226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Statement by U.S. Senator Thomas H. Kuchel
No full textStatement by U.S. Senator Thomas H. Kuchel before the subcommittee on irrigation and reclamation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affaris, United States House of Representatives on the Lower Colorado River Basin Project Legislation, Monday, August 23, 1965, page 12-12-
be applied to repayment of the cost of the whole project, including any importation works subsequently authorized.
4. Protection for areas of origin. Titles II and III of the bill spell out important provisions for protection of areas and states of origin of the water which may be imported into the Colorado River Basin. I recognize that our friends in areas of surplus water are sensitive to the possibility of tapping that surplus for the Colorado River Basin and I believe we should make all necessary arrangements to prevent any adverse effects on such areas.
5. Protection of existing projects. Section 304 of the bill insulates existing projects in Arizona, Nevada and California (up to 4.4 million acre-feet per annum) from impairment by Central Arizona Project operations until importation works are completed to delier 2.5 million acre-feet per annum into the main stream of the Lower Colorado River on a permanent basis. Imported water is to be made available at Colorado River prices, up to a total of 4.4 million acre-feet in California, 2,8 million acre-feet in Arizona and 300,000 acre-feet in Nevada.
6. Law of the river. Title V requires the Secretary to conform to the law of the river in the fashion of the Colorado River Storage Project Act and subsequent Colorado River Project authorizations. A consent to suit provision would enable affected states to seek relief in the Supreme Court for the Secretary's failure to so comply. It is my intention that no rights of the Upper Basin states under the Colorado River Compact shall be impaired in any fashion.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,411,143 byte
Statement of Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall
No full textStatement of the Secretary of the Interior on H.R. 4671, 4706, & 9248, Aug. 23, 1965, page 8directly involves the economic welfare of seven important States and, in a real sense, affects the future welfare of the whole country.
Nonetheless, I have made my presentation this morning brief. I have done so deliberately because I recognize that the best use of our time will be found in an exchange of ideas and information guided by questions that occur to members of the Committee.
Earlier I noted the splendid spirit of cooperation that has emerged in this Basin and the West. Nothing that has occurred during the last 4-1/2 years has held out such hope and promise for the water future of the whole West.
8Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 608,079 byte
Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams
No full textDocument: Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams, Anthony Wayne Smith, August 30, 1965 (mimograph), page 8-8-
and fertilizing purposes. This Subcommittee might consider safeguards against unreasonable speculative advantages going to persons who do not deserve them; Commissioner Dominy might be able to shed some light on this question.
There will also be some exchanges of water among these various projects in Arizona: Salt River, municipal effluents, and the CAP, which become rather complex; in view of the amount of land speculation likely to be involved, you might wish to question the Commissioner on these points.
Bridge Canyon dam and reservoir would be highly destructive in texms of the scenic, recreational, ecological, and cultural values of the Grand Canyon in both the monument and the park. It is not needed, and it is of questionable desirability, as a money-making project. It will not store any water for irrigation anywhere, but will, on the contrary, evaporate water; it will do little, if any, pumping. Its only value, if any, would be for generating power, and I would now like to turn to this point.
About a year ago a spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation stated that the cost of power generated at coal-fired thermal plants in the Colorado Basin was being brought down to 5 mills a kilowatt hour or less. Just a month ago the Commissioner stated that it was coming down, in larger plants, to 3 or 4 mills or less. Bridge Canyon dam will produce peaking power at 6 mills; with firm power at 3 or 4 mills or less, it would behoove this Subcommittee to inquire very carefully into the profitability of peaking power at 6 mills. The Department of the Interior has not yet demonstrated, as far as we know, that Bridge Canyon dam would pay its way, pricipal and interest, over the 50-yearEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,397,772 byte
Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams
No full textDocument: Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams, Anthony Wayne Smith, August 30, 1965 (mimograph), page 17-17-
projects be subordinated to either an interdepartmental commission or a White House level agency, or, better, to a commission composed of policy-minded persons, rather than operating agencies? These river basin planning problems are not primarily engineering problems, and therein lies the source of many of our mistakes; they are problems in economics, sociology, and indeed, in political philosophy, in the sense of the study of social values and objectives. These present hearings, and this Subcommittee and Committee, might well be an excellent time and excellent agencies to initiate an inquiry into a problem like the continued subsidy of reclamation. In addition, the Budget Bureau's proposal for a comprehensive commission to review other broad aspects of national water policy might well be given favorable consideration.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 963,366 byte
Memorandum Concerning Proposed Amendments to H.R. 4671
No full textMemorandum: From Ival V. Goslin, to Upper Colorado River Commission, "Proposed amendments to H.R. 4671", August 14, 1965, page 1UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION
355 South Fourth East Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
August 14, 1965
MEMORANDUM
TO: Upper Colorado River Commission
FROM: Ival V. Goslin, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to H. R. 4671
There has already been transmitted to you a copy of a draft Bill, H.R. 4671, showing amendments proposed by the Commission's staff and the staff of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Water Board has already considered and approved the principles of the suggested amendments. This draft Bill was prepared in order to provide a document from which to begin deliberations, and it is fully realized that, in the final analysis, the Congressional Committees and the Congress will write the exact language of the enacted law.
