulder Canyon Project Act.

The Court in its decision limited t he Boulder Canyon Project Act to the mainstream of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin and made no attempt to integrate its interpretation of t he Boulder Canyon Project Act and the rights and duties of the Secretary of the Interior under this Act with the obligations and rights of the various parties with respect to the Colorado River Compact. Now in fairness it should be said of the Supreme Court that perhaps this was an impossible task in view of the fact that all of the parties to the Colorado River Compact were not before the Court in this particular suit.

The problem with the Supreme Court's decision is the dete·rminai:ion of just what the Secretary of the Interior had in the Compact sense to work on insofar as his contracts are concerned. It is to be remembered that the Supreme Court has said that the Boulder Canyon Project Act provided for a Lower Basin mainstream allocation scheme among the States of California, Arizona and Nevada. It is at this point that we run into difficulty of under­ standing the Court's meaning for we find the following language in the opinion. - 6 - "In this case, we have decided that Congress has provided its own met hod for allocating among t he Lower Basin States the mainstream water to which they are ent itled under the Compact. "

* * * *

"To begin with, the Act explicitly approves the Compact a nd thereby fixes a division of the waters between the basins which must be respected."

* * * * "The Act also declares that the Secretary of the Interior and the United States in the construction, operation 1 and maintenance of the dam and other works and in the making of contracts shall be subject to and controlled by the Colorado River Compact. These latte r references to the Compact are quite different from the Act's adoption of Compact terms. Such references, unlike the explicit adoption of terms, were used only to show that the Act and its provisions were in no way to upse t, a lter, or affect the Compact's congressionally approved division of water between the basins. They were not intended to make the Compact and its provisions comrol or affect the Act's a llocation among and distribut ion of water within the States of the Lower Basin. Therefore, we look to the Compact for terms specifically incorporated in the Act, and we would also look to it to resolve disputes between the Uppe r and Lower Basins, were any involved in this case. But no such questions are here.

* * * * " He {Sec'y of the Int.) and his permittees, licensees and contractees are subject to the Colorado River Compact, and therefore can do nothing to upset or e ncroach upon the Compact's alloca i: ion of the Colorado River water between the Upper and Lower Basins •

• * * * "Wha i: Congress was doing in t he Project Act was providing for an apportionment among the Lower Basin States of the water a llocated to that Basin by the Colorado River Compact.

- 7- \ In the first quota tion the Court is talking about "mainstream water" to which Lower Basin is "entitled under the Compact." It would appear that here the Court is thinking in terms of III (d) water. This is the only provision which specifically provided for water for the Lower Basin, and it has to be in the mainstream by reason of the provisions of III (d). Note here III (d) speaks in terms of water.

Note the second quotation is in terms of ua division of the waters between the basins. " The only present division between basins is found in III (a ) and (b) of the Compact. Note here III (a) and (b) are in terms of "beneficial consumptive use" not water.

The other quotaUons evince similar confusion on the part of the Court as to just what the Secretary has to divide under the Court' s scheme. So long as the Upper Basin does not use its share of the Colorado River water or t here is an abundance of water available there probably will be no real problem for t he Secret ary .

However, our hope ior future Upper Basin development makes it rather important that we see the implicat ions of this recent Court case and its possible relation to t he PSWP.

If the Court meant to divide only the Compact III (d) water avail­ able to the Lower Basin under the Compact plus any other available water (Lower Basin inflow) in the mainstream in the Lower Basin, the Lower Basin will have to face t he fact of actual water shortage at the time the water supply or Upper Basi n development limits Upper Basin delivery to III (d ) amount. Either t his will be true or t he division will have to be made so as to include t he river losses as part of Contract delivery. The Upper Basin will be faced with the problem of tributary accounting with respect to Mexican Treaty delivery problem under III (c) ,

If the Court actually was talking about the Compact III {a) - {b) allocation being divided by the Project Act, then the Upper Basin is faced with the Lower Basin Tributary uses never being counted with respect to III {c).

These are only some of the problems unanswered by this case. The Court simply did not identify what it found the Project Act to be dividing with respect to the Compact. The Court left to another day any determin­ ation of t he interbasin problems.

At first glance this would seem beneficial. From a legal standpoint this is probably true. The Court could tiot determine the Compact relation­ ship absent the Upper Basin States . The future que s t ion may well be

- 8 - does this case so fix a pattern of operation in the Lower Basin under the Project Act and this decision, i. e . , projects in operation with people using water on basis of decision, that the Court will have to fit any Compact interbasin problem solution into the then existing pattern of operation. This could result in the Upper Basin development being placed in jeopardy.

The Secretary of the Interior seems to see that t his decision presents problems that must be avoided if at all possible. He simple does not care to have the responsibility of making some of the deter­ minations that this decision seems to force upon him. The result has been that he devised the PSWP.

It is true that a t t his particular time the Upper Basin is not using its Compact share of the Colorado River System. It is also true that this water should be put to use . The place where this can be put to use is in the Lower Basin. The method of using this presently unused Upper Basin water must not be such that its withdrawal for Upper Basin development will be put in jeopardy.

No Lower Basin plan should be premised for its feasibility upon a proposed rate of development for the Upper Basin arbitrarily set by crystal ball gazing of a group of federal hydrologists. The Upper Basin should be well aware of the danger inherent in such a situat ion. It is to be remembered thai: the Hoover power studies were based upon an assumed Upper Basin development in 1987, the end of Hoover pay­ out. A straight line decrease in power was assumed to result. This was done to establish Hoover feasibility. Contracts were executed on ~his basis with a provision that they were subject to the Colorado River C ompact which does not provide for a rate of development, Whei). the problem of tilling of C . R. S . P. reservoirs came up, the Power Con­ tracts became II holy cows, II sacred and untouchable.

A hydrologic study which is supposed to show the feasibility of a plan should not be allowed to become the method by which all the future is regulated. A theoretical study should not become a club with which future development is beat into the surrender of non-development.

- 9 -