226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Report on Lower Colorado River Project
No full textReport: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, "Report on Lower Colorado River Project," Revised Draft, 6/7/63, page 58Almost 93 percent of the total project cost of 11 per acre-foot for water and still meet all production costs and have a reasonable level of living. This represents nearly 58 per acre-foot or 18 cents per 1000 gallons of water. This cost is reasonable and can be repaid during the repayment period.
Power costs are likewise repaid with interest. In developing the repayment analysis for the study, commercial power revenue form the potential Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon powerplants were computed at $15,30 per installed kilowatt and 3 mills per kilowatt-hour. Hoover, Parker, and Davis power production was computed at 5 mills per kilowatt-hour after expiration of present contracts. At these rates the power components would repay their costs within less than 50 years, and the additional revenue could be used to assist the irrigation water uses and provide revenue for other vitally needed resource development.
39Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,998,687 byte
Statement of the Board of Directors, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textDocument: Statement of the Board of Directors, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, November 1, 1963, page 3-3-
4. The Pacific Southwest Water Plan is incompatible with and cannot co-exist with the California Water Plan. It does not give due recognition to the fact that the people of California, through legislation and through the voting of $1.75 billion in bonds under the Burns-Porter Act, have given the State of California the responsibility of administering the California Water Plan to provide a continuing supply of water to its people. The integrity of the State Water Resources Development System as defined in the Burns-Porter Act requires that all facilities necessary to enable the State to fulfill its contractual obligations be built and operated by the State, with any participation by the Federal government therein being limited to financial assistance only. The Pacific Southwest Water Plan would have the Federal Government take over a substantial part of the future water resources of the State, and build and administer new and extensive water-ways and other developments under pricing and contract policies not under the control of the people of California.
The early utilization of the more economic storage sites in aid of the proposed Federal plan is also incompatible with California's construction of the State Water Resources Development System. It would cast the burden of later development of the less economic sites upon the District and other contractors for State water.
It may also be noted that the plan's proposed enlargement of the California Aqueduct would be unwise from an engineering standpoint. Dependability would dictate provision for facilities separate from the State's Aqueduct, thus affording dispersion of the risk of outages of long duration in the event of earthquake or other damage.
5. Under the plan, it is proposed to sell water at rates substantially less than would be required to produce revenues adequate to support the project. It is indicated that the additional revenues required would be obtained from sale of hydroelectric power. There is grave doubt whether all the power which would be produced under the plan would be sufficient to meet the pumping needs of the plan. Even at the power rates proposed, which include more than doubling the rate for Hoover power after contracts currently in effect have run out, the basin account evidently would still require support from Federal tax funds.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,324,661 byte
Before the California Water Commission
No full textDocument: Before the California Water Commission, Statement of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Ex Officio Governing Board of the Contra Costa County Water Agency, November 1, 1963, page 2The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County appreciates this opportunity to present to the Commission our views with respect to the Department of Interior's "Pacific Southwest Water Plan".
By virtue of the Agency's previous presentations before the Commission, you know that we, in Contra Costa County, have been critical of water resources management and planning in California by Federal and State agencies. All water resource development in California affects the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta and our only aim was, and is, protection of the Delta's favorable environment.
103,000 acres of Contra Costa County's land area lies within the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta, as defined in Section 12,220 of the State Water Code; a substantial portion of the Western Delta. The area is characterized by a highly developed industrial complex, intensive agriculture, and important recreational development. This economy is there today because of the Delta's historically available fresh offshore water supply; maintenance of which is the deciding factor in the economy's continuing unimpaired growth.
In our review of the Report on the "Pacific Southwest Water Plan", we find reference to the term "surplus waters". Phase I of the Report proposes the diversion of these so-called "surplus waters" of the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta for use in Southern California as replacement for the "lost waters" of the Colorado River. As far as the economy of the Delta is concerned, these so-called "surplus waters" are certainly not "surplus", but because their natural course is through the Delta, past Antioch and Pittsburg, are rather, the life blood of what we have in the Delta today. It is these waters which sweep out the pollutants in the Delta and, to a substantial degree, prevent sedimentation and the intrusion of saline waters, thereby creating the Delta's offshore water supply and a highly favorable habitat for fish and wildlife. The term "surplus waters" is misleading.
