226894 research outputs found
Sort by
United States and Mexico Reach Agreement on Lower Colorado River Salinity Problem
No full textDocument: From Office of the Secretary, United States Department of the Interior, news release, March 23, 1965UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR
*********************news release
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
For Release March 23, 1965
UNITED STATES AND MEXICO REACH AGREEMENT ON LOWER COLORADO RIVER SALINITY PROBLEM
The Presidents of the United States and Mexico today announced approval of an agreement on the lower Colorado River salinity problem. The agreement takes the form of a "Minute"--that is, record of a Commission decision--of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico.
Under the arrangements agreed upon for a five-year period, the United States through the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation will, subject to the availability of appropriations, undertake to construct by October of this year an extension of the drainage channel of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona. The extension will permit discharge of Wellton-Mohawk drainage into the Colorado River either above or below Mexico's Morelos Dam, as Mexico may request. The discharges above Morelos Dam would be diverted for irrigation of Mexican lands, while discharges below the dam would flow to the Gulf of California.
All Wellton-Mohawk drainage will be accounted for as a part of the water delivered to Mexico under the treaty of 1944. The United States will control the flows in the river reaching Morelos Dam during the winter months so that, excluding this drainage, those flows will meet Mexico's minimum scheduled deliveries under the treaty. The discharge of Wellton-Mohawk drainage above Morelos Dam is to be coordinated, insofar as practicable, with Mexico's scheduled deliveries in order to minimize the salinity of its irrigation water.
The International Commission will keep the operation continually under review. Both Governments reserve all legal rights.
Essentially, the proposed works would be operated so as to discharge the most highly saline drainage water from the Wellton-Mohawk district below Mexico's principal diversion point during the winter months when irrigation requirements in the Mexicali Valley are at their lowest. During this period, this would be accomplished by pumping the most saline drainage water into the extension channel for discharge below Morelos Dam.
At other times, when Mexico schedules increased deliveries of irrigation water, drainage water would be pumped from the less saline wells in the Wellton-Mohawk district so that most or all of it may be discharged from the extension channel into the Colorado above Morelos Dam. There it would mingle with other Colorado River flows and be diverted by Mexico for irrigation.
Attached is a copy of the Minute and a map of the directly affected areas.
x x xEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,244,908 byte
Salinity Problems in the Lower Colorado River Area
No full textDocument: State of California, Colorado River Board of California, "Salinity Problems in the Lower Colorado River Area," September, 1962, page 5TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 7
Historic Changes in River Regimen 8
TREATY AND COMPACT INTERPRETATIONS 10
LOWER BASIN PROJECTS 12
California Projects 12
Metropolitan Water District 12
Palo Verde Irrigation District 13
Imperial Irrigation District 13
Coachella Valley County Water District 13
Yuma Project, Reservation Division 13
Arizona Projects 13
Colorado River Indian Reservation 13
Yuma Project, Valley Division 13
Gila Project 14
North Gila Valley Irrigation District 14
Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District 14
Yuma Irrigation District-South Gila Valley Unit 14
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District 15
City of Yuma 15
MEXICALI VALLEY 17
NEED FOR PROPER IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE PRACTICES 18
SOURCES OF WATER AND MINERALS AT NORTHERLY INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY 20
River Operation 20
Salt Loads 21
Investigations and Possible Solutions 25
POSSIBLE FUTURE CONDITIONS 28
[5]Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 600 dpi, 8 bit, 3,582,860 byte
Salinity Problems in the Lower Colorado River Area
No full textDocument: State of California, Colorado River Board of California, "Salinity Problems in the Lower Colorado River Area," September, 1962, page 2424 COLORADO RIVER BOARD
the wells tap only the bottom layer of the aquifer, all excess water applied in irrigation will have to percolate through almost the entire 100-foof depth in order to be picked up by the pumps and carried out of the valley. Thus in the eyes of some drainage experts, before the salinity of the Wellton-Mohawk drainage water could be decreased to normal levels by this operation, the entire aquifer would have to be flushed and the entire volume of water freshened. This would require many years, depending upon the volume and total salt load of the ground water in storage.
