226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Federal Power Commission - Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248 - Order Granting Limited Intervention Out of Time
No full textDocument: United States of America, Federal Power Commission, Order Granting Limited Intervention Out of Time, November 2, 1962, page 14-7-
The alternative development proposed by the City, which would preempt the site chosen by the Authority, calls for constructing a similar powerhouse and reservoir at Marble Canyon and -- taking advantage of the southwesterly loop in the river at this point -- a 44-mile diversion tunnel that would run due west and (except for a 5-mile strip) outside the Park area, to connect with a reservoir and powerhouse at the point where the Kanab joins the Colorado just inside the Park. Water sufficient (a disputed point) to maintain minimum flows in the Colorado for scenic purposes would be allowed to continue on down through the Park itself; 15/ and the project switching yards would be located outside the Park area. The installed capacity of this project, which would cost and estimated $1 billion, would exceed 2 million kilowatts.
The City itself does not propose to construct this project. It simply contends that this Commission should find that Marble-Kanab is the project best adapted to the development of the water resource involved in this proceeding; 16/ that this Commission should obtain further examinations, surveys, reports and estimates of the cost of this proposal; and that we should submit them to The Congress with appropriate recommendations. The City anticipates that this project will be built by the Bureau of Reclamation, an agency within the Department of the Interior. 17/
The National Park Service, another agency within the Department of the Interior, has, in the past, opposed this plan. "There was included in the Bureau of Reclamation's March 1946 report," the examiner said (at page 33), "the statement that ' * * * such a project [one diverting the waters of the Colorado in the vicinity of Marble Canyon around the Park] should not be considered until there is a need for the power thus generated which cannot be met by other means. Then the decision should be made * * * not primarily upon technical details, but upon broad considerations of public purpose * * *.'"
15/ Examiner, at page 32.
16/ Section 7 (b). "Whenever, in the judgment of the Commission, the development of any water resources for public purposes should be undertaken by the United States itself, the Commission shall not approve any application for any project affecting such development, but shall cause to be made such examinations, surveys, reports, plans, and estimates of the cost of the proposed development as it may find necessary, and shall submit its findings to Congress with such recommendations as it may find appropriate concerning such development."
17/ "The Bureau of Reclamation has been aware of the possibilities inherent in a plan of development similar to that which the City sponsors here since at least as far back as 1940, and included such a scheme as a potential future development in the lower Colorado River Basin in a Planning Report to Congress in 1945."Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,502,598 byte
Federal Power Commission - Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248 - Order Granting Limited Intervention Out of Time
No full textDocument: United States of America, Federal Power Commission, Order Granting Limited Intervention Out of Time, November 2, 1962, page 23-16-
I am well aware of our rules, and of the necessity for timeliness and order in the prosecution of our hearings. In the setting of rates, or rate-of-return and other kindred matters, I have never been unwilling to proceed with dispatch even over the protests of the laggards and the dilatory. But my readiness to do so in those matters rests on one fact: errors in such cases are fully subject to correction -- even retroactive correction. Error in the licensing of a major hydroelectric project is correctable by us only within very narrow limits, if at all. Once built, a project erroneously conceived and licensed is not even correctable by the courts. Nor will it be correctable by any members of the five or six generations of people, at a minimum, who must somehow manage to live with an error enshrined in steel and concrete during the whole of its usable life.
In a case of this kind, while I am reluctant to depart from our rules requiring prompt dispostiion of cases, I am even more reluctant to rely on procedural punctilio instead of knowledge; on guesswork and assumptions instead of facts. And I am especially reluctant to proceed, with my colleagues, to run those risks after we have been offered (and have refused) factual evidence by the Secretary and have instead accepted hearsay testimony, from unauthorized witnesses, whose "evidence," purporting to identify policies of the Interior Department, has been repudiated by the Secretary of the Interior.
If we reject the Secretary's offer to testify, what will we do with the testimony he has repudiated? Shall we accept it, as the examiner did prior to its repudiation? That would be passing strange. Shall we reject it? It seems to me we should. But it also seems to me that we cannot then support the examiner's decision, permeated as it is with the rejected testimony and with reasoning based thereon.
