226894 research outputs found
Sort by
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 22. The Secretary is a party to the Marble Canyon proceedings by order of the Commission of November 2, 1962, granting limited intervention out of time in Project No. 2248. He has contended -- in exceptions to the presiding examiner's decision granting a license for Marble Canyon to Arizona Power Authority, in oral argument before the Commission, and in other presentations -- that Marble Canyon should not be licensed to a nonfederal party but that the Commission should make a recommendation to Congress under Section 7 (b) of the Federal Power Act for federal construction.
3. While the presiding examiner's decision was still under consideration before the Commission, the President signed Public Law 88-491 (78 Stat. 607) on August 27, 1964, directing that the Commission issue no licenses or permits, or accept any applications for such licenses for permits, for the reach of the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead (which includes both the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon sites) during the period ending December 31, 1966. In compliance with this Congressional directive, the Commission on September 14, 1964, suspended proceedings in Project No. 2248 and Project No. 2272 until after December 31, 1966.
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,211,453 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 57. The President formally proposed establishment of the National Water Commission in his National Heritage message to Congress of February 23, 1966. Legislation (S. 3107) to establish the Commission passed the Senate on June 9, 1966 (See Cong. Rec., June 9, 1966, pp. 12245-12248), and provision for its establishment also is included in Title II of H. R. 4671 as reported out by the House Committee. See H. Rep. 1849, pp. 2-4; 44-45.
8. As with the Bridge Canyon proposal, the opposition to Congressional authorization of Marble Canyon is based on a concern for preservation of existing scenic and esthetic values. Indeed, it is the controversy over these values engendered by the proposal to authorize these two dams, along with the controversy regarding studies of out-of-basin augmentation of the Colorado's flows, that has precluded completion, thus far, of Congressional consideration of the Colorado River legislation. On this basis alone, the Commission would be warranted in extending the present moratorium. For it would hardly be consistent with the prerogatives of the Congress, when that body has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy whether these dams should be built at all, to take the matter out of its hands when the issues are of such gravity that their resolution could not (should that prove to be the case) be completed prior to the sine die adjournment of the 89th Congress.
9. The legislation now before the Congress is the outgrowth
5Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,251,309 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 9Congressional purpose contrary to the licensing of either the Marble Canyon or Bridge Canyon project. In view of the developments in connection with H. R. 4671, it is clear that the Commission should allow the Congress the opportunity, during at least one more session of Congress, to complete its consideration of Colorado River Basin legislation. It is clear also that the Commission itself should take this action, and promptly, in order to avoid further burdening, with legislation extending Public Law 88-491, the already crowded schedule of legislative business faced by the Congress during the remainder of the 89th Congress.
15. The authority of the Commission to defer action on a license application, such as the Secretary now urges, is inherent in its licensing authority. Where, as here, the Congress itself is in the midst of determining the water resource program for the lower Colorado River Basin, the Act necessarily sanctions such delay in these licensing proceedings as is necessary to permit Congress to complete action.
16. Proceedings on licenses have been suspended in similar circumstances. By 1921, the Federal Power Commission had received eleven applications for Colorado River permits. On April 27, 1922, the Federal Power Commission voted to suspend temporarily all permit and license applications on the Colorado River in order that consideration might be given to proposal for a general plan of power development. (See 3d Annual Report, Federal Power Commission, p. 61 (1923)) The immediate antecedent to that
9Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,285,016 byte
Letter Concerning Appendix of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textLetter: To Frank C. Di Luzio, from John D. Dingell, September 7, 1966 (thermofax)JOHN D. DINGELL
16TH DIST., MICHIGAN
COMMITTEES:
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
September 7, 1966
Mr. Frank C. Di Luzio
Director
Office of Saline Water
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Di Luzio:
I am enclosing a copy of material from your office that was included in the appendix of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. I wonder if there is further information that you would wish to supply with respect to this, that you think would be significant to the Members of Congress as they consider the proposed Grand Canyon dams, and particularly as they consider the augmentation of water supplies in the Pacific Southwest. I would suspect that there may have been several conferences and technical sessions on the subject of augmenting water supplies in various parts of the country, a summary of which would be valuable to Congress in its hour of decision on the Lower Colorado River Basin Project.
