DIGEST OF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY STATES AND FEDERAL AGENCIES ON THE COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT REPORT

ARIZONA

Arizona concurs in the conclusions of the report and recommends that all assistance possible be given to the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and the Bureau of Reclamation in securing the expeditious construction of the features proposed in the report.

Arizona comments specifically that the power market area shown in the report does not include Arizona. In view of the fact that Arizona is one of the upper Colorado River Basin States and that the Glen Canyon Dam site and powerplant are located within and constitute a natural resource of the State of Arizona, together with consideration of the estimated cost of power generation and the possible power market needs of Arizona, the State of Arizona recommended that it be included in the project power market area as fringe area D (Arizona) and that energy be made available to that fringe area on the same basis as proposed for the other three fringe

areas.

The director, Arizona Game and Fish Commission, comments that the State of Arizona agrees wholeheartedly with the program for the upper Colorado Basin submitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. No definite recommendation has been made as to which agency shall be responsible for requesting the funds and for carrying out this program. Public Law 732 provides that when wildlife values are destroyed by river basin development they should be replaced in kind. No appropriation should be made for river basin development unless at the same time appropriation is made to restore wildlife values which would be destroyed by completion of the project.

CALIFORNIA

The State of California favors congressional authorization of the specific projects set forth in the proposed report of the Secretary of the Interior or as may be modified, and their construction with Federal funds consistent with national welfare if (a) such projects qualify under criteria, policies, and procedures of the Congress, and (b) the diversion and utilization of the waters of the Colorado River system by and through these projects will not impair the rights of the State of California or any of its agencies to the waters of that system as defined and set forth in the Colorado River compact and related laws and documents.

COLORADO

Colorado greatly appreciates the expeditious manner in which the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation have prepared and submitted the report. The Bureau of Reclamation, in full compliance with the spirit and intent of the Flood Control Act of 1944, has kept the States directly affected fully informed during the course of its investigations. The general plan set forth in the report is acceptable to and approved by Colorado. Colorado wholeheartedly supports the plan to use a portion of the power revenues to support irrigation projects and gives general approval to the criteria estab

lished for the determination of the right of a project to qualify for aid from the revenues made available by the project.

Colorado comments further that there is no exportation project in the State of Colorado comparable to the central Utah project which will utilize water exported from the Colorado River Basin. It suggests that there should be full and complete cooperation between region 4 and region 7 to determine what, if any, Colorado exportation projects should be approved as participating projects.

The question of access roads to the Echo Park Reservoir and to the Split Mountain unit is a matter of great importance to Colorado. Colorado believes that access roads from Colorado points will satisfy all requirements and requests that before any final decisions are made as to road locations full opportunity be afforded Colorado to be heard on this subject.

The State of Colorado requests that the Whitewater unit on the Gunnison River not be included in the initial list of units and that further study and consideration should be given to the location of storage units on the Gunnison River which develop, as far as possible under all the conditions, the full power potential of the stream, permit the early construction of participating projects, and provide holdover storage, all with the least possible disruption of the local economy. Colorado desires that a unit of the storage project located on the Gunnison River be included in the initial authorizing legislation. Colorado requests that the La Plata project be included among the participating projects for initial authorization. This project is desperately needed to provide a dependable water supply for lands lying in the La Plata Valley and located in both Colorado and New Mexico.

While the Shiprock project may be a desirable one and may well constitute an initial part of the plan for the development of the San Juan River, Colorado recommends that no appropriation for, or construction of, the project should be authorized or made until there has been made available to the effected States and approved by the Congress a report on the project comparable to the reports already prepared for the other participating projects.

Provision should be made for the termination upon a reasonable notice of all contracts relating to the disposition for use, outside the Upper Division States and outside that portion of the State of Arizona within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River above Lee Ferry, of power generated at such plants to the extent that the power so contracted for is required to satisfy the needs of customers in the mentioned area.

Colorado urges that the report be revised so as to include a recommendation that the Congress authorize the creation of a special fund as a basis for future appropriations to carry on investigations in the upper Colorado River Basin in the period prior to the time funds will become available from the Upper Colorado River account.

Consideration should be given to revision of the present law relative to excess lands so that the principle of family operation may be retained in the mountain area.

The director, Colorado Game and Fish Commission, urges that the program for the upper basin proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service be included as a part of the departmental report.

