HomeMy Public PortalAbout2592 (04-05-55) _� . _
RESOLUTION N0 2592
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .
LYNWOOD OPPOSING THE UPPER COLORADO
RIVER BASIN PROJECTS AS PROPOSED IN S. 500 AND
H.R,.270 AND THE FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT AS
PROPOSED IN S. 300 AND H,R, 412, NOW PENDING IN
CONGRESS.
WHEREAS, the City of LYNWOOD is vitally
dependent on a water supply obtained from the Colorado River,
and
WHEREAS, California�s rightful share of Colorado River
water is threatened by the Upper Colorado River Basin projects
as proposed in S. 500 and H,R, 270 and the Fryingpan-Arkansas
pro,ject as proposed in S. 300 and H.R..412,.now pending in
Congress, and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned pro,�ects would inflict on all �
taxpayers of this City and the Nation an unjustifiable burden
of more than four billion dollars, and
6JHEREAS, these political pump-priming schemes if authorized
would furnish water to grow the kind of crops which are already
in great surplus in this country, and which are already heavily
subsidized by the taxpayers, and
WHEREAS, the Colorado River Board of California, official
state agency charged with the responsibility of safeguarding
California�s existing contracts for Colorado River water, has
gone on record strongly opposing these measures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the enactment of these
project bills is againet the interest of the City of
LYNT�OOD in particular and the State
of California in general and should be opposed.
-2-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of _ LYNWOOD
respectfully requests the representatives of the State of Cali-
fornia in the Congress of the United States to actively oppose
the enactment of the above mentioned bills or any similar
proposals, and that certified copies of this resolution be air
mailed to our Congressional representatives, and copies be made
available to press and radio news sources,
. � APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of April 1955
� � \
` — � \
A R THE C T
J �ST: �j �
V
,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES: as.
CITY OF LYNWOOD )
I, the undersigned� City Clerk of the
City of Lynwood, do riereby certify that the above
and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the
City Council of sald City at a ------- regular
meeting thereof held in the City Hall of said City,
on the Sth day of April , lg 55 , and passed
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN Bruner, Pearson, Pender,
Willard.
NOES: COUNCILMEN None.
'
� - ' ABSENT: COUNCILMEN McMeekin.
. .�
; <
�
,. .
, '
,
GENERf,L STATEMENT ON UPPER COLORADO RTVER BASIN
LEGISLATION NOW BEFURE THE 8��TH CONGRESS
Numerous projects in the Upper Basin States have been
authorized by the Congress in the last several years, with no
objection whatsoever by California. Many Upper Basin bills
have gone through on the consent calendar. This is a matter
of record.
California seeks only to protect its rights to Colorado
River water established by apnropriation and by contract in
the amount of 5,362,000 acre-feet annually, and does not seek
to secure any additional water or any water rightfully be-
longing to any other state. California is now defending
these rights in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Californi.a cannot accept the proposals for Upper
Colorado River Basin development in the form contemplated
in the pending bills and as planned to be built and operated
as set forth in officlal reports, because they threaten to
substantially invade and impair the rights of California
both as to quantity and quality of water.
__ ___. The Upper Basin developments have been planned in almost
total disregard of the interests of California and other
Lower Basin States.
A consulting engineer retained by Colorado is on record
that if Upper Basin developments are made under their interpre-
tations of the Colorado River Compact, less than 5,000,000
acre-feet will be left for division between Arizona and
California, to satisfy claj.ms exceeding 8,000,000.
A combination of storage reservo�rs and partic3p�ting
projects-is proposed for ultimate construction in the pending
bills which, if built and operated as planned, will result in
the Upper Basin States using at least 1.5 million acre-feet
more water annually than their entitlement under the Compact.
In addition, proposed trans-mountain diversion pro�ects such
as the Central Utah and the Fryingpan-Arkansas (the forerunner
of the much larger Gunnison-Arkansas Project), in combination
with other of tPie proposed projects, threaten to seriously
impair the quality of Colorado River water available to
California.
Quite apart from the consumptive use of water in the
Upper Basin by irrigation projects, the building and operation
of major power dams and storage reservoirs as planned would
materially impair the water supply to the Lower Basin and
adversely affect Lower Basin developnient. The six dams pro-
posed to be built immediately would store 44,000,000 acre-feet,
or about three years' average flow of the river at Lee Ferry,
the dividing line between the Upper and Lower Basin. The mere
filling of these reservoirs would substantially reduce the
water supply to the Lower Basin and seriously curtail power I
output and revenues at Hoover, Davis, and Parker Dams. There- i
after the reservoirs would be operated for maximum power I
production with resulting minimum delivery to the Lower Basin I
and shortage of water supply to meet vested rights and commit-
menta in the Lower Basin, and impairment of the operation of
-2-
existing developments.
Governor Johnson of Colorado is on record that water
cannot be stored for power production, as planned, without
violating the Colorado River Compact, if such water is needed
. (as it is} for consumptive use in the Lower Basin.
None of the power dams would be needed to supply water
for the 14 participating projects proposed. Their only
' function for many years to come would be the generation of
hydroeleetric power,
�- California is entitled to._protect its righ�s -to--water, -
both as to quantity and quality, and as to the administration
of the river, in such a manner as�to not adversely affect
Cal3fornia's developments and interests. Cal,ifornia agencies
have investments in Colorado River water and power facilitles
of well over three-quarters of a billion dollars. Their I
rights and interests must be preserved.
California, in order to protect its rights, has found it
necessary to oppose the authorization of Upper Basin develop-
ments as proposed, by any legitimate means and on all legiti-
mate grounds, 3nclufling the econoroic Justification of the
proposals.
-- - The record shows that tfie propos�ed developments are fin-
ancially infeasible and lack economic justification. They can-
not qualify under feasibility standards of existing reclamation
law. •
For example,for the projects sought to be authorized by
the pending Upper Colorado River Basin bills, S. 500, H.R. 270
and H.R. 2836, the original estimated construction costs for .
-3-
the overall irrigation allocation would average $1,000 per acre.
The water users can repay only 12q of the irrigation invest-
ment. Under the finanr,ial program the Federal subsidy would
amount to about $4 billion, or over $5,000 per acre.
For the Fryingpan Pro�ect, the correspondi.ng Federal
subsidy would amount to about $1,600 per acre.
The pending bills seek to establish feasibility and
repayment standards for reclamation projects which materially �
depart from existing general reclamation law. Involved are• I
fundamental questions of Pdational policy with respect to
reclamation development which are presently under study and
soon to be reported upon by the Hoover Commission and the
President's Cabinet Committee, It would seem that Congress
should await the reports of these agencies and then determine
a general policy before acting upon this legislation.
The truth of the matter is that the Upper Basin States,
themselves, are endeavorin� to engineer a huge grab of Colorado
River water in excess of their rightful share, to the detriment
of California arid other Lower Basin States. This endeavor is
based upon new and strange interpretations of the Colorado
-�- -� River Compact which California is right now challenging in the
Supreme Court. At the same time, an attempt is being made
, to raid the Federal treasury at the expense of the Nation's
taxpayers in order to obtain the huge subsidies required
to build unsound irrigation projects - a money grab to
support a water grab.
-�-