Diversion to the Wellton-Mohawk Unit form the Colorado River for calendar year 1961 was almost 400,000 acre-feet. During the first 12 months of operation of the Wellton-Mohawk drain (March 1961through February 1962) about 175,000 acre-feet were returned to the river without much fluctuation in the quality of the drain water. Most of the individual smaples and monthly averages showed between 8 and 9 tons of total dissolved solids per acre-foot, or about 6,000 to 6,500 ppm. Data available to dare do not appear to indicate any downward trend in mineral content of the main drain dischargc.
Chemical quality of the water from individual drainage wells in the Wellton-Mohawk covers a wide range. Some are as high as 17,000 ppm, although most are in the range of 4,800 to 7,200 ppm. (6.5 to 9.8 tons per acre-foot.)
Outflow from the Wellton-Mohawk drainage channel during the five-month winter period of 1961-62 was only 19 percent of the total flow at the boundary but the drain contributed 54 percent of the total salt load. Outflow from the drainage channel averages approximately 300 cfs or more than 40 percent of the minimum winter delivery schedule of about 700 cfs at Morelos Dam. allowing for the pumpage at San Luis and the waste returns from United States projects in the limitrophe section below Morelos. In October and November of 1961, the actual flow at the northerly boundary above Morelos averaged about 950 cfs, so that during those months the Wellton-Mohawk drainage discharge constitured nearly a third of the flow of the river. The following table shows a comparison for each of the five months, October 1961 through February 1962, of the flow and salt load of the Wellton-Mohawk drainage channel with the flow and salt load in the river at the northerly boundary.
Wellton-Mohawk Drain Nortberly boundary
Month Flow (acre-feet) Salt (tons) Flow (acre-feet) Salt (tons)
October 1961 18,630 158,700 59,270 199,700
November 1961 15,480 126,500 57,230 183,700
December 1961 10,690 85,900 81,720 230,400
January 1962 19,450 155,400 160,820 381,100
February 1962 16,260 134,500 67,540 226,300
In the preceding summer months the flow of the river had been of sufficient volume to dilute materially the highly saline discharges of the Wellton-Mohawk drainage channel. From March through September the discharge of the drain averaged only 7.5 percent of the total flow at the boundary, and the salt load about a third of the total. It was not until the fall and winter months, when the quantity of river water available for dilution was 60-75 percent less than in the summer, that the quality at the boundary deteriorated rapidly. The City of Yuma, as previously mentioned, reacted to the impact of the highly saline discharges more than a year carlier than did the Mexican irrigators.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,563,615 byte
Salinity Problems in the Lower Colorado River Area
No full textDocument: State of California, Colorado River Board of California, "Salinity Problems in the Lower Colorado River Area," September, 1962, page 2626 COLORADO RIVER BOARD
Investigations of physical solutions should include consideration of questions such as whether it would be practical from all standpoints to (a) maintain only a seasonal salt balance in the upper zone of the Wellton-Mohawk aquifer, leaving the bulk of the saline water now in the lower zones virtuaily undisturbed and unusable, (b) to dewater the entire aquifer and waste the effluent, and later to refill the underground formation with water of better quality as a standy and regulatory reserve, or (c) to freshen all the water in the aquifer gradually from the top down as the Wellton-Mohawk District intended by its present plan of drainage operation, and if so, whether to expand the facilities to accomplish this quickly or to let it continue at its present rate.
The legal and political complications are local, regional, national and international in character and scope. Not to be overlooked are the extent and limit of the right of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District to operate its project facilities to best suit it own purposes, and the extent to which such operation as the District contemplates may be considered fair and reasonable to other interests including those in Mexico.
