226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Congressional Record - House
No full textDocument: Congressional Record - House, June 9, 1966, page 12316 (thermofax)12316
simply point out to my colleagues that this principle has been working for more than half a century, and it has been endorsed by every President of the United States since Theodore Roosevelt. I don't see that as too grave a threat to the parks of this country. In fact, during the same period that this reclamation idea has been operative we have created most of the national park system we know today, including Grand Canyon National Park.
What is more, if what Mr. Brower suggests were made public policy, we would no longer have reimbursable reclamation projects, such as this one, repaying 90 percent of its cost, including interest, to the Treasury. Instead, we would have the taxpayers paying 100 percent of the cost of all future reclamation projects-or abandon reclamation altogether.
In fact, I suspect that this may well be the unstated intention of many advocates of the Sierra Club point of view. It is shocking to me to see how often the suggestion is made, as it was in a New York Times letter the other day, that the West simply ought to "stop growing." There you have what I regard as the main thrust of the argument being used against us-in capsule form.
Next we come to an argument that these dams simply would produce "auxiliary power" for industry. Is industry bad? Who buys most of the power produced in this country? And by "auxiliary" does Mr. Brower mean to suggest it is unneeded? Well, if he does, I am a bit puzzled by language used in his second ad, addressed to the Secretary of the Interior. In that one he says this additional power will satisfy the Southwest's "growing appetite for power" for only 3 years, if that. Either this power is needed, or it is not. He cannot have it both ways. And, in any case, I do not quite see what the relevance is to our plan of using power revenues to finance aqueducts to the parched regions of the Southwest.
In any case, I would call Mr. Brower's remarks to the attention of any colleague wondering if there will be a market for this power once it is generated. It may be "auxiliary," but we will need even more in 3 years.
This brings us to perhaps the most wonderful argument of all. The Sierra Club tells us that we would have more water for Arizona if there were no dams because of evaporation losses from the surface of the lakes. This is like saying that we would have more wheat by not harvesting it because some of it will be lost in cutting, threshing, and transporting it to the elevator. Let there be no misunderstanding. Without these revenue-producing dams there will be no aqueducts for Arizona or California. There will be no financing of future water imports or desalinization plants. There will be no reclamation. We may have more water, but it will be out there in the river-not on our farms or in our city water systems
Incidentally, if this is a reason for not building dams, the same argument applies to Hoover Dam, Bonneville Dam, and all the other great reclamation dams in this country.
The Sierra Club tells us there are "far more eflicient power sources" available right now. This is not true. The best engineers in the country assure us it is not true. And the clincher can be found in the fact that opponents of these dams have yet to introduce an amendment to our bill to provide any alternative type of powerplant to finance this reclamation project.
The truth is that neither the Sierra Club nor opponents of these dams in the Congress have any thought that this Nation is about to embark on the construction and operation of steam powerplants for any purpose whatever in competition with the private utility industry. This argument is not offered as a means of improving the bill, but of killing it.
Mr. Brower says the dams will cost more than they can earn. This is a baseless charge. The truth is that this project would not only pay for the dams but the construction and operation of aqueducts and other reclamation facilities as well. It is true that about 10 percent of the cost of the total project-not just the dams-would go to recreation and other uses not subject to repayment. But to say that the dams will cost more than they earn is ridiculous.
Reading on, I see that the Sierra Club has the idea that the National Park Service and possibly other bureaus of the Department of Interior have been muzzled by the Secretary of that Department. What you are not told is that provision for a dam at Bridge Canyon was made in the very act establishing Grand Canyon National Park in 1919. And the National Park Service was on record in support of such a dam as early as 1933-about the time the present Secretary of the Interior and I were starting to think of ourselves as basketball players in St. Johns, Ariz. I frankly doubt that he could have influenced the statement of Horace Albright, Director of the National Park Service, who in that year wrote:
As I see it the Bridge Canyon project is in no way affected by the Grand Canyon National Monument proclamation; we have had it in mind all the time, the Bridge Canyon project.
