rII.W.V.111,11.WWWWWWWWW"'IrTIWW,I •11-1•111.1,11rW—IPTIFIrlrilr .. w f`" e_ ' -• .(„;„ „h./7 • A r- •
Le
et-etA, • / .4C-7,
- - Le• t- • , ' - e?-—7— Gegr 5 4--"' A- .4:7 ,Z? e— e ) ) te2 __. — -c ••• - -.cc* C /12 e e etk. L -7` , ••• • •”, • 77 -"-•--t-e—c-71-e e . —-4
A Ale (`'w-yr,r -Nrmm,ir• , WWWW , 4-0,-*Net e • • -csY _ Awe,. C1( • r , 6/ ef7 'cr C vieg-t•-•0* ee , -e_
,
77e 'e,) C --;""'71 ( !•,""3. c". • • r • - -•e•.• r ,
• ,e
-2 C, t le _ # e • .r";. f_e!NW-T--•-•TW- 11,1WIF ITNir•V ••••, v...•-•-• Iw-mr ••-•• MTV •TIFTW,II,I '.111,M111,11,.111,11•11.111-1,11.11,,,11••• ,111,11".1. ,1,-.1111,111"•••••-•• 1,111,,41111/ W7/ 1,9111,1,11. II 'MI
REPORT TO THE
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS-OF-WAY*
Porter A. Towner, Chairman
HR. 1712 (May) and H.R. 2858 (Ullman), which were
introduced in the 89th Congress to compensate water agencies
for increased expenses and revenue losses resulting from
acqui-sitions of irrigable land under federal and federal assistance
programs, were not heard by the committees to which they were
assigned.
In a letter report of July 25, 1966, sent to
Congress-man Aspinall, ChairCongress-man of the Committee on interior and Insular
Affairs, the Department of Justice stated its opinion that
H.R. 2858 should not be enacted in its present form. The
prin-cipal reasons given were that: (1) the Federal Government may
be subjected to double payment by the enactment of the bill in
that compensation would have to be given to the landowner and
also to the water agency when the land is condemned; (2) local
law could alleviate the problem by giving the water agency a
specific lien on the lands within the agency thereby allowing
the agency to share in any condemnation award; and (3) in the
matter of compensation for increased operation and maintenance
expenses from the acquisition of the land, if there are cases
of serious hardship, specific, rather than general, legislation
may be employed.
The report stated that the Department had no objection,
however, to that part of the bill which would make unpaid
* Presented at the 1966 convention of the National Reclamation
Association at Albuquerque, New Mexico, November 13-18, 1966.
construction charges nonreimbursable for water agencies associated
with a federal project in an amount equal to the charges allocable
to that part of the facility rendered totally unusable as a
re-sult of the taking. The purpose would be to place such water
agencies on a par with water agencies not associated with a
federal project. The Bureau of the Budget in a July 21, 1966,
report to Congressman Aspinall concurred in the views expressed
in the Department of Justice's report, which the Bureau indicated
was forthcoming.
This committee is making a close study of the Justice
Department's report. CT special interest is the Department's
suggestion that local law could alleviate the problem of revenue
losses by giving the water agency a specific lien on the land so
that it may be compensated under the federal condemnation law.
In evaluating this approach, it must be kept in mind that the
basic purpose of the legislation urged by the Association's
resolutions has been to provide equitable compensation to the
water agencies. Consequently, the committee is attempting to
ascertain whether, under the existing federal condemnation law,
the compensation for revenue losses which would be given to the
water agency under this approach would equal that which
H.R. 2858 and H.R. 1712 would have provided.
This committee is also considering the Justice
Depart-ment's remarks concerning the portion of H.R. 2858 which would
compensate water agencies for increased operation and
mainte-nance costs. The Department expressed doubt that the number of
cases in which there may be need for such compensation is
-2-TTso largeU as to require general legislation and suggested the
possibility of special legislation to provide relief in cases
of serious hardship "if and when they do arise".
In order to appraise these remarks and to continue
its data collecting program, this committee reiterates the
re-quest made at the Association's 1965 convention that the members
of this Association send in lists of cases where irrigable land
within water agencies has been taken by public bodies for federal
or federal assistance programs. Each list should indicate, for
each case, the number of acres taken and the added financial
burden per acre that is placed upon the remaining landowners for
the water agency's indebtedness and operation and maintenance
expenses. The committee chairman will provide a form for this
purpose to those members who request it. The request should be
made to: Porter A. Towner, Chief Counsel, California Department
of Water Resources, Post Office Box 388, Sacramento, California
95802.
William P. Copple
Gale L. Sterling
Yuba, Arizona
Ellensburg, Washington
Everett V. Darlinton
H. E. Wallace
Helena, Montana
Salt Lake City, Utah
Clifford E. Fix
Porter A. Towner, Chairman
Twin Falls, Idaho
Sacramento, California
Z/2.41
c, (4,4
74
/
_5'
e
e
4 )
-1
ir-i4bti
C
ea(' 1Z. Liovkl
7(2;
/2Z
f/N67(,<i
6
9/c71-- ,
1-7
jtcf.e6
1418.2 ---14A-9
79?-/zeim._
/1 zi-€4-44 S&/7`
• R.4/c-,- 71-2,jec-7
iLL
-Inkv--C/erk
„
-d2'
Acc.,74 4)i/ 4-0V,
ac_EtJ
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION -- 35TH ANNUAL MEETING ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
November 16, 1966 ANNUAL REPORT
of
WATER USERS COMMITTEE Meetings:
The Committee met in Denver, Colorado, on May 5, 1966, and in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on November 14, 1966. At the fall meeting of the Board of Directors of the Association, held in Denver, Colorado, on September 13-14, 1966, the Com-mittee was represented by the Chairman.
Sub-Committee on Pollution:
By provisions in the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2, the administration of the Federal Water Pollution Control Program was transferred from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of the Interior in May 1966.
Subsequently, Association President H. H. Christy requested the appointment of a sub-committee of the Water Users Committee which could follow developments in the pollution control field in more detail.
On August 11, 1966, the Chairman notified President Christy and the Executive Director of appointment of the following:
R. J. McMullin of Arizona, Chairman Gale L. Sterling of Washington Karl Powers of Wyoming
Stan Matzke of Nebraska
With representation from the Southwest, the Northwest, the Inter-Mountain area, and the Plains states, the Sub-Committee on Pollution should provide the Water Users and the Association with an excellent cross-section of views from the entire West. The Sub-Committee met for the first time in Albuquerque on November 15, 1966.
As many States are currently struggling with criteria for water quality standards and for means and methods of pollution control, the Sub-Committee's advice and guidance will be most useful prior to June 30, 1967. That is the deadline, under P.L. 89-234, for adoption by each of the States of (1) water quality criteria applicable to interstate streams; and, (2) plans for the enforcement of the adopted criteria. In the event that any State does not devise criteria or regulations by that date, such State faces the imposition of Federal criteria and regulations devised by the Secretary of the Interior.
MATTERS CONSIDERED BY WATER USERS COMMITTEE Federal acquisition of rights-of-way
Several years ago, when the Interstate Highway program commenced, the Water Users suggested the necessity for legislation which would permit payment of compensation to irrigation districts for the taking of lands which comprised a part of a district's/Om base.
c1+9440.8.0111possimss. Additionally, it was felt that provision should
e
also be made for coverage of added operation and maintenance costs arising
4744,
e/ c-4,,,5ed 46x
-,'"et a'f ptee7/1/;" /-•ea/5 4-ria 74rei /e‘5. f rorrAditatimirOmOssigialOme*
Legislation was drafted by a special committee of the Association and introduced in the Congress. Modified and amended bills were introduced in
Øic z‘g
the past two Congressional sessions. In the 89th Congress,All~left received adverse reports from the Department of Justice and Bureau of the Budget.
4-fl---the' Nr- of - h e- 4us:ti-ee--D-epf
s to te--4ews-rt htg Lve-4-fterl—isreec t
1 ands for -th-s.
