The city of Los Angeles would be a preference customer and the Salt River projects as well as other agencies. The WEST organization primarily has been set up so that practically all of their work and all of their planning is directed toward thermal generation and the three plants that we have put together with them as well as the Page plant and the Southern Utah plant that we are looking to in the future are all thermal plants.

Mr. STEIGER. My only point in bringing it up was that in the event that Hualapai will not be constructed, it would likely be a market for the energy produced, and I think that would be

Secretary UDALL. I think when one looks down the road in this whole region one finds that the Southern California Edison, California, for example, is the fastest growing electric utility in the country. It will soon be No. 1, I am told, and therefore you are going to need all the electric power you can get from all sources. There is no question about that.

Mr. STEIGER. With regard to your own plan, Mr. Secretary, and the mention of the possible use of ad valorem tax, is it not mathematically correct to say that if we use the revenues from Hoover, Parker-Davis after amortization, that we would need no ad valorem tax? Is that a fair

Secretary UDALL. Yes, that is right. It could be done that way. Mr. STEIGER. This would be another alternative.

Secretary UDALL. That is another alternative. There are three alternatives really whereby it might be done, and I think some of the people in Arizona have not thoroughly understood what some of the considerations are that might be evaluated. For example, in terms of industrial use of water particularly, having a $50 rate or $60 rate might make a difference over the long haul in terms of attractiveness of water costs to industry locating in the region. So this is what I meant when I said I thought a mix for payment was better rather than putting it all on the water users necessarily.

Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Secretary, yesterday we heard that the reason for the failure of H.R. 4671 was that Arizona left the sinking ship. We heard that several times. You were in the midst of the battle. You heard the sound of the shot. Did you notice which bank of the river the shot came from? [Laughter.]

Secretary UDALL. Congressman, I think this is a discussion I had better stay out of.

Mr. ASPINALL. If my colleague will yield to me, I do not know what was said yesterday, but the reason the bill did not get on the floor was because the chairman of the full committee did not call it up. So we might as well have that cleared up.

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you.

Mr. REINECKE. Will you yield?

In view of the fact of the question regarding Mr. Lucking's letter more or less implied that Southern Edison was in favor of the hydroelectric dam, I would just like to refer to the point that we should allow Southern California Edison to answer for herself in this case. The differences between a thermal plant and hydroelectric plant are quite significant when it comes to a private power company, and I would not want the record to leave the implication in anybody's mind that Edison is for it without their so sponsoring it.

Secretary UDALL. I think you are correct, Congressman. The private companies quite naturally, for the reason that I explained, are not as enthusiastic about hydroplants

Mr. REINECKE. Thank you. I have one

Secretary UDALL (continuing). As the public entity.

Mr. REINECKE. I have one further question.

Last year a very close friend of yours offered an amendment suggesting certain benefits for the Hualapai Indians with reference to the reservoir created in back of the dam, and I believe that amendment was offered subsequent to your report on the bill.

Would you offer your comments on that as to whether you favor this approach and in what quantities or what amounts?

Secretary UDALL. Congressman, as the administration bill does not include Hualapai, our report is not directed toward this matter. If it reaches the point where the committee must have the answer to this question, I think that we have views that we can develop and furnish to the committee as to what would be the right kind of solution. But I think we need to talk about the alternatives because the Indian interest is present and we are charged with protecting the Indian interest, and maximizing it, as a matter of fact. Therefore we have to be very intimately involved in that part of the problem at such time as it is reached.

Mr. REINECKE. Mr. Secretary, in view of the fact that that particular amendment is in several of the bills being discussed, inasmuch as we may get to mark it up within the next week or two, I would a-k unanimous consent that you prepare those remarks and address them to the committee so that we would have the benefit of your views. Secretary UDALL. We can furnish that.

Mr. JOHNSON. You heard the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from California. Is there objection? Hearing none, will the Secretary prepare it and the remarks will be placed at this point in the record.

