226894 research outputs found
Sort by
In the House of Representatives February 9, 1965
No full textDocument: H.R. 4671, Draft 8/1/65, page 10area, and (2) the canals and distribution systems through which water is conveyed after its delivery by the United States to the contractor shall be provided and maintained with linings, adequate in his judgment to prevent excessive conveyance losses. The Secretary may require as a condition in any contract under which water is provided under the central Arizona unit that the contractor agree to accept mainstream water in exchange for or in replacement of existing supplies from sources other than the mainstream but no such exchange or replacement shall require a contractor to bear any cost of said exchange or replacement water in excess of the costs that would have been incurred in connection with the continued use by the contractor of its existing supply, nor shall such exchange or replacement otherwise result in economic injury to the contractor.
SEC. 304. (a) Article II (B) (3) of the decree of the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona against California (376 U.S. 340) shall be so administered that in any year in which, as determined by the Secretary, there is insufficient mainstream Colorado River water available for release to satisfy annual consumptive use of seven million five hundred thousand acre-feet in Arizona, California, and
-10-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 804,438 byte
In the House of Representatives February 9, 1965
No full textDocument: H.R. 4671, Draft 8/1/65, page 31MAINSTREAM WATER DECREED FOR INDIAN LANDS IN ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, ET AL., SUPRA.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS: DEFINITIONS
SEC. 501. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, in constructing, operating, and maintaining the units of the project herein and hereafter authorized, the Secretary shall be governed by the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902; 32 Stat. 388 and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto) to which laws this Act shall be deemed a supplement.
SEC. 502. (a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter, amend, repeal, construe, interpret, modify, or be in conflict with the provisions of the Colorado River compact, the Upper Colorado River Basin compact, the Act of April 11, 1956 (Colorado River Storage Project Act) (70 Stat. 105), the Water Treaty of 1944 with the United Mexican States (Treaty Series 994), the opinion and any decree entered by the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona against California (373 U.S. 456), or, except as otherwise provided herein, the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057) or the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act (54 Stat. 774).
-31-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 832,760 byte
Agenda for Meeting to Coordinate Major Items
No full textDocument: Agenda for Meeting to Coordinate Major Items of Proposed Testimony Before Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of House --- Lower Colorado River Basin Project, July 13, 1965 (photocopy), page 12
July 13, 1965
Agenda for Meeting to Coordinate Major Items of
Proposed Testimony Before Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
of House--Lower Colorado River Basin Project
The purpose of the meeting is to consider the general nature of testimony particularly concerning Central Arizona Project features of the LCRBP. Probably in the near future a similar meeting will be advisable to coordinate Arizona and California testimony.
For consideration are the following items:
1. a. Arizona's need for water from the Colorado River
Statements by Congressional Delegation 1Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,636,335 byte
Upper Colorado River Water Uses
No full textDocument: Upper Colorado River Water Uses with Projected Depletions at Lee Ferry, July 12, 1965, page 1July 12, 1965
Upper Colorado River Water Uses With Projected Depletions at Lee Ferry
1,000 Acre-feet
Present 1975 1990 2000 2030
Colorado
Present 1/ 1782 1782 1782 1782 1782
Silt 6 6 6 6
Fryingpan-Arkansas 70 70 70 70
Bostwick Park 3 3 3 3
Fruitland Mesa 13 28 28 28
Savery-Pot Hook 13 26 26 26
Denver Expansion 60 135 170 215
Colorado Springs Expansion 6 6 6 6
Homestake 25 58 74 74
Englewood 10 10 10 10
Pueblo 3 3 3 3
M&I Green Mountain 12 12 12 12
Hayden Steam Plant 4 8 12 16 16
Colorado 1786 2011 2151 2206 2251
New Mexico
Present 2/ 90 90 90 95 95
Navajo Reservoir Evaporation 20 35 30 30 30
Hammond 5 10 10 10 10
San Juan-Chama 65 110 110 110
Navajo Indian 80 170 200 250
Expansion Hogback 10 20 20 20 20
Utah Const. 15 40 40 40 40
M&I Navajo Reservoir 30 60 60 0
New Mexico 140 370 530 565 555
Utah
Present 3/ 579 581 581 581 581
Bonneville 70 150 166 166
Upalco 20 20 20 20
Jensen 10 10 10 10
Emery 17 17 17 17
Utah 579 698 778 794 794Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,509,806 byte
Southern California's Water Future
No full textDocument: Southern California's Water Future, a report by Robert A. Skinner, March 26, 1965, page 6to obtain the water to meet the needs arising after 1990 will be the final topic I will discuss today but first let me explain more thoroughly our relationship to the State Water Project.
While Metropolitan is only one of 30 contractors for State Project water, we are by far the largest. Of the 4,230,000 acre-feet a year now to be made available to agencies in Northern and Central California as well as to those of us in the south, we will receive, as I said, 2,000,000 or 47 per cent. However, Metropolitan will bear approximately two thirds of the total capital costs to be paid to the State by all the water contractors. This total will be about 1.2 billion. However,
MWD photo
Whitsett Intake Pumping Plant on Lake Havasu. This is starting point of MWD's 242-mile Colorado River Aqueduct to coastal plain.
-5-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,199,890 byte
Southern California's Water Future
No full textDocument: Southern California's Water Future, a report by Robert A. Skinner, March 26, 1965, page 11nation and the West a great and lasting service. He shook us all up and when we regained our composure it was suddenly plain that he was right in calling for regional thinking.