-2-7C 4,4/ 7,14, / e 1,-"Te ..-17.:15/v7i;
C.-, Li /,-774",027 / ,-.),4;-A 4.e-ey.47/7/
74 A^ je,-"' .4/Wele--,-...S7/4.07e7/77. ,;/'ed
ste onstru
the
ent to wa cha ges/ in an amount/equ irrigati. facil it which is//ren
f f d right=of wa cqu ition.
Llaion/is no appropriat •ecau
cur h6 gh fe eral right -way ac
hat søec fic
e
extent
by Justi e I,/ sed fo federal ou d e /relat vely minim 1 and con
agencies orrforgive ss o o charges alloca 1 / ered total] sa oblig-atio /
ed to unu 1 circumst es.
Conclusions and Recommendations
At its September meeting, the Board of Directors asked that the Water Users Committee continue its efforts
the need of broader legislation than
to obtain sufficient evidence to show the Justice DepartmentAli, willing to recommend. /‘e" C-)Ciste/1-57e /14' 7L ;" 71e ;e7cele.:57411/ 7.44.74 7 6e •-• e,e4r.i7e'e/ /eel /le 72- 474. 37 /- 4MMA*4404MMIMMW. 4r471 ce414*qab*DiA support /A such sime***11at - of:
he
Association 1egislation,awommpo1mmi1meem0=449.1ft-441e2. Support of the Riverton Extension Unit
By Congressional Act of March 10, 1964, the federal government was authorized to repurchase the irrigated lands within the Third Division of the Riverton Project, Wyoming. S!,bsequently, legislation was introduced to
-3-reauthorize the Riverton Extension Unit, Missouri Basin Project, and to include therein the entire Riverton Reclamation Project. Companion bills, S. 1746 and H.R.
7398,
would permit the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an amendatory repayment contract with the Midvale Irrigation District; provide for consolidation of all units of the Riverton Project to be oper-ated and maintained by Midvale; establish a rehabilitation and betterment program for the entire project; and authorize the sale of Third Division lands to private owners on a "Class I equivalent" basis.Conclusions and Recommendations
As the proposed legislation would invoke the principles of basin
accounting and "Class I equivalent" land classifications, which are concepts historically supported by N.R.A., the Water Users Committee recommended that the Board support the legislative proposal.
It was the view of the Committee that passage of the legislation would accomplish several useful purposes of broad interest:
a. Consolidation of the several Riverton Units under one operating district would provide more efficient and economical operation.
b. Rehabilitation and betterment of all units can best be coordinated and accomplished under contract with a single operating district.
c. Return federally-held lands of the Third Division to private ownership and, thus, to beneficial use and to the tax rolls of the district.
d.
Put back to useful purpose the project facilities of theThird Division wherein the federal investment is substan-tial and means of repayment should be provided.
3.
Rehabilitation and Betterment ProgramsFor the past two years the Committee has noted the accelerated shift in pattern of reclamation project water uses. Increasing municipal and industrial usages are requiring new installations, alterations, and betterments by many of the project operating entities.
Consequently, it appears that some improvements are needed in the rehabilitation and betterment programs and procedures in order to broaden their application and provide both flexible and expeditious transition to the newly required water uses.
Conclusions
The Committee realizes that the Bureau of Reclamation is fully aware of the problems and that it will, no doubt, develop criteria and procedures adaptable to various project requirements or suggest such new legislation as may be required.
4. General Subiects
Competition for and increasing value of water continues to concern all Western State water users with a wide variety of problems. In attempting to achieve more efficient water use, all operating water user organizations will remain continually concerned with developments in weather modifications; evap-oration reduction; phreatophyte control; low-cost canal linings; chemical herbicides, sterilants, and preservatives; new mechanical and electronic control devices; and all improvements in techniques for the administration, operation, and maintenance of reclamation projects.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-5-Kk).
ii
_
—(
e /47 01
,de",/,:7f /4/e97 „ 74
,
/-1/7-Ce" Qs-7G"/ —714.7 OX-r-c7/e"
4-//6/
-11V511.
(
The Water Users Committee wishes to express its appreciation to President H. H. Christy, members of the Board, and Executive Director Bronn for their advice and support during the year past. For their interest, advice, and attendance of Committee meetings, we also appreciate the participation of the
representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Soil Conservation Service. Respectfully submitted, ii J. R. Barkley, Chairman,. and
777
Committee Members Arizona R. J. McMullin California Robert F. Carter Kenneth R. McSwain (Alt.) Colorado Chas. R. Neill Hawaii James Y. Yoshimoto Idaho Kansas Robert V. Smrha Montana 0. A. Bergeson Nebraska Stan Matzke Nevada Norman Hall New Mexico L. C. Strewn Clifford N. Scoresby North DakotaMurray A. Baldwin Oklahoma Guy N. Keith Oregon Paul L. House South Dakota Walter C. Taylor Texas W. S. Gideon Utah Leo P. Harvey Washington Gale L. Sterling Wyoming Karl Powers
\
4.:
/
/
MAY 17 1966
Federal Reclamation Projects and Water User Organizations affected by right-of-way acquisitions for nonirrigation purposes
H. R. 2858
Project Jater Users' Organization Acrease
Central Valley Plainview W. D. 300
Westlands W. D. 2,400
Corning W. D. 160
Proberta W. D. 40
Bella Vista W. D. 100
Colusa County W. D. 215
Humboldt Pershing County W. D. 320
Orland Orland Unit Jater Users Assoc. 440
Klamath Klamath Improvement Dist. 200
Ventura Ventura W. D. 200
Santa Maria Santa Maria C. D. 40
Truckee Storage Washoe County W. D. 240
Kansas River Nebraska-Bostwick I. D. 80
Frenchman-Cambridge I. D. 30
Webster I. D. 15
Niobrara-Lower Farwell I. D. 40
Platte
Ainsworth I. D. 20
North Platte Kendrick W. D. 110
Pro ect Water Users' Organization Acreage
Columbia Basin Quincy I. D. 5,171
East Columbia Basin I. D. 53 South Columbia Basin I. D. 3,571
/Oe'Dalles /ill P,Dalles I. D. 74
11:13 Buffalo Rapids Buffalo Rapids Lo. Yellowstone Huntley Milk River Sun River Shoshone Gila Yuma Clark Canyon W. U. A. 40
Buffalo Rapids I. D. No. 1 85 Buffalo Rapids I. D. No. 2 480 Lo. Yellowstone I. D. No. 2 40
Huntley I. D. 750 :lalta I. D. 50 Greenfields I. D. 80 Shoshone I. D. 120 Wellton-Mohawk I. D. 400 Yuma Mesa I. D. 50 Yuma I. D. 200 TOTAL 17,136
FOR RELEASE IMMEDIATELY
JOINT STATEMENT OF
REPS. JOHN J. RHODES AND
MORRIS K. UDALL
Until recent days we had remained reasonably confident that legislation authorizing Central Arizona Project would be passed by the Congress this year. Unfortunate and unexpected developments of the last three weeks have drastically changed that outlook. We have now concluded and believe we should state that it is extremely unlikely
H.R. 4671 can pass the House and Senate in the time remaining before Congressional ad-journment. The bill is now pending before the House Rules Committee and under present circumstances it is highly improbable that the Committee will report it out.
Arizonans are entitled to a frank and detailed report on this discouraging change in our situation, and to our views on actions which should now be taken.
In the hectic closing weeks of a legislative session unexpected opportunities and develop-ments can occur, and as long as Congress remains in session we shall continue negotiations and legislative efforts to pass a 1966 Central Arizona Project bill. But for reasons discussed below we are not optimistic. Let us begin with these major summary points:
1. The outlook for the future is still bright. Ure stand more than ever convinced that construction of the C.A.P. aqueduct, by one means or
another, will be authorized and begun in the near and foreseeable future.
