Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Dam Battle: April 1966 press

Coverage of the Reader’s Digest convocation continues with reports from three big papers, Denver & Phoenix

1 Apr RMN, Wm. Logan: Headlined “Hearing on Dam Flooded With Bitter Debate”.
“Bitter battle erupted” over dam that “would back water into the lower 27 miles of the 121-mile-long Grand Canon”(sic). For the first time, the seven Basin states had come to a united position. However, the “well-known” Sierra Club is leading a “last minute movement” to block dam. In a “most unusual attempt … to mold public opinion”:  more than 50 “Eastern” reporters, radio and television men flown in by Digest. (RMN was paying for its reporters’ expenses.) Organized by “nation’s largest advertising agency, J Walter Thompson Co.
 Reporters will fly over canyon, and hear debate over dam. 200 assembled in El Tovar heard that the dam was among the “best-kept secrets”. Gov. Godard statement called anti-dam campaign a graphic illustration of misinformation; “unfounded, inaccurate and irresponsible propaganda”. Rep. Udall spoke: Dams will be built regardless of whether public opinion influences Congress, since FPC could license state dam. He was the only congressman; others turned down invitations. Conservationists pointed out Reclamation had taken many into Canyon. Northcutt Ely, chief California water lawyer, said 1919 Park Act allowed reclamation project, and conservationists replied, “Times have changed.”

1 Apr DPost, B Hanna: “Bitter Debate; Barry Urges Grand Canyon Dams”. At Thursday breakfast, Sen. Goldwater argued for expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for “public power dams”. Debate part of “backgrounder” for newsmen. Not true, said Goldwater, that dams will violate Canyon’s grandeur and beauty. General public would be able to see unmatched scenic values, not just a “wealthy few that can afford the trip”. Dam would also help Hualapai tribal economy.
  Bradley article in RD led to event. Fisticuffs were approached when BuRec’s “elaborate model” appeared, showing that dam & reservoir locations would not affect Park overlook views. Brower and followers tried to remove exhibit, but BuRec refused and call to IntSec Udall oked leaving model in place. Rep. Udall had charged RD wanted pro-dam speakers barred, but panel chair S. Spurr gave them time. Speakers against the dam, besides Brower, were Bradleys (brothers & professors), I. Gabrielson of Wildlife Mgt. Institute, and C. Callison of Audubon. Besides Udall, Ely and governor’s representative spoke for dams. Arguments followed the familiar pattern.

1 Apr Rep, W. Meek: “Barry, Swinging Late, Hits Hardest at Canyon Forum”; “Failure Admitted By Foes”. Sincere defense stole the show. Articulate on state water needs and compassion for dam opponents. Neither dam would ruin or desecrate to Canyon. “I know river better than most here and love it as much as anyone.” Bridge Canyon dam “would enhance the canyon”. Opposed by Sierra Club members who want to preserve geology and wildlife habitat.
   Goldwater expressed reservations about dam in Marble Canyon, and pro-Canyon viewpoint should have been aired in Congress years ago, but now Arizona cannot wait for water. “I have to weigh millions of lives against remote part of canyon,” so please weigh carefully the value of the river you fly over for human needs.
   Few conservationists were convinced, but one admitted it was tough to beat Goldwater on his own ground. Rest of day was anti-climactic, and Club members thought meeting failed to present their views forcefully. No report of bitter argument on Wednesday when Udall pressed for the chance to speak.


1 Apr AP: Brower wrote SecInt Udall asking for full disclosure of Park Service opinions on dams’ effects.

There had been much discussion and research done in the 1940’s by NPS. But in the 1960’s, NPS was thoroughly muzzled.

Three smaller Arizona papers chimed in. Scottsdale Progress seemed not a solid partner in the Arizona pro-dam front. The American, also non-mainstream, was a  right-wing outlier.

1 Apr Prog, editorial: RD conference raised Arizona hackles reacting to Bradley article. Meeting was loaded and unfair, said dam proponents. One of strongest attacks on dams. Arizona needs water, but Canyon belongs to nation and should not be endangered. Look hard at alternatives. If meeting leads to open-minded, positive thinking, then worthwhile.

1 Apr Sun: Local state senator backs dams. Recent meeting was a wave of unfounded and inaccurate propaganda. He will introduce resolution of support.

1 Apr “Phoenix American” (published by Evan Mecham, conservative and states’ rights advocate): Arizonans have not been told truth about CAP. Next governor will have to formulate sensible policy. Mecham hopes Udall plan will fail, since benefits would go to California, and import will be necessary but unachievable. Best plan would be to have state build dams and CAP, using revenue bonds.

