226894 research outputs found
Sort by
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 38-38-
ADDITINAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, the evidence adduced and the briefs filed, it is found and concluded, in addition to the findings and conclusions heretofore set out, that:
(1) Arizona Power Authority, and agency of the State of Arizona (Applicant), filed application under the Federal Power Act (the Act) for a license authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of hydroelectric project works at the Marble Canyon site on the Colorado River within the State of Arizona, designated the Marble Canyon development, Project No. 2248.
(2) Applicant is a municipality as defined in Section 3(7) of the Act.
(3) The proposed Marble Canyon development would be located in and along a navigable water of the United States.
(4) There is no competing application before the Commission for a license for a development in the Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River.
(5) Applicant has submitted satisfactory evidence of compliance with the laws of the State of Arizona insofar as necessary for the purpose of a license under the Federal Power Act. Public notice of the application has been given as required by the Act.
(6) The Marble Canyon dam of Project No. 2248 would be located at a point 39.5 river miles below the U. S. Geolgical Survey gauging station at Lee Ferry on the Colorado River, Arizona, and about 12.5 miles upstream from the upstream boundary of Grand Canyon National Park.
(7) The reservoir created by the marble Canyon dam will extend upstream about 55 miles to, and may encroach on, the tailwater of the Glen Canyon project of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
(8) The Marble Canyon project proposed by Applicant would include a concrete arch dam with maximum height of about 400 feet creating a reservoir about 55 miles long with its normal water surface at elevation 3130 feet, providing a gross storage capacity of about 480,000 acre-feet, a powerhouse installation of 6 turbines each of 117,500 horsepower at 285 feet net head, totaling 705,000 horsepower and 6 generators each of 85,000 kilowatts at unity power factor, totaling 510,000 kilowatts; and other appurtenant works and structures including transmission facilities.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,252,175 byte
Memorandum on Substitution of Low Bridge Canyon Dam and Marble Canyon Dam for High Bridge Canyon Dam in the Plan for Central Arizona Project
No full textMemorandum - Blue Envelope, From Dominy, to Stewart Udall, "Substitution of Low Bridge Canyon Dam and Marble Canyon Dam for High Bridge Canyon Dam in the Plan for Central Arizona Project," February 14, 1962, page 1 (page3?)COPY
February 14, 1962
Memorandum - blue envelope
To: Secretary of the Interior
From: Commissioner of Reclamation
Subject: Substitution of Low Bridge Canyon Dam and Marble Canyon Dam for High Bridge Canyon Dam in the Plan for Central Arizona Project
We have made some very rough reconnaissance estimates of the effects on the potential Central Arizona Project of substituting a low Bridge Canyon Dam and a Marble Canyon Dam for a high Bridge Canyon Dam. The low Bridge Canyon Dam was assumed to be 94 feet lower in height than the high Bridge Canyon Dam. The reservoir would not encroach on the Grand Canyon National Park although it would extend into the National Monument. A comparison of the two installations follows:
Low Bridge Canyon Plan
Low Bridge High Bridge
ITEM Low Bridge Marble Canyon, plus Canyon
Canyon Canyon Marble Canyon Plan
Cost of Construction of Dam, Power-plant, Reservoir, and
Associated Trans- 180,000,000 465,000,000
mission System
Installed Power
Capacity in 1,250,000 375,000 1,625,000 1,500,000
Kilowatts
Average Annual
Salable Energy in
Millions of Kilowatt 4,871 3,550
Hours
Annual Commercial
Power Revenues 21,400,000
The total estimated cost of the Central Arizona Project with a high Bridge Canyon Dam is about $1,070,000,000. If the energy is sold at six mills perEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,201,562 byte
Memorandum on Substitution of Low Bridge Canyon Dam and Marble Canyon Dam for High Bridge Canyon Dam in the Plan for Central Arizona Project
No full textMemorandum - Blue Envelope, From Dominy, to Stewart Udall, "Substitution of Low Bridge Canyon Dam and Marble Canyon Dam for High Bridge Canyon Dam in the Plan for Central Arizona Project," February 14, 1962, page 2The total estimated cost of the project with Marble Canyon and low Bridge Canyon dams would be approximately 115,000,000. However, if the commercial power is sold at six mills per kilowatt-hour the power allocation could still be repaid in 50 years at 21/2 percent interest with an accumulated surplus of revenues somewhat greater than in the plan with a high Bridge Canyon Dam.