Our Board Resolution No. 2337 (copy attached) outlines seven planning considerations, clarification of which must be incorporated in the "Pacific Southwest Water Plan", before Contra Costa County can consider supporting the Plan. Three provisions concern the effect of the Plan upon the entire State. The re-
: 1 :Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,421,602 byte
Before the California Water Commission
No full textDocument: Before the California Water Commission, Statement of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Ex Officio Governing Board of the Contra Costa County Water Agency, November 1, 1963, page 7I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution entered on the minutes of said Board of Super-visors on the 8th day of October , 1963
Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 8th day of October , 1963.
W. T. PAASCH, CLERK
By Louise Crowe
Deputy ClerkEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 428,113 byte
Central Valley East Side Project Association Resolution - Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textDocument: Resolution, Pacific Southwest Water Plan, Central Valley East Side Project Association, Oct. 28, 1963, page 25. It is not apparent that full advantage is being taken of all available opportunities to save Pacific Southwest Area water supplies since the conservation features in Phase I are limited to the Colorado River channels.
6. The proposed use of 153,600 acre feet annually of additional water from the Colorado River by the Fish and Wildlife Service would further deplete available supplies;
7. No exports to Southern California or Arizona should be made until inventories and plans clearly demonstrate that all needs for water in the areas of origin can be met when required;
8. The cost of replacement water supplies developed for areas of origin or otherwise designated service areas should not exceed the costs which would have prevailed in the absence of an exportation;
9. Inadequate time and lack of sufficient supporting detail has prevented full analysis of the proposed report.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that while the Central Valley East Side Project Association supports the concept of adequate long range planning, it requests the State of California to oppose the transmittal to Congress of the proposed Pacific Southwest Water Plan in its present form, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that JAMES F. SORENSEN, Secretary, Central Valley East Side Project Association, be authorized and directed to present this Resolution to Governor Edmund G. Brown, the California Water Commission, appropriate State and Federal legislative committees and agencies and interested parties.
I certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Central Valley East Side Project Association at Madera, California, on the 28th day of October, 1963.
DATED: October 28, 1963
James F. Sorensen, Secretary
Central Valley East Side Project Association
-2-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 906,155 byte
Department of Justice, State of California - Comments Regarding Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textDocument: Comments re Pacific Southwest Water Plan, submitted by Stanley Mosk, Department of Justice, State of California, October 28, 1963, page 14This 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 orders to follow the Compact, to follow two inconsistent commands with respect to the tributaries: Exclude tributaries from Project Act accounting; include tributaries in Compact accounting. Finally, excluding lower basin tributaries from the Compact is the only way, without violating the Compact ceiling, that Arizona, Nevada, and California can possibly have the basic 7.5 million acre-feet which the Cout held Congress intended these states to have from the main stream.
If we are correct that the Compact is a ceiling on lower basin appropriations of 8.5 million acre-feet, as the Master declared, and that the Compact excludes lower basin tributaries as Congress (according to the Court) thought, there may well be no lower basin shortage of the 7.5 million acre-feet.
Here, for illustration, is how an undepleted or virgin flow of 14.4 million acre-feet at Lee Ferry might provide a full 7.5 million acre-feet for the three states:
Million acre-feet annual average
Lee Ferry flow, virgin or undepleted 14.41
Existing and authorized upper basin depletion 4.42
Available Lee Ferry flow to lower basin 10.0
Net loss plus Mexican Treaty burden 2.53
Available consumptive use 7.5
1. Arizona and California witnesses used the 1909-1956 figure of 15.2 million acre-feet annually. The figure 14.4 is arbitrary.
2. Figure supplied by Colorado River Board of California staff. We assume it to be the rough equivalent of appropriations.
