226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Pacific Southwest Water Plan - Appendix of August 1963
No full textDocument: Appendix to Pacific Southwest Water Plan of August 1963 as modified January 1964 "Office of Saline Waters Appendix", January 1964, page 22furnish power to the motors. The recycle pump drivers are wound for 12,000 volts and controlled by air circuit breakers in a double ended switchgear rated 15KV, 250 MVA and fed from the 13.8 KV windings of the two transformers. The motors from 1500 to 4000 horsepower will be wound for 4000 volts and will be controlled by air circuit breakers in a double-ended switchgear rated 5KV, 250 MVA and fed from the 4.16 KV windings of the two transformers.
One circuit breaker in each half of the 5KV bus furnishes power to a 1000/1125 KVA OA/FA 4160 - 480 volt transformer to provide power to two 480 volt switchgear units. All motors 100 to 250 horsepower are controlled by air circuit breakers in this switchgear. One or more 440 volt motor control centers is installed as required to provide power and control for miscellaneous small motors, lighting, etc. in the water plant.
All 4000 volt and 12,000 volt drivers are synchronous motors. All 440 volt motors are NEMA design B induction motors. Enclosures for the synchronous motors are NEMA 2 weatherproof; enclosures for induction motors are dripproof. All switchgear are outdoor with protected aisles.
Description of Power Generation Plant
The power plant is a conventional gas-fired steam-electric unit except for the deletion of a surface condenser. Two identical units, each with a net generator output of 227 megawatts are provided. After allowing for losses in transformers, etc., station net output is estimated at 208.5 megawatts each.
The heat rate for the unit was taken as 14,000 Btu per KWH.
-8-22-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,373,610 byte
Pacific Southwest Water Plan - Appendix of August 1963
No full textDocument: Appendix to Pacific Southwest Water Plan of August 1963 as modified January 1964 "Bureau of Mines Appendix", January 1964, page 9FUEL FOR SALINE WATER CONVERSION
The Office of Saline Water has been successful with its one-million-gallon-per-day multistage flash distillation demonstration plant at San Diego, California. It now plans to construct a 300-million-gallon-per-day plant, utilizing the same conversion process, to be on stream by 1975. The facility will be located in California, either near Los Angeles or in the Salton Sea area. The plant will be equipped with two 500-megawatt generating plants. Sea water heating will require 90,000 kw plus all the caste heat produced in the generation of power. The remaining 910,000 kw will be marketed to help offset the cost of the flash distillation process. Fuel for power generation will be furnished either by oil or gas (available in California), coal (from Utah, New Mexico, or other Western States), or unclear energy.
Mine-mouth power plants, with high-voltage transmission lines, will not be feasible because utilization of waste heat is part of the multistage flash distillation scheme. Thus the thermal plant will be constructed alongside the saline water conversion plant. Coal, if utilized, is not found in quantity in California and would therefore be transported to the conversion site by railroad or pipeline (powdered coal in a water or oil slurry).
In comparing fuel costs, delivered price per million British thermal units is the significant factor. It is estimated that for large contracts such as would prevail under the contemplated project Utah coal could be produced and sold for 15(??) to 17. 5(??) per million Btu, f.o.b. mine. Current costs are on the order of 20(??) per million Btu. Transportation costs via coal-slurry pipeline have been estimated at 1.4 to 1.7 cents per million Btu per 100 miles. Thus coal from northeastern Utah could be delivered to a Los Angeles site at 23 to 25 cents per million Btu, probably nearer the latter figure. Cost at the Salton Sea site would be less. New Mexico coal could probably be delivered at the Los Angeles site for about the same price. Possible lower mining costs at the large but low-grade lignite deposites of Wyoming and the Dakotas might yield fuel as low as 14 cents per million Btu, f.o.b. mine. However, the additional transportation cost would increase the delivered price to approximately 40 cents per million Btu.
Transportation charges for unitized or integral train haulage of coal have been estimated at up to 12 to 13 percent higher than the coal-slurry transportation cost. Transportation charges for railroad haulage of coal based upon filed tariffs would be about 3.0 to 7.6 cents per million Btu per 100 miles (ref. 16), and about 1.4 to 1.7 cents per million Btu per 100 miles based on known unitrain rates.
The smog problem in southern California could conceivably preclude the utilization of coal as a fuel regardless of cost per million Btu.
