The Lower Colorado River Basin Project Senate Report

Document: 88th Congress, 2d Session, Senate Calendar No. 1267, The Lower Colorado River Basin Project, Report No. 1330, Agust 6, 1964, page 1212 THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT the commitment of any Federal funds for the purpose beyond those available in the development fund, nor would it constitute the United States an insurer of the availability of water. The United States traditionally has not warranted the achievement of the purposes of water resource projects. The proviso anticipates the contingency that in any given year the "makeup" water may not be required. In that event the extra water will be disposed of at rates determined in the regular course of law. Accretions to the development fund In developing an estimate of annual credits to the development fund recent adverse streamflow together with an optimum rate of Upper Basin development were used. Power rates were assumed to continue at the same level after payout as those used in the repayment analysis. After the specific costs of existing features and of work authorized by this act have been returned to the Treasury, annual credits to the development fund will exceed $54 million. This, when projected over an additional 50-year period, would aggregate $2.7 billion which would be available under the provision of section 102 of this act to aid in the ultimate solution of the water problems of the Southwest and to help this region and the entire Nation attain its economic potential. Revenues expected from water and power sales after payout of specific charge are tabulated as follows: Marble Canyon $9,600,000 Bridge Canyon 22,300,000 Hoover 14,400,000 Parker-Davis 2,900,000 Net water revenues 5,000,000 Total amount 54,200,000 Section 103 Section 103 requires the Secretary of the Interior to investigate and report on the water supply and water needs of the lower basin, and on various alternative sources of water to meet those needs. Although suggested by the similar provisions in the Colorado River Storage Project Act, the requirements of section 103 are both more specific and more rigorous. The reason for this specificity and rigor is to meet, insofar as practical, the needs of the lower basin States by the time the anticipated shortages occur. California wishes to be protected against a Central Arizona unit which simply diverts more water from the Colorado River without providing means to increase the water supply. Thus, some California users suggested that if Congress authorizes the Central Arizona unit, it should simultaneously authorize projects to protect California. Since such projects have not yet been investigated sufficiently to permit their immediate authorization, the suggestion can be stated conversely, i.e., that the authorization of the Central Arizona unit be delayed until Congress can properly authorize the projects to protect California. On the other hand, Arizona urgently needs immediate construction of the Central Arizona unit and the development of additional imported supplies, if she is to forestall the disastrous impact upon her existing and expanding economy which will inevitably follow the exhaustion of her ground water resources. Authorization of the Cen-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,822,665 byte