Shall we write our own decision after rejecting the testimony regarding policies and plans of the Department of the Interior which has been repudiated by teh Secretary of the Interior? If we do, we will base our final decision on a record which contains, instead of the comprehensive plans, policies and views of the Department of the Interior, a rather large fragment of the great cosmic void. The presence of such a void will demonstrate, even to the least observant, that we have not given full attention to all possible alternative plans of development. And if we have not done that, how can we claim to have licensed that project which "will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan" for development of the Colorado, as required by teh Federal Power Act?
The public interest is at stake here. The Secretary of the Interior should be allowed to offer evidence.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,389,473 byte
Letter - Department of Water and Power, The City of Los Angeles
No full textLetter: From Samuel B. Nelson, to Stewart Udall, October 26, 1962 (thermofax), page 1DEPARTMENT
OF
WATER AND POWER
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
TELEPHONE MADISON 4 4211
207 SOUTH BROADWAY
P O BOX 3669 TERMINAL ANNE
LOS ANGELES 54 CALIFORNIA
October 26, 1962
The Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Secretary of the Interior
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
On June 14, 1962, an integration meeting was held pursuant to Article 20 of the Agency Contract, at Boulder City, Nevada. At this meeting, as quoted in the minutes, "The Representative of the Secretary agreed that if it were not for the proposed filling of Colorado River Storage Project reservoirs, he believed there would be sufficient water available for release to generate full firm power during the operating year".
At the time this statement was made, the mean June-July inflow to Lake Mead was estimated at 3.7 million acre-feet. The actual inflow to Lake Mead during June-July exceeded this estimate by about 900,000 acre-feet.
Despite the statement at the June 14 meeting, quoted above, and despite the fact that the inflow to Lake Mead had increased over the amount estimated at the June meeting, the Representative of the Secretary, at an integration meeting held September 14, 1962, made a declaration which, in effect, provided that during the entire contract year water will be made available to meet only downstream requirements. This was estimated to produce a total of 3,769,000,000 kilowatt hours during the contract year, constituting 91.7% of contract firm energy.
The reduction in energy available at Hoover Power Plant from "full firm" to 91.7% of "full firm"--a reduction resulting in great benefits to the Colorado River Storage Project--has resulted and will result in severe financial loss to the powerEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,850,422 byte
Memorandum on Request for Information on the Colorado River
No full textMemorandum: From W. Darling to Orren Beaty, "Request for information on the Colorado River," October 19, 1962Copy to pice B(??)
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
OCT 19 1962
Memorandum
To: Orren Beaty
Assistant to the Secretary
Acting
From: Commissioner of Reclamation
Subject: Request for information on the Colorado River
This is in reply to your memorandum of October 12, 1962, requesting information on evaporation losses from Upper Colorado River Basin reservoirs and the time required for filling of Lake Powell and Marble Canyon Reservoirs.
There are 55 existing and authorized reservoirs with capacities of 5,000 acre-feet or more located in the Colorado River Basin above Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell which have an estimated average annual evaporation loss of 215,000 acre-feet. We have no record of small reservoirs of less than 5,000 acre-feet of capacity.
Assuming the closure of Glen Canyon Dam in the spring of 1963, as scheduled, and occurrence of successive years of average runoff thereafter, it is estimated that Lake Powell would be completely filled by 1974. The estimated long-time average annual evaporation loss from Lake Powell is 582,000 acre-feet.
The Marble Canyon Project of the Arizona Power Authority can be built in 6 years. The estimated average annual evaporation loss from Marble Canyon Reservoir is 25,000 acre-feet. Presumably, arrangements can be made for release from Glen Canyon of the 500,000 acre-feet of water required for initial filling of Marble Canyon Reservoir, prior to the filling of Lake Powell, but this release would be in addition to the normal releases anticipated by the Glen Canyon filling criteria and would require appropriate adjustments in those criteria.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,513,857 byte
United States of America Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: United States of America Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248, Answer and Objection of Arizona Power Authority to Petition for Intervention, Notion for Leave to Intervene Out of Time, and Motion for Re-opening the Record of Presentation of Evidence of Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, October 10, 1962, page 109
responsiblity vested in the Army Corps of Engineers with regard to other river basins. Yet, the Supreme Court has held that even when Congress has "approved" a plan of development formulated by the Corps of Engineers, this Commission nevertheless retains jurisdiction to issue a license for one of the projects included in that plan in the absence of specific Congressional "authorization". United States ex rel Chapman, Secretary of Interior v. Federal Power Commission, 345 U.S. 153 (1953) (Roanoke Rapids). Since the Petitioner's plans, if any, for the Lower Colorado River have not even been "approved", let alone "authorized", by Congress, his claim here is far more tenuous than that rejected by the Supreme Court in the Roanoke Rapids case. See, also, National Hells Canyon Ass'n. v. F.P.C. 237 F. 2d 777 (C.A. D.C. 1957) cert. den. 353 U.S. 924 (1957).