2. Arizona's heroic efforts since the Supreme Court decision
3
years agohave not been in vain. The Congressional actions of 1965-66 and the lengthy negotiations with our sister states which preceded them will, we believe, be proven to have been essential ground work to eventual success. These efforts have: identified our friends and our op-ponents; shown more clearly what is practical, realistic and feasible, and what is not; encouraged our sister states to appraise and carefully examine their respective positions on Colorado River problems; in
dramatic fashion focused national and Congressional attention on Ari-zona's serious water crisis; demonstrated a heartening national aware-ness and sympathy for our problems, and have aroused substantial support. These are net, valuable gains which remain as assets and will set the stage for whatever next steps we must take.
3.
The performance of our "water team" task force has been magnificent. Few Arizonans will ever know the great debt they owe to one of the finest expert "water teams" ever assembled. The expertise, judgment and devotion of these lawyers, engineers, managers and other specialists will match in our judgment that of any such group ever assembled.These men deserve the highest credit and praise from their fellow Ari-zonans, and their contributions and names should be more widely known:
-2
Task Force personnel working in Washington area throughout the effort: L. M. Alexander, Co-chairman
Salt River Project (Associate General Manager) Roger Ernst, Co-chairman
Arizona Public Service J. A. Riggins, Legal Counsel
Salt River Project
Ray Killian, Administrator, Washington Office Arizona Interstate Stream Commission
Morley Fox, Washington Representative Central Arizona Project Association
Short term personnel working in Washington during crucial periods: Rich Johnson, Administrative Director
Arizona Interstate Stream Commission Ozell Trask, Legal Counsel
Arizona Interstate Stream Commission William S. Gookin, State Water Engineer
Robert E. Farrer, Assistant State Water Engineer Jack E. Madden (deceased), Legal Advisor
Arizona Interstate Stream Commission Ralph Hunsaker, Legal Advisor
Arizona Interstate Stream Commission Larry H. Mehren, Farmer, Phoenix, Arizona
Clayton Niles, Administrative Assistant to the Governor Wallace Duncan, Attorney, Washington, D. C.
Mary Lou Conomikes, Office Secretary Lucretia Sargent, Stenographer
4.
Our Congressional delegation, and the state's water leaders have de-veloped and maintained a non-partisan, bi-partisan attitude. Arizonans of both political parties agreed in the early stages of our efforts that a mixture of politics and water would be disastrous for the people of our state. This agreement has been kept in letter and in spirit, and it was a key element in the considerable gains we have achieved. Members1
-3
of both parties -- serving in the Congress, in the highest state elective offices (including both Governor Goddard and Senator Fannin during his tenure as Governor in early stages of our effort), on the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission, those serving with the Central Arizona Project Association and those serving as private citizens
worked together in trust and confidence and without regard for personal credit. Typical of those serving as private citizens, and who deserve special credit for their extensive time and effort, are former Senators Barry Goldwater and Ernest McFarland as well as Lawrence Mehren and Lewis Haas, who undertook to head the volunteer, and most effective Central Arizona Project Association.
5.
The fight for Arizona's water future must and will go on. Whether or not there is Congressional action this year, Arizona has a plain legal right to take from the river and put to use its alloted share of water. To do this, we have several alternative methods open to us. Theseoptions must now be thoroughly identified, explored and their respective advantages and disadvantages analyzed and debated.
Because of the overriding importance of water to Arizona's future we wish to discuss these and related matters in more detail.
The Background of 1966 Action
The most important House figure in water problems is the astute Chaiman of the Com-mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Wayne Aspinall of Colorado, an old and proven friend of our state. In September, 1964, he came to Phoenix and addressed Arizona's leaders. His advice was this:
"My advice to you, in Arizona, and to water leaders in California and the other states as well, is that you not be too impatient but that you carefully evaluate this proposed areavide plan in a constructive and cooperative manner, and that you honestly attempt to develop in cooperation with the Department of the Interior a plan of development which all states can support. I sincerely believe that this approach on the part of a united Arizona has the best possible chance of success with respect to relieving the water crisis here in Arizona and the Southwest. If you bring to Congress such a plan and it conforms to present rolicies and criteria, I can assure you that it will be placed in position for the earliest possible consideration by the Congress con-sistent, of course, with the consideration of other water development projects on which we are already working.
"Finally, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of unity within Arizona and agreement among the five states, and especially Arizona and California. My committee and the Congress have been following a policy of not deciding differences within a state and hesitate to consider a basin water development program when there is a serious controversy
between or among the states involved. The liroblems of successfully moving a large reclamation program through the House of Representatives are so great under the best of conditions that the addition of a
serious intrabasin controversy would present a very difficult task."
Arizona followed that advice and immediately began negotiations with the lower basin states, California and Nevada, in order to meet these conditions. After months of often discouraging negotiations a bargain was struck. Its essential elements were these:
1. California, which had long blocked C.A.P. now agreed that it should be immediately authorized.
2. In return Arizona would grant California a limited priority in future times of shortage. If in any particular year there were to be in-sufficient water to provide both a full supply for the Arizona aaueduct and California's
4.4
million acre-feet entitlement, the C.A.P. aque-duct would bear that shortage.3.
It was agreed that the dependable long-range supply of the river willbe insufficient to meet all entitlements in the future, and that the bill should provide a long-range program to meet that shortage before it arrives by (a) meaningful and immediate studies of means of aug-mentation, and (b) creation of a basin fund to pay for C.A.P. and eventually to pay for the necessary augmentation program. This fund would be created largely from revenues from Hualapai and Marble dams. As the negotiations were finalized into a bill, there were other important benefits for the basin -- benefits in which California had an important stake. These included:
-- a declaration that augmenting the Colorado by 2.5 million acre-feet (the amount needed to make it whole) would be a nationa3 obligation -- a vigorous federal program of water salvage
-- the important long-range benefits of regional cooperation to replace the longtime and unproductive feuds of the past.
Nevada, the third lower basin state also accepted these arrangements.
We thought at this point we had cleared the road and could roll rapidly ahead. However, the Upper Basin states then raised vigorous objections, believing this agreement posed threats to their future water development. Thus a second and even more difficult round of negotiations began. Finally, in February of 1966 after months of travel, and con-ferences, discouragement and give-and-take, it appeared that we had achieved not just Lower Basin, but entire 7-State Colorado Basin agreement. This required other
features to be added to the bill:
a complex, but mutually agreeable set of criteria for operating the Lower Basin's Hoover Dam vis a vis the Upper Basin's Glen Canyon storage inclusion of 5 Colorado-New Mexico projects costing $360,000,000
•••
5
-an exch-ange gr-ant to New Mexico of 18,000 acre-feet of new C.A.P. water to settle its demands on the upper Gila.
It was after March 1966 before every detail of legislative language could be finally drafted and cleared with appropriate State officials and agencies in the
7
states, and the heavy calendar of the House Interior Committee prevented the additional public hearings from beginning until early May.These extensive and time-consuming sessions were followed in June and July by one of the most extended and bitterly fought "mark-up" (or bill writing) sessions ever under-taken by a Congressional committee. Many amendments were added to the bill -- a few of which enhanced chances of passage; many did nothing but weaken those chances and add to the load our project had to carry.
In the closing and vital stages of the Committee consideration, Chairman Aspinall, aided by subcommittee Chairman Rogers (Texas), sought to modify the "investigation and study" title of the bill in order to meet Pacific Northwest objections. T,:e sup-ported that attempt only to have California's 5 members of the Committee advise that unless the study title were returned to its previous form they would completely with-draw support for the bill. It should be added that some Upper Basin officials joined California in these objections. Because we expected a close vote, because California has 2 of the 15 Rules Committee members, and could have blocked the bill at that later stage in any event, and because we felt it vital to preserve Basin unity, we retraced our steps and joined California in difficult and most unusual parliamentary procedures to again rewrite the study language. The bill was then approved and went to the Rules Committee -- in the exact and precise form California had requested.