(The material referred to follows:)

Section 303 of H.R. 3300 provides for payment to the Hualapai Indian Tribe for use by the United States of 25,000 acres of land for the construction, operìtion, and maintenance of the Hualapai Dam and Reservoir. The Administration has recommended that action on the Hualapai Dam be deferred at this time. The following comments on the proposed payments to the Hualapai Tribe are offered at the committee's request.

The sum of $16,398,000 to be credited to the Tribe is commensurate with present value of the compensation which would be due the Tribe under its agreement of August 30, 1960, with the Arizona Power Authority if the Authority were to construct a dam at the Bridge Canyon site. Considering the size of the installation and annual generation contemplated, the compensation proposed is closely in line with the compensation provided to the Crow Tribe in relation to the Yellowtail Unit of the Missouri River Project, with that provided to the Flathead Tribe in connection with Montana Power Company's Kerr Dam and Powerplant on the Flathead River and with that extended to the Warm Springs Tribe in connection with the Pelton and Round Butte developments on the Deschutes River in Oregon constructed by the Portland General Electric Company. It should be noted, however, that in each of these cases the reservations had been established by Treaty, whereas the Hualapai Reservation was created by executive order.

As we testified in hearings before the committee in May of 1966, the access road which is provided in Section 303(b)(1), based on reconnaissance level estimates, would cost $12,260,000. An access road from the construction town

site to the reservoir would likely be included in any recreation plan for Hualapai Reservoir if it were built. The costs for recreation would be nonreimbursable, as costs of a national recreation area, under the terms of the Federal Water Projects Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213) as provided in Section 401 of the bill in any event.

We note that the provisions of subsections (c) and (e), dealing with reservation by the Hualapai Tribe of certain mineral rights, refer to the disposition of such rights by the tribe. The law generally applicable to the leasing of minerals on Indian lands provides either for leasing by the Secretary or, in those instances where an Indian tribe itself is authorized to make leases, such leases require approval of the Secretary. Similar provisions should be included here. Subject to the foregoing comment, the provisions of Section 303 respecting minerals are similar to those included in the legislation by which Navajo reservation lands were obtained for the Glen Canyon unit of the Colorado River Storage Project. (Act of September 2, 1958; 72 Stat. 1686.)

The provisions of Section 303 respecting hunting and fishing and reservation of a block of power do not present any particular problem, although it might be desirable to make clear that the reference to hunting and fishing, while relieving the Indians from any necessity to pay a fee does not exempt them from compliance with any otherwise applicable matters such as conservation regulations and restrictions required by reason of project operations. In respect of recreation, the act of October 8, 1964, established the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the boundaries of which encompass the Bridge Canyon damsite and surrounding lands owned by the Hualapai Indians. Section 3(a) of that act provides that inclusion of the Indian lands shall not be effective until approved by the Hualapai Tribal Council. The Council has not approved inclusion of the Indian lands within the national recreation area. If, in the future they give their approval, there would exist a conflict between the provisions of the Lake Mead Act and H.R. 3300, if enacted. To preserve this option, the following might be substituted for the present language on page 16, line 8 of H.R. 3300:

(d) Unless the inclusion of Indian lands within the exterior boundaries of Lake Mead National Recreation Area has been agreed to by the Hualapai Tribal Council pursuant to section 3(a) of the act of October 8, 1964 (78 Stat. 1040), the Hualapai Tribe shall have the exclusive right,

The above is furnished at the committee's request since the Administration has recommended that action on Hualapai Dam be deferred.

Mr. STEIGER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you, Congressman Steiger.

I have always been shy about claiming credit for anything, and I do not want the chairman of the full committee to assume all the responsibility for executing the bill last year. It is true he did not call it up, but he did not call it up, and I think one of the reasons it was not called up was there was an undercurrent on the floor of the House that a substitute which I had offered before this committee and had been turned down might have met with very prompt and courteous attention on the floor, and there was a distinct possibility it would have passed. And for that reason, among others, the chairman did not call it up. But I would like to direct a question to the good Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. Secretary, on the 9th of March you sent up here a proposal to revise the boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park, and you recommended a draft of the bill be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration, and you recommended its enactment.