This was a minority, but strongly held right-wing, view in Arizona, and a nuisance to those, Democrats and Republicans, who wanted a federal project. The minority's biggest achievement was that the state Power Authority almost obtained a license for a state-built Marble Canyon dam.

1 Apr Rep, letter: “Phoney conservationists” only want to retain private little reserve for themselves and millionaire friends; takes up 3 columns.)

Away from the fuss, the water chiefs were preparing to advance the large compromise that was HR 4671 through the House Interior Committee.


2 Apr Sentinel: Colorado river committee to meet 4 Apr to talk about testimony for congressional hearings in late May. Will also discuss Jackson bill promoting feasibility investigations of many other western water and power projects.

3 Apr Post, B Hanna: Dam builders and opponents have failed to find any compromise and agreed to fight issue in Congress. RD conference brought out irreconcilable positions. Club claims to have scored heavily with newsmen at conference. Water needed, but dams would desecrate Canyon says one side, and others says there would be no harm. Revenue from dams would, in part, finance water import. Hanna then tries to comprehensively summarize the lists of arguments pro and con, and citing Club book Time and the River Flowing.
At meeting, Brower charged NPS was muzzled. Club is pushing legislation to greatly expand Canyon’s National Park. Goldwater flew in, but gave a mild statement, and some claimed it helped anti-dam cause.

This article in hindsight could be interpreted as a signal. The dam opponents were taken seriously, not just dismissed with epithets. They were not to be bullied or ignored. Though not said explicitly, Hanna was indicating this was no longer a regional issue, as the next article shows. 

The Trib writer is playing off conservative Republican Goldwater’s 1964 speechifying that “moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue”; extremism in the cause of liberty is no vice.” Seen as a report from the outside, it is colorful and remarkably perceptive.

3 Apr New York Herald Tribune, WW Wing: “In Dam Battle, Goldwater Flows Calmly”. Biggest dam issue in the area argued with “high passion” the past few days. Extreme terms like flooding the Park and throttling the Southwest were used. “But when the affair got close to fist fights, whose was the sweet voice of reason? Who proved that moderation is a virtue? Who spoke against private enterprise in favor of a giant public-money federal dam-building project? Barry Goldwater, that’s who.”
   The pow-wow was over a BuRec project to build two dams. Water is the central issue, but after that, you are up a side canyon, needing “the Alice-in-Wonderland mindset of the West” to understand this reclamation project. The dams are to raise money, “giant federal charity bazaars.” Nothing to do with reclamation; storage behind dams will lose water. And either the dams will ruin Grand Canyon or make it much better.
   Battle lines are scrambled beyond belief: Great Society Democrats in league with Far Right Republicans, Arizona with mortal enemy California, arch-conservationists fighting conservationists.
   Then, improbably, in rode an RD prairie schooner, which got ambushed by Arizona Apache arrows. The RD’s ad agency arranged large junkets from East and West for discussion and a look at the geography. Most of the group were of the anti-dam party, violently objecting to the lower dam. But a few pro-dam people, chief of them Rep Morris Udall, came, expecting to speak. But flying up to the Canyon, the RD man passed out press release saying the speakers would be all anti-dam, and opponents could only “mingle” with guests. Udall went off the reservation and along the rim, there were smoke fires: when panel opened, he denounced RD for putting him at “the outer limits of this friendly and informal one-sided discussion.” Were they going to let him be heard? Arizona and California voices joined him.
   Udall was allowed to speak, and made the most of it in a voice that reached Peach Springs. He vowed to disregard the old Arizona adage not to fights newspapers because they fight back wholesale. He attacked the RD for lack of objectivity, never printing retractions, nor carrying letters to the editor. Arizona, he said is most arid & fastest growing area. Need water, so need dams, which wont hurt Park, and not even close to the tourist compound at Grand Canyon Village.  
   California’s Northcutt Ely began with the “dignity and conservatism of a 2 per cent bond” but ended in a highly emotional exchange with the anti-dam audience.
   Goldwater missed this debate, but gave a moderate statement the next morning. He regretted tampering with the scenery, but the fate of 2.5 million people outweighed a “remote valley”. He confounded his fellow pro-dammers by saying he would hate to see the “most beautiful scenery” of Marble Canyon flooded out.
   Sale of the dams’ power would pay back the cost of the dams with enough more to pay for the water aqueduct. Power not used would pump water— these were Reclamation’s “cash registers”. Proponents admitted 32 billion gallons of water would be lost to evaporation.