Furthermore, I might point out that the position of the National Park Service on this immediate legislation is a manner of public record, available to all. I think it is significant that the Sierra Club has no quotes to give us supporting this charge of muzzling.
In the second of his ads Mr. Brower urges the Secretary of the Interior to stop the Bureau of Reclamation from ruining the Grand Canyon. Here again we see the use of wild distortion and inflammatory language to create a false impression in the minds of the public.
He sees the Bureau of Reclamation as a power-hungry giant bent on destroying all our national parks and wild rivers. He writes:
Mr. Secretary, suppose you let your Bureau ruin Grand Canyon with dams. What would the Bureau do for an encore?
Projections show that the dams would satisfy the Southwest's growing appetite for power for only three years, if that. Let's imagine Grand Canyon dammed and its river dead; your fellow Arizonans would have to look right away for new sources of power.
Once again he misses the point. No one suggests that these dams are proposed as the final answer to power needs in the Southwest anymore than one who establishes a trust for education expects that it will provide scholarships for all students in all future generations. The only important point is that there is a market for the power, and this market will provide revenues to finance desperately needed reclamation projects.
Mr. Brower speaks of "blind planning." I do not know what kind of seat he occupies to provide him with such omniscience. This project is no harebrained scheme recently concocted by an academy of fools. It is the product of 30 years or more of engineering studies. It has been the subject of exhaustive hearings in several Congresses, and in its original form was passed twice by the U.S. Senate. In this past year the Members of Congress, Governors and water leaders of seven Western States have devoted thousands of man-hours to drafting, redrafting, and improving this legislation. Call that "blind planning" if you like. I believe it represents more intelligent effort by a hundredfold than has gone into this position by Mr. Brower and the Sierra Club.
And this brings me to a statement in this second ad that Glen Canyon was "destroyed" by the construction of Glen Canyon Dam. I hope Mr. Brower does not try to make that statement to any Member of Congress who has visited the incredibly beautiful lake behind that dam. Known as Lake Powell, it is providing thousands of Americans each year with sights never before imagined. If that is what he means by "destruction," I think he is using a very narrow meaning of the word.
I'm not saying that Glen Canyon Dam should have been constructed just to create that beautiful lake. Glen Canyon was a very beautiful lake. Glen Canyon, seen by a handful of adventures and outdoorsmen, before the dam was built. But while some of that beauty has been lost in the lower depths of the canyon, new beauty has been created, and now for the first time people can get in there to see it. This I repeat, is not what most of us would call "destruction."
Mr. Brower refers to a statement of President Theodore Roosevelt which is supposed to be an argument against any dams anywhere around the Grand Canyon. I do not believe that is what President Roosevelt meant at all. Of course he was an advocate of the setting aside of Federal lands for national parks. But he also was the first President to come out strong for reclamation, and evidence of this can be found in my own State of Arizona, where Theodore Roosevelt Dam set the pattern for all other reclamation dams in the West.
Again, we see the use of inflammatory language when Mr. Brower says these dams will "invade the National Park System." Well, let us remember that one of these dams is 13 miles upstream of Grand Canyon National Park and cannot possibly invade it. The other is 80 miles downstream, and its reservoir extends along the boundary of the park 13 miles in a remote area never seen byEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 4,016,920 byte
Bureau of Reclamation Analysis of Section 601 of Committee Print No. 19
No full textAttachment 6, Bureau of Reclamation Analysis of Section 601 of Committee Print No. 19 -- Recommended Revision of H.R. 4761, page 3Section 601(b) (1) and (2) are, we believe, self-explanatory.