In the copy sent to you numbers are shown throughout the Bill in parenthesis, as (7). These numbers represent the page numbers of the Bill as printed by Congress. Our explanation will be referred to page numbers that have been added at the bottom of each page.
H.R. 4671 is a Bill for the authorization of the development of water resources for the Lower Colorado River Basin. In its original form the Bill also made fleeting reference to development of water resources for the Upper Basin as well. The principal project in the Bill is the Central Arizona Project.
On June 1, 1965 we sent to you a draft copy of S. 1019, a Senate Bill identical to H.R. 4671. This draft copy showed in it amendments proposed by the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary of the Interior. Attached to it were "Notes to Proposed Amendments." The reports on S. 1019 by the Budget Director, dated May 10, and the Secretary, dated May 18, were also mailed to you on May 12 and May 24, respectively.
All references in this memo are to H.R. 4671 (with proposed amendments) enclosed with my letter of August 2, 1965.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,947,606 byte
Congressional Hearings on Lower Colorado River Basin Project
No full textDocument: Report of Executive Director to Upper Colorado River Commission, August 16, 1965, page 6annually to California. The real meaning of this agreement, if the proposed legislation is not amended, is that the Central Arizona Project would be constructed based upon the use of Upper Basin water. The question then is, how does the Upper Basin get it back when it is needed for our future water resource development, some of which is even now imminent?
Pending Legislation of Paramount Importance
Pending legislation to authorize a Lower Colorado River Basin Project is the most important water resource legislation that the four States of the Upper Colorado River Commission have had to face. The future of our four States turns upon its terms. Wisdom, firmness, and reasonableness are highly essential for a beneficial solution to the problems involved.
Impact of Recent Water Studies
Recently the internationally known firm of Tipton and Kalmbach, under the auspicies of our Commission, completed a study of availability of Colorado River water for the Lower Colorado River Basin Project. I will not discuss the details of this report because this has been done for the Engineering and Legal Committees, and Mr. Tipton is present to review it again for the Commission. This report shows that based upon past flows of the Colorado River, with all presently existing or authorized storage reservois and with deliveries at Lee Ferry curtailed to 75 million acre-feet in ten years, there are only 6.3 maf of water per annum available for consumptive use in the Upper Basin. This is in contrast to the 7.5 maf apportioned by the Colorado River Compact. When Upper Basin reservoir evaporation is deducted, the net consumptive use available to the Upper Basin amounts to only 5.6 maf. Although this unpleasant fact has been known for some time, the Upper Basin is now forced to acknowledge and carefully consider it, instead of minimizing or ignoring it.
This study confirms the fact that there is not enough water in the river with existing storage facilities for the Upper Basin to deliver 75 maf of water at Lee Ferry in every ten-year period and at the same time consume 7.5 maf annually. Or to put it another way, there is not sufficient water available for all of the projects presently contemplated for the Upper Basin. This shortage in the Upper Basin is caused by mother nature's water-deficient river coupled with the Compact requirement to deliver 75 maf in ten years to the Lower Basin. Major shortages in water supply for the Central Arizona Project could occur sometime about 1990-2000--25 to 35 years from today or 15 to 25 years after the project begins to operate.
For the States of the Colorado River Basin to continue to argue among themselves concerning what year in the future shortages of adverse proportions will occur can serve no useful purpose. Studies that have been made
-6-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,697,658 byte
Congressional Hearings on Lower Colorado River Basin Project
No full textDocument: Report of Executive Director to Upper Colorado River Commission, August 16, 1965, page 8Political Crisis Possible
Politically, in a nutshell, we are faced with a possible major crisis. Senator Hayden of Arizona is dean of the U. S. Senate and Chairman of the extremely powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. Many members of Congress from almost every congressional district in the nation owe him something for past support of funds for federal programs at home. Congressman Aspinall of Colorado is a very astute and active member and Chairman of the wide-ranging and powerful House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. It takes very little imagination to realize that if we oppose the Central Arizona Project, we must also expect that our many remaining federal water projects will be likewise opposed. To expect otherwise would be naive to the nth degree. Under the opposition concept it is conceivable that a stalemate would ensue that would not permit further Colorado River development through federal assistance. It it is humanly possible, obviously, such a situation should be avoided.