In view of the fact that the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Aspinall, has introduced a bill calling for the expansion of the boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park going up along the upper reaches of Grand Canyon, up toward Lee Ferry, and in view of the fact that I have introduced a bill which goes up in that same general direction,

since we are all together, some people are worried about whether or not the Federal Power Commission might grant a license to some people in Arizona to issue a permit for construction of a dam at Marble Canyon. Do you not think it might be wise for you to advise the Chief Executive of this country that here would be an excellent place for him to exercise his power of issuing an Executive order and just putting this whole business right into the Grand Canyon National Monument and telling the Federal Power Commission that they have no such authority. Then, when the committees of Congress got around to it, we could include it all in the Grand Canyon National Park? I mean, this would be a nice solution, an easy solution, and help everybody out in that area over a very difficult situation.

Secretary UDALL. Čongressman, I am not sure about the legalities of the situation. This is not as easy as it sounds, however, because we have an understanding with this committee on such actions. There is no way we can painlessly do it without involving the committee in it. That is the one thing I want to say.

Mr. ASPINALL. If the gentleman from California will yield to me, what the Secretary is saying is that there might not be any money forthcoming to administer the area; is that correct?

Secretary UDALL. That is one of the consequences I had in mind, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]

Mr. SAYLOR. Of course, I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the area is mostly now under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. From all I can gather there is not going to be too much to administer, because while the gentleman from Colorado has taken in Vermillion Cliffs, and it is a very beautiful place, I had not thought of it-I noticed that the Secretary of the Interior and the President have not recommended it, but I am perfectly willing to go along agreeably and go before the Appropriations Committee and see that any money you need, Mr. Secretary, you might get.

Secretary UDALL. Let me strike a positive note at the end of the day here, Congressman. Despite all of the cross currents that we have had going, I think we are making some real headway. I think the fact that the two gentlemen here and many others on this committee and on the other side, in the other body, are in pretty broad agreement on Marble Canyon and its disposition, which means that we are approaching these things in a balanced, sober way and are making our judgments as we go along and that we are not just operating from the type of judgments that could lead us into further controversy. We are trying to resolve things as we go along, and I think everyone deserves to be commended for this.

Mr. SAYLOR. I just offered my suggestion in an effort to resolve another problem and get it beyond us.

Secretary UDALL. I will take it under advisement.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Aspinall of Colorado, for one further question here.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Dominy if he can furnish for this committee figures to show how much it costs. the Metropolitan Water District to lift 100,000 acre-feet of water 1,000 feet. If he can do that, can he furnish also how much it costs.

to lift 50,000 acre-feet of water 500 feet on the Wellton-Mohawk or 250, whatever the figure is?

Mr. DOMINY. Yes, sir; we will be glad to supply that for the record. Mr. ASPINALL. I will ask that the information be made a part of the record.

Mr. JOHNSON. Without objection, so will be the order. Hearing no objection, you will prepare and furnish the necessary material for the record at this point.

(The material referred to follows:)

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has supplied the following data on power costs only, which do not include any operation, maintenance, and replacement of the pumps:

Similar data for pumping plant No. 1 of Wellton-Mohawk division of Gila project is as follows:

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, as chairman of the subcommittee and being from California, I have a very keen interest in this Colorado River development. I have heard everyone ask questions from all sides of the aisles here. I have heard many witnesses, last year and the year before, and my first year on the committee.

At the present time California is only trying to protect its interest in the 4.4 million acre-feet. Mr. Secretary, is it not a proper position to take if we take this stand? We have been on that river now since the late 1870's and all of the works necessary to bring California's water into our State are built and in operation at the present time.

Secretary UDALL. Congressman, I think the position that California has taken is understandable. I have thought all along that this is an issue that should not be a big sticking point between Arizona and California but should be compromised in some way and worked out. This is, I think, one of the reasons why we have not taken a hard position on this one way or the other. We have said this is a matter between the States, and we hope they can work it out in essence.

Mr. JOHNSON. We at the present time are putting more than that to beneficial use in California, somewhere in the neighborhood of 5.1 or 5.2 million acre-feet. Certainly we are interested in maintaining the