5. Page 5, line 6, following "authorized" add comma and "with the consent of the Board of Directors of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainge District,". This amendment protects the District against unilateral reductions in authorized acreage greater than 10,000 acres.

6. Page 5, line 11-13, (Sec. 101 (g)), strike "or to retain such lands for fish, wildlife, or other appropriate purposes." This is unnecessary language in that the Secretary already has authority to retain lands for such purposes. We are concerned that specific inclusion here may at some time in the future be construed as enlarging that authority.

7. Page 5, line 24 through line 3 on Page 6, (Sec. 101 (h)), delete all of sentence beginning on line 24. "All costs associated with improvements that will_enable water users to meet applicable water quality requirements of State and Federal law shall be the responsibility of the water users under financial criteria established by law." Again, this is an unnecessary provision as the Water Quality Amendments of 1972 will govern. We are concerned that inclusion here might at some time be construed as enlarging that law.

8. Page 7, line 1, delete "The Secretary is also authorized, in conjunction with the Corps of Engineers, to adopt other control measures below the dam to permit the United States to comply with its obligations under Minute numbered 242." Such measures have not been identified by the Administration even though their early drafts of legislation to implement Minute 242 included similar language. H.R. 12834, however, does not do so.

9. Page 7, line 24 through line 14, page 9, delete all of Section 102 and substitute: "Sec. 102(a). To assist in meeting salinity control objectives of Minute 242 of the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 during an interim period, the Secretary is authorized to construct a new concrete-lined canal or to line the presently unlined portion of the Coachella Canal of the Boulder Canyon Project in California from Station 2+26 to the beginning of Siphon No. 7, a length of approximately 49 miles. [The United States is entitled to temporary use of a quantity of water, during an interim period, equal to the quantity of water conserved by constructing or lining said canal.] The interim period shall commence the year following completion of construction or lining said canal and shall end the first year that the Secretary delivers mainstream Colorado River water to California in an amount less than the sum of the quantities requested by (1) the California agencies under contracts made pursuant to section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, and (2) Federal establishments to meet their water rights acquired in California in accordance with the Decree in Arizona v. California.

"(b) The charges for total construction shall be repayable without interest in equal annual installments over a period of 40 years beginning in the year following completion of construction; provided, that repayment shall be prorated between the United States and the Coachella Valley County Water District, and the Secretary is authorized to enter into a repayment contract with Coachella Valley County Water District for that purpose. Such contract shall provide that annual repayment installments shall be nonreimbursable during the interim period, defined in Section 102 (a) and shall provide that after the interim period, said annual repayment installments or portions thereof shall be paid by Coachella Valley County Water District.

"(c) The Secretary is authorized to acquire by purchase, eminent domain, or exchange private lands or interests therein, as may be determined by him to be appropriate, within the Imperial Irrigation District on the Imperial East Mesa which receive, or which have been granted rights to receive, water from Imperial Irrigation District's capacity in the Coachella Canal. Costs of such acquisitions shall be nonreimbursable and the Secretary is to return such lands to the public domain. The United States shall not acquire any water rights by this transfer. "(d) The Secretary is authorized to credit Imperial Irrigation District against its final payments for certain outstanding construction charges payable to the United States on account of capacity to be relinquished in the All-American and Coachella Canals as a result of the canal lining program, all as determined by the Secretray: Provided, That relinquishment of capacity shall not affect the established basis for allocating operation and maintenance costs of the All-American Canal to existing contractors."

This rewrite of Section 102 would accomplish the following objectives:

(a) Clarification that benefits from water salvage from lining of the Coachella Canal will accrue only during an interim period;

(b) Better definition of the interim period as ending when the Secretary of the Interior reduces Colorado River deliveries to California;

(c) More specific definition that costs are nonreimbursable during the interim period;

(d) The opportunity for Coachella to negotiate with the Secretary with respect to payments after the interim period as there may be years in which Coachella receives no benefit or only a partial benefit from the lining.

(e) Assurance that the United States in purchasing East Mesa lands does not acquire any water rights and that the lands purchased will be returned to the public domain from whence they came.

10. Page 9, strike line 15 through line 22 and substitute: "Sec. 103(a) The Secretary is authorized to:" This amendment would remove the two-year waiting period and authorize the Secretary to proceed immediately with the construction and operation of protective pumping in the vicinity of the border. Mexico's San Luis well field is in operation. It is highly improbable once given the quality guarantee that Mexico will agree to abandon the well field or agree to accept the quantity of water drawn from the United States by that field as a charge against her treaty allotment. To maximize thd United States' negotiator's position, the Secretary should be authorized to proceed with counter pumping immediately. 11. Page 10, line 12, change period to semicolon and add: "provided, however, that any such lands which are presently owned by the State of Arizona shall be acquired or exchanged for federal lands at the option of the State of Arizona." This amendment, if the exchange option is taken by the State, reduce the estimated cost of the protective groundwater pumping program by $16,000,000 and is in accord with the wishes of the State of Arizona.