Both plans would provide for payout of all reimbursable costs within 50 years, would provide adequate project pumping power, and would make available a substantial block of energy for commercial sale.
A Central Arizona Project which included both a high Bridge Canyon Dam and a Marble Canyon Dam would, of course, be superior, from a financial standpoint, to either of the plans above.
Copy to: Assistant Secretary Holum
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,004,677 byte
Confidential Proposed Joint Letter to Charles Reed - Wayne Akin - Rich Johnson
No full textDocument: From Stewart Udall, Confidential Joint Letter to Charles Reed, Wayne Akin, & Rich Johnson, 1961, page 2Rainbow Bridge fiasco, and they are spoiling for a fight.
There are two grave dangers:
1. That if the Department proposes a Central Arizona Project which includes a high Bridge Canyon dam this would surely provoke another Echo Park fight and seriously endanger our chances;
2. On the other hand, if we support Marble Canyon Dam as the key unit of the Central Arizona Project our opponents will then seek to stir up the same fight all over again by proposing that Marble be enlarged to include the "comprehensive" Kanab Tunnel proposal. Of course, if they do this, they will have picked a fight with the same conservation groups -- who will then be put in a position of supporting Marble and the Central Arizona, project in order to defeat the Kanab proposal.
It is my judgment that the best strategy for the Department is to take a strong stand on principle on the basic issue. In the context of deploring the harm done to the cause of resorce development by the Echo Park and Rainbow Bridge controversies, we would indicate our determination to avoid such
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,296,948 byte
Telegram on Congratulations
No full textTelegram: From George D. Clyde, Governor of Utah, to Stewart Udall, February 21, 1962Telefax
WESTERN UNION
Telefax
L SLA257 PD FAX SALTLAKECITY UTAH 21 1009A MST
THE HON STEWART L UDALL
SECTY OF THE INTERIOR WASHDC CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR SUCCESSFUL TERMINATION OF THE POWER TRANSMISSION LINE CONTROVERSY UPPER COLORADO RIVER PROJECT. I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR BRINGING THIS LEGITIMATE CONTROVERSY TO A SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION, WHICH APPARENTLY IS QUITE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY ALL PARTIES
GEORGE D CLYDE GOVERNOR OF UTAH.
1962 FEB 21 PM 12 46
FAX
1270 (1-81)Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,122,150 byte
For California: Udall Plan is Federal Grab
No full textDocument: The San Diego Union, Udall Plan is Federal Grab, October 16, 1963The San Diego Union
PAGE b-2 WEDNESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 16, 1963
FOR CALIFORNIA WATER:
Udall Plan Is Federal Grab
SECRETARY OF Interior Stewart Udall's ambitious $4.1 billion Pacific Southwest Water Plan demands the closest possible scrutiny before California or any of the other states involved can seriously consider it as a possible solution to a pressing regional problem.
Secretary Udall will appear before the California Water Commission Friday to explain his proposal further. Ostensibly it provides for long-range regional water development in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Directly affected by the 30-year program would be California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Nevada.
Californians have no reason to be jubilant about the proposal. The plan, for one thing, offers no assurance that California would receive even the 4.4 million acre feet of Colorado River water awarded the state by a Supreme Court decision last June 3.
Without this water the Metropolitan Water District would have no water to convey through its billion-dollar facility.
Many areas of Southern California, including San Diego County, would face desperate water supply problems.
Primary objection to the proposal, however, stems from the threat of further encroachment by federal government into state and local affairs. The San Diego Chamber of Commerce reported: "... the state must fully realize that, if approved, this multi-billion-dollar plan will forever mean federal control over ground water, surface water, water reclamation, water purification, water desalinization and water conservation. In fact, all water, inter-state as well as intra-state, will be managed by federal government."