Section 601(b) (3), line 11 through line 21, provides that, after meeting the releases required under (1) and (2) preceding, priority shall be given to the storage of water in the storage units of the Colorado River Storage Project to the extent reasonably necessary, considering all relevant factors, to assure deliveries under subparagraphs (1) and (2) without impairment of the consumptive uses in the Upper Basin pursuant to the Colorado River Compact. We believe this to be consistent with the intent of the Colorado River Storage Project Act, and that the language provides the Secretary, after consultation with Basin interests, the necessary latitude in determining the extent of storage reasonably required. Among the relevant factors to be considered in making determinations, major emphasis certainly will be given to critical periods of streamflow record. As the Upper Basin depletions increase with time, the controlling critical periods will lengthen and the required amounts of carryover storage will increase. The establishment of requirements for carryover storage based on critical period considerations alone could lead to a risk of reservoir spills and wastage or overdelivery of water to Mexico. Therefore, it would be proper to consider also probabilities of water supply as provided in Section 601(b) (3). Also, the production of power and energy is a relevant factor that must be considered if the financial feasibility of Federal developments in the Colorado River Basin is to be reasonably assured.
The remainder of Section 601(b) (3) sets forth specific criteria for the distribution of water available in excess of that required for (1),
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,149,381 byte
San Miguel Project
No full textAttachment 5, San Miguel Project, page 4be within the water allocation to Colorado by the Colorado River Basin and Upper Colorado River Basin Compacts after allowance is made for present depletions and those of authorized reclamation projects and for projects presently being considered for authorized reclamation projects and for projects presently being considered for authorization.
Size of Farm
Successful farms in single ownership on the San Miguel Project will require different farm acreages, depending on the class of land and the growing season. Farms in the higher and shorter growing season areas may require more than 160 acres to provide a satisfactory farm income. Delivery of project water to more than 160 acres in single ownership when the larger acreages are based on the net farm income equivalent of 160 acres of Class 1 land should be permitted.
Cost and Repayment
The total construction cost of the potential San Miguel Project is estimated to be 998,000 of preauthorization investigation costs, of which 357,000 were financed from the Colorado River Development Fund and are not reimbursable by the project. Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of the project are estimated to be 51,020,000 are allocated to irrigation, 4,198,000 to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, and $1,182,000 to flood control.
4Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 956,155 byte
Animas-La Plata Project
No full textAttachment 1, Animas - La Plata Project, page 3Mexico--are expected to serve as administrative and contracting agencies for the Animas-La Plata Project with suitable arrangements with Indian interests. The boundaries of each district would be expanded to include all areas and communities that would be served by the project. The Florida Project would continue to be administered by the Florida Water Conservancy District. The potential Howardsville and Animas Mountain Reservoirs would be partly within the San Juan National Forest and it is recommended that the forest boundaries be extended to include the entire reservoirs. Recreational facilities at these reservoirs would then be provided and administered by the Forest Service. The State of Colorado has expressed a willingness to share the cost of and administer the recreational facilities at other project reservoirs in Colorado. It is probable that these functions will be assumed by the Indians for the Three Buttes and Ute Meadows Reservoirs which would be on Indian-owned land.
Stream Depletion
The Animas-La Plata Project would deplete the flow of the Colorado River by an average of 146,400 acre-feet annually of which 112,300 acre-feet would be chargeable to Colorado and 34,100 acre-feet to New Mexico. These depletions are within the water allocations to the respective States under the Colorado River Basin and Upper Colorado River Basin Compacts, after allowance is made for present depletions and those of authorized reclamation projects and those projects presently under consideration for authorization.
Size of Farm
Successful farms in single ownership on the Animas-La Plata Project would require different farm acreages, depending on the class of land
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,059,899 byte
Statement of Assistant Secretary Kenneth Holum
No full textDocument: Statement of Asst Sec Kenneth Holum, Dept of the Interior before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H.R. 4671 and Companion Bills, May 10, 1966 (photocopy), page 2On the other hand, the Administration recommends that authorization of Bridge Canyon Dam and Reservoir be deferred pending further study by a national water commission. While agreeing in the requirement for a long-range study to determine the best means of augmenting the water supply of the Colorado River, the Administration recommends that the study be conducted under the direction of a national water commission rather than carried out by the Secretary of the Interior with the advice and assistance of a regional water commission as the bill provides.
