226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Statement of Dallas E. Cole, Chief Engineer, Colorado River Board of California
No full textDocument: Statement of Dallas E. Cole, Chief Engineer, Colorado River Board of California, page 33
Net Diversions
Unit - 1,000 a. f.
Palo Verde Imperial Coachella Reservation Coastal
Year Valley Valley Valley Division Area Total
1940 324 3,587 0 32 96 4,039
1950 395 2,939 350 40 179 3,903
1960 383 3,060 506 45 878 4,872
1961 383 3,036 522 40 1,091 5,069
1962 381 3,006 565 46 1,063 5,061
1963 368 3,062 538 45 1,046 5,059
Water to Sustain Agriculture
The agricultural areas in Palo Verde, Imperial, Coachella, and Yuma valleys in California depend solely on Colorado River water. They total about a million acres of irrigable lands, and the net area presently irrigated is about 600,000 acres. Rights of Palo Verde Valley date back to 1877, and of Imperial to 1895. Specialty crops such as melons, winter vegetables, grapes, citrus, and dates are major segments of the economies.
The table below contains pertinent statistics.
Valley First Use of Colo. R. Present Irrigated Acres Investment in Colo. R. Facilities Annual Crop and Livestock Production
(Net)
Palo Verde 1877 80,000 32,000,000
Imperial 1901 435,000 62,000,000 210,000,000
Coachella 1949 60,000 27,000,000 44,000,000
Yuma in Calif. (1905) (10,000) --- ---Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,232,343 byte
Statement of Governor Edmund G. Brown of California on S. 1658 and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textDocument: Statement of Governor Edmund G. Brown of California on S. 1658 and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, April 9-10, 1964 (thermofax), page 11If a Pacific Southwest Water Plan is not adopted, California will have no choice but to continue to oppose the Central Arizona Project. Arizona, of course, may seek to retaliate by using its influence to thwart California projects. Neither stance will solve any water problem of either state. Every drop of water not used, every kilowatt not generated, every man-hour spent in frustrating interstate conflict is an economic loss to the entire Nation. Therefore, when considering the obviously large costs of a regional plan, we ask you to consider the formidable financial and human costs of not having a plan. We do not pretend that adoption of the plan will be easy, and we do not claim that it will be non-controversial. What we ask is that the Congress concentrate on the substantial considerations and not allow its attention to be distracted by peripheral arguments, real though some may be.
# # # # # #
-11-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,207,307 byte
Statement of Governor Edmund G. Brown of California on S. 1658 and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textDocument: Statement of Governor Edmund G. Brown of California on S. 1658 and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, April 9-10, 1964, page 6If a Pacific Southwest Water Plan is not adopted, California will have no choice but to continue to oppose the Central Arizona Project. Arizona, of course, may seek to retaliate by using its influence to thwart California projects. Neither stance will solve any water problem of either state. Every drop of water not used, every kilo-watt not generated, every man-hour spent in frustrating interstate conflict is an economic loss to the entire Nation. Therefore, when considering the obviously large costs of a regional plan, we ask you to consider the formidable financial and human costs of not having a plan. We do not pretend that adoption of the plan will be easy, and we do not claim that it will be non-controversial. What we ask is that the Congress concentrate on the substantial considerations and not allow its attention to be distracted by peripheral arguments, real though some may be.
-6-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,012,245 byte
Handwritten Notes
No full textNotes: beginning reverse sides of Appendix C through Appendix B, page 6Goldwater left at end of statement Moss asked a question - Then turned it over to Kuchel -
Q Under Court Decision-Congress on Secy shall determine shortage pureduse.
A. Yes.
Q 51658 becomes law-shortage develop - would that statute require building of CAP & thereafter.
Secy to use water make CAP feasible - would it direct him in how to divide water.
A. I agree - SLU wrong in assuming he could diminish all states' user in time of shortage.
This is a Congressional directive-no other word from Congress since Court ruled
Moss-Arizona not get able to put its water to use.
So Arizona would always take the Shortage .
Mark-never fall below .7 milles acre feet.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,480,126 byte
Legal Aspect of Lower Basin Water Supply in Light of Supreme Court's Decision in Arizona v. California
No full textAppendix C: Legal aspect of Lower Basin Water Supply in Light of Supreme Court's Decision in Arizona v. California, April 1964, page 4states. This apportionment is accomplished by establishing a ceiling on the quantity of water which may be appropriated 11 in each Basin as against the other. Although Article III(a) and (b) is not expressed in terms of appropriative rights, this is the purport of that Article. For example, it is clear that the Lower Basin may utilize and consume more than the 8,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum apportioned to it by subdivisions (a) and (b) of Article III of the Compact, if the water is actually available, but against the Upper Basin it can acquire appropriative rights to no greater quantity than is sufficient to satisfy a consumptive use of that magnitude." (Master's Report, p. 140.)