3. A substantially smaller figure is appropriate if the salvage possibilities in the Secretary's Plan materialize.
14.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,385,801 byte
Comments of the State of California on the "Pacific Southwest Water Plan"
No full textDocument: Comments of the State of California on the "Pacific Southwest Water Plan," December, 1963, page 6COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON THE "PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN"
A PROPOSED REPORT BY
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
(August, 1963)
INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 26, 1963, the Honorable Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, transmitted to the Governor of the State of California the proposed report of the Department of the Interior, entitled "Pacific Southwest Water Plan," dated August, 1963. The proposed report was transmitted for the views and recommendations of the State of California, in accordance with provisions of Section 1(c) of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887).
The Governor assigned the task of coordinating review and preparing the official state comments on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan to the Administrator of the Resources Agency. In recognition of the extraordinary nature of the Report and the need for unusual review procedures, a special review task force was established in each of the constituent departments and boards of the Resources Agency affected by the proposed plan. Comments were also requested from the Department of Justice, Division of Highways, State Lands Division, and Department of Public Health. An overall agency review committee, comprised of representatives from each of the affected departments and boards of the Resources Agency, was formed to review all comments on the Plan received by the Governor and the Agency, including those received from legislative committees, local government, water agencies, and interested associations and citizens. The Agency Review Committee was also charged with drafting the official state comments.
The California Water Commission received information at its September 6 meeting and thereafter held two public hearings on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. At the first of these hearings held in Sacramento on October 18, Secretary Udall appeared before the Commission and water leaders from throughout the State to explain the Plan and to respond to questions directed to him by members of the Commission. At the second hearing on November 1, agencies and associations interested in water development in California submitted oral and written statements regarding the Plan. Major objections to the Plan expressed at the November 1 meeting were summarized and presented along with the Commission's conclusions and recommendations in a report to the Governor, dated November 22, 1963. The Commission found the Pacific Southwest Water Plan unacceptable to California agencies in present form, but concluded that a regional program is desirable and suggested an alternate plan.
The Senate Fact Finding Committee on Water Resources and the Assembly Interim Committee on Water held a joint hearing on October 31 to receive testimony from representatives of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Water Resources. The Senate Fact Finding Committee on Water Resources adopted a resolution on November 1 urging that the Plan be rejected. The Assembly Interim Committee on Water on November 8 released a committee report urging that no commitment to the Plan be made without the express approval of the Legislature.
On November 12, the Governor held a conference in Sacramento to consider the impact of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. California and alternative solutions to the water supply problems which this decision poses for California. Representatives of the agencies directly affected by the Court's decision and water leaders from throughout the State presented oral and written statements. While the majority of those who commented, did not support the regional plan in the form proposed by the Secretary, they did, nevertheless, acknowledge the desirability or necessity of a regional approach to solution of the water problems of the Pacific Southwest.
The instant report, prepared by the Resources Agency of California after careful review of all comments submitted to the Governor, the Resources Agency, the Department of Water Resources and the Water Commission, constitutes the comments of the State of California on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887), and the major recommendations of the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 60 Stat. 1080 (1946).
(1)Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,743,053 byte
The Pacific Southwest Water Plan - A Report of the Assembly Interim Committee on Water to the California Legislatures
No full textDocument: The Pacific Southwest Water Plan, A report of the Assembly Interim Committee on Water to the California Legislature, November 8, 1963, page 3MEMBERS
HALE ASHCRAFT VICE CHAIRMAN
FRANK P. BELOTTI
JOHN L. E. COLLIER
GORDON COLOGNE
WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER
PAULINE L. DAVIS
HOUSTON I. FLOURNOY
MYRON H. FREW
CHARLES B. GARRIGUS
BURT M. HENSON
HARVEY JOHNSON
FRANK LANTERMAN
PAUL J. LUNARDI
CHARLES W. MEYERS
ROBERT T. MONAGAN
JOHN P. QUIMBY
JOHN C. WILLIAMSON
EDWIN L. Z'BERG
California Degislature
Assembly Committee on Mater
CARLEY V. PORTER CHAIRMAN
RONALD B. ROBIE RESEARCH CONSULTANT
DONNA K. WELLS COMMITTEE SECRETARY
SACRAMENTO OFFICE ROOM 2114 STATE CAPITOL PHONE: 445-6047
November 8, 1963
HONORABLE JESSE M. UNRUH
Speaker of the Assembly
MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY
State Capitol
Sacramento 14, California
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Assembly Concurrent Resolution 1 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1963, the Assembly Interim Committee on Water herewith submits a report on the "Pacific Southwest Water Plan" proposed by Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall.
