226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Highlights of California Comments on Pacific Southwest Water Plan Report
No full textHighlights of California Comments on Pacific Southwest Water Plan Report, December 5, 1963 (photocopy), page 2Plan should deal with Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta problems, and provide for handling them
Federal participation in enlargement of California aqueduct be restricted to financing--and State markets all water without competition from Federal Government
Extent of U. S. participation in aqueduct cost be based on California contract formula
Extend water and financing pool concept to creation of power pool
Amend MWD power contracts to use cut-back in pumping MWD's State water
Make continuing cooperative study of water requirements and supply, starting immediately
Water quality must be integral part of plan; specific planning following authorization for maintaining salt balances
Water salvaged through canal lining, etc., can and should be used in areas where salvage occurs
Consideration that conservation proposed may affect Salton Sea as a fishing and recreational area
California is opposed to future piece by piece project authorizations-will support projects as part of this regional plan
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,751,209 byte
State Comments
No full textDocument: State Comments, December 5, 1963 (photocopy)STATE COMMENTS
The State comments are well receptive to the basic precepts of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, are constructive to their suggestions for modification of the plan, and raise no problems that can't be accommodated. In general the States agree:
1. The regional approach to solution of Pacific Southwest water problems is essential.
2. Phase II projects need a great deal more study.
3. Direct subsidy to municipal and industrial water supply should be eliminated.
4. The Basin Development Fund concept is desirable.
Major points of disagreement are as follows:
1. California states that until a truly regional approach is adopted the Congress should shelve all project-by project-authorization in the Lower Basin. Arizona, Nevada, and Utah insist that action on a Pacific Southwest Water Plan must not interfere or delay authorization of the Central Arizona, Southern Nevada Water Supply, and Dixie Projects.
2. The Upper Basin States indicate that they will insist on certain interpretations of the Colorado River Compact which, over past years, have been issues of contention with the Lower Basin States.
Digests of the State's comments are attached.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,561,915 byte
Cover Sheet Note
No full textCover sheet: From Dick Pelz, to Orren Beaty, 12/15/1963UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
12/18 [1963]
Orreu Beaty
These are the two memos & refused to in our phone conversation.
Dich PelyEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 500,478 byte
Memorandum on Guidelines for Preparing Final Report on Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textMemorandum: From Assistant Secretary- Water & Power Development, to Chairman, Task Force on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, Nov 26, 1963, page 1UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
NOV. 2 6 1963
Memorandum
To: Chairman, Task Force on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
From: Assistant Secretary - Water and Power Development
Subject: Guidelines for preparing final report on Pacific Southwest Water Plan
On the basis of meetings with the Secretary and in my office during the week of November 17, the following guidelines should be observed in preparing the final report:
Report preparation schedule: An objective that must be met is transmittal of the final report to the Congress no later than January 31, 1964. During the week of December 1, the views and comments of the affected States and agencies should be analyzed and the issues raised identified looking to a meeting with the Secretary on December 6 to establish Departmental positions and courses of action. Following the December 6 meeting, preparation of the report in final form for transmittal to the President should proceed as expeditiously as possible. In the interim, between December 6 and transmittal of the report to the President, you should discuss with the staff of the Bureau of the Budget appropriate policy items involved in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan and work closely with Bureau of the Budget personnel towards the objective of prior clearance to the maximum extent possible of Departmental positions covering those policy items. Major policy issues for identification to the Bureau of the Budget should be promptly submitted to the Secretary through my office for presentation to officials of that Bureau.
Basic modification of proposed plan:
a. Limit the detailed presentation in the report to those features to be recommended for immediate authorization. Formulation and proposal of specific longer range features will be left for future comprehensive study.
b. Eliminate direct subsidy to municipal and industrial water supply from the plan.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,384,816 byte
Comments - Arizona and Nevada
No full textDocument: Nevada Comments, December 5, 1963Nevada Comments
1. State is disappointed that PSWWP does not indicate greater benefit to Nevada. Assumes additional water needs will be provided for when final report is prepared.
2. State recommends all phases of Southern Nevada Water Supply Project be authorized in first phase of PSWWP.
3. Recommends Moapa Valley Pumping Project be included in first phase of PSWWP.
4. Revised report should clearly show that Nevada is to participate in additional waters created by ground-water recovery and salvage programs.
