226894 research outputs found
Sort by
A Bill to Approve a Regional Approach to the Development of the Water Resources of the Pacific Southwest, to Authorize Features of the Initial Pacific Southwest Water Plan, and to Establish a Pacific Southwest Regional Water Commission
No full textDocument: A Bill To approve a regional approach to the development of the water resources of the Pacific Southwest, to authorize features of the Initial Pacific Southwest Water Plan, and to establish a Pacific Southwest Regional Water Commission.", April 1964, page 1(2) one member representing each of the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah appointed by the Governor of the State; and
(3) one member appointed by and representing each of the Secretaries of Agriculture, the Army, Health, Education and Welfare, Interior, and State, and one member representing each of such other departments and agencies as the President may designate.
(b) The compensation of each member shall be paid by the entity appointing him; except that if the chairman is not a Federal official, his compensation shall be determined by the President, but when employed on a full-time annual basis shall not exceed the maximum scheduled rate for grade GS-18 of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended; or when engaged in the performance of the commission's duties on an intermittent basis such compensation shall be not more than 12,000 in any year.
SEC. 202. (a) The functions of the commission shall be to:
(1) serve as the principal agency for the coordination of further Federal, State, interstate, and local plans for the conservation, augmentation, and beneficial utilization of the water and related land resources of the Pacific Southwest;
(2) coordinate with State and Federal agencies the preparation of a comprehensive, coordinated, joint plan for the further Federal, State, interstate, and local conservation, augmentation, and beneficial utilization of the water and related land resources of the region: Provided, That the plan may include alternatives and it may be prepared in stages, including recommendations with respect to individual projects;
23Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,121,250 byte
Transcript Prepared by Floyd Dominy
No full textDocument: Prepared by Floyd Dominy, 4/9/64, page 2the construction of the Marble Canyon Dam and powerplant in order to increase revenues to the development fund to finance future needs of the Pacific Southwest.
SENATOR HAYDEN: Then, why not authorize for immediate construction Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams to get the basin account established and simultaneously authorize the Central Arizona Project for which Arizona has patiently been waiting for 14 years?
The revenue from the basin account would, of course, be available for projects throughout the Pacific Southwest area, but because of the complexity of the task of determining specifically at this time which other projects will be needed and the timing of such projects, I urge that we get under way at once with the two cash register dams and with the Central Arizona Project which you have stated are key features of the Southwest Water Plan.
Would you not consider that action by the Congress to establish the basin-wide development fund and to authorize the immediate construction of the Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams and Central Arizona Project works as an initial step, consistent with the regional approach which you presented to this Committee?
SECRETARY UDALL: I certainly agree, Senator, that the most essential first step for any regional development is to have the basin account fund available to use progressively in the development of more and more water as it is needed in the region.
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,121,485 byte
Letter of Response on Central Arizona Project and S. 1658
No full textLetter: From Stewart Udall, to Henry M. Jackson, April 9, 1964 (carbon copy), page 3for common cooperation. This comprehensive plan represents the largest and most complex planning job ever undertaken in a single river basin by this Department or any other Administration.
I am not prepared today on behalf of the Administration to present a final and conclusive report and set of recommendations to your Committee for two reasons, and for two reasons only. First, there are some details of the plan which are still under study by the Administration and which need further analysis. The second reason relates to our uncertainty whether the people of the Pacific Southwest and their representatives in the Congress are prepared to support and work for a specific regional plan. Many voices have been heard in the region during recent months. A general consensus has developed in favor of a regional approach but no broad agreement has been evident as to a specific type of regional plan. The Administration needs to know -- before the final decisions are made on the plan itself -- whether there is sufficient support in the region for a particular regional plan.
Obviously, our extensive planning efforts will have been wasted unless sufficient unity can be attained by the water leaders of the respective states and their representatives in the Congress.
If such unity is forthcoming, I can say with confidence that the final decisions will be made and the Administration will give its full support to a sound regional plan that will achieve the objective of water sufficiency for the Pacific Southwest.
The testimony which I am today presenting to the Committee will analyze in detail the Initial Pacific Southwest Water Plan as it has been developed by my Department to date.
A section by section analysis of the attached bill is enclosed. There are a number of provisions in the draft bill which relate to contracting for water and to the specifics of the individual projects involved. These would apply with equal force to any individual legislation affecting those projects.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior
Hon. Henry M. Jackson, Chairman
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
United States Senate
EnclosuresEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 3,443,470 byte
Reply Letter Giving Report from the Bureau of Budget Prior to the Irigation and Reclamation Hearings on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan and S. 1660
No full textLetter: Draft, to Henry M. Jackson, 4/8/64 (carbon copy), page 22
Pacific Southwest. Because of the complexity of these problems, the broad scope of the Plan and the limited time available, the Department was unable to allow other Federal agencies as adequate an opportunity as usual to participate in formulation of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. As a consequence some aspects of the plan require further consideration. Before outlining these, however, we wish to describe briefly both the Central Arizona project and the Department of the Interior's Pacific Southwest Water Plan, as well as the circumstances leading to formulation of the Plan.