Contrary to the Petitioner's implied assertion of statutory authority over the Marble Canyon site, Congress directed that the Federal Power Act was to operate for the benefit of the State of Arizona as if the Marble Canyon site were vacant, unreserved and unappropriated public lands. Section 1 of the Act of June 14, 1934 (48 Stat. 960), which defines the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Reservation, not only excludes therefrom "all lands heretofore designated by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to Section 28 of the Arizona Enabling Act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stat. L. 595) as being valuable for water-power purposes, and all lands withdrawn or classified as power-site lands," but further provides:Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,049,627 byte
United States of America Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: United States of America Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248, Answer and Objection of Arizona Power Authority to Petition for Intervention, Notion for Leave to Intervene Out of Time, and Motion for Re-opening the Record of Presentation of Evidence of Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, October 10, 1962, page 1110
"*** the Federal Water Power Act of June 10, 1920 (41 Stat. L. 1063), and amendments thereto, shall operate for the benefit of the State of Arizona as if such lands were vacant, unreserved and unappropriated public lands."
Petition implies a need for a hydro-electric development at the Marble Canyon site for the "financial assistance" that it could provide toward the accomplishment of water conservation and other objectives. But, in this regard, the issuance of a license to the Authority for the Marble Canyon project will not be out of harmony with these objectives. Arizona law provides that the Authority's rates for power and energy from the Marble Canyon development may include a water component for the support of irrigation. And, the Arizona agencies have agreed that the Marble Canyon project revenues may be used to assist the Central Arizona Project. The Authority, therefore, can contribute power revenues from the Marble Canyon Project to the Central Arizona Project or other water conservation projects in Arizona in the same manner as could Interior.
V
The Petitioner's Motion for Re-opening the Record for the Presentation of Evidence is particularly without merit. In his Motion, the Petitioner asserts that such re-opening is necessary because "certain witnesses have testified as to the plans and programs of the Department of the Interior so that these important public responsibilities have been presented to the Commission in an erroneous fashion. ***" The AuthorityEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 970,004 byte
Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248, Petition of Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, For Leave to Intervene Out of Time, October 1, 1962, page 1Lecy. Udall
Before the
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
In the Matter of
ARIZONA POWER AUTHORITY
Project No. 2248
MOTION OF STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OUT OF TIME
Frank J. Barry
Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior
Edward W. Fisher
Edward Weinberg
Leon Jourolmon
Counsel for the
Secretary of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
October 1, 1962Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,721,758 byte
Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248, Petition of Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, For Intervention, October 1, 1962, page 17Hualapai Tribe of the Hualapai Reservation
Mr. Royal D. Marks 3508 N. Seventh Street Phoenix, Arizona
Arthur Lazarus, Jr., Esq. 1700 K Street, N. W. Washington 6, D. C.
Imperial Irrigation District
Horton, Knox & Carter Suite 101, Law Building 895 Broadway El Centro, California
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Charles Cooper, Esq. 306 W. Third Street Los Angeles 13, California
Navajo Indian Tribe
Norman M. Littell, Esq. 1826 Jefferson Place, N.W. Washington 6, D. C.
Colorado River Commission of Nevada
Mr. A. J. Shaver, Secretary 215 E. Bonanza Road State Building Las Vegas, Nevada
Palo Verde Irrigation District
Francis E. Jenney, Esq. 485 South Spring Street Los Angeles 13, California
Upper Colorado River Commission
George D. Clyde, Governor of the State of Utah and Vice Chairman of the Upper Colorado River Commission State Capitol Building Salt Lake City, Utah
Ival V. Goslin, Engineer-Secretary, and Mr. Paul L. Billhymer, Legal Counsel 366 South 5th East Street Salt Lake City, Utah
Colorado River Board of California
Stanley Mosk, Esq. Attorney General State of California 909 S. Broadway - Room 200 Los Angeles 15, California
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 948,730 byte
United States of America Federal Power Commission Decision - Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: United States of America Federal Power Commission, Decision, Arizona Power Authority, Projection No. 2248, Issued September 10, 1962, page 4-4-
interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of waterpower development, and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes; and if necessary in order to secure such plan the Commission shall have authority to require the modification of any project and of the plans and specifications of the project works before approval.