I have written elsewhere at my puzzlement over the term “cash register” for the dollar-generating dams. A cash register just receives, stores, and records money; it does not produce it. The dams were to produce a cash crop to be sold to pay off the farm, and then to buy up more land, if those neighboring Northwesterners relaxed their guard.


3 Apr Rep, Ben Cole, news analysis: “Future Bleak For CAP Bill”. Hourglass sand running low for CRB bill, with only “slim, bleak chance” for authorization this election year. Then it faces future “thick with evils from Pandora’s box of legal, legislative, bureaucratic, tribal and special interests”. Aspinall about to announce 18 Apr hearings. Latest compromise is as full as “Hettie Green’s reticule”, containing CAP, 2 dams, 4.4 maf guarantee to California, basin account to collect dam revenues for water projects, order to SecInt to prepare plan for import in four years, 5 upper basin projects.
   Details of this amended version were released 1 April, including a first-stage of import that would be 2.5 maf, going on up to 6 maf more. Calling for a “plan” is sure to draw increased Northwest opposition, which opposes even a beginning investigation. Not to mention that Texas wants to get into any import plan.
  Considering House procedures, mid-June is the earliest possible time for final House action. And then it will be up to Senator Hayden to press for the measure, and he had not contemplated a bill with so many things. His expression when confronting what the House is doing is wonderment, since in his half century, he recalls no comparable reclamation bill. In the Senate, he will need to deal with Senator Jackson’s adamant position against any hint of import, and also New Mexico’s Anderson, who wants more water in Hooker Dam, planned for his state. Jackson has promised action on the CAP, but not on such a bill as this one. So Hayden may go for a bare-bones bill. Even if such were possible, on the Senate floor, conservationist allies would be waiting to delay the bill into August. And after, there is the conference, which promises to be stormy.
   Should the bill not make it, elections could be problematic for bill supporters. And then there is the real likelihood of FPC action on a license for a state dam, further tangling any course for legislation.
   Conservationists are angrily working to stop any dam construction. And no one has yet come to grips with possible objections from the Navajo and Hualapai.
  Anyway, though the House delegation is optimistic, it is an open secret that Hayden and his staff see the House bill in a grim light. Still SecInt Udall has not lost hope. The future is not black, but it is a “deep and dingy gray”.

Given Cole’s status as a DC-based pro-Arizona journalist, this presentation of Hayden’s views is pretty definitive.Had the gigantic compromise package in 4671 made it to the Senate intact, what could the three Senate titans —Hayden, Jackson, Anderson — have done with it? And in how short a time? But then, put the other way, what could be done with a 4671 that got through the house without some key elements (like the dams) or on a very close vote? Hayden’s wonderment may have been real, but his strategy or waiting to see the House result first was superb strategy. As, just to foreshadow at bit, will be shown as 4671 collapsed and 1966 turned in 1967.

4  Apr Star, opinion column: A report on how, at the RD conference, Udall used threats of a press conference to get a chance to speak and to secure a spot for Goldwater, thus presenting the attending media men with some valid arguments for the dams.

This is an empty spot in my memory. I know that the RD people and we planned on a presentation presenting only arguments against the dams and for the Canyon’s further protection. I do not remember how Udall got “invited”. It is true that the RD advance man told people in Arizona both sides would speak (and without telling what he was doing), but I have no record as to who talked to whom and said what. So, as we thought, were Udall and Goldwater contacted by CAP lobbyists in Arizona, summoned to come save the day? So that Udall’s claim was a shading, at best, of how he got “invited”? Could we have been sandbagged by not-very-brave RD-connected staff? Or was it due to Udall’s moxie that he came into a situation set up against him, and turned it around?
  In the event, the controversy gave the conflict much bigger press, and may well have been the dam-builders’ Pyrrhic moment, after which events only piled up obstacles to dam approval.
  Along with Hanna’s article above, the following editorial seems to support such a view.


4 Apr DPost, editorial: “Natural Beauty and the Nibbling Process” posits that the latter is endangering the nation’s natural heritage. Such a nibbling could be at work for the Grand Canyon. The damage might not be great in relative terms, but the precedent would subvert the purposes of preserved areas. Goldwater did not claim all the dams are good, but more pertinent is the “Rube Goldberg type of financing” of such Reclamation projects. The dams, after all, are not part of the water project, just giant accounting devices.