Central Arizona Project
As proposed in S. 1658, the Central Arizona project would convey 1,200,000 acre-feet annually of the flow of the Colorado to the central part of the State to serve irrigation and municipal, and industrial water supply needs. It would also provide hydroelectric power and other benefits. By exchange, the project would make water available for use in. New Mexico. The project would consist of the high Bridge Canyon Dam, a system of aqueducts, storage reservoirs, and other facilities costing approximately $1.0 billion. The Central Arizona project was originally presented in a report prepare by the Department of the Interior in 1947. The executive branchEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 3,291,055 byte
Reply Letter Giving Report from the Bureau of Budget Prior to the Irigation and Reclamation Hearings on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan and S. 1668
No full textLetter: Draft, to Henry M. Jackson, 4/8/64 (carbon copy), page 99
(6) The proposed Southern Nevada water supply project would require a Federal investment of approximately $70 million to provide a municipal water supply to several communities in the vicinity of Lake Mead. Local governments throughout the Nation have traditionally financed facilities to obtain municipal water from existing Federal reservoirs at their own expense. The implications of a departure from this pattern should be carefully studied before any Federal commitment is made.
(7) The ground water salvage program included as a water conservation feature of the Plan would affect aquifers extending into Mexico. Further study of this program is needed to assure full consideration of its international aspects.
(8) A basic premise of the plan is the projection of future deficits in the water available for use in the Lower Colorado Basin. This projection rests on certain assumptions regarding future conservation practices, natural rate of flow, and future policies affecting the rate of water resource development in the Upper Basin, In view of the crucial importance of the basic projection, the underlying assumptions require careful reexamination.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 3,085,644 byte
Reply Letter Giving Report from the Bureau of Budget Prior to the Irigation and Reclamation Hearings on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan and S. 1672
No full textLetter: Draft, to Henry M. Jackson, 4/8/64 (carbon copy), page 1313
(4) Resolution of the water rights controversy surrounding construction of Hooker Dam (a feature of the Central Arizona project) requires judicial or legislative action. We believe attention must be given to this matter prior to initiation of construction of the project.
Conclusion
In view of the close relationship between the Central Arizona project and plans for the Pacific Southwest region, the Bureau of the Budget recommends that authorization of the Central Arizona project be deferred for consideration in the next session of the Congress after the Pacific Southwest Water Plan is given further coordinated study in the light of the questions and issues discussed above.dEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 3,057,194 byte
S. 1658 Amendment
No full textDocument: S. 1658, April 1964 (thermofax), page 7-7-
level. The Congress hereby declares that the construction of the Bridge Canyon dam herein authorized is consistent with the Act of February 26, 1919, (40 Stat. 1175).
(b) construct, operate, and maintain the Central Arizona Unit consisting of the following principal works: Granite Reef Aqueduct and pumping plants; Maxwell dam, reservoir and pumping plant; Salt-Gila Aqueduct; Buttes dam and reservoir; Charleston dam and reservoir; Tucson aqueducts and pumping plants; Hooker dam and reservoir, New Mexico; canals, powerplants and transmission facilities; water distribution and drainage facilities; and appurtenant works; Provided, That for a period of not more than twenty-five years from the effective date of this Act, or until such time as there shall have been constructed such project or projects for supplying water in quantities at least sufficient to avoid the deficiencies hereafter described in the water supply of the Lower Colorado River Basin, whichever soonest occurs, in any year in which, as determined by the Secretary, there will be insufficient water to satisfy the consumptive uses of 2,800,000, 4,400,000 and 300,000 acre-feet in Arizona, California and Nevada respectively, diversions for the purposes of the Central Arizona unit shall be so limited as to assure the availability of water in quantities sufficient to provide for the consumptive use of an aggregate of 4,400,000 acre-feet under water delivery contracts made with entities in the State of California. The term "consumptive use", as used in this Act, means diversions from the Colorado River less such return flow thereto as is available for consumptive use in the United States or in satisfaction of the Mexican treaty obligation;
(c) contruct, operate, and maintain such additional works as shall from time to time be authorized by the Congress as units of the Project;Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,602,672 byte
Issues Still Needing Resolution
No full textDocument: Issues Still Needing Resolution, 4-3-64, page 42
way--that specify that any additional water made available must be used to "open-up" new land. Interior believes the State of California must assume the initiative in altering water use priorities within California to enable salvaged waters to be used for municipal and industrial purposes. Moreover, Mexico can be expected to object to lining of All-American Canal.