In response to the Committee's desire and because the Administration's views as a whole were presented in the report and testimony last summer, our testimony today will not go over ground covered last year but will be directed specifically to the five new Upper Basin projects proposed for authorization and to Section 601 relating to criteria for reservoir operations. Accordingly, my formal statement is limited to these aspects.
Title V is a new addition to the bill which would amend the Colorado River Storage Project Act primarily to provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado-New Mexico, and the Dolores, Dallas Creek, West Divide, and San Miguel Projects in Colorado. All five projects would be authorized as participating projects under the Colorado River Storage Project Act.
These projects are basically similar in their functions and objectives. They would permit both Colorado and New Mexico to develop practically all of their remaining assured consumptive use entitlements
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 974,109 byte
Statement of Assistant Secretary Kenneth Holum
No full textDocument: Statement of Asst Sec Kenneth Holum, Dept of the Interior before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H.R. 4671 and Companion Bills, May 10, 1966 (photocopy), page 4For the Animas-La Plata and Dolores Projects, the unit costs of irrigation development are within defensible limits. The demands for municipal and industrial water are imminent and relatively well defined. There can be little question that the new water supplies to be developed will be promptly and economically put to highly beneficial uses. The Department of the Interior, therefore, supports immediate authorization of these two projects.
In respect to the Dallas Creek, West Divide, and San Miguel Projects, however, the unit costs of irrigation are high. The principal opportunities for municipal and industrial water use for the West Divide and San Miguel Projects lie in the development of mineral resources, primarily coal and oil shale. While the long-range potentials for these industrial purposes are impressive, the near future demands are uncertain. Furthermore, the long-range potentials could utilize the entire water supplies to be developed by the projects with the possibilities of greater overall economic benefit to the regions involved.
For these reasons the Secretary, in reporting on these three projects, cautioned that decision on the timing of their construction should be considered carefully by both the Federal Government and the State of Colorado. The Administration believes these factors so important that it favors deferring authorization of these projects at this time, pending the establishment of the national water commission and completion of its review of related water problems.
Section 601 of H. R. 4671, as contained in the recommended revision of Committee Print No. 19, directs the Secretary of the Interior to
4Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 957,440 byte
Statement of Assistant Secretary Kenneth Holum
No full textDocument: Draft Statement of Asst Sec Kenneth Holum, Dept of the Interior before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H.R. 4671 and Companion Bills, May 9, 1966 (photocopy), page 6Commissioner Dominy has a more detailed statement both in respect to Title V and to Section 601. His statement will complete the formal presentation of the Administration's views on these new additions to H. R. 4671 and companion bills.
6Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,790,720 byte
Interior Report Recommending Authorization of Animas-La Plata Project
No full textNews release: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, "Interior Report Recommending Authorizaton of Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado-New Mexico, Goes to Congress," May 6, 1966, page 1Beaty
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR
********************news release
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
For Release to PM's, MAY 6, 1966
DeWitt-343-4662
INTERIOR REPORT RECOMMENDING AUTHORIZATION OF ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, COLORADO-NEW MEXICO, GOES TO CONGRESS
The Department of the Interior reported today that it is submitting to Congress a report recommending authorization of the Animas-La Plata Project, a proposed Bureau of Reclamation water resource development in southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico.
The 78,971,000; municipal and industrial supplies, 2,674,000.
Costs allocated to municipal and industrial supplies, including interest during construction, would be reimbursable with interest, and costs allocated to irrigation would be reimbursable without interest. A portion of the costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement would be reimbursableEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,396,005 byte
Memorandum Concerning Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textMemorandum: To All Regional Directors, et. al., from A. Clark Stratton, "The Pacific Southwest Water Plan and its relation to units of the National Park Service, " April 22, 1964 (carbon copy), page 1April 22, 1964
L58-CNP
COPY
Memorandum
To: All Regional Directors
Field Assistants to the Director
Chief, Field Design Offices
Members, Director's Executive Committee
From: Directo
Subject: The Pacific Southwest Water Plan and its relation to units of the National Park System
Enclosed for your information and guidance are copies of recent correspondence concerning the subject proposal.