NEVADA

Nevada has no objection to publication of the report as submitted. It is well prepared and the Bureau of Reclamation is to be complimented upon the vast amount of excellent work it has done in preparing the report for publication.

Alfred Merritt Smith, State engineer, states that he is not sold on irrigation projects that will be unable to repay construction costs within a reasonable period of years, if ever, and that it would appear to be a sound business procedure to fix a minimum ratio of capital cost that must be paid rather than an amount based on the irrigators' ability to pay in a period of 50 years.

The immediate and best market for the power would probably be within the lower basin at the rapidly expanding independent center of the basic magnesium project in Nevada and in densely populated southern California. It is suggested that a large portion of Glen Canyon power should be allocated in perpetuity to this fully developed market.

NEW MEXICO

The report is an excellently prepared document evidencing a great deal of investigation and study over a period of years. The Department of the Interior and its various branches and employees are to be highly commended, particularly the Bureau of Reclamation. Subject to the specific recommendations hereinafter made, the State of New Mexico approves the plan of development of the water resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin as described in this report.

New Mexico is concerned that the power and energy generated by the project may be sold to users outside the Upper Basin. New Mexico requests the privilege of seeking at an appropriate time adequate provisions of law or procedures for such power operations as will insure the greatest future benefits for the States of the Upper Basin from the power produced by the Colorado River storage project. New Mexico believes that the power needs in the State will be greater than shown in the report and recommends that the State's power and energy needs be given careful review and considered before power contracts are entered into which might leave the State in the position of having to obtain power from other sources at rates which might be considerably higher than those which could be obtained from the storage project.

Although it is recognized that the La Plata project does not comply with present criteria for participating projects, this project is one of the most deserving projects within the entire basin from the standpoint of need for rehabilitation and reclamation of a project now deficient in water supply. Water shortages in that area are chronic. For this reason New Mexico urges that every effort be made to work out a revised project for the La Plata unit which could be included in the near future as a participating project.

New Mexico has the same comment regarding the Shiprock project as did Colorado; that is, they recommend deferment of actual construction until a report has been completed, submitted to the States and to the Congress.

New Mexico recommends inclusion in the report of the South San Juan and the San Juan-Chama projects on the same basis as the

Shiprock project; that is, authorization of these two projects with actual construction deferred until reports on the projects are completed, submitted to the States and to the Congress.

New Mexico recommends and urges that the construction schedule in the report be revised so that the Navaho Reservoir is included as one of the initial units of the storage plan, thereby permitting development in the State to proceed on an even basis with that in the other States of the upper basin.

New Mexico made the same recommendation as Colorado relative to authorization of additional investigation funds to be used during the interim period before investigation funds are available from the Upper Colorado River account.

The State game warden for New Mexico comments that the program of the Fish and Wildlife Service for the upper Colorado Basin meets with the approval of New Mexico.

UTAH

Utah commends the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, and their staffs on the investigations that have made the report possible. Full compliance with the spirit and purpose of section 1 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 has been exemplified.

The State of Utah is in accord with and fully endorses (a) the proposed plan of development, (b) the Upper Colorado River Basin account, and (c) the upper Colorado River development fund.

Utah makes essentially the same comment regarding the Shiprock project as Colorado and New Mexico; that is, deferment of actual construction until a report has been completed, submitted to the States and to the Congress.

Utah makes essentially the same comment as New Mexico relative to the use of power from the project. Utah reserves the privilege to seek at the appropriate time adequate provisions of law or approval of plans or procedures for such power operations as will insure the use of the power output of the Colorado River storage project in a manner consistent with greatest future benefits for the upper Colorado River storage States.

Utah also states that provisions should be made either in the report or in ensuing legislation for the specific authorization of appropriations of additional investigation funds during the interim period before funds from the upper Colorado River account are available.

In connection with the central Utah project, Utah comments that: (1) Any legislation authorizing the central Utah project should be sufficiently broad to permit scheduling the available water to Salt Lake County and repayment with respect there to so as to permit full use of the water now available from the Provo River project. (2) Project authorization should also permit the metropolitan water district of Salt Lake City, and other proper organizations, to obtain water made available by the central Utah project for use in Salt Lake County, and (3) legislation authorizing the central Utah project should be sufficiently flexible to permit arrangements between the Provo River Water users Association, the metropolitan water district of Salt Lake City, and other proper interested parties for the use of any works of the Provo River project. These questions should not be interpreted as objections to the project plan but are matters that