"11/ 'To appropriate water means to take and divert a specified quantity thereof and put it to beneficial use in accordance with the laws of the state where such water is found, and by so doing, to acquire under such laws, a vested right to take and divert from the same source, and to use and consume the same quantity of water annually, forever, subject only to the right of prior appropriations.' Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423, 459 (1931) . " [Special Master's footnote.]
The Supreme Court found no occasion to agree or disagree.
2. The Colorado River Compact applies an 8.5 million acre-foot ceiling to lower basin appropriations from the main stream only, and not from the main stream plus lower basin tributaries.
Arizona earnestly argued that the Compact does not apply to lower basin tributaries. It is an interbasin agreement, but the upper basin can have no interest in lower basin tributaries, since water will not flow upstream. The Master rejected the argument, and Arizona renewed it before the Supreme Court. The Court noted the argument, and expressly left it undecided. The Court did decide that when Congress, in the limitation on California, referred to "the waters apportioned to the lower basin States by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River compact," Congress meant main stream waters only, and not the tributaries.
This decision, construing the Project Act, would make it irrational to decide that the Compact, unlike the Project Act, does apply to lower basin tributaries. The act of Congress in the Project Act, under the Constitution, is the act which makes the Compact effective. Compacts among states are construed by giving words the definitions which Congress applies, and not the definitions applied by the states. Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n, 359 U.S. 275 (1959).
There are a number of other reasons, in addition to the Arizona arguments, for excluding lower basin tributaries from the Compact since the Project Act has been so construed. It is unfair to California to diminish lower basin rights against the upper basin by reason of uses on the tributaries, but to give California no rights on account of those tributary uses. It is difficult at best for the Secretary, whom the Project Act
C-4Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,736,959 byte
Letter Regarding Arizona v. California
No full textLetter: From Senator Clair Engle, to Governor Edmund G. Brown, July 9, 1963, page 1CLAIR ENGLE
CALIFORNIA
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C.
July 9, 1963
L. 164Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,510,536 byte
Special Report - Lower Colorado River Project
No full textDocument: Special Report Lower Colorado River Project, June 5, 1963, page 2Even so, a deficit of 18,000,000 man-days will occur in the above mentioned 25,000,000 man-day demands.
Conditions quite similar to the above also occur within the project area insofar as it extends into New Mexico, southern California, and other States contiguous to the Lower Colorado River Basin.
Development of the proposed project with five major reservoirs in Arizona, two smaller reservoirs in Utah, and one in New Mexico could help meet the public demand by providing opportunities for approximately 1,670,000 man-days of fishing. This estimate is based on assumed conditions of intensive fisheries management, optimum public access, and adequate control of conflicting uses such as water skiing and speedboating.
Benefits to the project would be about 7,000,000.
If 60,000 acre-feet of project water were provided annually for fish and wildlife management, as has been requested by the Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2,000,000 man-days of additional fishing could be provided therewith. This would result in additional benefits to the project of about $6,000,000 annually.
Despite these efforts, however, the people of the project area will be faced with a per capita rate of fishing which may be less than one-third of current participation.
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,829,603 byte
Letter on Rescheduling Meeting
No full textLetter: From Stewart Udall, to Paul Fannin, Governor of Arizona, June 28, 1963 (carbon copy)SECRETARY OF INTERIOR
JUNE 28, 1963
HCO
GOVT. PD
HONORABLE PAUL FANNIN
GOVERNOR OF ARIZONA
PHOENEX, ARIZONA
TO AVOID SCHEDULE CONFLICTS ON PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED DATES FOR MEETING WITH ME REGARDING COLORADO RIVER PROBLEMS, I HAVE RESCHEDULED IT FOR 10:00 A.M. JULY 25, THE DAY FOLLOWING CONCLUSION OF GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE IN MIAMI. SUGGEST ATTENDANCE BE
END SHEET 1
HCO SHEET 2
LIMITED TO THE CHIEF WATER ADVISERS OF EACH OF THE GOVERNORS AND NOT THE LIRIGANTS IN RECENT COURT CASE. LETTER DETAILING THIS FOLLOWS.
STEWART L. UDALL
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
OB:fmEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,921,267 byte
Colorado Water Congress Newsletter
No full textDocument: Colorado Water Congress Newsletter, June 25, 1963, page 9-9-
Justice Black: "While pro rata sharing of water shortages seems equitable on its face, more considered judgment may demonstrate quite the contrary. Certainly we should not bind the Secretary to this formula. We have held that the Secretary is vested with considerable control over the apportionment of Colorado River waters. And neither the Project Act nor the water contracts require the use of any particular formula for apportioning shortages. While the Secretary must follow the standards set out in the Act, he nevertheless is free to choose among the recognized methods of apportionment or to devise reasonable methods of his own. This choice, as we see it, is primarily his, not the Master's or even ours. And the Secretary may or may not conclude that a pro rata division is the best solution."
