226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Letter Concerning Report from the Bureau
No full textLetter: To Henry M. Jackson, from Elmer B. Staats, May 10, 1965 (carbon copy), page 44
While the Federal Government has an obvious interest in the allocation of interstate waters, the question of priority of use of water in this case is primarily of concern to the States involved. If the assignment of this priority is agreeable to the States involved, the Administration would have no objection to assigning California this priority.
The subject of importation of additional water into the Basin is dealt with later in this letter.
5. Price Guarantees to the Lower Colorado Basin
Title II of S. 1019 directs the Secretary of the Interior to submit within three years from the effective date of the act "an initial group of projects and programs for authorization" capable of "delivering annually not less than two million five hundred thousand acre-feet of water into the mainstream of the Colorado River below Lee Ferry from sources outside the natural drainage area of the Colorado River system."
Any water imported from outside the natural drainage area of the Colorado River system would be made available to California, Arizona, and Nevada "at the same cost, and on the same terms, as would be applicable if mainstream water were available for release in the quantities required to supply such consumptive use" to meet a total entitlement of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water. It is our understanding that, in the events such works are not constructed, California would continue to receive 4.4 million acre-feet of water at mainstream prices. Title IV of the bill authorizes the use of revenues in the development fund to maintain existing mainstream prices for the amount of imported water needed to assure 7.5 million acre-feet for consumptive use in the Lower Basin.
Long-term estimates of water availability and costs in the Lower Basin obviously will be affected by many factors. The Bureau of the Budget, therefore, is concerned about the principle of an assurance or commitment by the Federal Government to guarantee present prices--even though limited by the availability of revenues in the Basin account as provided in Title IV. Committing the Federal Government to future obligations of unknown amount--particularly if this were looked upon as a precedent for other situations--is a decision which should be taken only after the most careful consideration.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 3,502,925 byte
Memorandum Concerning Lower Colorado River Project
No full textMemorandum: From Stewart Udall, For the Budget Director, The Lower Colorado River Project and California-Arizona Controvery, April 15, 1965 (carbon copy)April 15, 1965
MEMORANDUM FOR THE BUDGET DIRECTOR
Subject: The Lower Colorado River Project and California-Arizona Controversy
Attached is a copy of the separate memorandum which I propose to submit to the President to accompany the Budget memo.
Kermit, I have no serious quarrel with the summary memorandum Elmer has prepared--except for the two major points noted below.
First, I was baffled by the recommendation at the bottom of page I that the President reject the compromise and support Senator Hayden's bill. I strongly feel that the President must ultimately support some kind of compromise plan or take unwise and unnecessary political risks.
Also, I found the analysis on page 10 bewildering to say the least. It ignores the fact that at least one of the dams must be authorized immediately to provide a very large bloc of pumping power which will be needed for the Central Arizona Project.
It is my strong feeling that the divergent views of our agencies can be readily reconciled.
Stewart L. Udall
Secretary of the Interior
Enclosure
Secy. desk copy
Secy. files
Secy. cron.
SLU: fmEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,751,545 byte
Memorandum Concerning Central Arizona Project
No full textDocument: Memorandum for the President, Central Arizona Project, Draft, April 1965 (photocopy), page 2We have not discussed our proposed modifications with Hayden, Brown, or Kuchel, who have been pricipally involved prior to having your views. We assume that you will wish to do this or have this done before taking a public position.
Political issues involved
The broad compromise proposal was developed at a meeting which took place immediately following the inauguration in January, between Senators Hayden and Kuchel, Governors Brown and Goddard, and representatives Secretary Udall of the Department of the Interior, the Metropolitan Water District The details were later worked in a three way (Southern California), Colorado River Board and the Arizona Commission. (See Attachment A) negotiation between suther, California and (??) draftment
This compromise was hailed as a resolution of a long-standing fight between the two States which would clear the way for the Central Arizona Project and the Auburn-Folsom Project in California which has been held in the Senate Interior Committee for the past two years.
