Water and the West

Document: Water and the West by Senator Henry M. Jackson, November 5, 1965, page 76. undertaken along the route. Would it make sense to take the water at the lowest elevation in order to achieve the maximum generation of electricity, and then have to use a good deal more electric power, and construct expensive works, to pump it back up again? Would not a study reveal that it would be far more economical to Southwest water users to take the water out at a higher elevation even if that does do damage to downstream uses? In any event, if the principle of a diversion were once accepted by the Northwest, would not the water users of the Soutwest, who would pay for at least part of the cost of pumping, naturally make such an argument? Point No. 4: Finally, it is said, iron-clad guarantees can be written so that the Northwest can cut off water deliveries to the Southwest at any time in the future when we need the water. Quite frankly, current history must discount the value of such a guarantee. People in my area express the fear that long before the Southwest's water would be cut off, it might use its great power and influence in an effort to make certain that the Northwest develops no need for the water. The diversion of Colorado waters to Southern California is the case they cite. The Supreme Court of the United States, after a decade of litigation, held that Arizona is entitled to a larger share of the Colorado water than it now gets. But Arizona cannot use this larger share unless it first secures from Congress the authorization of what was formerly called the Central Arizona Project to build the necessary diversion works and canals from the Colorado River to Central Arizona. I need not remind you how long Arizona has been trying to secure authorization of the Central Arizona Project. This is a project needed to maintain an agricultural economy in Arizona presently sustained by large overdrafts of ground water. But California fears the Central Arizona Project could threaten its supply of water from the Colorado. It is unwilling to share with Arizona the risk of loss in a short water year. People in the Northwest can understand that point of view, but it is of no comfort to them when they contemplate a diversion of water from the Columbia. Parenthetically, the solution of the problem of regional protection of hydroelectric resources, as provided in the Northwest-Southwest intertie legislation, does not reassure Northwesterners in this matter of diverting the waters of the Columbia. The interitie program, which I sponsored at a time when the proposal was not altogether popular in the Northwest, is different from a program to divert the Columbia. Electric energy flows in two directions, and with the cooperation of many members of your Congressional delegations, and carefully drawn legislative safeguards, we were able to prove that a high voltage intertie will benefit both the Northwest and the Southwest. Because of seasonal load diversities, it will increase the power resources of both regions. But a diversion ofEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,740,182 byte