Dam Battle - April 1968 Press

Dam Battle - April 1968 Press

3 Apr, Congressional Record contained Cong. Saylor’s insertion of the House Interior Committee’s resolution commending Chairman Aspinall for his leadership on the Colorado Basin legislation.

6 Apr, Republic carried the announcement by the Salt River Project that two 1500 MW generators had been ordered for the plant it would build in northern Arizona, of which 400 MW would be reserved to pump CAP water. Construction is scheduled for 1970, and power would be generated in 1973-4.

7 Apr, Sentinel summarized the status on the bill, reported on 26 March. Committee staff was preparing report, due 22 April, at which point Aspinall will request clearance for floor action from the Rules Committee. Cong. Udall & Johnson are in charge of lining up votes. Udall held a strategy meeting of Basin state legislators. Only Wyoming is in opposition. The Californians want the bill done in May, since they have primaries in June. There would be extensive preparation of materials & letters to House members.

9 Apr, UPI quoted California’s water chief that signs were favorable to passage, and called for continuing cooperation on water matters.

11 Apr, Tribune previewed a Disney re-broadcast of his color film on Powell’s expedition through the Grand Canyon.

12 Apr, Sentinel described the two operations that will be in charge of the “massive campaign” to push the Basin bill through the House.

15 Apr, AP featured 5 dissenters’ views: the legislation is too costly, has no long-range regional plan, includes the Colorado 5 only as ransom for the CAP, dumps the Mexican treaty obligation on the nation, authorizes a dam that would invade the Gila Wilderness. Three northwesterners also wrote opposing views. Wyoming reiterated its odd-man-out stance.

16 Apr, Sentinel summed up: Mexican treaty clause key to ending controversy. Rep. Saylor plans attack on that clause. Unlikely that conservationists will have much impact in their campaign against Hooker dam, since they are out of ammo after the Grand Canyon dams fight, and because the bill was amended to allow for a suitable alternative to Hooker. The article credits Saylor with that change, though he had wanted to take a different course. So the question of the Mexican obligation is the only attack point.

21 Apr, Republic’s B.Cole rang the alarm—California and other powerful forces are behind the CAP, but the call for cutting spending is potent, and Saylor is making it.

21 Apr, a Colorado paper noted waterman Sparks was leading the lobbying effort, with headquarters in the Congressional Hotel opening 29 Apr.

21 Apr, Albuquerque Journal ran a story of 31 family hikers going into Marble Canyon to emphasize that the area is accessible and worthy of protection in the National Park.

22 Apr, Washington Post editorialized in favor of the revised Basin bill, though raising a question about Hooker Dam on the Gila River. The possibly controversial Mexican treaty provision seems to be the only feasible solution. There will be discussion about what agency will study augmenting the Colorado’s flow.

22 Apr, Sentinel offers a summary of the lobbying effort as the bill heads for the Rules Committee. Over 100 House members are prime targets for personal contact. The Hooker dam controversy seems to be settled by a compromise acceptable to New Mexico’s Senator Anderson and conservationists. Floor action may be delayed until mid-June.

28 Apr, Tribune says the Interior Committee report on the CAP is the longest ever prepared by the Committee. Hooker dam was opposed by 17 members, who called for a different site that did not affect the Gila Wilderness.
The Rules Committee, a 15-member “traffic cop” that clears legislation as ready for the House floor, will hold a hearing on the Basin bill, Aspinall and Saylor testifying. Colorado has a sizable lobbying delegation contacting House members. They are reporting huge approval, 5-1, of the bill.

Apr, Post reports that Aspinall presented the argument before the Rules Committee, which then granted permission for four hours of open floor debate.  Aspinall cited the agreements behind the bills, sayiing it would bring peace to the Basin on water matters. He emphasized any studies would protect the Columbia. Reps. Saylor and Foley opposed the legislation, stressing fantastic potential future costs. The bill was scheduled for floor action on 16 May.