Resolution No. 1825
"
..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RESOLUTION NO. 1825
~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CfllY
OF VERNON OPPOSING THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER
BASIN PROJECTS AS .PROPOSED IN S. 500 AND H.B. 270
AND THJ!i FRYINGPAN -ARKANSAS PROJECT AS PROPOSED
IN S. 300 AND H. R. 4.12,. NOW PENDING IN CONGRESS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWSz
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
WHEREAS, the City of Vernon is vitally dep.endent on a water
supply obtained from the Colorado River; and
WHEREAS.. Californiais 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 project as proposed in S. 300 and
H. R. 412, now pending in Congress,. and
Wl:l.l!x':REAS, the aforementioned projecta would inflict on all
taxpayers of this City and the Nation an unjustifiable burden of more than
four billion dollarsi and
WHEREAS, these political pump-priming schemes if autho.rized
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 Boord of Californi.a~ officiallidate
agency charged with the res:pons:ibility of safeguarding Californiats existing
contracts for Colorado River water, has gone on record strongly opposing
23 these measures;
24
NOW.. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION 1: That the enactment of these project bills is against
the interest of the City of Vernon in particular and the State of California
in general and should be opposed.
SECTION 2: That the City of Vernon respectfully requests the
representatives of the State of California in th:e Congress: of the United States
25
26
27
28
29
30 to actively oppose the enactment of the above mentioned bills: or any similar
31 proposals.. and that certified copies of this resolution be air mailed.. to our
32 Congressional representatives.. and copies be made available to press and
-1-
"
~
,-
1 radio news S"ources.
2
SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall certify
3 to the passage of this Resolution and thereupon and thereafter the sswe shall
4 be in full force and effect.
5
6
7
ADOPTED and APPROVED this: 19th day of April. 1955.
[\
--.:::-
ATTEB:T:
L
'!
/. ,.
I.. .. . 1.-----\ #--<'""LP--./
citycle:rk
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) s:s.
15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
I.. G. A. ANDERSON. City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1825 was duly adopted by th.e City
COUl1;CU of the City of Vernon", and approved by the Mayor of said City. at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of April" 1955.
t~~.,
v City Clerk
-2-
Crry OF VERNON
CAI.IFOHNI.A
...
April 20, 19"
/~
1 ,'.
" i
! j
Honorable Clyde D01le ., ,
f-rember,.or the House ot Repres$ntati~--.J t
WIosh1n",ton. D.C. /~ .~.~
llonorablo Sirl /~-~ \
/,r J/
Imelosed Plea~~,1nd~~t1f'1ed copy of
Resolution No. 182,. ~~_~~,Clt):,,'~ Vernon, express1ng
/ ./._~-'--", ",,- '., ""
opposition to upper,ltolora4'o,1\1v~)3as1n Projects as
\ \
, j \
proposed 1n S. ,00 ~d H.R. :??,O, and the Fr11nspa.n.
\. Ii
;:'. \, ,- / \.
Arkansas ProjeQ~ a(!l\p~,oPQS~/1n s. 300 and H.a....12
now pend~'h;c~n~~;i:~::: '
{,
i ;
j ;'
i
\
./
Yours very truly,
G.A.Anderson, City Clerk
City ot Vernon, CaliforIl1a
GENERAL STATEMENT ON UPPER COLORA~O RIVER BASIN
, ,
LEGISLATION NOW BEFORE THE 84TH 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 appropriation 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-
long1ng to any other state. California is now defending
these rl~hts in the Supreme Court of the United States.
California 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 official 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 claims e~ceeding 8,000,000.
A combination of storage reservoirs and ~articipatlng
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 projects such
as the Central Utah and the Fryingpan-Arkansas (the forerunner
of the much larger Gunnison-Arkansas Project), in combination
with other of the 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 proj~cts, 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 development. 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 c~rtail power
output and revenues at Hoover, Davis, and Parker Dams. There-
after the reservoirs would be operated for maximum power
production with resulting minimum delivery to the Lower Basin
and shortage of water supply to meet vested rights and commit-
ments 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 production3 as planned3 without
violating the Colorado River Compact3 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
hydroelectric power.
California is entitled to protect its rights to water3
both as to quantity and qualitY3 and as to the administration
of the river3 in such a manner as to not adversely affect
California's developments and interests. California agencies
have investments in Colorado River water and power facilities
of well over three-quarters of a billion dollars. Their
rights and interests must be preserved.
California 3 in order to protect its rights3 has found it
necessary to oppose the authorization of Upper Basin develop-
ments as proposed3 by any legitimate means and on all legiti-
mate grounds3 including the economic justification of the
proposals.
The record shows that the proposed developments are fin-
ancially infeasible and lack economic justification. They can...
not qualify under feasibility standards of existing reclamation
law.
For example3for the projects sought to be authorized by
tpe pending Upper Colorado River Basin bills3 s. 5003 H.R. 270
and ~.R. 28363 the original estimated construction costs for
-3-
,
.
the overall irrigation allocation would average $1,000 per ijqpe.
The water users can repay only 12% of the irrigation invest-
ment. Under the financial program the Federal subsidy would
amount to about $4 billion, or over $5,000 per acre.
For the Fryingpan Project, the corresponding Federal
~ubsidy 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
fundamental questions of National 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 endeavoring to engineer a huge grab of Colorado
River water in excess of their rightful share, to the detriment
of California and 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.
-4-