Secretary Udall himself admitted congressional acceptance of his proposal virtually would eliminate individual state projects, including the California Water Plan, on which development of much of this state is dependent. The plan, as he said, would require "federal leadership and federal financing."
Wesley E. Steiner, engineer of the California Department of Water Resources, has pointed out that the impact "on California interests of implementation of the regional plan" far exceeds that associated with the normal federal reports the state is asked to review.
"It constitutes an extraordinary report which demands an extraordinary review effort and the institution of unusual review procedures," he said.
Secretary Udall has asked that Gov. Brown and governors of the other four states involved submit their comments on the proposal by Nov. 23. The California Water Commission's recommendation will largely determine G o v. Brown's report.
The states of the Pacific Southwest are bound together by common water problems. The present regional plan, however, would bring about the forfeiture of vital states' rights to centralized government.
California, which has moved forth-rightly to solve its enormous water conservation and flood control problems, would find its destiny subject to the whims of Washington bureaucracy and political manipulations.
The plan cannot be considered by California without revisions that would guarantee the state major control of its own water conservation and distribution.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 3,449,650 byte
United States of America Before the Federal Power Commission in the Matter of Arizona Power Authority Project No. 2248, Application for Reconsideration
No full textDocument: United States of American Before the Federal Power Commission In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248, Application for Reconsideration, September 6, 1963, page 1Sept. 6, 1963
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
In the Matter of
ARIZONA POWER AUTHORITY
Project No. 2248
APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Of Counsel
LeBoeuf, Lamb & Leiby
Randall J. LeBoeuf, Jr.
Craigh Leonard
Ronald D. Jones
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York 5, New York
Melvin Richter
317 Wyatt Building
Washington 5, D. C.
Dale E. Doty
1028 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20036
W. T. Willey
1810 West Adams Street
Phoenix 7, Arizona
September 6, 1963Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 515,413 byte
United States of America Before the Federal Power Commission in the Matter of Arizona Power Authority Project No. 2248, Application for Reconsideration
No full textDocument: United States of American Before the Federal Power Commission In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248, Application for Reconsideration, September 6, 1963, page 65
intervene to January 14, 1960. Again, the Secretary did not file any petition to intervene. Later, when the Commission severed the competing Bridge Canyon application (see fn. 2), the Commission, on May 19, 1961, renewed its request for the Secretary's views, asking that they be submitted by July 10, 1961. However, nothing was received from the Secretary until November 1, 1961, when he submitted a letter signed by Assistant Secretary Holum.
Hearings on Arizona's Marble Canyon Project were held in May, October and December 1961. Los Angeles and the California Intervenors, two of the principal intervenors opposing Arizona's application, continued to argue, despite the Commission's denial of their earlier motion similarly grounded, that the proceedings should be suspended until the Supreme Court decided the then pending Arizona v. California. Further, they claimed that Arizona's project did not satisfy the requirements of Section 10(a) and urged the Commission to recommend to Congress under Section 7(b), the construction of the billion dollar socalled Kanab Creek development. 3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 938,948 byte
Letter - Committee on Appropriations
No full textLetter: To Stewart Udall, August 15, 1963 (thermofax)United States Senate
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
August 15, 1963
RIDING PAGE
Mr. Devetory
Have scheduled you for 8/27 few O B.
Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Secretary of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Stewart:
Hearings on S. 1658, the Central Arizona Project bill, have been scheduled for August 27 and 28, before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
Legislation authorizing this project passed the Senate in 1950 and again in 1951, based on the Report and Findings of the Department of the Interior contained in House Document No. 136, 81st Congress, 1st Session. During the past few years the Congress as well as the States of New Mexico and Arizona have made funds available to update that Report. That updated Report is now available.
I shall appreciate your submitting immediately to the Senate Interior Committee, copies of this Report and as quickly as possible the Department's views. on the economic and engineering feasibility of this project as outlined in the updated Report so that the Committee may be adequately prepared for these hearings.
With kind personal regards, I am
Yours very sincerely,
U. S. S.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,700,728 byte
Cover Sheet Note
No full textDocument: From Stewart Udall to Andy, July 16, 1963?OFFICE OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
DIVISION OF INFORMATION
??Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 603,099 byte