The Gila Project and the Wellton-Mohawk Division thereof are under statutory limitations as to the total annual beneficial consumptive use that can be made. For the Gila Project as a whole, the limitation is 600,000 acre-feet of net consumptive use per annum and for the Wellton-Mohawk Division, 300,000 acre-feet per annum. If the drainage from the Wellton-Mohawk Unit were to be so bypassed that it was not available for use elsewhere in the United States or in Mexico, it presumably could not be credited to the District as return flow under the statute or under the decree proposed by the Special Master in the pending Supreme Court suit, Arizona v. California. Similarly, if the Wellton-Mohawk aquifer were to be first dewatered of its present highly mineralized content and refilled with better water in a later period. the larger diversions during the refilling period would not be offset by the return flow and the net diversions during that period, undoubtedly, would exceed the statutory limitation.
Representatives of the basin states and the United States government are agreed to stand upon the premise that the United States has no legal obligation under the Treaty to alleviate the current acute situation, but they also recognize that as a matter of international comity there may be a moral obligation and that as a practical matter the United States should do something. The question then arises as to whether anything can be done without establishing a precedent that would be prejudicial to the rights of the Colorado River Basin states under the Treaty. There are many different views, some conflicting, as to whether this can be done.
Officials of the Colorado River Basin states appear to be firmly unanimous in their position that whatever offer is made, if any, by the United States to help alleviate the situation at the boundary, it should be a part of the agreement with Mexico that Mexico itself and the farmers of the Mexicali Valley will undertake proper measures to improve irrigation and drainage facilities and practices in the Mexicali Valley and that remedial actions by the two countries should be concurrent.
United States interests are also unanimous that there should be no violation or modification of the provisions of the 1944 Water Treaty. The Mexican government apparently has not asked for modification of the terms of the Treaty. On April 24, 1962, Governor Brown addressed a letter to Secretary of State Rusk urging that no settlement should be considered which would involve an increase in the allotment toEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,452,453 byte
Memorandum of Understanding as to Functions and Obligations of Agencies of the United States in Carrying Out the International Agreement with Mexico
No full textMemorandum: Memorandum of Understanding As to Functions and Obligations of Agencies to the United States in Carrying Out the International Agreement with Mexico in Minute No., Recommendations to the Colorado River Salinity Problem, Draft, February 26, 1965 (photocopy), page 6-6-
of Wellton-Mohawk District drainage waters is discharged above Morelos Dam:
(a) The total quantity of salts discharged in the drainage waters from the Wellton-Mohawk District will not exceed the sum total recorded quantity of salts discharged in the drainage waters during corresponding periods between February 11 and September 30, 1964. It is further understood that the total quantity of salts will decrease in the future to the extent that the salinity of the effluent from the drainage wells and tile drains decreases.
(b) The quantity of salt in the drainage waters of the Wellton-Mohawk District will be coordinated to the extent practicable with the Mexican scheduled deliveries at the Northerly boundary by pumping the more saline wells when deliveries are high and the less saline wells when the deliveries are low. The daily quantities of salt discharged from the district should vary with river flows but generally should not exceed the quantities discharged for the corresponding riverEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,158,924 byte
Telegram - New Mexico Offers No Objection to the Adoption of Minute No. 218
No full textTelegram: From Jack M. Campbell, to Stewart Udall, February 19, 1965, page 1WESTERN UNION TELEGRAM
W.P. MARSHALL PRESIDENT
The filing time shown in the date line on domestic telegrams is LOCAL TIME at point of origin. Time of receipt is LOCAL TIME at point of destination
CC Fa?? th?? ?? 2/23 Ween??
LLA295 OA311 LH472
L SNA191 NL PD SANTA FE NMEX 19
THE HONORABLE STEWARD L UDALL SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHDC
COPY TO THE PRESIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, D. C., THE HONORABLE DEAN RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE, WASHINGTON D. C., THE HONORABLE J. F. FRIEDKIN, COMMISSIONER, U. S. SECTION INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION, 206 SAN FRANCISCO STREET, EL PASO, TEXAS.