The memorandum to the Secretary, dated December 21, 1963, presents our recommendations concerning the plan and develops our reasons therefor.
The memorandum to the Secretary, dated January 27, 1964, clarifies the intent of the Congress, the Bureau and the Service toward water projects in Grand Canyon National Park and Monument. The letter from Senator Hayden requests the position of the Service relative to the high dam at Bridge Canyon, and the letters signed by Assistant Secretary Carver on March 6, and Secretary Udall on March 27, reply to Senator Hayden and state the official Departmental posttion. Your attention is directed especially to these letters of reply and the fact that the Department's position is now the Service's position in the matter of Lower Colorado River water projects. We will all be guided accordingly.
(SGD) A. Clark Stratton
COPY
Enclosures
cc:
Supt., Grand Canyon w/c enclosures
CNP w/c enclosures
JLOrr: lsr 4/16/64Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,616,655 byte
Recreation Hides Water Costs
No full textNews article: "Recreation Hides Water Costs", Cervi's Rocky Mtn. Journal, Denver, Colorado, October 13, 1965 (photocopy), page 1CERVI's ROCKY MTN. JOURNAL
Denver, Colorado
October 13, 1965
10/13/65
Recreation Hides Water Costs
By Doug Bradley
In the Septembe issue of the "Denver Water News" sent by the Board of Water Commissioners to all users on the city's mains - along with their bill - emphasis was placed onthe "long-term policy of the Water Board which makes considerable boating and fishing available in Colorado."
The psychology was shrewd. People are interested in fishing, camping, picnicking and boating. They like to read about it. More important from the Water Board's point of view, it steers taxpayers'thoughts away from the unpalatable but hard fact that they are saddled with enormous bond debts for such unnecessary projects as the Roberts Tunnel and the Dillon Reservoir, It's costly recreation.
Other distilled news in the same issue was the announcement that two new members of the Board of Water Commissioners had taken the oath of office. They were Leonard M. Campbell and Andrew Horan Jr. One looked in vain for mention of their qualifications in regard to the science of hydrology.
Campbell, it was said, is a Denver attorney, formerly manager of safety for Denver in 1947-48 and a city attorney in 1951-53. Horan, it was said, retired from the phone company after 45 years of service. He was vice president of public relations at the time of his retirement.
Campbell has had some experience in water litigation, but there was no mention of this.
Obviously, they are highly reputable men, but the appointments are indicative of the traditional disregard shown for the responsibilities vested in the office of Water Commissioner, and for the general public weal which suffers in consequence.
In cold cash, this "disregard" has saddled Denver taxpayers with a 60 million instead of 70 million in the end. the Dillon Reservoir, estimated to cost 115 million for over-all "improvements."
"Roberts Tunnel ought to have been built paralled to the Moffat Railroad Tunnel," Bunger said. "That is the shortest way through the Continental Divide."
Bunger said the Water Board's tunnel site decision was motivated by the fact that "everything was on the South Platte River and they thought it fed better into their system." He believes the decision was costly to the taxpayer.
"The shorter route would have been so much cheaper, so much cheaper," he stressed.
Denver's determination to keep control of its additional water supply extended to Dillon Reservoir.
"Here again, there was a drastic basic error," Bunger said. "Dillon is too low an elevation. They're having to pump water seeping out below the dam.
He said the reservoir should have been built at Frisco... "but the people of Denver gave the board a blank check, literally, and they went ahead."
He pointed out a pledge was given that water users outside of Denver would repay the bonds... "but there have been two raises in Denver water rates since then."
Had the federal government handled the project, Bunger pointed out, revenue form power would have been a primary objective, thus cutting the cost again to the taxpayer. As it is, Dillon is a white elephant supplying expensive forms of recreation in compensation for "dear water."
* * *
It is in diversion of "wasted" water from the West Slope to the East Slope that Bunger
More on Page 34Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,946,040 byte