The comparative prices of oil and gas in the Los Angeles area are 32.2 cents per million Btu and 34.3 cents per million Btu, respectively (see ref. 6). Increased demand for oil and gas, coupled with declining production and smog regulations could possibly set the stage for an all-nuclear electrical generating facility at the saline water conversion site.
9Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,923,418 byte
General Basin-Wide Consideration
No full textDocument: General Basin-Wide Consideration, Basis for Proposed Testimony Before Interior and Insular Affairs Committee -- Lower Colorado River Basin Project, June 29, 1965 (carbon copy), page 2-2-
Item No. Item Testimony by Testimony by
(g) How much water will be available for diversion through Granite-Reef aqueduct in year:
(1) 1975
(2) 2000
(3) 2025
(h) How much water will Arizona need for diversion though Granite-Reef aqueduct in order to decrease pumping to safe yield in year:
(1) 1975
(2) 2000
(3) 2025
(i) What is the policy generally, with regard to water exchanges? That is, will future exchange projects be integrated into the overall Lower Colorado River Project when authorized, or will they be added as independent projects each bearing its own incremental cost?
(j) How would the problem of delivery of water to Mexico affect the overall Lower Colorado River Basin water supply?
(k) Are sewage effluents and other return flows a part of the overall Lower Colorado River Basin water supply and if so how would they be used and sold?Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 3,539,735 byte
Summary--Lower Colorado River Basin Project
No full textDocument: Summary--Lower Colorado River Basic Project, May 26, 1965, page 3The same circumstances relate to Grand Canyon National Monument. The Bridge Canyon Reservoir would back water into the inner gorge through the entire length of the river in the Monument.
Construction of the Marble Canyon Dam and Reservoir would have no effect on the National Park since the dam and reservoir would be upstream from the park boundary. An explanatory map showing the relationship of the dams and reservoirs to Grand Canyon National Park and Monument is attached.
The existing and proposed Colorado River hydroelectric power resource will be fully integrated with power and energy from other sources, primarily thermal plants using fossil fuel and atomic energy. These atomic and fossil fuel powered generating units also have been proposed as alternatives to the Marble and Bridge Canyon hydroplants. However, thermal generation facilities are best adapted to baseload energy and are most efficient when producing at a nearly constant rate. The demand for electrical energy does not follow a pattern of constant use.
The peak demands that occur during short periods of each day must be met from a source easily adapted to an on-and-off operation. This so-called peaking-type energy can be produced most economically by hydroelectric generation since these units may be put into operation by a simple turn of a valve, permitting water to pass through turbines and thus producing energy almost instantaneously. This is the major role visualized for the potential hydro units at Marble and (if studies prove it desirable) at Bridge powerplants. However, a standard minimum flow will be maintained below Marble Canyon Dam at all times no different from that which has been in effect since filling started at Glen Canyon Dam.
Thus, the integration of these two kinds of power generation, hydro and thermal, is most feasible to produce a total electrical energy product at maximim efficiency and minimum cost. It is significant to add that there is extreme competition among utilities desiring licenses to construct single-purpose hydroplants at most presently undeveloped river sites. This would seem to contradict assertions that the proposed Federal hydropower developments are uneconomical and would soon be outmoded.
The desalting of sea water, using a combination desalting-steam electric generating plant, offers an exciting and attractive potential of supplying additional water and power for the water-short areas but does not appear to be a substitute at this time for development of water supplies by existing means.
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,101,230 byte
Summary--Lower Colorado River Basin Project
No full textDocument: Summary--Lower Colorado River Basic Project, May 26, 1965, page 4President Johnson and Secretary Udall have announced an ambitious, accelerated program to determine the feasibility of this process including the thermal generation involved. In any event, the advent of the resource would not render obsolete the water and power developments that are contemplated along the Colorado River. On the contrary, they will complement each other.
During the past year many proposals by various interests have been advanced to augment the flow of the Colorado by importation from areas of surplus. Any studies will give first consideration to all possible present and foreseeable needs in the basin of origin before movement of any surplus water is investigated. The legislation now pending in the Congress directs the investigations of all possible avenues of importation. The legislation specifies no particular geographic area to be considered in the investigations and all potentials and routes will be investigated. It is obvious, however, that importation, like the use of purified sea water, would be complementary to, and not a substitute for, maximum development and use of the Colorado River. Either plan will be costly and Colorado River power revenues are essential to help reimburse the Federal Treasury.
In summary, the Lower Colorado River Basin Project is considered the essential core to be undertaken immediately. After authorization by the Congress, it would be periodically reviewed and modified to adapt to changing conditions. Any changes would be subject to further authorization and direction by the Congress of the United States.