NEW MEXICO OFFERS NO OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED MINUTE NO. 218 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION AS AN INTERIM SOLUTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL SALINITY PROBLEM ON THE COLORADO RIVER CAUSED BY THE DRAINAGE OF THE WELLTON-MOHAWK PROJECT IN ARIZONA. I AM ADVISED THAT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT MORE THAN MINIMAL RELEASES OF WATER FROM STORAGE WILL BE REQUIREDEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,520,744 byte
Letter Concerning Draft of Minute No. 218
No full textLetter: From Carl Hayden, to Stewart Udall, February 9, 1965 (thermofax), page 1CARL HAYDEN, ARIZ., CHAIRMAN
RICHARD ? RUSSELL. GA. LEVERETT SALTONSTALL. MASS.
ALLEN J. ELLSNDER. LA. MILTON R YOUND. N. DAR.
LISTER HILL ALA KARL S. MUNDY. S DAR.
JOHN L MC CLELLAN. ARK. MARCAREY CHASE SHITH. HAINZ
A. WILLIS ROBERTSON. VA THOMAS M. RUCHEL. CALIF.
WARREN G MAGNUSON. WASH. ROMAN L. HRUSRA. NESR.
SPESSARO L. HOLLAMD. PLA. CORDON ALLOTT. COLG.
JOHN STENNIS. MISS. NORRIS COTTON. N.H.
JOHN O. PASTORE. R. I. CLIFFORD P. CASE. N J.
A. S. MIKE MONRONEY. ORLA.
ALAN SISLS. NEV.
ROBERT C. BYRS, W. VA.
GALE W. ??C ???. WVO.
MIKE MANOFIELD MONT.
E. L. BARTLETT. ALASEA
WILLIAM PROXNIRE. WIS.
RALPH YARSOROUOH. TEX.
EVERARD N. SMITH. CLERK
TNONAS J. SCOTT. ASST. CLERK
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
February 9, 1965
The Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Secretary of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I have had an opportunity to look over the draft of Minute No. 218 of the International Boundary and Water Commission involving a proposed agreement for settlement with Mexico on the salinity problem on the Colorado River. However, I would appreciate answers to the following questions, which were not specifically dealt with in the Minute.
1. Will the implementation of the proposed Minute of January 12, 1965 require or involve the release of stored water that it would not otherwise be necessary to release? If so, what estimated quantity annually?
2. In the event of implementation of the proposed Minute of January 12, 1965, will all of the drainage waters of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District which are to be conveyed through the proposed extension of the Wellton-Mohawk Drainage Conveyance Channel to the vicinity of Morelos Dam, and whether discharged above or below Morelos Dam, be available for use in satisfaction of the Mexican treaty obligations in, determining the "consumptive use" of the District as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Decree dated March 9, 1964 in Arizona vs. California?Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,628,473 byte
Draft Memo to the Secretary on Colorado River Salinity Problem
No full textDocument: Draft Memo to the Secretary, January 30, 1965, page 1DRAFT -- OB:aw -- Jan. 30
DRAFT MEMO TO THE SECRETARY
Subject: Colorado River Salinity Problem
Results of the 1-1/2 day meeting with the Committee of 14 in Phoenix Tuesday and Wednesday were generally good, although we will not know until we receive a communication from the 7 Governors exactly what the official reaction will be. Near the close of the meeting the Chairman, Carl Andersen of Arizona, told Federal Government representatives present that "I think you can assume that we will support the solution which has been proposed here (the draft Minute which Mexico and the United States have tentatively approved). There are two major points to which we must give attention:
1. The recommended solution will work without complication if Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District continues to operate its total irrigated acreage of 62,000 to 63,000 acres. If the 12,000 additional acres whichEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,969,824 byte
Confidential Letter - International Boundary and Water Commission
No full textLetter: From J.F Friedkin, to Terrance G. Leonhardy, Esquire, January 16, 1965 (thermofax), page 6CONFIDENTIAL
- 6 -
Recommendation 8 limits the life of the Minute to five years, subject to review and possible adoption of a new Minute. Our objective in this paragraph is to establish some method of terminating the arrangement and, therefore, the operation of the extension channel.