5. Eliminate subsidy for M&I water supply facilities.
6. Desalting plant should be eliminated from PSWWP and authorized separatly as a research facility.
7. Include California storage facilities (Trinity Dams) in first phase of PSWWP.
8. Recommends proceeding immediately with authorization of the Southern Nevada Water Supply Project.
9. State fully endorses principles of regional development set forth in PSWWP report.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,090,624 byte
Handwritten Notes
No full textDocuments: Pacific Southwest Water Plan notes, December 3, 1963, page 25. Alvinery Commissioner? What's Status?
6. -P. 10 of Commissioner's Report what would be rated capacity of Low Bridge in Kws?Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,935,656 byte
Handwritten Notes
No full textDocuments: Pacific Southwest Water Plan notes, December 3, 1963, page 4Change Prefon
II. 15 of Report they Reference to 1947 report.
Doming. additional help
step Engineeringly frandile alone
Weinberg it's that
SLV. Monday 2 sets of chock troops.
1. Foundation in which everything else is built on Basin approach & Basin Account
2. We can't go for both regional approach and separate Central Arizona project.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,265,139 byte
Memorandum on Guidelines for Preparing Final Report on Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textMemorandum: From Assistant Secretary--Water & Power, to Chairman, Task Force on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, "Guidelines for preparing final report on Pacific Southwest Water Plan," Nov 26, 1963 (photocopy), page 1Misty Mount, Catortin, Mr. have to get through to someone. Pat Udall
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON 25, D.C.
NOV 2 6 1963
Memorandum
To: Chairman, Task Force on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
From: Assistant Secretary - Water and Power Development
Subject: Guidelines for preparing final report on Pacific Southwest Water Plan
On the basis of meetings with the Secretary and in my office during the week of November 17, the following guidelines should be observed in preparing the final report:
Report preparation schedule: An objective that must be met is transmittal of the final report to the Congress no later than January 31, 1964. During the week of December 1, the views and comments of the affected States and agencies should be analyzed and the issues raised identified looking to a meeting with the Secretary on December 6 to establish Departmental positions and courses of action. Following the December 6 meeting, preparation of the report in final form for transmittal to the President should proceed as expeditiously as possible. In the interim, between December 6 and transmittal of the report to the President, you should discuss with the staff of the Bureau of the Budget appropriate policy items involved in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan and work closely with Bureau of the Budget personnel towards the objective of prior clearance to the maximum extent possible of Departmental positions covering those policy items. Major policy issues for identification to the Bureau of the Budget should be promptly submitted to the Secretary through my office for presentation to officials of that Bureau.
Basic modification of proposed plan:
a. Limit the detailed presentation in the report to those features to be recommended for immediate authorization. Formulation and proposal of specific longer range features will be left for future comprehensive study.
b. Eliminate direct subsidy to municipal and industrial water supply from the plan.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,422,278 byte
Comments Following Review of Report on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textDocument: Draft No. 5, Nov 14, 1963 (carbon copy), page 17this State should be determined by the respective officials of the states in which such projects are located and the Department of the Interior. In this connection, however, it is my opinion that the desalting plant which, under the Plan would be constructed on the seacoast in Southern California would be in the nature of research rather than reclamation, and I doubt that the cost of any such plant should be construed to be a cost of reclamation. The desalinization of water is a matter important to every citizen of the United States and not alone to those residing within the Pacific Southwest.
The Pacific Southwest Water Plan should be further developed and further studies made of the Projects and elements thereof insofar as such studies do not delay construction of the Central Arizona Project.
As you stated on pages VIII-1 and VIII-2 of your Report on the Pacific Southwest Plan, as follows:
15Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 3,775,759 byte
Southern Nevada Water Supply Project Problem and Discussion
No full textDocument: Souther Nevada Water Supply Project, 1963, page 2stage is about 72,000,000.
It is contemplated that legislation will be introduced in the very near future to authorize separately the Southern Nevada Water Supply Project. No financial assistance is required for this project.
The project was split between Phase I and Phase II in the Pacific Southwest water Plan primarily in an effort to keep Phase I costs down. However, the fact that the development involves three separate stages enables the project to be split between the two phases if desirable. Inasmuch as the Southern Nevada Water Supply Project requires no financial assistance, the State of Nevada realizes little benefit from the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. Thus, a problem presents itself as to how far we should go in accommodating Nevada's comments to provide a greater incentive to Nevada to support the Pacific Southwest Water Plan.
Proposed Position:
In view of Nevada's comments and imminent introduction of authorizing legislation, it is proposed that all three stages of the project be recommended for authorization in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan.
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,014,733 byte