Important strides toward achieving a regional water supply plan for the Pacific Southwest have been taken in these relatively few months although much remains to be done. The degree of progress that has been made is most graphically shown by the fact that, after 47 years of bitter wrangling, Arizona and California appear to have resolved their differences over the waters of the Colorado River. I emphasize that even the U. S. Supreme Court's decree did not accomplish this-it merely shifted the fight from the courtroom back into the political arena. But Secretary Udall's vision and courage and determination resulted in all three Arizona Congressmen, 33 of California's 38 Congressmen and both California Senators joining in authorship of a bill for a regional plan to solve the Pacific Southwest's water problems. And Arizona's powerful Senator, Carl Hayden, has said he will support this bill if the House sends it over to the Senate.
Vital Points Included
This proposed legislation would authorize the Central Arizona Project to bring urgently needed additional water to Phoenix and Tucson and other areas of Arizona. At the same time, it protects California's rights to Colorado River water-up to 4.4 million acre-feet annually. This protection would stand until at least 2.5 million acre-feet of water a year had been brought into the mainstream of the Colorado-and this is the significant part of the bill-from outside the Colorado River Basin. The bill further authorizes the Secretary to investigate all possible sources from which this water could come. Most of those who have previously studied this question seem to incline toward the Columbia River with the diversion being
-10-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,020,784 byte
Central Arizona Project Consideration
No full textDocument: General Basin-Wide Consideration, Basis for Proposed Testimony Before Interior and Insular Affairs Committee -- Lower Colorado River Basin Project, June 1965 (carbon copy), page 1CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT CONSIDERATION
BASIS FOR PROPOSED TESTIMONY or for being ready to make answers BEFORE INTERIOR AND INSULAR
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE -- LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT
Item No. Item Testimony by Testimony by
1 What is optinum size of water conduits:
(a) Main canel
(b) Tucson aquaduct.
(c) Pump capacity at Parker.
(d) Tunnel capacity at Parker.
(e) Size of holding reservoir east of Parker.
(f) Other features
2 Is it necessary that Arizona be provided a uniform firm water supply from the Colorado River or could Arizona's needs be satisfied with variable flowe depending upon water in storage and hydrologic condition?
3 In the event of unpresedented drouth in which water for the aquaduct system would be greatly diminished how would the water supply of central Arizona be affected?Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 3,214,133 byte
Water Supply Problem and Discussion
No full textDocument: Water Supply, 1963, page 3The projection of future Colorado River flows available for diversion in the Lower Basin has been an issue of controversy for many years. There is no immediate prospect of common agreement.
Proposed Position:
The Bureau has studied the problem thoroughly and proposes to use the Upper Basin depletions and channel salvage estimates that it has computed. Another meeting will be held with California representatives to discuss the problem and attempt to convince them that their assumed rate of development of Upper Basin projects is too rapid and that the Bureau estimate of channel salvage can be achieved. To the extent that agreement cannot be obtained it is proposed to accept Reclamation estimates and proceed to preparation of final report on that basis.
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 945,875 byte
Colorado River Association Newsletter
No full textColorado River Association Newsletter, September, 1966, page 1Colorado River Association
417 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, Calif. 90013 485 National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C. 20004
Newsletter
SEPTEMBER, 1966
The Colorado River Basin Project bill, HR 4671, lingers in House Rules Committee. When---or if---the bill will come to the floor of the House is uncertain.
Effects of a variety of concessions were tested while the legislation was in Interior Committee and the limits of compromise were identified. Three major points continue to resist negotiation:
One is the proposed study of all ways to supplement the supply of water in the Colorado River, including the feasibility of inter-basin transfer of water which will be surplus to local needs in areas outside the Colorado River Basin. Spokesmen for the residents of the Columbia River Basin do not want this possibility even studied. An amendment designed to meet some objections from the Columbia Basin not only failed to reduce Columbian resistance, but it also proved to some proponents of the bill to be intolerably weakening.
GOV. HANSEN of Wyoming Aug. 2 notified the President he could no longer support HR 4671 as amended to assign the Westwide water study to a National Water Commission and to extend the time for its report a year to Dec. 31, 1971. Wyoming wants in the bill not less of a study, but more than a study...Some Utah folk are having second-thoughts too, according to former Gov. George Clyde's speech Aug. 17 in Albuquerque to the Soil Conservation Society. What worries Clyde also is enfeeblement of plans for a study of what may be involved in an inter-basin transfer of surplus water.
The second point resisting compromise concerns erection of two hydropower dams (Hualapai and Marble Canyon) which are intended to help finance this multi-purpose development of the resources of the Colorado River and to accumulate funds for subsequent projects to meet future growth demands. A few organizations, led by the Sierra Club, wish to keep wilderness areas difficult to visit so as to insure privacy for an elite who have the strength, money and time to seek exhilaration byEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,545,480 byte
Motion of Secretary of the Interior for a Further Supsension
No full textDocument: Motion By Secretary of the Interior for a Further Suspension of Proceedings, Int. Rev. Dradft 9/12/66, page 113
Int. Rev. Draft 9/12/66
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
Arizona Power Authority Project No. 2248
City of Los Angeles and its
Department of Water and Power Project No. 2272
MOTION OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR A FURTHER
SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS
Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall presents this motion for a further suspension of proceedings, until after December 31, 1968, on the license applications of Arizona Power Authority for the Marble Canyon project (Project No. 2248) and of City of Los Angeles for the Bridge Canyon project (Project No. 2272). The following grounds are urged in support of the requested suspension:
1. Arizona Power Authority had originally included developments at both Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon as part of Project No. 2248. City of Los Angeles had filed a competing application for the Bridge Canyon site, designated as Project No. 2272. By their joint motion, the hearing on the competing applications for Bridge Canyon was severed from Project No. 2248, and the latter proceeding now involves the development at Marble Canyon only.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,988,538 byte