The Rules Committee at this stage of a Congressional session has a large and contro-versial agenda. It is frequently a roadblock to major legislation. Immediately after the bill was reported, Chairman Aspinall formally requested a Rules Committee hearing. 'len our tentative but incomplete "head count" showed that we already had three-fourths
of the solid House votes we would need, but that many Members were undecided and would not take a firm position until the bill was scheduled for debate, the California repre-sentatives expressed grave fears that floor amendments might be adopted in a form
omitting its
4.4
million acre-feet priority. Although we believed these fears were not well grounded, and although we promised our strong and vigorous support to keep the priority in the bill, the California leaders were unwilling to have the Rules Committee act without further assurances -- which we were incapable of giving. Be-cause of California's Rules Committee membership (and our lack of it), it is apparent at this late date that only their active support will produce a "rule" for our bill. This support has not been given and in our opinion will not be forthcoming unlessmajor modifications in the bill can be agreed upon by all seven states concerned. This is unlikely at this time.
From this discussion it can be seen that passage of a major $1.7 billion bill is an extremely complicated exercise. Congressional procedures require a bill to pass a number of complex and difficult roadblocks. Powerful men, or powerful and determined groups who could not prevail on a vote of the whole House can exercise veto power at various Committee stages, by preventing the whole House from voting. These can be burdensome and frustrating events, but they are facts of legislative life and we must live with them.
-6
It would be a temnting and easy course for us in this report to include bitter charges against our California friends but no useful purpose would be served. We wish to em-phasize that many responsible California leaders gave us enthusiastic and effective help during the negotiations and in Committee. There were many acts of statesmanship and good faith on both sides. While we believe California has been unnecessarily cautious and overly protective of its own interests, we recognize that regardless of our future course, our two states must continue to live together and confront mutual problems. Thus we see no point in recriminations. We close no doors of negotiation or cooperation with California and we report these developments more in sorrow than in anger. However, in the light of California refusal to go forward with the bill as agreed upon, we feel that we should serve notice that any commitment made in the past by us is now being restudied to determine whether or not it will in the future advance the primary interests of Arizona.
Other Factors Which Prevent 1966 Action
The above background will largely explain our present pessimism. But the dim outlook results as well from other factors which should be mentioned:
1. The clock ran out on the seven states. By virtue of the lengthy negotiations and bill drafting problems we simply could not reach the stage where a vote of the House could be obtained until mid-August. We feel that this point could have been reached 90 days earlier. If it had been, there might well have been time (1) to satisfy all con-cerned that we in fact had the votes, (2) to by-pass the Rules Com-mittee, or (3) to renegotiate the complex 7-state agreement. But the latter part of any session is more difficult than any other stage,
and the latter part of an election year session is the most difficult of all. Both House and Senate have agendas of "must" legislation; calendars are jammed with appropriations bills, civil rights legis-lation, etc., all awaiting action at a time when members faced with re-election troubles are chafing to go home.
2. More trouble expected in the Senate. Obviously passage by the House gains nothing without parallel Senate action. It is more and more ap-parent to us that moving a bill in the Senate at this late date poses grave problems. Even though we have had at all times the enthusiastic and effective support of Senator Paul Fannin, it is still undeniable that the unfortunate illness of Senator Hayden has temporarily removed from the scene of battle Arizona's most powerful force in the Congress. In the Senate also, we anticipate the opposition of Senator Jackson of Washington (Chairman of the Senate Interior Committee), to any meaning-ful study of water importation into the Colorado basin. Yet these provisions of the bill are considered vital by both California and the Upper Basin states. It is plain that any Senate action at this late stage would be predicated on elimination or drastic modification of the present augmentation study language. And, our different Senate and House problems reinforce each other: a favorable vote for this bill is not an easy matter for our House friends from Eastern states. Many have an understandable reluctance to give us hard commitments for a vote which may not result in a law, and we cannot truthfully advise them that Senate action is guaranteed.
3.
The distorted and misleading nationnJ campaign to "Save the Grand Canyon" has taken a heav toll on Members whose support we would otherwise obtain. The ordinary Western water bill draws little fire in Michigan or Massachusetts. Yet the massive campaign of a few org-anizations, aided and abetted by such influential publications as Life, the New York Times, and the Reader's Digest, have made the Colorado Basin Project bill one of the most controversial national issues of recent years. Many Eastern Members report that they have received more mail on this subject than on any pending matter facing the 89th Congress. Through patient and time-consuming personal con-ferences we have convinced most Members that the propaganda is false, and we have been aided immensely by the extensive and expensive efforts of the Central Arizona Project Association, Senator Goldwater and others. But Arizona just hasn't had the time and the money to effectively answer every false editorial, much less to bring the truth to the "grassroots" of every Congressional District in America.We cannot pass this subject without expressing our regret, and dismay and disappointment that this national effort against our vital project has been supported by a small but vocal group of our fellow Arizonans. At least 98 percent of our citizens support this project. Yet our opponents have thrown in our faces and widely published the misguided statements of this small minority.
4.
Opposition of Pacific Northwest. Ordinarily reclamation projectsneed and can count on, the support of the bloc of
13
Pacific Northwest Congressmen; in its present posture the bill is assured of their total and violent opposition. These members are our friends and co-workers. They have been reluctant to be obstructionist, but as legislators they inevitably reflect much of their area's unwarranted, parochial concern and hysteria about this bill. The Northwest has every right to be jealous and careful of its abundant water supply. But this nation should never Balkanize itself to the point where one region's economy goes down the drain for lack of commodities another region has in sur-plus. We need vision and statesmanship and a national view of national problems. But these factors are hard to come by, especially in an even-numbered year.All the bill Provides is that there be a STUDY and a study only --of two things: whether there is really a reliable, long-term supply of water in the Northwest, or in Northern California, surplus to any foreseeable or conceivable need of that region; and whether it is
financially and economically feasible to move that water long distances to the Southwest. Only after the 5-year study could Congress consider the question of export works; and only by a vote of some Congress of the 1970's could the works ever be built. Yet many otherwise responsible editors and officials of the Northwest -- an area which pours 140 million acre-feet wasted into the Pacific each year from the Columbia River
alone -- object even to the most carefully limited and circumscribed STUDY of the question.
8
There Have Been Gains
Our goal this year was a law authorizing C.A.P. lie started three years ago on our own goal line. Apparently we will not score this year, but we have penetrated the opponents twenty yard line, and there are quarters yet to play. If we fail this year we do not return eighty yards and start afresh. We will begin again somewhere past midfield. Our past efforts will bear fruit in the future and we can point to many net gains, including these:
1. A C.A.P. bill has been voted on by a House Committee only twice. In 1951 we were beaten 17-8. In 1966 we won 22-10. This dramatic reversal of Congressional strength is significant, and its impact will stand us in good stead in our future efforts.
2. The people of the nation and the Members of the Congress are now keenly aware -- as they were not before -- of Arizona's desperate need for water. In all the hearings, no witness denied our need for water, and no witness spoke against the construction of our aqueduct. There is now a sharp understanding throughout the country and in the Congress, of Arizona's desperate water plight and there is a serious desire and willingness to help our state. The whole argument in the months be-hind us was not whether Arizona should be helped -- but on ways and means to help. Whatever course we choose, we will start from this plateau.
3.
Our efforts to pass this legislation have touched off a wholesome and necessary debate throughout the Colorado Basin. Each of our six sister states has been required to examine coldly and objectively its position, and to debate and determine what it can and cannot accept in future water development. Long closed lines of communication have been opened and a great reservoir of trust and understanding have been developed between our leaders and water leaders in other states. We now know very clearly those who can, and who cannot, be counted on for support and statesmanship. In the process, many long pending intra- and inter-state disputes and unresolved questions have been eliminated.4.
We have developed an exceptional team of expert lawyers, engineers and otheitwhose technical skills and thorough research are available here-after for whatever effort we now must make. This team must be kept together.5.
We have identified through patient and difficult canvass of individual Members those Congressmen who will support a total Southwest water plan and those who will not. We have also identified those who, although not favorable to comprehensive water development in the Southwest, will support a Central Arizona Project standing alone. We have educated the House of Representatives on our needs and our problems. We have learned what is possible in the House and what is impossible.6.