Three Possible Approaches For Upper Division States
It seems to me that there are only three possible approaches from which the Upper Basin can choose with respect to the legislation, H. R. 4671, as introduced and pending in the Congress. These approaches appear to be best characterized by the three key terms: "default," "opposition," and "negotiation."
First, we could allow the Central Arizona Project to be constructed by default as presently contemplated in H. R. 4671 by Arizona, and based upon assumptions as to water supply and unrealistic Upper Basin future stream depletions with which we may not agree. To do so would be to ignore the facts in the case, and would result in placing our faith in being able to go ahead with the rate and magnitude of development we anticipate and desire for the Upper Basin under the delusion that the Lower Basin would in turn, without contest, permit the return of Upper Basin water to it at the time and in the quantities we might want it in the future. Past experience related to the Colorado River Storage Project, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, San Juan-Chama and Navajo Projects legislation dictates that taking such a chance would be a demonstration of sheer stupidity.
Second, we could oppose the Lower Basin project outright on the assumption that this would be one sure way of preventing exploiting of the Upper Basin's water by Arizona. Would this assumption be valid? Obviously not, because if Arizona does not get the chance to use the now available unused Upper Basin water, it is a certainty that California could easily add a portion of it to the 0.7 maf she is now using beyond the Court's confirmed share of 4.4 maf per annum. Furthermore, such an approach would be an open invitation for all three Lower Basin States to join in opposing any
-8-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,683,560 byte
Notes--SLU-Turning Point
No full textNotes by Orren Beaty, page 11. SLU. Turning point. New flexibility
1. Colo. water conservation Board meets Aug."
2. Engineering & legal committees of Upper Colo. River Commission. Aug. 16.
3. Immediately afterward. hops of all of Colo. Basin States meet to determine if common position
meet on 9th
Rhodes. Goslin & Spark met with aspinall. Wayne didn't like idea of conditional Authorization
finally seemed to accept if it goes back to Congress. or under recorganization. Weinberg pene notice to committees may be acceptables
Rhodes. refigure Outlay in Hoover. "refinance"Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,595,093 byte
Notes--Dominy
No full textMemorandum: Colorado Water Conservation Board, Lower Colorado Riber Basin Project and Project Legislation, August 3, 1965, hand-written notes on back page 3RW CD
Small Project Loon Application ready to go to committee
Doming. Worried about ILU on Stand fulltime. Many policy questions- ok- but not on rest Weinberg- How to handle Title II on National water Study.
Ariz. Red inn 23 or 30 Oct. For Room 3302
New 5, O.BEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 888,565 byte
Memorandum Concerning Lower Colorado River Basin
No full textMemorandum: Colorado Water Conservation Board, Lower Colorado Riber Basin Project and Project Legislation, August 3, 1965, page 1note for public ulcerous discession
COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
215 State Services Building
1525 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
August 3, 1965
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Members, Colorado Water Conservation Board and Colorado River Advisory Committee.
FROM: Felix L. Sparks, Director.
SUBJECT: Lower Colorado River Basin Project and Project Legislation.
At the outset of this communication I should like to emphasize that it is my feeling that the contents hereof should be treated as confidential until the Board has had an opportunity to act upon the subject on August 11, 1965. I am requesting that the members of the Colorado River Advisory Committee meet here in Denver to discuss the subject of this communication on August 10, 1965. The Engineering and Legal Committees of the Upper Colorado River Commission will meet here in Denver on August 12, 1965, and the Upper Colorado River Commission will meet in Salt Lake City on August 16, 1965.
It is anticipated that immediately following the Upper Colorado River Commission meeting that representatives of all of the seven Colorado River Basin states will meet to determine whether or not a common approach can be developed towards a solution of the Colorado River problems. It appears likely that hearings on H. R. 4671 to authorize a Lower Colorado River Basin Project will be held in Washington during the week of August 23, 1965.
During the week of August 2, Mr. Moses, Mr. Eckles and I will be in Nevada and Oregon. During that time we expect to have informal conferences with representatives of the Lower Basin states on the Colorado River problem. I have received a special request from Senator Hayden to meet with him and other members of Arizona's congressional delegation in Washington on Sunday, August 8, 1965. On the following day I will meet in Washington with Congressman Aspinall and possible other members of our congressional delegation. Again I wish to urge that no publicity be given to anyEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,615,914 byte