5 Apr Rep, letter: anti-dam: hydro power in the Canyon is an old project now outdated by thermal alternatives.
  Another from Club’s Arizona chapter chairman in favor of an enlarged Park, and willing to pay for keeping the Canyon unaltered.

5 Apr AP: reporting that state senate is ready to pass a pro-dams memorial, specifically to repudiate the RD attack.

5 Apr, Sentinel, reports who will testify for Colorado and 5 projects at hearings set for 9 May.

6 Apr Rep(?), editorial(?): Uses conspiracy trope to describe RD conference; CAP supporters made an excellent presentation anyway. And the fact that the Canyon will not be destroyed was established. Meanwhile the simple CAP has ballooned into a gargantua with bleak prospects. And if this bill cannot get through, Arizona should make up its mind to go it alone with a state dam and reclamation project.

If the analysis based on the view from Denver is correct, the big Arizona newspaper did not catch on. Not even after recognizing the Cole analysis. Was the final thought a threat, or maybe a sop to Arizona’s right of right wing?

7 Apr Yuma paper with editorial citing a pro-import piece in an Oregon paper in the arid eastern section that could be watered by an aqueduct.

7 Apr Sentinel: comically slanted piece about professional conservationists using issue to bring in donations from wealthy Eastern dowagers. “It is not easy to dismiss the pro-dam logic of economics, politics and engineering.” Notes that a “venturesome” thinker at the RD conference brought up government thermal plants, only to be countered by Udall’s fear of the public v. private power debate. End by sneering at “loyalty oath” conservation groups for standing in the way of such venturesome thoughts.

7 Apr Sentinel: Udall signed the feasibility reports for 3 of the Colorado 5. Animas-LaPlata is still in doubt. Reports needed before hearings can start.

7 Apr Prog: report by Sierra Club member on RD meeting: 100 media men & women. Bradley was “severe” in his criticism of the dam damage. Udall charged he was invited but not permitted to speak, but anti-dam I. Gabrielson replied saying there were no conservationists on 3 BuRec trips. Brower asked why gov’t information on dams was suppressed, and announced the bill to enlarge Park. Goldwater not married to Marble dam.

April continues with the progress of the pieces of 4671’s compromise, moving toward a formal House hearing, if not speedily, and with erratic optimism. The counterpoint is the dam debate.
  The following is cheerleading by the head of Reclamation, acting almost independently of his “boss”, Interior Secretary Udall. Notice he is unfazed about speaking out for both dams and future importation. He was nothing if not bursting full of confidence about the grand future ahead of his Reclamation. Perhaps, again foreshadowing, this was his and its high point. Losing the dams and the prospect of continent-spanning aqueducts was the national moment when the “heroic” age of such development ended.


8 Apr Rep, W Meek:  “Udall Aide Predicts CAP Okay”: Reclamation Commissioner Dominy [“Aide” is a misnomer] held Phoenix news conference to assert CAP legislation would be passed eventually”: No “element of pessimism whatsoever”. However, lack of progress on House action in this Congress could spell doom for the current version. Though the prognosis of Washington observers was that time was running short, Dominy waxed hopeful. Crucial hearings due on May 19, so House vote entirely possibly by end of July. House will act favorably if Basin states keep united front. The Senate should be clear sailing, Dominy implied. He also opined that a moratorium on an FPC license for a State dam could be extended, unless there is no progress. He asserted that, although the CAP is feasible without Marble Canyon Dam, not having it would upset the delicate compromises, “particularly involving future importation of water”.  He suggested that without import, the CAP would be full for only 20 years. In a later speech, he emphasized that hydropower is “the paying partner of water”.  (Also reported in Star.)

8 Apr Post: feasibility reports on 4 of the Colorado 5 “are being sent” by Interior to Budget Bureau.

9 Apr Sentinel: Sec Udall doesnt think status of Colorado 5 will hold up CAP legislation, though Interior Committee chair Aspinall says he wont act until they are approved.  Chiming in, other members of the Colorado delegation were skeptical of final legislative action this year.

10 Apr Rep, B Cole: In another echo of the RD convocation, Cole lauds Helene Monberg, newswoman, for turning her “wrathful scorn” on the RD “tawdry circulation promotion” at the Canyon. Cancelling her subscription, she attacks it as “a cesspool of socialism” for publishing an article about the government building steam plants instead of dams for reclamation projects.