a) In our initial position, we proposed the guarantee of 1.5:1 salt balance ratio in respect of Wellton-Mohawk waters delivered to Mexico above Morelos Dam, by some form of a bypass channel, or tile drains with no guarantee of salt balance ratio. In either case, it would have provided a fixed criteria, and we would have known clearly the extent and duration of our obligation
b) Mexico was not willing to accept either proposal. It suggested instead the formula upon which the Minute is based; i.e., an extension channel; Mexico to account for all Wellton-Mohawk drainage waters; Wellton-Mohawk waters to be discharged below Morelos Dam during most of the winter; United States control flows so that there would be an average of 900 cfs in the river during the winter when Mexico requests the minimum Treaty rates of delivery.
c) The United States did not want to commit itself indefinitely to this arrangement. If the extesion channel were to be regarded as fairly permanent, it would have raised the question of capitalizing the annual cost. Moreover, within 5 years the drainage from the Wellton-Mohawk District might approximate salt balance.
d) The result was to make the Minute effective for five years, subject by its own terms to a new Minute, if needed, as stated in the proposed draft.
The language was modified at the Mexico City meeting to again state the intent..."of achieving a permanent and effective solution...".
Recommendation 9 was requested by the United States and accepted by Mexico as necessary in recognition of the requirement that the solution is contingent upon the United States Congress making funds available for the construction, operation and maintenance. The language was modified at the Mexico City meeting to substitute in the last line for the term "construction, operation and maintenance" the inclusive phrase "to implement" this Minute.
Recommendation 10 was added in Mexico City at the United States request, in order that the Minute require specific approval by the two Governments, which we consider essential. Without such requirement, the Minute could and the Mexican Commissioner proposed, that it be subject to automatic approval after 30 days if neither Government objected, as are Minutes drawn under the 1944 Treaty for which specific approval is not specifically required by the Treaty.
Recommendation 11 contains the legal reservations (Recommendation 10 in 1/12/65 draft). It was modified at the meeting to state in the first line "the provisions of this Minute..." instead of"... aforementioned Recommendations..." as in the prior United States draft, and also instead of the phrase in the Mexican earlier draft of "nothing in this Minute...".
The closing paragraph of the 1/12/65 draft, after the Recommendations, which in substance was simply a second reference to the instructions to the Commission, was deleted at the Mexico City meeting as not being necessary.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
Exhibits A, B, C, & D
cc: Robert M. Sayre, Esquire
CONFIDENTIAL
J. F. Friedkin
CommissionerEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,711,853 byte
Letter - Arizona Power Authority
No full textLetter: From E.A. Thomas, Chairman, to Wilbur A. Dexhiemer, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, May 4, 1955 (thermofax)May 4, 1955
Mr. Wilbur A. Dewheiner, Cammissiener United States Duress of (??)tion Department of the Interier Interier Building Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. De(??)
The Arisona Power authority has been in touch with your office in the pest in relation to Arizona being included in the Power Market Aree of the propesed Upper-Basin Project, with particuler reference to securing power and energy from the preposed Glen Dan powerhouse.
Mooever, it has been brought to our attention that the Authority has not made formal applisetion for power to be developed at Glen Canyon. Therefere, plesse consider this cemmnisstion as a request for Arizona's (??)t of power and energy from the proposed Glen Canyon development, in the (??) of the Arizona Power Authoticy.
Sincerely.
ARIZONA POWER AUDORITY
NAT/ja
cc: J. P. Jones. Reg. Dir. Reg. III. U.S.B.R. Soulder City, Navada
R. O. Larsen, Reg. Dir. Reg. IV. U.S.B.R.P.D. Box 360 Salt Lake City 10. Utah
be: Rep. Stewart L. Udall Rep. John J. Rhodes Sen. Cerl Hayden Sen. Barry M. Coldwater Govne Forland (Governor McFarland)
B. A. Thomas Chairman
Up (United Press)
Ap (Associated Press)
Market (??) (Interstate Stream Comm.)
(??) (Republic-Gazette Corres. Washington D. C.) 608 Albee Bldg.
APA CommissionersEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,374,394 byte