Mr. JOHNSON. I want to thank you, Mr. Steiner, as the representative of the Committee of Fourteen, in bringing to us this very detailed analysis of just what has taken place on the Colorado River. Your statement relates to H.R. 12165 and is in support of it, I would say. I think you have spelled out everything that we have previously heard about in your statement. I want to ask just two or three questions with regard to it. Your Committee of Fourteen has been working with Mr. Brownell on this problem. I presume he previously knew about all of the things you mentioned to us in this statement. Mr. STEINER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JOHNSON. To the final Mr. STEINER. They may not be aware of some of the amendments that we are requesting that have been urged upon you. Mr. JOHNSON. I do not mean the amendments. I mean in pointing out the problem of salinity on the river, and everything that has been done by the Federal agencies, and the States and various organizations. I asked yesterday if all of this had been discussed and if you people have been meeting with them and making your position known prior to the agreement on Minute No. 242. He said, yes. I do believe the record would say that, you had been working with him. He complimented you and commended you for your input into these problems. He said that your advise and counsel had been very good help to him. But then, it kind of dropped there. Then we moved over to Mr. Horton and we questioned him on the same thing. Now, I presume that you have talked this over thoroughly with Mr. Brownell and his people, with the Department of the Interior, and I hope with other administration people, including OMB. Now, I do not know what input OMB had in this whole matter of Minute No. 242 and the obligation of so many millions of dollars for just that one particular phase of this problem. Could you give us, in brief, just how far you pursued this with Mr. Brownell and his people and other Federal agency people, and departments? Mr. STEINER. Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to do that. On this, Mr. Brownell-the Committee of Fourteen, as we indicated here, has been working on the problem with the State Department since 1962. When Mr. Brownell was appointed in the fall of 1972 by the President to undertake his special study, he immediately called the Committee of Fourteen together to meet with him. We met with him on eight occasions throughout his exercise. Subsequent to the time that he submitted his report to the President and completed his negotiations with Mexico, we have met with the administration, with the Department of the Interior and with the Office of Management and Budget. There certainly are no secrets. Right from the very start we pointed out the problems that we saw in the line of negotiation that he was pursuing, the problems that could be posed for the States in terms of loss of water, of loss of power, and so these things were very clearly brought to his attention. I think that it might be well if we submitted to the committee some of the letters that did go from the committee, from the Governors of the basin States, from the delegations of the seven States, to Mr. Brownell, to the President. Mr. JOHNSON. Those would be very helpful to us. We would like to have that. Without objection the letters will be made a part of the record at this point.' As I was able to learn from the testimony yesterday, their position was, "yes; we do have some of these problems." But they were only interested in talking about the agreement with the Government of Mexico and the facilities that they wanted to see built. They did not give much consideration to the rest of the Colorado River. At least that was my observation of their testimony. We would like to know just how hard you people pressed and what consideration was given by Mr. Brownell and the other Federal departments and agencies that you have dealt with. They did not give us very much encouragement yesterday. [The letter referred to above follows:] Hon. HAROLD T. JOHNSON, ARIZONA WATER COMMISSION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the March 5 hearing of the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee you asked me, as a means of demonstrating how frequently and forcefully the states had brought their concerns to the attention of the Administration, to submit for the record copies of key letters to members of the Administration. In response to that request, the Committee of Fourteen submits the following: 1. Seven letters, dated July 14 through August 4, 1972, to the President from each of the Colorado River Basin State Governors and the response to Governor Williams from C. D. Ward, Assistant to the Vice President, dated August 25, 1972. It may be presumed that the other Governors received similar responses. 2. Eight letters to Mr. Brownell dated December 8 through December 15, 1972, from members of the Committee of Fourteen for six states and Norman B. Livermore, Secretary for Resources, and Raymond R. Rummonds, Chairman of the Colorado River Board of California for the State of California. 3. Letter of June 1 from Mr. Herbert Brownell to the Chairman of the Committee of Fourteen and the response of June 14, 1973, to Mr. Brownell from the Chairman of the Committee of Fourteen. The State Department requests that Mr. Brownell's letter of June 1 be considered confidential and that it not be published. 4. Letter of July 5, 1973, to Mr. Herbert Brownell from the Chairman of the Committee of Fourteen. 5. Letter of July 20, 1973, to the President signed by fourteen senators and thirty-six congressmen representing the seven Colorado River Basin States. 6. Letter of September 12, 1973, to Roy L. Ash, Director of the Office of Management and Budget and Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior, from the Chairman of the Committee of Fourteen. The Committee will be pleased to respond to any additional questions that members of the Committee might have. Sincerely, Attachment. Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, D.C. WESLEY E. STEINER, Chairman, Committee of Fourteen. STATE OF NEVADA, Carson City, Nev., July 14, 1972. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have read with interest that part of the Joint Communique and related press releases regarding salinity of the Colorado River following talks between you and President Echeverria on June 15 and 16, 1972. 