THE METRO R DISTRICT 33 MAILINGADDRESS POSTOFFICE BOX 54153 LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90054 OFFICE OF PHONE624.9261 GENERALCOUNSEL April 10, 1967 AREACODE 213 FILED by order of the Board of D~rectcrs of The Me~ropo~ftan Vkd.~r D~r~ct Board of Directors ~ ~, , 0~ .)3uL~ern.u, ~ The Metropolitan Water District of SouthernCalifornia tsi~e~gh&d...AP.R i.jL :1i67 B u i 1 d i n g .±‘~-~-~ Execu~ve Gentlemen: Secretary Report on Colorado River Basin ProjectLegislation During the week of March 13, 1967 the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the House Committee on Interior and InsularAffairs held four days of publichearings in Washington, D.C. on legislation that would authorize a Colorado River Basin Project (CRBP), including the CentralArizonaProject (c1P), and establish a National Water Commission. The GeneralCounsel de scribed this legislation in detail to your Board in letters dated February 13 and March 10, 1967, copies of which were sent to all Directors. The HydrographicEngineer, two members of the Legal staff, and the LegislativeRepresentative in Washington, D.C., attended the hearings on behalf of Metropolitan. The Subcommittee is not expected to take any formal action on the bills until next month. The SenateSubcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Interior and InsularAffairs has set hearings on Colorado River Basin Projectlegislation for the week of May 1, 1967 in Washington, D.C. The Subcommitteereceivedtestimony from representatives of each of the Colorado River Basin states, the Secretary of the Interior, the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles,conservationistorganizations, and variousindividuals. A synopsis of this testimony is attached. The majority of the materialsubmittedduring the hear ings had previously been submitted to the Subcommitteeduring hearings on this same type of legislation, held in 1965 and 1966. The GeneralCounselreportedthosehearings in letters to your Board dated September 13, 1965 and June 13, 1966, copies of which were sent to all Directors. Board of Directors — Page Two New materialcovered at the recenthearingsinvolved alternative power proposals by the Secretary of the Interior and the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los.Angeles. .The Secretary’sproposal would substitute a $92 million prepaidpurchase of thermal power for pumpingwaterto.Central Arizona, in place of new Colorado Riverhydropowerdevelopments at Bridge and MarbleCanyons. The Secretarywouldpurchase this power from a steam—electric plant that would be built, owned and operated by non—federalutilitiesassociated with WesternEnergy Supply and TransmissionAssociates (WEST),probably in Northeastern Arizona. The staff is currentlyattempting to accumulatesufficient information to adequatelyreview this proposal. The City’spumpedstoragehydropowerproposal for Hualapai (BridgeCanyon) Dam represented the major new development of. the hearings. This proposal would more than triple the generating capacity of. the proposedHualapaipowerplant,raising it from 1500 megawatts, to 5000 megawatts by utilizing a combinedhydro—pumped storagepeakingplant incorporatingreversible pump turbines. In addition, the Federalinvestment could be reduced about 50 percent if the power plant and transmission lines were financed by non— federalutilities. However, the City’stestimonyemphasized that authorization was necessarywithin the next ten to twelvemonths in order to realize the economies of scale available by orderly integration with other plannedcapacities and transmissionfacili ties. Prelimina~ryreview by Metropolitan’s staff indicates that thetCity’sproposal would be more feasible than the Bureau of Reclamation’soriginal BridgeCanyonproposal. On April 5, 1967, the Colorado River Board of Californiaadopted a resolution, attachedhereto, supporting the City’sproposal. Subsequent to the hearings, the Eel River Association sub mitted a. statement for the hearingsrecordrequesting the Committee to considerCalifornia’s North Coast as the initial source of water to be developed to offset the prospectiveshortages in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Similarproposals had been urged during the hearings by Wyoming, Utah and Arizona, and, on April 4, Utah’s Senator Moss introduced a new Colorado River Basin Project bill (S. 1409) that would authorize a feasibilityreport for a project to import 4.5 maf from California’s North Coast, 2 maf for uses enroute and 2.5 maf for satisfaction of the MexicanWater Treaty and Lower Basin losses. Because of the significance of this proposal to Cali fornia, the CaliforniaAdvisoryCommittee on WesternStates Water Planning has scheduled a publichearing in Sacramento on April 18, to collect and coordinatevarious views within the State. Since this proposalinvolvesMetropolitan’sinterest