Whether the proposed project is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the Colorado River within the contemplation of Section 10(a), requires inquiry into whether the proposed project (1) is enginerally sound and feasible, (2) is economically feasible, (3) will provide the maximum practicable utilization of the water resources for power purposes, and (4) will provide recreational and other public benefits. In addition, it is necessary to determine whether the Applicant's plan for financing the project is feasible, whether the power and energy available from the project can be marketed in the area served by the Applicant, wheter the proposed project interferes, or is inconsistent, with the purposes of an Indian reservation, and whether the public interest can best be served by the construction and operation by Arizona of the project for which it seeks a license.
Jurisdiction
It appears to be conceded by all of the parties to the proceeding that the Colorado River in the stretch thereof which would be occupied by the proposed Marble Canyon development is a navigable water of the United States within the purview of the Federal Power Act. It also appears to be conceded that the project would affect reservations and other lands of the United States, including lands within the Navajo reservation and the Kaibab national Forest.
Contentions
The Staff recommends the issuance with appropriate conditions of the license sought.
The City contends that the Marble Canyon project is not best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce or the improvement and utilization of water power development on the Colorado and, therefore, that the application should be denied, and the Commission should cause to be made examinations, surveys, reports, plans and estimates of cost to be made of the Marble Canyon-Kanab Creek development (Marble-Kanab), more particularly hereinafter described, and refer the matter to Congress in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(b) of the Federal Power Act.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,416,784 byte
United States of America Federal Power Commission Decision - Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: United States of America Federal Power Commission, Decision, Arizona Power Authority, Projection No. 2248, Issued September 10, 1962, page 13-13-
lands required for the dam site and a portion of the reservoir are a part of the Navajo's reservation, and if so whether the project will interfere, or be inconsistent, with the purposes of that reservation.
While conceding that the proposed Marble Canyon Dam and Reservoir are located on lands abutting the Navajo Reservation, Arizona contends that the dam site lands are not a part of that reservation and, therefore, that there is no question of inconsistency of purpose involved.
On the other hand, the Navajos do not dispute that the Act of Congress awarding statehood to the State of Arizona, approved June 20, 1910, (36 Stat. 557, 575) reserved and accepted from the congressional grants to the new state all potential power sites lying within its boundaries which the Secretary of the Interior might designate as such within a period of five years following the admission of Arizona into the Union. Neither do they dispute that within the prescribed period the Secretary of the Interior designated as reserved lands, among others, the site of Arizona's proposed Marble Canyon Dam and Reservoir. The particular site has been identified as falling within Water Power Designation No. 7. 3/ When that water power designation was issued the site of the proposed Marble Canyon Dam and a portion of the reservoir site on both the east and west banks of the Colorado River were within the Tusayan National Forest.
By the Act of May 23, 1930, Congress removed from the Tusayan National Forest that portion thereof which lay on the east side of the Colorado and the north side of the Little Colorado Rivers and added that area to the Navajo Reservation. That the lands thus added to the Navajo Indian Reservation extended to the Colorado River is not questioned by Arizona. The Act of May 23, 1930, did not specifically mention or refer to reservations or exceptions for water power sites theretofore designated by the Secretary of the Interior.
The Navajos contend "That an Act of Congress [specifically the Act of May 23, 1930] would supersede and override a reservation by the Secretary of the Interior of certain lands for a specified purpose should not be open to serious question since, under the Constitution, the Congress is charged with management of the public lands of the United States." But we are not here concerned with the power of Congress but rather with the will and intent of Congress.
While, as stated above, the 1930 Act did not refer to previously designated water power sites, it did specifically preserve all valid rights and claims of individuals initiated prior to the approval of the Act and, Arizona contends that it was not the intent of the Congress by the 1930
3/ Item 300-E by Reference.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,083,135 byte