During the past 19 years many proposed projects have been submitted to the State of California for comments pursuant to the provisions of the 1944 Federal Flood Control Act. Preparation of the State's comments is the responsibility of the Governor and, to our knowledge, the Legislature has not previously made specific comments on projects during the 90-day review period. The Pacific Southwest Water Plan, however, is so important that it is incumbent upon this Committee to make its views known and to formulate appropriate comments on the policy considerations involved. The proposed Plan, as submitted to the Governor, deeply involves the State Water Facilities, including an enlargement of the California Aqueduct through the Central Valley and into Southern California in a joint federal-state undertaking.
It is the conclusion of this Committee that there should be no State acceptance of the proposed Plan or commitment to alter the State Water Facilities without the express approval of this Legislature.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,533,393 byte
The Pacific Southwest Water Plan - A Report of the Assembly Interim Committee on Water to the California Legislatures
No full textDocument: The Pacific Southwest Water Plan, A report of the Assembly Interim Committee on Water to the California Legislature, November 8, 1963, page 73.
Perhaps the most perplexing question posed by the Pacific Southwest Water Plan is whether the differing policies California applies to the State Water Facilities, compared to policies for projects constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation, can or should be reconciled. With the possible exception of irrigation water pricing, the general reaction in California toward the Plan has constituted a resounding endorsement of the basic principles of planning, financing, contracting, repayment and water rights under which the State Water Facilities are being constructed. It is clear that both the Legislature and water agencies of California would prefer that state policies rather than federal policies should apply insofar as California's interests in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan are concerned.
It is doubtful that Congress would be interested in reshaping federal policy to comply with the wishes of California and it is likewise doubtful that most other states would accept such a change in federal policy. On the other hand, as will be noted below, it might well disrupt the State's water program if federal policies were applied to any federal features which competed with or served the same areas as the State Water Facilities. So serious is this problem that it may be necessary to maintain a distinct separation of state and federal service areas as has already been done in the San Joaquin Valley between the federal Central Valley Project's San Luis Division and the State's Kern County service area.
A final general observation may be in order. The committees asked several questions of the Department of the Interior regarding the projects outlined in Phase II of the Plan. The responses were either indefinite or that no information was available at this time. For example, with regard to the Havasu Aqueduct which would transport.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,463,994 byte
The Pacific Southwest Water Plan - A Report of the Assembly Interim Committee on Water to the California Legislatures
No full textDocument: The Pacific Southwest Water Plan, A report of the Assembly Interim Committee on Water to the California Legislature, November 8, 1963, page 106.
Water District of Southern California" when, as indicated below, more than that amount is certain to be available to that District from the uncontracted yield of the presently sized State Water Facilities.
The Metropolitan Water District's estimates of imported water requirements through 1990 (as of September 7, 1961) were included in Table 46 of the District's Report No. 810 and were introduced into the record at the Committee's hearing by Assemblyman Lanterman. These data, rather than those in the Department of Water Resources' Bulletin No. 78, were used because these data are more recent and since the District comprises the major water user in Southern California affected by the Court's decision and served by the State Water Facilities. A summary of this table indicates total imported water needs (including Colorado River supplies) for the Metropolitan Water District, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the Upper San Gabriel Municipal Water District (now a part of the Metropolitan Water District) service areas as follows:
Year Acre-feet
1960 (actual) 933,827
1965 1,275,800
1970 1,605,800
1975 1,947,000
1980 2,271,700
1985 2,573,600
1990 2,865,600
1/ Mr. Robert Skinner, General Manager, Metropolitan Water District, indicated "it was assumed that the amount of water available from local sources would remain about the same as it has during the last 20 years. Since these two decades have been a period of drought, occurrence of a wet cycle would reduce the demands for supplemental water below those shown..."Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,245,333 byte