With every good wish,
Sincerely yours,
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
L
enclosureEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,990,930 byte
Joint Statement of Reps. John J. Rhodes and Morris K. Udall
No full textDocument: Joint Statement of Reps. John J. Rhodes and Morris K. Udall, Sept. 1966, page 7-7-
3. The distorted and misleading national campaign to "Save the Grand Canyon" has taken a heavy toll on Members whose support we would otherwise obtain. The ordinary Western water bill draws little fire in Michigan or Massachusetts. Yet the massive campaign of a few organizations, aided and abetted by such influential publications as Life, the New York Times, and the Reader's Digest, have made the Colorado Basin Project bill one of the most controversial national issues of recent years. Many Eastern Members report that they have received more mail on this subject than on any pending matter facing the 89th Congress. Through patient and time-consuming personal conferences we have convinced most Members that the propaganda is false, and we have been aided immensely by the extensive and expensive efforts of the Central Arizona Project Association, Senator Goldwater and others. But Arizona just hasn't had the time and the money to effectively answer every false editorial, much less to bring the truth to the "grassroots" of every Congressional District in America.
We cannot pass this subject without expressing our regret, and dismay and disappointment that this national effort against our vital project has been supported by a small but vocal group of our fellow Arizonans. At least 98 percent of our citizens support this project. Yet our opponents have thrown in our faces and widely published the misguided statements of this small minority.
4. Opposition of Pacific Northwest. Ordinarily reclamation projects need and can count on, the support of the bloc of 13 Pacific Northwest Congressmen; in its present posture the bill is assured of their total and violent opposition. These members are our friends and co-workers. They have been reluctant to be obstructionist, but as legislators they inevitably reflect much of their area's unwarranted, parochial concern and hysteria about this bill. The Northwest has every right to be jealous and careful of its abundant water supply. But this nation should never Balkanize itself to the point where one region's economy goes down the drain for lack of commodities another region has in surplus. We need vision and statesmanship and a national view of national problems. But these factors are hard to come by, especially in an even-numbered year.
All the bill provides is that there be a STUDY -- and a study only -- of two things: whether there is really a reliable, long-term supply of water in the Northwest, or in Northern California, surplus to any foreseeable or conceivable need of that region; and whether it is financially and economically feasible to move that water long distances to the Southwest. Only after the 5-year study could Congress consider the question of export works; and only by a vote of some Congress of the 1970's could the works ever be built. Yet many otherwise responsible editors and officials of the Northwest -- an area which pours 140 million acre-feet wasted into the Pacific each year from the Columbia River alone -- object even to the most carefully limited and circumscribed STUDY of the question.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,570,834 byte
Letter Concerning Inquiry on Minimization of Evaporation
No full textLetter: To Ed Reinecke, from N.B. Bennett, July 29, 1966 (thermofax), page 2as we have on the Colorado River, any saving in water that might be accomplished in one reservoir by this process would undoubtedly result in water of higher temperatures being discharged into the reservoirs downstream. This would in turn result in higher-than-normal evaporation rates in the lower reservoirs with resultant lack of net benefit to the system. Research conducted by the Bureau during the past several years indicates that net evaporation reduction may be possible in such systems by means of forming monomolecular films on part of the water surfaces.
Because of their interest in the possible short-term benefita of stirring small ponds, the Geological Survey has conducted investigations of this sort. Some of the results are reported in Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 1809M, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. This work has indicated that reservoir mixing improves water quality thus reducing the amount of chlorination that might be required in municipal supplies. In addition, short-term evaporation reduction was achieved.
We appreciate your interest in this problem.
Sincerely yours,
N. B. BENNETT
ACTING
Commissioner
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Orren Beaty, Assistant to the Secretary
DCCO - S 12029
Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado
SJWare: jk
7/29/66Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,535,705 byte
Memorandum Concerning Request from Congresswoman Green
No full textMemorandum: To The Record, from F. J. Flynn, "Request from Congresswoman Reinecke for information," July 15, 1966OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10
5010-104
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
COPY
DATE: July 15, 1966
TO : The Record
FROM : Chief, Basic Records Section (SW)
SUBJECT: Request from Congresswoman Green for information
A telephone request was received by the Director's office on July 13, 1966, from Congresswoman Green (Oregon) for a copy of the information furnished Congressman Reinecke (California) last June 14. The information requested was that prepared by Messrs. Flynn, Anderson, and Ham relative to the pumping lift that would be required to divert water from the Columbia River to the Colorado River. See memorandum for The Record, dated June 20, 1966, by F. J. Flynn.