12. Page 10, strike lines 13 and 14, and substitute: "(b) The cost of work provided for in this section, including delivery of water to Mexico, shall be nonreimbursable; except to the extent that the waters furnished are used in the United States, the total cost of pumping such waters shall be reimbursable as determined by the Secretary."

It is envisaged that most if not all of waters pumped will be delivered to Mexico in partial satisfaction of the Treaty. All costs of such pumpage and delivery should be nonreimbursable. The amendment provides that should any of the pumped waters be used in the United States, the user must bear the costs associated with its production.

13. Page 11, line 16, delete "$119,500,000" and substitute "$121,500,000." Of the increase, $3,500,000 would provide funds for the desalter technology research proposed in the first amendment. The remaining increase of $2,000,000 would finance the reject stream replacement water studies called for in Section 101(c).

14. Page 11, line 18, delete "$34,000,000" and substitute "$16,000,000." This reduction would result from adoption of the amendment requiring exchange rather than purchase of state lands within the zone of protective groundwater pumping.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it is now 12 o'clock and the House is about to go into session, and we are going to have a quorum call. And there are some other questions, so I think we will adjourn now and come back at 2 o'clock, if you gentlemen can be with us at 2 o'clock.

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., this same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. JOHNSON. The meeting will come to order, for the purpose of receiving additional information from the witnesses. If you have anything, Mr. Steiner, that you would like to place in the record at this time, feel free to do so.

Mr. STEINER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing for the committee, per se, or for the State of Arizona, but the State of Nevada, I know, has some resolutions of some State agencies in Nevada that they would like to insert.

Mr. JOHNSON. Would they start off, then, identify yourself by name. and then present your resolution?

Mr. PAFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my name is Don Paff; I am an administrator of the Colorado River Commission in Nevada.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to at this time submit for the record two resolutions, both in support of H.R. 12165. One is on behalf of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, the agency empowered to receive, protect, and safeguard all of Nevada's rights, interests, and benefits from the Colorado River; and one on behalf of the Nevada State Environmental Commission, empowered, among other things, to establish and enforce water quality regulations within the State of Nevada.

[The material referred to follows:]

74-1 RESOLUTION-COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION OF NEVADA

Whereas, the Colorado River Commission is empowered to receive, protect and safeguard and hold in trust for the State of Nevada all water and water rights, and all other rights, interests or benefits in and to the waters of the Colorado River, and

Whereas, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada has participated in and endorsed all efforts to enhance the water quality of the Colorado River, and Whereas, with the support of the Colorado River Basin Statues specific efforts have been made by the United States Bureau of Reclamation to study and establish salinity control projects for the enhancement of the quality of Colorado River water, and

Whereas, such salinity control projects are expected to be beneficial to the citizens of the State of Nevada, to the Colorado River Basin States and to contribute towards international comity between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, and

Whereas, the scope and complexity of the salinity problem mandates a comprehensive basin wide approach to the control measures, and

Whereas, to provide such control of the salinity of the waters of the Colorado River as will permit the United States to implement the Agreement of August 30, 1973, as set forth in Minute No. 242 pursuant to the Mexican Water Treaty consistent with the continued orderly development, conservation and use of the natural resources associated with the Colorado River and consistent with the protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment and without the impairment of the rights of water and power users of the Basin States, legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives, H.R. 12165, and the United States Senate, S. 2940, to accomplish these objectives; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Colorado River Commission of Nevada endorses and supports the objectives and concepts set forth in H. R. 12165 and S. 2940, and be it further Resolved, that copies of this resolution be transmitted to Senator Alan Bible, Senator Howard W. Cannon, Representative David G. Towell, Governor Mike O'Callaghan, Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. Morton, Senator Frank Church, Chairman of the Water and Power Resources Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and Representative Harold T. Johnson. Chairman of the Water and Power Resources Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

STATE OF NEVADA,

County of Clark, ss:

I, Theodore F. Whitmoyer, Secretary of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution 74-1 unanimously adopted by said Commission at a regular meeting thereof, duly convened and held in the office of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, Room 318 First National Bank Building, 302 East Carson Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, on the 26th day of February 1974, at which a quorum of said Commission was present and acting throughout.

Dated this 26th day of February 1974.

THEODORE F. WHITMOYER,

Secretary.