Comments - The problems raised by Interior in assuring that salvaged waters will be used for non-irrigation purposes are not to be minimized. Nevertheless, in view of the critical water shortage existing in the Pacific Southwest, we believe the Federal Government would be in a difficult position, should it commit itself to a $1.6 billion construction program to import water into an area without first requiring that existing local supplies be conserved and utilized to the fullest extent physically possible.
(b) Arizona Distribution System Construction and Lining
Interior is working on language to condition delivery of water to irrigation users upon their agreeing to undertake lining of canals and distribution systems. This conservation measure is essential.
(c) Salvage From Phreatophyte Control on Non-Federal Lands
Interior is exploring feasibility of taking advantage of this water saving measure.
3. THE GUARANTEES TO LOWER COLORADO BASIN AND TO AREAS OF ORIGIN
Interior position - Secretary Udall said on Thursday that the guarantees were the "keystone of the Plan;" that without them, the "Plan falls." California recommended these guarantees, and, if the Secretary is to achieve his objective of composing differences between Arizona and California, the guarantees in their present form must be part of the Plan in order to assure California's support.
Interior considers that the water cost guarantee can be supported in view of the Federal Government's historical role in encouraging development on the basis of the availability of 7.5 million acre-feet, agreeing to supply Treaty water to Mexico, and in view of the need to implement the Supreme Court's decision in practical terms.
Comments-
(a) Lower basin water supply guarantees: The water supply guarantee in accord with existing law is not questioned. Interior staff have revised the draft bill wording to reflect the Director's suggestion on limiting the guarantee to a definite quantity, and this appears to take care of this problem.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,333,880 byte
Pacific Southwest Water Plan Legislation
No full textDocument: Pacific Southwest Water Plan Legislation, 4/2/64, page 315. Pages 16-17, section 6. Change heading to read "CONTINUING STUDY" Strike first sentence. Change period at end of second sentence to comma and add "such reports to be made complementary to the reports required by Section 15 of the Act of June 13, 1962 (PL 87-843), and Section 6 of the Act of August 16, 1962 (PL 87-590)."
16. Page 18, subsection (c), last line. Strike "period authorized by law." and insert "periods authorized by this Act; contracts authorized by section 9 (e) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1196, 43 U. S. C. 485h(e)) may provide for delivery of water for a period of not more than fifty years; and long-term contracts relating to irrigation water supply shall provide that water made available thereunder may be made available by the Secretary for municipal or miscellaneous purposes if and to the extent that such water is not required by the contractor for irrigation purposes."
17. Page 18, insert new subsection (d) to read: "(d) Development periods may be provided only for the Dixie and Moapa Valley Pumping projects."
18. Page 18, insert new subsection (e) to read: "(e) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no contract relating to an irrigation water supply from the mainstream of the Colorado River who shall commit the United States to deliver such supply for a basic period of more than fifty years for each project contract unit or irrigation block exclusive of any development period authorized by this Act, nor shall such a contract carry renewal or conversion rights or entitle the contractor to water beyond expiration of the delivery periods specified therein. In negotiating new contracts for delivery of such mainstream water, the Secretary shall consult with representatives of the state in which the use of such water is apportioned by any decree of the Supreme Court of the United States entered in Arizona v. California, et al., 373 U. S. 546; and the Secretary shall take into consideration the overall water supply and needs of the project involved. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any user who on the effective date of this Act has in force a contract with the United States for mainstream water, or to mainstream water decreed for Indian lands in Arizona v. California, supra.
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,926,659 byte
Letter to Advise of a Public Hearing
No full textLetter: From Henry M. Jackson, to Stewart Udall, March 23, 1964 (carbon copy)UNITED STATES SENATE
Washington, D. C.
March 23, 1964
Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Secretary of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
This is to advise you of a public hearing beginning at 9:00 a. m. on April 9 and 10 by the Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee on S. 1658, the Central Arizona Project, and the Southwest Water Plan.
No reports have been received on S. 1658, and of course the Southwest Water Plan has not been received by the Committee. However, these proposals have been the subject of a great deal of discussion by both the Administration and the Congress, and therefore your report before the hearing is requested. It would also be appreciated if the testimony you plan to present at our hearing is available prior to the hearing date.
Please notify Jerry T. Verkler, Staff Director of the Senate Interior Committee, of the witnesses from your Department.
Sincerely yours,
Henry M. Jackson
Chairman
HMJ:vsEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,457,001 byte