The Supreme Court rejected California's attempt to include about two million acre feet of tributary water, particularly Arizona's Gila River, in the lower basin allocation. By so doing it sidestepped what upper basin states, including Colorado, consider to be an important problem. On reservation of water for Indians, the high court accepted Rifkind's finding that when the U.S. created Indian reservations or added to them, it reserved not only the land but also the use of enough water to irrigate the irrigable portions of the reserved lands. Coloradans note this: The Supreme Court upheld the Master's ruling that the principle underlying reservation of water rights for Indian reservations was "equally applicable to other federal establishments such as National Recreation Areas and National Forests". The high court added "all uses of mainstream water within a State are to be charged against that State's apportionment, which of course includes uses by the United States."Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,822,533 byte
Arizona's Water Fight Shifts to Congress
No full textDocument: Congressman's Report, Morris K. Udall, "Arizona's Water Fight Shifts to Congress," June 21, 1963, page 22.
On the Senate side these are the most important men in our water fight:
Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington is chairman of the Senate Interiror committee. He is a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, a close friend of the President, and one of the real leaders in the Senate. He comes from a state whose prosperity is based on reclamation, and he works closely with Senator Hayden.
Senator Carl Hayden of Arizona is not only the President pro tem of the Senate and chairman of the all-powerful Appropriations Committee: last year, anticipating the struggle for the C.A.P., he had the wisdom and foresight to take a junior seat on the Interior Committee so Arizona would have representation there.
Senator Thomas Kuchel of California is the ranking Republican member of the Senate Interior Committee. A liberal Republican, Kuchel enjoys great respect among his colleagues. His attitude toward C.A.P. could be of critical importance.
Senator Frank Moss of Utah is chairman of the Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee of the Interior Committee. Moss, a liberal Democrat, supports sound reclamation projects and he is now seeking a new authorization for the Dixie project in Southwest Utah.
Senator Clair Engle of California is former chairman of the House Interior Committee and an authority on reclamation law. After our 1951 defeat, which he helped engineer, he said he would be inclined to take a statesmanlike view if Califfornia lost the court case and would not oppose C.A.P. for the sake of opposition. But we should remember that Senator Engle stands for re-election next year, and the attitude of Californians to Arizona water legislation will be a factor he cannot ignore.
On the House side these are the main figures who will play a part in determining the fate of our bill:
Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall of Colorado, chairman of the Interior Committee. Since the principal obstacles to passage are in the House, Chairman Aspinall is one of the most important figures of all. A 67-year-old lawyer who has served in Congress since 1948, Aspinall is one of the most effective and respected of House chairmen. He is s superb legislative tactician with a passion for detail. His insistence that reclamation projects leaving his committee be thoroughly studied, soundly financed and fully justified has resulted in his rearely losing a major bill which he takes to the floor. Nearly all of the major reclamation projects of the last decade bear his imprint. He was perhaps the principal architect of the Upper Colorado project, passed in 1956, which authorized a major basinwide series of dams and irrigation works for Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
Rep. John P. Saylor of Pennsylvania, ranking Republican on the House Interior Committee. A dynamic, resourceful, hard-hitting protagonist, Saylor is a respected figure in the House. His attitude on our bill could be critical. Saylor is a fervent conservationist who has labored hard for the growth of the National Park System and for greater outdoor recreation programs. He is one of the top national advocates of a strong Wilderness Bill. He is adamant about the "integrity of the national parks" and has already complained about the fact that Bridge Canyon Dam (main unit of the C.A.P.) will back water into Grand Canyon National Monument. While not opposed to those reclamation projects he considers sound, he is bitterly critical of increased public power development and of what he considers loose financing and unsound planning in marginal reclamation projects. He voted against the Upper Colorado project in 1956 and might have engineered its defeat if the western states had not stood together.
Rep. Walter Regers of Texas (his district includes Pampa and Amarillo) is chairman of the vital Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation. He is an able lawyer and a moderate conservative who presides with great dignity, efficiency and fairness. In recent years Congress passed his bill to authorize the large Canadian River dam and irrigation project, and he recognizes the need for reclamation.
THE HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE
The House Interior Committee is burdened with the heaviest workload of any committee in Congress. Of all bills introduced in the House, nearly 30% are referred to this committee for action.
As is often the case with Congressional committees, the 31-member committee is dominated by members from states which have special problems within its field of legislation. Of its 19 Democrats and 14 Republicans, all but six Democrats and five Republicans live west of the Mississippi. I am the only Arizonan, while California has two Democrats and two Republicans.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 4,352,628 byte