in both the..State Water Plan and the ColoradoRiver, it appearsdesirable that Met ropolitananalyze it closelywith a view to presenting a statement at the April 18 hearing. Board of Directors — Page Three A Federalexport of water from California’s North Coast (e.g., Eel, Kiamath and TrinityWatersheds) might involve a con flict with the obligation of the State of California to develop water from those sources to maintain the suppliesrequired for servicing the existingwater contracts,includingMetropolitan, which the State has entered into pursuant to the authority of the Burns—Porter Act. In view of this possibility, it may also be desirable that Metropolitanpresent a statement at the forthcoming Senatehearingsregarding this provision of Senator Moss’ bill. Another new development in the hearings was a renewal of the conflictbetweenArizona and California over protection for California’sexistingworks against the CPJ~P when water supply shortagesoccur. In the previous two hearingsbefore the House Subcommittee,Arizona had agreed to an annualprotection of 4.4 maf for Californiaagainst the C2~P. In the recenthearings, how ever, Arizonaopposed a 4.4 maf Californiaprotection,arguing that such a protection puts too much of the burden of augmenting the Colorado River water supply on Arizona, and observing that such shortages should not occur until the 1990’s. Efforts to resolve the conflict over protecting Cali fornia’sexisting uses have developed in several areas. Some of the compromiseproposals that have been informallyproposed are: (1) reduceCalifornia’sprotection to 3.850 maf and supply Met ropolitan with an additional 0.550 maf of exchangewater from California’s North Coast; (2) divide the risks of shortage so that the C~P bears the first~0.400 maf of shortage, and California and the C2~P bear the next 0.400 maf of shortageequa1~1y; and (3) terminateCalifornia’s 4.4 maf protection after 35 years. In addition to their opposition to a 4.4 maf protection for California’sexisting uses, Arizona also urged increasing the size of the CAP aqueduct to 3000 cfs (2.0 maf annualcapacity). The Bureau of Reclamation’soriginal CAP proposalprovided only for an 1800 cfs (1.2 maf) aqueduct, and SenatorKuchel and Congress man Hosmer have retained this limitation in their respectivebills, S. 861 and H.R. 6271. ChairmanAspinall and the Secretary of the Interior have proposed an increase to 2500 cfs (1.6 maf). Recent studies by the Colorado River Board of Californiaindicate that an increase of the CAP aqueduct to 2500 cfs might be detrimental to California and Metropolitan. One item of major interest to Metropolitan that was not discussed in detail at the hearings was the use of the Hoover power revenueswhichwould accrue after the costs of that facility have been repaid in 1987. Since those revenues will be provided by powerusers in SouthernCalifornia, it appearshighlyunfair that they be used to subsidize the CAP. Californiaagreedduring Board of Directors — Page Four last year’snegotiationsonH.R. 4671 to utilize these revenues in conjunction with those from the proposedHualapai and MarbleCanyon Dams to financeaugmentation of the Lower.~Colorado River Basin’s water supply. However, if the Congress does not authorizeeither Hualapai or MarbleCanyonDams, Metropolitanshould urge pro visionsprotectingHoover power revenues from use by the CP~P. An additionalelement that developedduring the hear ings was a generalretrenchment on the types of Colorado River water augmentationstudies that would be authorized. Arizona and the Secretary have both abandonedspecificwater importationstudies and ChairmanAspinall has downgraded the studies in his bill from feasibilitystudies to reconnaissancestudies. Arizona’ssoften ing on specificimportationstudiesappearsparticularlydangerous in view of her attempts to increase the size of the CM’ aqueduct and her refusal to honor the California 4.4 maf protectionagree ment. Because of the rapid pace of developments on this legisla tion, and the vagaries of Congressionalfeelings on California’s 4.4 maf protection,Hualapai Dam, and importationstudies, it is suggested that your Board follow this matter with particular at— tentionthe next few. weeks, This office will continue to audit these~matters,including the forthcomingSenatehearings and t~ie April 18 CaliforniaAdvisoryCommitteehearing, and will report developments to your Board. Very trulyyours, /9 Charles C. Cooper, GeneralCounsel RESOLUTION COLORADO RU7ER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA April 5, 1967 The ColoradoRiver Board supports such amend ment of the pendingColorado River bills now before the Congress of the United States as may be necessary to permit the full exploration and development of the hydro pumped storagepeakingplant for Hualapai Dam and Reser voir at BridgeCanyon,