We have developed and fostered among Arizona leaders a bi-partisan spirit which will stand us in good stead. This is a fragile but very9
essential ingredient in doing the things which now must be done. This spirit should not be lost and we believe it can and must be preserved in the months ahead.
-,:here Do We Go From Here?
In January 1967, a brand new Arizona 28th Legislature meets, and the 90th Congress of the United States will assemble. The members of that Legislature, a Governor and Arizona's three U. S. House Members, will be selected November
8.
By January, Arizona will have at least three alternative courses to choose from. Each has its advan-tages and disadvanadvan-tages; we believe it is too early to choose the one to be pursued. These are possible courses to be considered now:1. .A "Go-it-Alone" Lrizona state water plan. Under this approach, Arizona would bond itself for the approximately 500 million necessary to build the Central Arizona Project aqueduct and necessary appurtenant works. This aqueduct would enable us to take from the river our allotted share of the water. Such a project could be financed by construction of
Marble Canyon or Hualapai dams for both of which Arizona Power Authority now has pending applications, or, it could be financed through the sale of bonds, a general tax levy, the payments of water users, or a combination of these and other revenues. Such proposals have been advocated for
some time by many Arizonans and they must now be seriously and actively considered.
In connection with the investigation of any state-owned or state-con-structed project, we should point out that in all probability the most critical issue is one of economics. Consequently we strongly urge that as a part of any study to evaluate a state project, there be employed by the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission an objective economic study organization. Such a group should be instructed to provide answers for the following questions, among others:
(a) How much will irrigation water cost under a state-owned project? (b) How much will municipal and industrial water cost in Phoenix,
Tucson and other cities under a state-owned project?
(c) What can agriculture afford to nay for irrigation water in the various areas of the state intended to be benefitted by a Central Arizona Project?
(d) How much can the cities of Phoenix and Tucson afford to pay for municipal and industrial water?
(e) What will the general taxpayer be required to pay, and what can he afford to pay as a subsidy to the cost of water -- over and above the amounts water users themselves are capable of paying?
10
-(f) It should also be noted that Arizona's contract with the Federal Government for the delivery of Colorado River water practically gives the Secretary of the Interior veto power as to the method of delivery to be used. Legal studies should be instituted immediately to identify any need for state or federal legislation, contract change, or both, which might be necessary for Arizona to "go it alone."
Unless objective answers are provided for these questions, it will be impossible to evaluate a state-owned project as opposed to a federally constructed and operated Central Arizona Project.
2. A "Bare-Bones" Federal Central Arizona Project. In the 1965-66 effort, we faced a serious dilemma. To obtain support and concurrence of other states, we were required to make concessions, which in most instances involved additional costs and additional features. Most of these were expensive, and some were highly controversial. The bill now before the Rules Committee has a price tag of 1.7 billion as against our original bill's cost of 4.1 billion. As the bill grew in scope it inevitably brought additional opposition because of its cost and sup-posed threats to other areas.
We must seriously consider whether a simple bill to authorize a federal C.A.P. with or without one of the dams would be a better vehicle for success in the 90th Congress.
3.
A
:lodified Colorado River Regional Bill.As
noted above, there are strong indications that the current bill is simply too big and too heavy to get through the door. It attempts to do everything for the Colorado River states in one gigantic bite. We should, therefore, consider the feasibility of keeping the advantages of long-range regional cooperation (and there are many) in a modified basin bill reduced in scope by de-ferring joint basin action on some of the large and controversial com-ponents of the present bill.Recommendations
In the light of the above discussion we join in these recommendations to the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission as well as to the people of Arizona:
1. So long as the 39th Congress remains in session, the CongressionnJ dele-gation and the task force must continue its efforts in the hope that the deadlock can be broken. We must continue the negotiations, explore
every legislative avenue, and be ready to seize and exploit any "breaks." 2. In this connection we urge the Stream Commission and the Central Arizona
Project Association as a matter of highest urgency not to discontinue its Washington office and operations and not to disband the superb task force, but to keep it on a stand-by basis. Even if there is no bill this year, the expertise and the teamwork of these specialists must be kept together.
Now is the time for open, frank and extensive discussion of our future course of action. Our discussions and our planning should commence now not in January or February when the next Congress convenes. However, it is vital that the bi-partisan, non-partisan spirit of the past three years not be ripped apart or carelessly put aside.
4.
After the .November elections and when the studies and investigations are completed, our Senators, and our Representatives-elect must meet and consult with our Governor-elect, with the Stream Commission, with the Power Authority, with the leaders of the legislature, and withother groups concerned. Je should then seek to agree on that course, or those courses, or courses of action most likely to produce a water
project at the earliest possible time. Conclusion
This is not the report we had hoped to make to Arizona in September of 1966. It is frustrating for us to know, as we do, that a Central Arizona Project bill standing by itself would pass both Houses of the Congress by overwhelming votes -- and to find that there is apparently no way this year that we can obtain such votes. But the facts must be faced; we reiterate our firm belief that the Central Arizona Project will be built--and that event will occur in the not too distant future. Our cooperative team effort must be continued. with it we shall succeed; without it failure is assured.
IMPORTANT FEDERAL LEGISLATION PENDING
Item Bill
No_Number
1 S254
HR 707
2 S490
HR 2&29
3 S355
HR 162
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
S 602
HR 4851
S 794
Author & Date
Sen. Neuberger
Jan 6, 1965
Sen. Jackson
Jan 15, 1965
Sen. Yarborough
Jan 8, 1965
Sen. Moss
Feb 25, 1965
Sen. Jackson
Jan 27, 1965
CATEGORY I A Active Projects Directed Toward Reclamation Construction.
Title and Purpose
Status (8-8-66)
Authorize construction of the Tualatin
Project, Oregon.
Authtrize construction of the Manson Unit,
Chief Joseph Dam, Wash.
Authorize construction of Columbus Bend
Project. Texas
To amend Small Reclamation Projects
Act.
Authorize construction Kennewick Ext.
Yakima
Remarks
S rqts conf 6-1-66; aptd conferees
H aptd conferees 7-21-66
S pd 2-10-65. H amd; rfd 3-30-66
S IIA held hearings 6-13-65; no rpt
H IR studied July 65; no rpt.
H rejected conf. rpt. 7-21. Rqts
new conf.
S pd 2-4-65 Rpt #62
H rfd IIA
S 1019
HR 4671
Sen Kuchel
Feb 8, 1965
Authorize construction of Lower Colorado
River Basin Project
S rfd IIA
H IIA amd 7-28
S 1088
Sen. Jackson
Authorize construction Touchet Div.
S pd 7-29-65 Rpt #511
HR 1795
Feb. 10, 1965
Walla Walla
H rfd IIA
S1761
Sen Magnuson
Authorization construction of 3rd Power
PL 89-448
HR 7406
Plant at Grand Coulee Dam.
S3011
Sen. K
cGovern
Authorize Sec. of Lnt. to construct, operate
No action, S or H
HR 13218
March 2, 1966
and maintain first stage of Oahe Unit, Jame
Div., Missouri River Basin Proj.
S 3034
Sen. Jackson
Authorize Sec. of Int. to undertake feasi-
S IIA amd 7-12-66.
HR 13419
March 7, 1966
bility studies.
H LIA amd 7-18-66. Agrees to conf. 8-1
S 3186
Authorization for continuance of work in
Signed July 19-66
HR 14312
Cong. Aspinall
Missouri River Basin.
H rpt
13244HD #35. Awaits
joint action
HD #124. Awaits H IIA action
HD #9 - Unfavorable
BOB rpt
Awaits Senate IIA action
(probably assent to further conf)
HD #51 S rpt #62
Awaits H IIA action
S will not consider until
H acts. H IIA rpt due 8-10
HD #92
Awaits H IIA action
Establishes Columbia Basin
Account, but see Item #10
HD #656. Int. negociating
with state agencies rel.
recreation
S hA amdt would in turn affect
Item 8 by limiting irrig.
sub-sidy. H Rpt #1686 HD #669
PL 89-515
CATEGORY I A (cont'd)
12 S303 Authorize construction Nebraska mid-State
HR 499 Cong. Martin
1-4-65
13 S302 Authorize construction North Loup Nebraska
HR 501 Cong. Martin
14 S Authorize construction San Felipe, Central
HR 777 Cong. Gubser Valley, Calif.