Looking back, this is a bit of cuckoo thinking; Reclamation with its dams was surely one of the most socialistic of government programs.
  Interestingly, my memory is that the Reader’s Digest was the largest circulation magazine of the time. I do believe its owners, the Wallaces, were devout conservatives, thus stirring Monberg’s wrath at their apostasy, although many Republicans of the time were, like the RD, anti federal spending, dams included. Which makes the construction of Hoover Dam an exercise for the ironists among historians who love pointing out that dam opponents were in favor of polluting the Grand Canyon's air with choking, billowing, noxious, yellow-and-pink smog from coal burning electric plants.


10 Apr Post, B Hanna: After a week in DC, Colorado water chief F. Sparks predicted House action before end of July. Hearings being arranged by Aspinall for May 9. Sparks says all participants seem satisfied with bill. Almost complete basinwide solidarity. There were safeguards for upper Basin water development. New Mexico still holding our for more Gila River water. Opposition to dams is “major obstacle”, and groups pledged to renew their battle. Sierra Club calling for a Park expansion.
Sparks and Ely agree dams will bring in $1.6 billion over 50 years, some of which will be used to help finance wtaer import development that will be studied according to CAP bill.

12 Apr Rep, letter: could build diversion direct from river without dam, and use a thermal plant to pump water.

This was the original 1930’s concept of what was called the Bridge Canyon project. Taking the water after it had been through Hoover’s generators and run through the aqueduct (the one we currently see) became the Central Arizona Project after BuRec’s investigations during and after World War II. It would have required a huge tunnel, like other pipe-dreams of the era: the Marble-to-Verde water diversion and the Marble-to-Kanab power project.


12 Apr Star: Udall spoke at Democratic lunch in Tucson: RD tried to sabotage CAP. It is one-sided, and has slandered presidents. He had to threaten to tell the truth to get to speak. Reservoir would open up vistas for thousands. Brought up FPC moratorium. Dams needed for revenues from peaking power, not provided by thermal plants. He claimed dam was envisioned in 1918 when Hayden had it written into Grand Canyon Park bill. Conservation groups are sincere but unwilling to admit advantages of boat trips on reservoir.

Well, that was what he said. At the time. He was always a sincere, intelligent, forceful, skilled politician on every side of whatever issue he was on. We should be glad that the dams were defeated and that Morris Udall could become the environmental champion he did. Those who revere his memory should be glad too. I wonder whether any part of the CAP is blessed with the Udall name.

13 Apr Rep, B Avery: Senior Republican House member John Rhodes of Phoenix calls chances for CAP bill passing both House and Senate, “very good”. Aspinall now a strong advocate of bill that includes his 5 projects. RD/Sierra Club effort to discredit dams rebounded in favor of Arizona, thanks to Goldwater. “Arizonans should start writing to their friends and relatives back home” asking them to help by writing Congress.

John Rhodes was the quiet worker in the background, a powerful member of the House Appropriations Committee. Had the legislation gotten to the House floor he would have been pitted against vociferous dam opponent Republican John Saylor of Pennsylvania in the effort to line up Republican support.
  On the Democratic side, of course, it was a Democratic administration with Stewart Udall as the Secretary of the Interior. His brother, Morris, succeeded him, only in 1961, as Arizona’s other congressman. A third congressional district was added for the 1962 election, but the combination of Senator Hayden and the two Udalls, backed by Rhodes, made up the legislative heft that Arizona was depending on to get its CAP.

13 Apr Rep, letter: defending Club for fighting for right of all Americans to visit unspoiled Canyon.

14 Apr Rep, letter: pouring scorn on dam foes who wont let him see Canyon and is denying him water. Dams have nothing to do with water.

14 Apr Sentinel: House Interior Committee will act quickly on CAP legislation, completing work in May, with House debate Jun-Jul. Emphasis by Colorado 5 supporters is that with more water, they will be able to switch from surplus crops like wheat. Major problem may be the National Water Commission proposed by Senator Jackson. Dam opponents will seek to testify.

The Sentinel was always on the ball.


14 Apr Phoenix American: long piece by Mecham reviewing history and promoting state instead of federal development.

15 Apr Colorado (University) Daily: long, long article (P. Nichols) in support of a Canyon without dams. There are alternatives to generate electricity that would not degrade Canyon and Park System.