1 The letter dated September 12, 1973, from Wesley E. Steiner, Chairman, Committee of Fourteen, to Hon. Roy L. Ash, and Hon. Rogers C. B. Morton, on p. 142, was also included in the letters submitted for the record by Mr. Steiner. I am advised that you agreed to substitute 50,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water and 60,000 acre-feet from Yuma Mesa wells on an interim basis as an immediate measure to reduce the salinity to Mexico. I am pleased to note that these quantities are consistent with the amounts of substitution waters proposed by the United States for the initial year of a Minute first proposed in 1971, which position is supported by the Committee of Fourteen representing the Governors of the seven Colorado River Basin States. I am, however, gravely concerned about the "permanent, definitive and just resolution of the problem" to be proposed pursuant to the communique. I wish to take this opportunity to express in summary form my view of the problem arising from the salinity of Colorado River waters. The Treaty of 1944 with Mexico relating to the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and the Rio Grande requires the United States to deliver annually to Mexico 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River waters. It does not contemplate that waters so delivered must meet a specific standard of quality, nor does it contemplate that Mexico is to receive at the international boundary waters equal in quality to those diverted for use in the United States. The language of the Treaty, its legislative history, and the surviving correspondence of its drafters clearly support this position. It is axiomatic that every irrigation project, including those in the Colorado River Basin in the United States, must, to remain viable, achieve the condition of salt balance, in which the tonnage of salts in waters returned to the stream at least equals the tonnage of salts in waters diverted. This physical imperative necessitates a gradual increase in salinity concentration downstream as the consumptive use of water leaves progressively less water to carry the same salt load. Therefore, the Basin States believe that Mexico cannot, under the Treaty or any rule of reasonable use known to us, establish a meritorious claim to the delivery of Colorado River waters of a quality better than that resulting from the operation of upstream irrigation projects under conditions of salt balance. We are, of course, aware that the Wellton-Mohawk Project has not yet achieved salt balance. In recognition of these facts, the Basin States bave, beginning in 1971, unanimously supported the offer of the United States to enter into an agreement with Mexico obligating the United States to provide such quantities of substitution waters as would create a condition of "equivalent salt balance" for the Wellton-Mohawk Project. The Colorado River Basin States, however, view with grave concern indications that the United States Government contemplates a commitment to Mexico that Colorado River water delivered at the boundary will have the same or nearly the same quality as water diverted by U.S. users at Imperial Dam. The recent statement of your press secretary, Mr. Ziegler, commenting on your joint communique with President Echeverria, as reported in the national press, appears to imply that such a commitment has been made. In view of the serious injury that would inure to the interests of Colorado River Basin water users in the U.S. from a commitment to bypass additional drainage waters in order to guarantee to Mexico a standard of water quality not required by the Treaty and not consistent with the principle of salt balance, I wish to pose the following questions at this time: 1. Has the United States given or does it contemplate giving to Mexico a commitment to the effect that waters delivered at the international boundary in satisfaction of the Treaty obligation will be of a quality equal or nearly equal to waters diverted for U.S. users at Imperial Dam? 2. If such a commitment has been given or is now contemplated, by what means is it proposed that this commitment be implemented? 3. If such a commitment is proposed to be implemented by the delivery of additional waters from above Imperial Dam, under what legal authority and for what period of time does the United States propose to make such dispositions, and what quantity of water is involved? Focus on the current Colorado River salinity problem with Mexico should not obscure the fact that the increase in salinity of the river is a major problem to Colorado River water users in the United States. Over the long term, the projected increase in salinity at Imperial Dam, if no salinity control measures are undertaken, is as injurious to Mexican as it is to United States water users. For a number of years, federal agencies have participated in reconnaissance level studies of potential salinity control projects. All seven Basin States, the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency support acceleration of a major salinity control program. Agreement was reached on such a program on April 27, 1972, at the "Seventh Session of the Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River". This agreement has been approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The State Department supports this program because it would also benefit Mexico and the Department of the Interior is presently undertaking feasibility level studies. I urge your personal support of this important program. I note that you intend immediately to appoint a Special representative to find a permanent solution to the Colorado River salinity problem with Mexico and to submit a report by the end of this year. I invite and urge your representative to avail himself of the services and expertise of the Committee of Fourteen in helping to resolve this complex problem. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a report of the Committee of Fourteen on this problem. Sincerely, MIKE O'CALLAGHAN, Governor of Nevada. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, The PRESIDENT, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have read with interest that part of the Joint Communique and related press releases regarding salinity of the Colorado River following talks between you and President Echeverria on June 15 and 16, 1972. I am advised that you agreed to substitute 50,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water and 60,000 acre-feet from Yuma Mesa wells on an interim basis as an immediate measure to reduce the salinity to Mexico. I am pleased to note that these quantities are consistent with the amounts of substitution waters proposed by the United States for the initial year of a Minute first proposed in 1971, which position is supported by the Committee of Fourteen representing the Governors of the seven Colorado River Basin States. I am, however, gravely concerned about the permanent, definite and just resolution of the problem to be proposed pursuant to the communique. I wish to take this opportunity to express in summary form my view of the problem arising from the salinity of Colorado River waters. The Treaty of 1944 with Mexico relating to the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and the Rio Grande requires the United States to deliver annually to Mexico 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River waters. It does not contemplate that waters so delivered must meet a specific standard of quality, nor does it contemplate that Mexico is to receive at the international boundary waters equal in quality to those diverted for use in the United States. The language of the Treaty, its legislative history, and the surviving correspondence of its drafters clearly support this position. It is axiomatic that every irrigation project, including those in the Colorado River Basin in the United States, must, to remain viable, achieve the condition of salt balance, in which the tonnage of salts in waters returned to the stream at least equals the tonnage of salts in waters diverted. This physical imperative necessitates a gradual increase in salinity concentration downstream as the consumptive use of water leaves progressively less water to carry the same salt load. Therefore, the Basin States believe that Mexico cannot, under the Treaty or any rule of reasonable use known to us, establish a meritorious claim to the delivery of Colorado River waters of a quality better than that resulting from the operation of upstream irrigation projects under conditions of salt balance. We are, of course, aware that the Wellton-Mohawk Project has not yet achieved salt balance. In recognition of these facts, the Basin States have, beginning in 1971, unanimously supported the offer of the United States to enter into an agreement with Mexico obligating the United States to provide such quantities of substitution waters as would create a condition of "equivalent salt balance" for the Wellton-Mohawk Project. The Colorado River Basin States, however, view with grave concern indications that the United States Government contemplates a commitment to Mexico that Colorado River water delivered at the boundary will have the same or nearly the same quality as water diverted by U.S. users at Imperial Dam. The recent statement of your press secretary. Mr. Ziegler, commenting on your joint communique with President Echeverria, as reported in the national press, appears to imply that such a commitment has been made. I am advised that there are only three ways in which Mexico can be guaranteed water of quality equal to that received by our farmers just north of the border: 1. The introduction of desalted sea or some other high quality water to the Colorado River channel below Imperial Dam. 2. The desalting of agricultural and municipal return flows reaching the river below Imperial Dam. 3. The diversion of Mexico's treaty allotment directly from Imperial Dam and the wasting of all return flows reaching the River below Imperial Dam. While all three would be costly, only the first two can be achieved without injury to the States of the Colorado River Basin. The wasting of all return flows below Imperial Dam, currently aggregating some 500,000 acre-feet per year, would necessitate an equal and unthinkable reduction in use within the United States. Hence, I urge that the concept of bypassing additional drainage returns be dismissed and all attention concentrated on desalting and high quality augmentation of the Colorado River. In view of the serious injury that would inure to the interests of Colorado River Basin water users in the U.S. from a commitment to bypass additional drainage waters in order to guarantee to Mexico a standard of water quality not required by the Treaty and not consistent with the principle of salt balance, I wish to pose the following questions at this time: 1. Has the United States given or does it contemplate giving to Mexico a commitment to the effect that waters delivered at the international boundary in satisfaction of the Treaty obligation will be of a quality equal or nearly equal to waters diverted for U.S. users at Imperial Dam? 2. If such a commitment has been given or is now contemplated, by what means is it proposed that this commitment be implemented? 3. If such a commitment is proposed to be implemented by the delivery of additional waters from above Imperial Dam, under what legal authority and for what period of time does the United States propose to make such dispositions, and what quantity of water is involved? Focus on the current Colorado River salinity problem with Mexico should not obscure the fact that the increase in salinity of the river is a major problem to Colorado River water users in the United States. Over the long term, the projected increase in salinity at Imperial Dam, if no salinity control measures are undertaken, is as injurious to Mexican as it is to United States water users. For a number of years, federal agencies have participated in reconnaissance level studies of potential salinity control projects. All seven basin states, the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency support acceleration of a major salinity control program. Agreement was reached on such a program on April 27, 1972 at the "Seventh Session of the Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River". This agreement has been approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The State Department supports this program because it would also benefit Mexico and the Department of the Interior is presently undertaking feasibility level studies. I urge your personal support of this important program. I note that you intend immediately to appoint a special representative to find a permanent solution to the Colorado River salinity problem with Mexico and to submit a report by the end of this year. I invite and urge your representative to avail himself of the services and expertise of the Committee of Fourteen in helping to resolve this complex problem. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a report of the Committee of Fourteen on this problem. Very respectfully yours, Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have read with interest that part of the Joint Communique and related press releases regarding salinity of the Colorado River following talks between you and President Echeverria on June 15 and 16, 1972. |