15 S32 Sen. Bible Authorize construction Southern Nevada
HR 2020 Water Project
16 S Authorize construction of East Side Division,
HR 14030 Cong. Sisk CVA, Calif.
17 S 2297 Amend act of Sept. 2, 1964 Ainsworth
HR 9976 Cong. Martin (Property compensation for/irrig. canals)
18 S 3671 HR
John Tower Study diversion of water from Missouri
7-28-66 and Columbia Rivers to West Texas (by
Chief of Engineers)
Item Bill
No. Number Author & Date
Bureau of Reclamation Rpt is under review in "Exec. Branch"
Bureau of Reclamation Rpt is under review in "Exec. Branch"
Bureau of Reclamation Rpt is under review in "Exec. Branch"
PL 89-292
Awaiting Int. rpt HD #753
Rptd to H 7-29-66
Rfd S Com PW 7-28-66
No Change in Status of CATEGORY I B SINCE 7-7-66 CATEGORY I C - Active Bills of Regulatory Nature
Title and Purpose Status 8-8-66
(Looks dead for this session)
(looks dead for this session)
(Looks dead for this session)
PL 89-292
Awaiting Int. fpt HD #753
H Rpt #1784
Remarks
1 S1472 To regulate interstate extra-high
voltage lines
2 S 2934 Establish community development
districts under Dept. Agric.
3 S 2947 Sen. Muslcie To extend the effectiveness
HR 16076 Feb. 18, 1966 of the Water Quality Act 1965
S Commerce holding hearings
Pd S 4-25-66 H rptd 6-25-66
S pd 7-13-66 H h.h.
H rpt 4661. Rule granted 2 hr open. Action mid Aug.
S combined with S 2987 H PW marking up.
4 S 2987 HR 13104
Sen.Muskie Feb. 28, 1966
CATEGORY I C (cont'd)
See item above Pollution control. Increase Fed. Assistance
5 S 3010 To centralize planning & regulation in new S Opns hh May '66. No report. H Opns deleted authority for
HR 15963 Dept. of Transportation H Opns rptd on 7-15 (#1701) "standards & criteria on
waterways."
6 S 3107 Sen. Jackson Nat'l Water Commission Act. S pd 7-9
H HA incorporated into HR 4671
S amendment requires appointees be S appvd; H does not.
7 S 3337 Finance expansion of REA S Agric to start hearings 8-15-66 Would establish Fed.
Elec-HR 14000 H Agric Sub C to act on 8-18* tric Bank and Telephone Bank
8 S 3669 Geo. Murphy Make installation of tile drains tax
deductable
S Comm Finance
9 HR 12166 Cong. McCarty Amd Water Pollution Control Act No action
Incr. authoriz. for appro by $750 million
10 HR 12839 Cong. Harsha Amd Int. Rev. Code and other changes No action
11 HR 14992 Cong. Battin Payment of charges when irrigable lands No action Partly adverse rpt from
HR 2858 May 11, 1966 are taken BOB and Justice
12 HR 15027 Cong. May
May 12, 1966
To make certain reclamation project expenses non-reimbursable
No action
13 S.J.Res. 167 July 19, 1966 Water for Peace: Authorizing organization Rpt 1373
of an International Conf. on Water for Peace in the U.S. in 1967
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
a. To reduce the work of updating while maintaining a desired frequency of review and to provide a practicable volume of material for frequent distribution, the bills are listed in three primary classes:
Class I m Active hills of top significance.
Class II — Other active bills.
Class III — Inactive bills (not forecast for floor action this session) h. Within the clauses, to facilitate comprehension of the coverage of bills of similar
nature, they are grouped into four categories:
Cat. A Bills directed toward reclamation construction.
Cat. B — Bills related to research (reclamation and otherwise)
Cat. C — Bills of regulatory nature.
Cat. D — See others.
c. There will of course be arbitrary categorization and classification in "gray's areas. Also, the system seems complex compared with one list in numerical sequence.
However, you will find the increased utility over a single sequential list well worth the time required to become familiar with the system.
d. Save this initial distribution because hereafter you will receive new sheets only on Class I, items.
A1313REVIATIONS:
AG Committee on Agriculture
Auld Amended and passed
Apr Appropriations Committee
13013 Bureau of the Budget
Confr Conference Requested
Docket
• House
HEW Health, Education, & Welfare
hh hearings held
hs hearings set for ( date )
IIA Insular Affairs
IR House Subcommittee on Irrigation
and Reclamation
pd Passed without amendment
PW Public Works Committee
rfd Referred * For example:
(when a bill is ammended and passed, then referred to the originating house, the abbreviation is simply: "amd; rfd". In such eases the receiving house may either accept the ammendments,* "psd', * or request
a conference, "Confr"
rpt Report
rpted Reported
Senate
Item Bill
No .Number
Author & Date Title and Purpose
IMPORTANT FEDERAL LEGISLATION PENDING
S
CATEGORY I A Active Projects Directed Toward Reclamation Construction.
1 S254 HR 707 2 S490 HR 2829 3 S355 HR 162 4 5 6 7 S 602 HR 4851 S 794 S 1019 HR 4671 S 1088 HR 1795 8 S1761 HR 7406 9 10 ' 11 S 30CI1 HR 13218 S 3034 HR 13419 S 3186 HR 14312 Sen. Neuberger Jan 6, 1965 Sen. Jackson Jan 15, 1965 Sen. Yarborough Jan 8, 1965 Sen. Moss Feb 25, 1965 Sen. Jackson Jan 27, 1965 Sen Kuchel Feb 8, 1965 Sen. Jackson Feb. 10, 1965 Sen Magnuson Sen K cGovern March 2, 1966 Sen. Jackson March 7, 1966 Cong. Aspinall
Authorize construction of the Tualatin Project, Oregon.
Authprize construction of the Manson Unit, Chief Joseph Dam, Wash.
Authorize construction of Columbus Bend Project. Texas
To amend Small Reclamation Projects Act.
Authorize construction Kennewick Ext. Yakima
Authorize construction of Lower Colorado River Basin Project
Authorize construction Touchet Div. Walla Walla
Authorization construction of 3rd Power Plant at Grand Coulee Dam.
Authorize Sec. of Int. to construct, operate and maintain first stage of Oahe Unit, James
Div., Missouri River Basin Proj.
Authorize Sec. of Int. to undertake feasi-bility studies.
Authorization for continuance of work in Missouri River Basin.
Pd S 4-1-65. Amd & rfd H 3-30-66. H rpt 1324) Confr6-1-66 Jaskson, Anderson etal Pd S 2-10-65. Amd & rfd H 3-30-66 H rpt 1321. As of 6-4-66, No S re-action S hA hh 6-13-65. As of 6-4-66 no rpt
No action in H (IR holds)
Conferees agreed 6-3-66. Recmd lower int rate, proj loan to $6.5 mil.
Pd S 2-4-65. Rpt 62. As of 6-4-66, no action in H. (IR holds)
IR ended h amd bill 5-10-66. IR rpted IIA 6-2-66. IIA mark-up 6-4-66.
Pd S 7-29-65. Rpt 511. On 3-24-66 Sec. Int. "favorable if amd". No H. Act 6-4-66. S acpt H. amd for Basin account. Bill
goes to the President. No act, either house (IA)
On 5-31-66 IR rpted to IIA. No rpt from W.P.
H hh 4-25-66. JJA rpt #1560 favorable 5-31-66. Union C # 701
CATEGORY IA (cont'd)
12 HR 499 Cong, Martin Authorized construction Nebraska Awaiting rpt from Int.
Mid=State
13 HR 501 Cong. Martin Authorized construction North Loup Jan 27, 1965 rpt reqted from
Nebraska Int. As of 6-3-66, no rpt received.
