Memorandum on Meeting with Bureau of the Budget on Pacific Southwest Water Plan

Memorandum: From Assistant Secretary-Water and Power, to Stewart Udall, meeting with the bureau of the Budget on Pacific Southwest Water Plan, Nov 3, 1964, page 2proposal. In presenting the PSWWP, the Department pointed out that this is an overall proposal and the Congress could select whatever portions of it it felt appropriate. S. 1658, as reported out, is consistent with this approach. The Department could thus support S. 1658. 2. Effect of proposed private power pool (WEST) on PSWWP. Question was raised as to whether WEST would affect power revenues and thus the financial feasibility of PSWWP. It was the concensus that the WEST proposal is not as yet sufficiently firm to permit evaluation of its possible effects if ever implemented. It was pointed out, however, that WEST is essentially a proposal to produce base load energy which would tend to enhance the value of Bridge and Marble as peaking plants. Also the existence of large amounts of low cost base load energy would further enhance PSWWP by providing a source of pumping power for import water at significant savings over the 6.5-mill rate assumed in the PSWWP analysis. It was agreed that the WEST proposal does not warrant any change in the PSWWP approach at this time but that any developments in respect to it will be watched closely and evaluated as appropriate. 3. High vs. Low Bridge Canyon. Budget asked if any compromise position is possible that would still protect national park and existing recreation values in the Grand Canyon. We explained that while payout of the Initial Plan of PSWWP could be shown on the basis of a low Bridge Canyon Dam, the margin of feasibility would be critically reduced. In view of only the slight adverse effect on certain wilderness values of the National Park and in view of the significant financial contribution to PSWWP made by the high Bridge Canyon Project, we indicated our belief that the high Bridge Canyon still should be supported vigorously. 4. The 25-year guarantee of 4.4 million acre-feet for California. Budget inquired if there was any logical basis for a compromise at some period of time in excess of 25 years but less than that desired by California. We explained that the 25-year period was a compromise arrived at by Arizona and California interests. We had no objection to this provision inasmuch as it did no damage to the PSWWP concept because of the hydrologic realities of the situation. We expressed the view that this is a matter that lies between Arizona and California and that neither the Department nor the Administration should become involved. However, we did point out that it is unlikely that any guarantee to California that could jeopardize the water supply for the Central Arizona Project and thus affect project feasibility would be acceptable to the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. 2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,156,539 byte