16 Apr, Rep: report on letter from Sec Udall aide: no flood in Canyon.

16 Apr, RMN, letter on damage dams would do.
 
Also, from the Republic:


17 Apr, Yuma newspaper: Students at local college overwhelmingly favor CAP with dams.

17 Apr, RMN: reports Aspinall has announced hearings for May 9. Sparks confident project can clear Congress this year if Senate will take up bill, though Jackson has said it will not until House acts. And dam opponents will not prevail, though Saylor will oppose, claiming steam plants can do the job.

Felix Sparks, as lead Colorado water bureaucrat, had worked hard to bring about the 4671 compromise bill, especially including the 5 Colorado projects. He had much invested, and was an optimistic type.

19 Apr, Star: letter opposing dams: water user can pay.

19 Apr, Sentinel, letter from SW Rep Sierra Club J. Ingram on editorial that suggested the idea of a formula for CAP financing. I offered this: Raise water price a small amount. BuRec already has proposed this, and Goldwater supported it. CAP would then pay for itself. Economics says dams are not best investment of our money, so it is too bad they are tied to CAP. As well, as Sentinel points out, dams will waste water, enough to supply Phoenix each year.
I went on with our view of the RD meeting: We did not name-call or nearly engage in fisticuffs.  We did not take meeting over. In fact, the RD’s ad agency offered it to us as an opportunity to show what was wrong with the plan. Nothing strange about our having a chance to present our case in public at the Canyon. BuRec, CAP Assoc., and others have done the same.
Your editorial is one of the fairest; if others copied your open-mindedness, the Basin states could have their plan, and the Canyon preserved.

By this time, I was already deep in the calculations that showed how the CAP could be paid for if the dams were dropped from consideration, which I presented at the May House hearings. Were our arguments about the Canyon and the dams unsettling assumed and long-held convictions about the West and use of its water? I certainly would not have depended on it, but our strategy was to focus on the lack of necessity of linking the dams and the CAP.

24 Apr, Long Island paper reports on high school club fighting dams.

25 Apr, NYT: editorial piece, W. Shannon: Fate of Canyon is subject of bitter controversy. Sec Udall caught in the middle, now having the worst of both worlds: articulate official who has done a great deal for conservation, and Arizonan who might want to run again.
 Semantic quarrel over effects on Park. Grand Canyon, 218 (sic) miles long, is only the most extraordinary of the Colorado’s canyons. Park covers only its “most accessible” section. Splendid scenery outside Park is primarily in dispute. But Park would be affected, significantly if indirectly, because river already cannot flow freely and move rock and silt. Dam defenders point out that, in Glen, rising waters have opened up travel. No consolation to conservationists: already thousands of lakes; only one Colorado River. Marble Gorge is particularly awesome, and worth saving, as Goldwater said. He posed necessary and tragic choice, but conservationists say dam choice unnecessary; there are alternatives.
  Moreover, dams unnecessary for water getting to Arizona. They are cash register dams to make project look more self-supporting. Better, they say, to tax than to flood the irreplaceable. And that is decisive consideration. Dams would transform a unique natural scene. Do the American people really want Congress to alter irreversibly what nature has created and what man can never replace?

A nice piece, though that 218 miles sticks in the craw. The dam proponents thought it worthwhile to keep insisting Marble was a separate canyon, and not the integral prelude and opening chorus of the 277-mile-long Grand Canyon. Even the Park Service got it wrong until Congress made them reform through the 1975 Park Enlargement Act.


30 Apr, New Republic: Even-handed review of issues. Most strenuous remaining opposition comes from opponents of desecration.

There was no mention of import or the Northwest in this report. So our opposition, most noisy certainly, is featured in a national publication. The question of the weights to assign to the elements that caused the demise of HR 4671 is endlessly entertaining to argue about. From today, it is astonishing that such a proposal was considered a foregone conclusion in all those years, decades, before 1966 when the dam battle escalated.

April: Colorado River Assoc (Los Angeles) Newsletter: review of events: May 9 for hearings on revised bill. Enlarged Park bill introduced. Sen. Jackson has wide support for Nat. Water Comm bill; it would study importation instead of a regional group. Dispute in Northwest over use of their dams’ revenues. Some in Oregon like the idea of an import scheme. Dominy speechified on the many water transfers being discussed.
  Summary of RD conference was confused over who was invited. Dispute over model. Udall claimed both sides have a right to be heard, not just “wilderness exclusionists” with “extremist views”. Only pro-water views are noted. There were, though, cheers when Ely asked if Glen Canyon Dam should be torn down.


No comments:

Post a Comment