14 HR 777 Cong. Gubser Authorized construction San Felipe, As of 6-4-66 IIA No action
S 32 HR 2020
Sen, Bible
Central Valley, Calif.
Authorized construction Southern Nevada PL 89-292
IMPORTANT FEDERAL LEGISLATION PENDING
Item No. Bill Number Author & Date Title anJ Purpose Status
CATEGORY IB Active Projects Directed Toward Research ( Reclamation & Otherwise)
1 S 22 Sen. Anderson WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT PL 89-404
HR 3606 March 22, 1965 To authorize other than land grant
colleges to participate in water resources research funds under program Sec. hit: to increase funds available
9 S 2875 Sen. Anderson To enlarge weather modification research As of 6-4-66 No rpts
HR 10173 Feb 4, 1966 program of Sec. of Int. S IIA held field hearings
3 S 2916 Sen. Magnuson To enlarge weather modification program In April '66 S Com h h
Feb 10, 1966 of Sec. Commerce No rept as of 6-4-66 Com
revising bill
4 S2940 Sen. Nelson Centralization, increased financing,
and accelerated rates of federal it— search activities in water pollution research.
Considered in h #2947. No other action.
Item
1
Bill No. Author & Date
IMPORTANT FEDERAL LEGISLATION PENDING
Title and Purpose CATEGORY I C Active Bills of Regulatory Nature
2 S 2947 S 2987 HR 13104 Sen. Muskie Feb 18, 1966 Sen. Muskie Feb 28, 1966 3 S 3010 Cong. Holfield HR 13200 4 S 3107 Sen. Jackson HR 13313 5 HR 12166 Cong. McCarty 6 HR 12839 Cong. Harsha 7 HR 14992 8 HR 15027 Cong. Battin May 11, 1966 Congresswoman May May 12, 1966
To extend the effectiveness of the Water Quality Act 1965
Pollution control. Increase Fed Assistance
To centralize plan & regulation of new agency of transportation
Nat'l Water Commission Act
Amd Water Pollution Control Act Incr authoriz for appro by $750 million
Amd Int. Rev Code. Authorize 3 yr amort works to abate air & water pollution ( & other similar bills)
Payment of charges when irrigable lands are taken
To make certain reclamation project expenses non-reimbursable.
Status
S hh 4-29-66 & enrly May.
BOB & HEW unfav. As of 6-4-66 no rpt S hh early May. As of 6-4-66 no rpt. H Com PW
S Govt Ops hh May '66. As of 5-31-66 no rpt
S WP hh early May; rpt IIA 6-1-66 as
heard, except rnbrs. NWC must be S. apvd. No report as of June 1, 1966
No report as of June 1, 1966
No schedule
Item No. Bill Number Author & Date 1 S 265 HR 1791 CATEGORY ID Sen. Moss Jan 6, 1965
IMPORTANT FEDERAL LEGISLATION PENDING
Title and Purpose Status
Confirmation of Title to Meander As amd. Pd by S & H to
President
1st Vice President 2nd Vice President Treasurer
Executive Director
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION 897 National Press Building
Washington, D. C. 20004
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES MEMBERS FOR 1966 March 18, 1966 (D. Osborn) Harold H. Christy Milo W. Hoisveen James F. Sorensen Lorin W. Markham Carl Bronn
Harold H. Christy, Chairman
Milo W. Hoisveen 1310 State Capitol Bismarck, N. D. 58501 Guy C. Jackson Jr. P. O. Box 308 Anahuac, Texas 77514 Officers
511 Polk, Pueblo, Colorado 81005
1310 State Capitol, Bismarck, N.D. 58501 303 Bank of America Bldg.,Visalia, Ca1.93277 1020 W. Riverside Av., Spokane, Wash.99201 897 Nat'l. Press Bldg.,Wash, D.C.20004 Executive Committee
...,... 511 Polk, Pueblo, Cob. 81105 (Summer) 10405 Corte del Sol:Vn City, Ariz. 85351
(Winter) Hugh A. Shamberger
Desert Research Inst., Univ. of Nevada Reno, Nevada 89507 James F. Sorensen 303 Bank f America Bldg. Visalia, Calif. 93277 Arthur Svendby
Lemon, South Dakota 57638 2. Agricultural Research Committee George L. Henderson, Chairman...,,
James Adams Brady, Nebraska Dale Bohmont, Dean College of Agriculture University of Nevada Reno, Nevada 89507 Don Brosz Extension Division University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming
P.O. Box 6, Bakersfield, Calif. 93301 George D. Clyde
1270 Fairfax Road
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 George L. Crookham, Jr. P. O. Box 651
Caldwell, Idaho 83605 Frank Raab
535 State Capitol
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73105
*Further information to be furnished by State Director
R. C. Setterstrom Montana Power Co. 40 E. Broadway
Butte, Montana 59701 Marvin Shearer, Ext. Irr. Spa.
Agriculture Hall 202 Oregon State College Corvallis, Oregon 97331
3. Auditing Committee
Wesley A. D'Ewart, Chairman ...Route 1, Wilsall, Montana 59806 Chris C. Green
Courtland, Kansas 69939
Frank Raab
535 State Capitol
Oklahoma City, Okla, 73105 4. Budget and Finance Committee Milo Hoisveen, Chairman 00009000000000y0000
Guy C. Jackson, Jr. P. O. Box 308 Anahuac, Texas 7751174-Lorin W. Markham 1020 W. Riverside Ave. Spokane, Washington 99201
1310 State Capitol, Bismarck, N. D. 58501 Tom Olmstead Arthur Svendby
Route 2 Lemmon, S. D.
Twin Falls, Idaho 57638
James F. Sorensen
303 Bank of America Bldg. Visalia, California 93277 5. Codification Committee Purpose fulfilled. Committee released.
6. Land Limitation Committee
James F. Sorensen, Chairman ... 303 Bank of America Bldg., Visalia, Calif. 93277 Roger Neff Pasco, Wash. Oscar Barnes University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming 82071 John G. Buttelman
Willow Creek, Mont. 59760
Burnham Enersen, Consultant 601 California St.
San Francisco, Calif. 94018 Mark Etchart
Glasgow, Montana
Reginald Knox Jr. 895 Broadway
El Centro, Calif. 92243 Ralph Macdonald (Alt) P. O. Box 415 Ccrcoran, Calif. 93212 Harry Martens Wessington, S. Dakota 57381 Ralph Richards P. O. Box 127 Oakley, Utah 84055 J. E. Sturrock 607 LIttlefield Bldg. Austin, Texas 78701 H. W. Van Slyke P. O. Box 675 Rupert, Idaho 83350
-.3-7. Legislative Committee**
Harold E. Wallace, Chairman ...530 Judge Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah 84011
Burham Enersen 601 California St.
San Francisco, Calif. 94108 Porter A.Towner (Alt. to Enersen) Chief Counsel,
Dept. of Water Resources
P. O. Box 388, Sacramento, Calif. 95802 Tom Cahill
Atty General's Office Capitol Bldg.
Cheyenne, Wyo.
Frank Raab, Chairman R.W. Adkins P. O. Box 316 Pueblo, Colo. 81002 Sam Dick P.O. Box 708 Yuma, Ariz. 85364 Cliff M. Jochim 1301 State Capitol Bismarck, N. D. 58501 Lorin W. Markham 1020 W. Riverside Spokane, Wash, 99201 A. H. Nielson, Atty Box 367 Burley, Ida, J. A. Riggins, Jr. Title & Trust Bldg. Phoenix, Ariz. 85003 Glenn G. Saunders 144 West Colfax Denver, Colo, 80202 Wm C. Smith, Jr. P. O. Box 27 Ainsworth, Nev. 69210 Millard Parkhurst
McCall, Parkhurst & Horton
1501 Mercantile Securities Bldg. Dallas, Texas 752011
8. Non-reimbursables Committee / (Resolution No. 5) ...535 State Capitol, Okla. City, Okla. 73105
?To be in status of watch dog or
Harold J. Eidemiller P.O. Box 1006 Pasco, Wash. 99301 Harry Kelley Box 828 Torrington, Wyo, overseer.
