Memorandum Concerning Colorado River Basin States Meeting

Memorandum: To Stewart Udall, from Edward Weinberg, "Colorado River Basin States meeting, Los Angeles--Colorado River legislation," December 12, 1966, page 4River problem is settled, that is, until a Central Arizona Project is authorized none of the western states can look for substantial Reclamation legislation from Congress. Sparks was asked why it was necessary to include a reconnaisance authorization in the bill since the Secretary has the authority to make reconnaisance investigations without further legislation. He replied that Aspinall feels that the necessary appropriations for a reconnaisance study of augmentation will not be forthcoming unless there is a legislative foundation. From other remarks made by Sparks, however, I got the impression that Aspinall's position on how to handle the investigation matter is flexible and that he expects to work out something in conference that he and Senator Jackson can both accept. There was a sharp exchange between Trask and Ely. This was initiated by a remark from Trask to the effect that one of the main questions was whether the bill agreed upon by the Committee would be allowed to go to the floor and be voted upon. This caused Ely to review the history of the failure of the bill in the last session and he placed the responsibility on Arizona because Senator Fannin would not commit the Arizona Senators to restore the 4.4 priority in the event the Saylor amendments were adopted by the House. He stated that if Arizona insisted upon pushing for elimination of the 4.4 priority, in the hearings, California would protect itself and would not stand quietly by while it was being vilified. Trask in turn accused Ely of flasifying the history of the breakdown of the legislation. Sparks was the peacemaker. Sparks said California could not be blamed for failure of the bill to reach the floor. He stated that Aspinall had made the final decision that the bill not come out of the Rules Committee because the possible Saylor amendments were too far reaching to risk. He urged all to consider where they go from here rather than to dwell on last session's failure. Sparks believes that the two principal immediate beneficiaries of the bill are Arizona and Colorado. He understands that local political considerations in Arizona may require the Arizona congressional delegation to initially introduce a bill that would eliminate or seriously modify the 4.4 California priority. So long as Colorado can be assured that this is merely a tactic for home consumption, Colorado will not attack Arizona's action, but it is essential that there be a general understanding that Arizona would support reporting out and passing a bill that would not omit any provision that California regarded as essential. In other words, if Arizona pushed for House Committee approval of a bill omitting the 4.4 guarantee, Colorado will oppose it. Sparks added that the same principle applied to provisions New Mexico regards as essential, i.e., Hooker Dam and the additional water for New Mexico. 4Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,831,294 byte