RESOLUTION

Whereas, Chapter 786 of the Statutes of Nevada 1973 provides for the State Environmental Commission to advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the State, the Federal Government, other States, interstate agencies and other persons in furthering the provisions of the Nevada Water Pollution Control Law, and

Whereas, Chapter 786 further states that it is the public policy of his State to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of water within this State; to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution; to plan the development and use, including restoration, preservation and enhancement of land and water resources; and to consult and otherwise cooperate with other States, State and interstate agencies and the Federal Government in carrying out these objectives, and

Whereas, the Colorado River is a water resource which serves more than onehalf of the people of the State of Nevada and the quality of said resource has a major impact affecting the health, welfare, environmental and economic status of the State as a whole, and

Whereas, the control of a major portion of the salinity of the Colorado River as an interstate stream is a Federal responsibility, and

Whereas, the control of salinity of the Colorado River will also promote international good will, and

Whereas, legislation has been introduced in the House as H.R. 12165 and in the Senate as S. 2940 which is designed to enhance the waters of the Colorado River in providing for salinity control, now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Nevada State Environmental Commission urges adoption of the comprehensive salinity control program as provided in the aforementioned bills, S. 2940 and H.R. 12165 now before the Congress, and be it further

Resolved, that copies of this resolution be transmitted to Senator Alan Bible, Senator Howard W. Cannon, Representative David G. Towell, Governor Mike O'Callaghan, Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton, Senator Frank Church, Chairman of the Water and Power Resources Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and Representative Harold T. Johnson, Chairman of the Water and Power Resources Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Approved and adopted this 25th day of February, 1974.

NORMAN GLASER,

Chairman, State Environmental Commission.
By KEN BOYER,
Executive Secretary.

Mr. JOHNSON. All right; the next gentleman? Mr. STEINER. Mr. Chairman, no other member of the committee of 14 desires to be heard at this time. There is no further testimony. Mr. JOHNSON. Does the consultant, Mr. Casey, have any questions? Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question, and I would address it to a spokesman from the Upper Basin. Referring to Mr. Hosmer's question this morning concerning the 85-percent/15percent division between the basins, to which Mr. Steiner answered that the preponderant benefits were in the Lower Basin, would someone explain for our record just what there is about title II that is of such importance to the Upper Basin as to enable you to stay unified as you appear to be today?

Mr. STEINER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Casey, I would like to refer that question to Steve Reynolds of New Mexico.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, without presuming to speak for the entire Upper Basin, certainly, I need not-perhaps as a representative of an Upper Basin State-our position might be responsive.

Mr. Chairman, the Upper Basin currently is using much less than its full allocation of the waters of the Colorado River System. For example, New Mexico is using about one-half of the estimated 770,000

acre-feet per year that we are entitled to. I believe it is obvious that the development and use of the balance of the Upper Basin's entitlement will result in increasing salinity of the waters of the Colorado River downstream.

Obviously, the direct and detrimental effects of this increase in salinity is going to be felt principally in the Lower Basin and in Mexico. The Colorado River compacts, and the Supreme Court decree, apportioned the beneficial, consumptive use of the waters of the Colorado River system among the seven States.

The Supreme Court has defined "beneficial consumptive use" as diversion from the stream, less return flow thereto, available for use in the United States, or in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation.

Given that definition, it seems clear that "beneficial consumptive use" upstream is going to degrade the quality downstream, first by simple removal or relatively fresh water and the loss of the dilution effect of that relatively fresh water; and then, by evaporation of a portion of the water diverted and the return of the balance to the stream with all of the salt that was in the water diverted; and, further, in some cases, the addition of some tonnage of salt to the river system. For example, through the leeching that must occur, at least certainly in the initial stages of an irrigation project. The Environmental Protection Administration some years ago suggested that salinity standards should be established and enforced on the Colorado River to maintain the salinity at Imperial Dam at the present levels—and they had in mind 1972.

Now quite aside from what, to me, would be the gross inequity of that method of handling the salinity problem, the course is impractical. It is becoming increasingly clear that it is important to the Upper Basin States and the whole United States for that matter, to put the Upper Basin's allocation fully at use to develop our natural resources. These considerations have led the seven States, and the EPA to agree on the objective of maintaining the salinity of the lower, mainstem of the Colorado River, at present levels by a salinity control program such as would be authorized by title II of H.Ř. 12165, rather than by the establishment and enforcement of salinity standards under the Water Pollution Control Act.

Mr. Chairman, it is this agreement, and our desire to put the international salinity problem to rest, these are the basis of our support of H.R. 12165, title I and title II.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is there anyone else who would like to address themselves to the problem that was raised by the minority member of the full committee this morning? Mr. Holbert, did you have anything to say about it?

Mr. HOLBURT. Yes. Representatives of the seven basin states agreed that the 15%-85% split is a fair division for the four salinity control projects.

I might add that the cost to the Upper Basin Fund would mean that there would have to be a samll raise in power rates in order to pay for these salinity projects. For the Lower Basin Fund, the required power revenues will be accumulated in any event to repay the cost of any future augmentation project. A portion of these funds will be used to repay the cost of the salinity projects.