Memorandum on Pacific Southwest Water Plan

Memorandum: From James K. Carr, to Stewart Udall, Pacific Southwest Water Plan, November 6, 1963, page 2" . . . I attended the Legislative Committee hearings on the S. W. Water Plan. You may be interested in my reaction. First, there was obvious displeasure because Bill Palmer, or someone of comparable stature, was not present as apparently had been promised. Second, all of the questions asked had an adverse tone. Many legislators made their opposition quite clear. Third, the reaction in the audience--about 150--was obviously adverse. "The following points were emphasized over & over: "1. California would expect iron clad assurances that any water it contributed to Arizona would be replaced when needed at no enhanced cost. It was suggested that California perhaps should have a 7 day withdrawal right comparable to the one now demanded by the N. W. with respect to power (S. 1007). "2. Why doesn't the plan suggest taking water from the Columbia where an undoubted surplus exists rather than northern California. "3. The plan calls primarily for M & I water. Why should power be used to subsideze M & I water. Why should power be used to subsidize M & I water, especially when the power, to a great extent, will be sold in California so that Calif. not only will furnish the water to Arizona but provide the power revenues to make the water transfer feasible. (Senator Coby pounded on this.) "4. The State needed more time to consider the plan."Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,245,661 byte