Anderson and Ham traced the route selected for Congressman Reinecke onto another set of 1:250,000 scale topo maps and had xerox copies made of the tables furnished showing mileage, lift, or drop, for each segment of the route. These data were transmitted by mail messenger to Mr. Richard Feeney of Representative Green's office, with the attached informal transmittal memo signed by Flynn.
/signed/ F. J. Flynn
Attachments.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,196,059 byte
A Possible Route to Transport Water from Columbia River
No full textDocument: A possible route to transport water from Columiba River to Colorado River, July? 1966 (themofax), page 2DIVERSION ROUTE COLUMBIA RIVER TO COLORADO RIVER
Segment No. Description Elev. at start of segment (msl) Elev. at end of segment (msl) Pump lift in segment (feet) Drop in segment (feet) Miles in segment Accumulated Pump lift Accumulated Mileage
1 The Dalles Reservoir to pass into Great Basin 200 4600 4400 - 183 4400 183
2 Great Basin pass down to Dry River crossing 4600 4400 - 200 4 4400 187
3 Dry River to Christmas Lake Valley basin 4400 4800 400 - 6 4800 193
4 Around Christmas Lake Valley and northeast of Lake Abert 4800 4800 - - 109 4800 302
5 Pass into Warner Lakes basin 4800 5200 400 - 2 5200 304
6 Along west side of Warner Lakes Valley 5200 5200 - - 87 5200 391
7 Lift over Coleman Creek pass into Long Valley 5200 5900 700 2 5900 393
8 Along west side of Long Valley to pass into Smoke Creek Desert 5900 5900 - - 108 5900 501
9 Drop into Smoke Creek Desert 5900 3900 - 2000 12 5900 513
10 Along west side of Smoke Creek Desert into Pyramid Lake 3900 3800 - 100 68 5900 581Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,981,962 byte
Committee Print No. 25
No full textDocument: Committee Print No.25, July 6, 1966, Subcommittee Amendment to H.R. 4671, 89th Congress, 2D Session, page 1010
1 use shall be apportioned in the manner provided in article
2 II (B) (2) of the decree of the Supreme Court of the
3 United States in Arizona against California, but only upon
4 excecution of contracts with the United States providing for
5 payment for the storage and delivery of the imported water
6 which is included in such excess, at rates and charges deter-
7 mined by the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of
8 law otherwise applicable to the units of the project making
9 such water available.
10 SEC. 305. The mainstream salvage unit shall include, to
11 the extent the Secretary determines to be consistent with
12 maintenance of a reasonable degree of andisturbed habitat
13 for fish and wildlife in the area, programs for water salvage
14 through phreatophyte control along and adjacent to the
15 mainstream of the Colorado River, and through ground water
16 recovery in the Yuma area but no ground water program
17 hereby authorized shall be undertaken in the Yuma area until
18 the Secretary of State has reported to the President on con-
19 sultations which he may have had with the Government of
20 Mexico pursuant to the Water Treasury of 1944 (Treaty
21 Series 994) and the President has approved a definite plan
22 report thereon.
23 SEC. 306. The southern Nevada water supply unit shall
24 consist of the following principal works: intake facilities,
25 pumping plants, aqueduct and laterals, transmission lines,Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,767,205 byte
Committee Print No. 25
No full textDocument: Committee Print No.25, July 6, 1966, Subcommittee Amendment to H.R. 4671, 89th Congress, 2D Session, page 2626
1 (d) In carrying out the provisions of this Act, the Com
2 mission may
3 (1) employ and compensate such personnel as it
4 deems advisable;
5 (2) use the United States mails in the same man
6 ner and upon the same conditions as departments and
7 agencies of the United States;
8 (3) acquire, furnish, and equip such office space as
9 is necessary;
10 (4) accept for any of its purposes and funetions
11 appropriations, donations, and grants of money, equip
12 ment, supplies, materials, facilities, and services, and
13 receive, utilize, and dispose of the same; and
14 (5) incur such necessary expenses and exercise
15 such other powers as are consistent with and reasonably
16 required to perform its functions under this seetion.
17 (e) The Commission shall determine the proportionate
18 shares of its expenses which shall be borne by the Federal
19 Government and each of the States. The Commission shall
20 prepare a budget annually and transmit it to the Federal de-
21 partments and the States. Estimates of proposed appropria-
22 tions from the Federal Government shall be included in the
23 budget estimates submitted by the Secretary of the Interior
24 under the Budgeting and Accounting Act of 1921, as
25 amended, and may include an amount for advance to theEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,645,268 byte