Attachment
4Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,799,333 byte
Secretary Udall Supports Authorization
No full textDocument: United States Department of the Interior news release, "Secretary Udall supports authorization of comprehensive project package to meet long-range water needs of the lower Colorado River Basin," May 19, 1965, page 1UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR
*************************news release
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY DeWitt - 343-4662
For Release MAY 19, 1965
SECRETARY UDALL SUPPORTS AUTHORIZATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT PACKAGE TO MEET LONG-RANGE WATER NEEDS OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
In a report to the House Interior Committee, Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall has enthusiastically recommended enactment of legislation to authorize the Lower Colorado River Basin Project, consisting of a package of comprehensive water resource developments, programs and conservation measures to alleviate the existing grave water shortages in the Pacific Southwest, and to make possible water supplies adequate for the future throughout the entire Colorado River Basin, Upper as well as Lower.
On May 10, the Bureau of the Budget had submitted its own, generally favorable report on the legislation.
"I have high hopes that this comprehesive Lower Colorado River legislation can be enacted by Congress this year," Secretary Udall said. "It is soundly conceived, and the Reclamation developments it contains--including the Central Arizona Unit--are among the most vitally needed in many years. This many-faceted project can assure the continued vitality of the great sun country of our far southwest, where the economic future of the fastest-growing cities in our Nation--Las Vegas, Phoenix, and the metropolitan complex along the southern California coast--is being seriously jeopardized by the ever-worsening specter of water shortages."
"This legislation contains many of the specifics, and goes far towards achieving the major objectives, of our proposed Pacific Southwest Water Plan of last year," Secretary Udall said, "but there is one transcendent difference: this new legislative proposal embodies a meeting of minds between Arizona and California on an acceptable guarantee for the protection of existing water uses. Now that these two States have resolved their differences, the lower Basin can throw its united support at last behind this comprehesive program for coming to grips with the problem of assuring sufficient water supplies for the Pacific Southwest."Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,376,411 byte
Memorandum Concerning Water Reservation
No full textMemorandum: From AS/FW, to Stewart Udall, May 19, 1965 (carbon copy), page 1UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
May 19, 1965
Memorandum
To: The Secretary
Through: The Under Secretary
From: AS/FW
Subject: Water reservation for non-federal fish and wildlife
installations, Lower Colorado Basin Project
Two documents have been brought to my attention that disturb me somewhat, perhaps because I knew nothing of their background: (1) a letter of 10 May 1965 from Elmer B. Staats, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget, to Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and (2) a letter dated 17 May 1965 from you to Congressman Wayne Aspinall, Chairman of the corresponding House Committee, matters of interest in the Lower Colorado River Basin Project.
In Mr. Staats letter, page 7, item 6(d), commenting on Section 308(b) of S. 1019, which would direct you to reserve not more than 84,000 acre-feet of water annually for consumptive use, exclusive of California, for non-federal fish and wildlife installations, he says that "the Bureau of the Budget would recommend that this issue be reserved for future study by the national commission." In your letter, page 8, first paragraph, you say "we have no objection to that procedure."
In the first place, if I am correctly informed, the national commission referred to by Mr. Staats does not now exist and any such recommendation would seem to remove effectively for some yers any water benefits to fish and wildlife, of which, incidentally, some 47,000 acre-feet were to be used in Arizona to create fish lakes, supply hatcheries and provide for wildlife habitat.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 3,032,182 byte
Letter Concerning Request for Report about Lower Colorado
No full textLetter: To Mr. Aspinall, from Stewart Udall, May 17, 1965, page 9(3) On page 12, line 23, delete all of subsection (b).
The purpose is to defer the reservation of 84,000 acre-feet of water for fish and wildlife purposes for further study.
(4) On page 20, line 7, change the period to a colon and add:
"Provided, however, That all of the separable and joint costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement at the Dixie project and the mainstream reservoir unit shall be borne by the United States and shall be nonreimbursable."
Section 402 of H. R. 4671 contemplates that the Administration's policy for allocating recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement costs at Federal water resource projects, as set forth in the proposed Federal Water Project Recreation Act (H. R. 5269 and S. 1229) will apply to the Lower Colorado River Basin project. Under this policy, non-Federal public bodies are encouraged to share the separable costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement and to take over the administration of such facilities, except in those areas where Federal management is determined to be appropriate.