9. Outdoor Recreation Committee
William P. Price,Jr. P.O. Box 432
Santa Paula, Calif. 93060
Byron Snow R.F.D.
Logan, Utah 84321
Reginald C. Price, Chairman...P.O. Box 388, Sacramento, Calif .95802 Arizona Henry Shipley P.O. Box 1980 Phoenix, Ariz. 85001 Colorado Harry R. Woodward 6060 N. Broadway Denver, Colo. 80216 Hawaii Alfred Preis 426 S. Queen St. Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Kansas Lynn Burris, Jr. 801 Harrison Topeka, Kan. 66608 Montana John Willard Box 1172 Helena, Mont. 59601 Nebraska Hal. H. Schroeder 1120 Federal Securities Bldg., Lincoln, Neb. **Executive Committee recommends to the chairman that he appoint a vice-chairman
9. Outdoor Recreation -4.. Committee (cont.) Nevada New Mexico Floyd Cross P.O.Box 1147 Santa Fe, N.M. 87501 North Dakota Clarence Maesner 1301 State Capitol Bismarck, N. D. 58501
James F.Sorensen, Chairman H. Maurice Ahlquist
1929 Forest Hills Drive Olympia, Wash. 98501 W. L. Baugh P.O. Box 1360 Albuquerque, N.M. 87103 i To be Oklahoma Tye Bledsoe 500 Will Rogers Bldg. Oklahoma City, Okla. 73105 Oregon Marshall N. Dana 3070 N.W. Front Ave. Portland, Ore, 97120 South Dakota Clayton Bushong
Dept. Game, Fish,& Parks The Capitol Pierre, S.D. 57501 Texas John E. Babcock P. O. Box 1153 Austin, Texas 78764
10. Power Advisory Committee
• 0 0 0 Utah E. H. Southwick P.O.Box 1128 Ogden, Utah 84401 Washington Paul Hamilton P.O. Box 146 Ephrata, Wash. 98823 Wyoming Joe Bowen Box 247 Wheatland, Wyo.82201
...303 Bank of America Bldg., Visalia, Calif. 93277 Harvey F. McPhail 343 S.State, Rm 202
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 John Coppes Farson, Wyo. L. E. Donegan 3010 Plymouth Ave. Lincoln, Neb, 68502 Ivan P. Head F. O. Box 1748
Las Vegas, Nev. 89101 in status of watch dog or overseer.
11. Resolutions Committee
Felix L. Sparks 1525 Sherman Street Denver, Colo. 80203
William S. Holden, Chairman,. .Idaho First Nat'l Bk Bldg., Idaho Falls, Ida. Jay R. Bingham, Clerk...435 State Capitol, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Arizona Roger Ernst P.O. Box 2591 Phoenix, Ariz. 85002 California Harry W. Horton 895 Broadway El Centro, Calif. 92243 Calif. Alternate James H. Carter 101 Law Bldg. El Centro, Calif. 92243 Colorado Jack Ross 144 W. Colfax Denver, Colo. 80202 Colo. Alternate John Sayre P.O. Box 1260 Boulder, Colo. 80301 Hawaii Robert T. Chuck P.O. Box 373 Honolulu, Hawaii 969809
11. Resolutions Committee (cont.) Idaho Alternate
Lon F. Davis(Alt. to W.S. Holden)
Idaho First Nat'l Bk Bldg Idaho Falls, Idaho
Kansas
Jack Nicholson Ellis State Bank Ellis, Kansas 67637 Montana Sid Kurth Midland Nat'l Bk Bldg Billings, Mont. Nebraska Cyrus P. Shaughnessy ,St. Paul, Neb. 68873 Nevada George B. Moseley P.O. Box 218 Lovelock, Nev. 89419 New Mexico Hubert T. Ball P. O. Box 581 Albuquerque, N. M. 87103 North Dakota Richard P. Gallagher P.O. Box 192 Mandan, N. D. 58554 N.D. Alternate R. J. Sailer 1310 Mohawk St. Bimarck, N.D. 58501 Oklahoma Clarence Base Geary, Okla, 73040 Oregon Harold Henigson 106 Main St. Nyssa, Ore, 97913 South Dakota Raymond F. Lund P. O. Box 1 Pierre, S.D. 57501 Texas J. W. Buchanan 509 Beard Dumas, Texas 79029 12, EIZ12122.LHIX_LIEELLL9.2. Texas Alternate E. W. Easterling Beaumont, Texas Utah F. Gerald Irvine P.O. Box 899
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Utah Alternate Harold E. Wallace 530 Judge Bldg. Salt Lake City, Utah
84111 Washington H. Maurice Ahlquist 1929 Forest Hills Dr. Olympia, Wash.98501 Wyoming Karl Bergner Buffalo, Wyo. 82834 Wyoming Alternate John Goodier
Wyo Natural Resource Board
Supreme Court Bldg. Cheyenne, Wyo.
Report submitted. Legislative action not forecast this year. Committee released and any further work assigned to the .Water Users Committee.
13. Small Projects Committee
Doyle F. Boen, CHairman ...P.O. Box 248, Hemet, California 92343 John Goodier
Wyo. Natural Resource Board Supreme Court Bldg. Cheyenne, Wyo. W. S. Gookin 607 Ariz. Savings _Bldg. Phoenix, Ariz. 85004 Richard W. Hendrick R. 1, Box 187 Omak, Wash. 98841
13. Small Projects Committee T. W. Jensen
435 East Second South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 A. D. McDermott
State Water Conserv. Board Helena, Mont. 59601
M. T. Martin P. 0. Box 148
Harlingen, Texas 78551
Harvey Banks, Chairman Floyd Bishop State Capitol Cheyenne, Wyo. (cont.) Laren D. Morrill, Sr. 1525 Sherman St. Denver, Colo. 80203 Kenneth Morrison R. 1 Higley, Ariz, 85236 J. R. Pringle P. O. Box 307 Scottsbluff, Neb. 69361 Carl Tappan State Capitol Bldg. Boise, Idaho 837 E. J. Van Camp 215 Supreme Court Bldg. Cheyenne, Wyo. 820 Walter O. Watson, Jr. P. O. Box 373 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 14. States Water Rights Committee /
...120 Montgomery St., San Francisco, Calif. 94104 Sanford Caudell
101 E. High St.
820 Tucumcari, New Mex, 88401 Frank R. Booth, Executive Dir.
Texas Water Rights Commission Box 12396
Capitol Sta,
Austin, Tex. 78711
i To be in status of watch dog
Sid Flanagan, CHairman Jack W. Boyd P. O. Box 536 Holdrege, Neb, Jack Claborn Kimberly, Ida. 83341 Harry Kelley Box 828 Torrington, Wyo. Orvin Marquardt Courtland, Kan. 66939 Wayne D. Criddle 2987 S. 2nd West St. Salt Lake City, Utah
84115
or overseer.
15. Sugar Beet Committee /
Cliff M. Jochim 1301 St. Capitol Bismarck, N.D. 58501 Porter A. Towner Chief Counsel P. O. Box 388 Dept. of Water Resources Sacramento, Calif. 95802
...Route 1, Quincy, Washington 98848
To be in status of watch
Hoyt Pattison Star Route
Clovis, N. Mexico 88101 Leo Scheuerman
Washakie Co. Beet Growers Assn.
North of Worland, Wyo. 82401 Cyrus P. Shaughnessy St. Paul, Neb. 68873 Anton Simonich 18315 Road 128 Tulare, Calif. 93274 dog or overseer. Floyd N. Smith Route 1, Box 76 Tolleson, Ariz, 85353 Robert Thompson Hartley, Tex. 79044 Bion Tolman
c/o Utah Ida. Sugar Co. Beneficial Life Bldg. Salt Lake City, Utah
841 Glen W. Yeager P. O. Box 1052
Colo. Springs, Colo. 80901