The proposed Federal Water Project Recreation Act does not specifically designate any such areas but contemplates that special provisions for nonreimbursability of recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement costs will be made in project legislation where it is determined that Federal administration should be retained. The Marble Canyon unit of the Lower Colorado River Basin project is, in our view, such an area.
The Marble Canyon Dam site would be 12-1/2 miles above the Grand Canyon National Park boundary, and the reservoir would extend upstream to Glen Canyon Dam. The upper 20 miles of the Marble Canyon Reservoir would be within the area surrounding Glen Canyon Dam now administered for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement by the National Park Service. Logically, Marble Canyon should be similarly administered.
9Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,966,946 byte
Letter Concerning Progress on Regional Southwest Water Plan
No full textLetter: From J.A. Riggins, Jr, to Stewart Udall, April 13, 1965, page 1(??)
CHARLES L. STROUSS (1891-1958)
IRVING A. JENNINGS
OZELL M. TRASK
CLARENCE J. DUNCAN
FRANCIS B. CAMPBELL, JR.
CHARLES L. STROUSS, JR.
EARL F. GLENN, JR.
CHARLES R. ESSER
JOHN S. HOBBS
A.J. PFISTER
ROBERT E. HURLEY
THELTON D. BECK
WILLIAM R. JONES, JR.
TIMOTHY W. BARTON
GARY G. KETNER
REX E. LEE
JAY C. STUCKEY, JR.
RINEY B. SALMON
J.A. RIGGINS. JR.
REX H. MOORE
NICHOLAS UDALL
WILLIAM T. BIRMINGHAM
WILLIAM F. HAUG
CHARLES R. HOOVER
JOHN R. CHRISTIAN
THOMAS J. TRIMBLE
LEE E. ESCH
ROBERT L. JOHNSON
RINEY B. SALMON II
DAVID H. EATON
CHARLES E. JONES
RICHARD L. LASSEN
LAW OFFICES
JENNINGS, STROUSS, SALMON & TRASK
TITLE & TRUST BUILDING
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
TELEPHONE 258-7011
1220 FARRAGUT BUILDING
900 17TH STREET N. W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
TELEPHONE 296-4325
PHOENIX
April 13, 1965
OB
PERSONAL
Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Secretary of Interior
Department of Interior
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Stewart:
Thanks for your letter of April 1st addressed to Larry Mehren concerning the progress -- or lack of progress -- on the Regional Southwest Water Plan and the Central Arizona Project.
I suppose the only comment I can make on your letter which will cover everything is to say "Yes, I agree." However, being in agreement and being able to do something about it is a different matter. The technique and mechanics of how the matter is handled in the Washington arena is something for your Department and the congressional delegation to determine rather than having the matter "second guessed" by those of us at home who fall into the Monday morning quarterback category. But, as I advised you in our last meeting in your office, I do think it is time that not only the home folks put up a "united front", but it is time the Arizona delegation got together behind closed doors and came up with a united approach to the lobbying problems involved in getting this legislation through after we have the Bureau of the Budget report behind us and the hearings before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.
Some people seem to think that, since the State of California is on the bill, all our problems are over and that it is unnecessary to organize any concerted lobbying effort on the bill. As you know, this is far from the truth.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,584,777 byte
Letter Concerning Progress on Regional Southwest Water Plan
No full textLetter: From J.A. Riggins, Jr, to Stewart Udall, April 13, 1965, page 3-3-
Honorable Stewart L. Udall
April 13, 1965
This coordinating group should make daily contacts with the congressional delegation and the Secretary's office, and maintain a confidential log of its activities. They should receive daily advice, supervision and instructions from the delegation and from the Department of Interior.
Sometimes I fear that our friends in Arizona and perhaps in Washington too have trouble seeing the forest on account of the trees. In other words, we shouldn't let ourselves get discouraged by minor changes, additions or amendments to the legislation. We should always keep in mind the broad general objective of early authorization and construction of the Central Arizona Project as the first unit of any regional plan. Water rights, decrees, priorities, guarantees, etc. are not of much significance compared to making an irrevocable start on project construction and actually "pouring concrete".
Again, thanks for sending me a copy of the letter to Larry and thanks for so clearly and plainly setting out your feelings and thoughts on the entire problem.
Very truly yours,
JENNINGS, STROUSS, SALMON & TRASK
J. A. Riggins, Jr.
JAR, JR: mm
P. S. I concur with the suggestion that John Rhodes head up the joint effort of the delegation--for several reasons.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,892,653 byte