The general attitude in both Arizona and California is that if it is not possible to reach a resolution generally along the lines of the proposal, the risk of losing the project will be great, with major political repercussions in both States. We do not understand either side to be completely frozen to the details of the compromise bill, but it is unlikely that a major modification would be acceptable to either side.
If the compromise fails, California would simply continue to take more than her legal share of the water from the river. It now takes
-2-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,792,065 byte
Memorandum Concerning Central Arizona Project
No full textDocument: Memorandum for the President, Central Arizona Project, Draft, April 1965 (photocopy), page 8either should be constructed. An important argument for authorizing Marble Canyon now is that the Federal Power Commission has a pending license application for a power project which it is likely to grant upon the expiration of a congressional moratorium for such a license expiring December 31, 1966.
Because of the political importance to California of authorizing both dams, it might be possible to support authorization of a low dam at Bridge Canyon as well as Marble with the proviso that prior to construction further study should be given by the Secretary, with the help of an advisory group, as to the height of the dams and their precise location so as to minimize any damage to the natural beauty of the Canyon.
What kind of study for future water needs should be made?
The water shortage problem is a particularly serious problem for the long run future of California and the Pacific Southwest. It is an increasingly serious problem, however, for other areas as well--the Great Lakes area, the Southwest area, the upper New York area--are examples. Water is becoming an increasingly critical item in industrial development generally, particularly for possible new developments such as oil shale.
During the next few years we should be in a much better position to assess these requirements as well as the potentialities of desalting, anti-pollution programs, and repricing to assure the most efficient use of water. In addition, there have been several long range proposals for
-8-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,562,937 byte
Letter Concerning Inaction on Lower Colorado Project Legislation
No full textLetter: From Stewart Udall, to Lawrence Mehren, April 1, 1965 (photocopy), page 1THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1965
Dear Larry:
Needless to say, I share your worry over the inaction on the Lower Colorado Project legislation. The January 21 compromise has not jelled, and we are paying the penalty for this failure with each passing day. Make no mistake about it, this will be one of the best reclamation Congresses of the whole post-war period. This very week has seen dramatic movement on the other major reclamation bills pending in the Congress, North Dakota's Garrison Diversion Project and California's Auburn-Folsom Project.
Monday morning I was the lead-off witness for the Administration before the House Reclamation Subcommittee on the $425 million Auburn-Folsom Bill. After two days of hearings the Subcommittee, acting with unprecedented swiftness, unanimously approved this bill and sent it to the full Committee. Yesterday I gave similar testimony to the Senate Reclamation Subcommittee chaired by Senator Anderson, and I note in the Congressional Record this moring that this subcommittee cleared the bill for full committee action after only a one-day effort. In addition, it is likely that the House Interior Committee will approve the Garrison Diversion Bill today, with the prospect that the Senate will pass it before Easter.
You are quite right in pointing out that valuable time has already been lost. It was my hope at the time of our highly successful "summit meeting" on January 21 that the Arizona-California compromise would be consummated and a common action strategy quickly developed. For reasons well known to you a united approach and common strategy has not emerged.
Larry, in your letter you flatly place the blame for inaction on the Interior Department and the Bureau of the Budget with these words:Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,426,495 byte
Letter Concerning Fate of Lower Colorado River Basin Project Legislation
No full textLetter: From Lawrence Mehren, to Stewart Udall, March 29, 1965 (thermofax), page 1CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT ASSOCIATION
642 Security Building
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
LAWRENCE MEHREN. CHAIRMAN OF THE SOARD
RINEY B SALMON VICE-PRESIDENT
A. M. WARD. VICE-PREIDENT
L. ERWIN STAPLEY, VICE-PRESIDENT
D. B. McGREGOR SECRETARY-TREASURER
RICH JOHNSON
PRESIDENT
(??) money under (??)
(??) Sen (??)
March 29, 1965
The Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Secretary of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
Dear Stew:
Many of us in Arizona are increasingly concerned over the fate of the Lower Colorado River Basin Project legislation. Congress has been in session for almost three months, and this matter seems to be still on dead center.
In the negotiations and discussions late last fall and in January, Arizona felt that she had given considerable ground in order to effect the compromise which you and others deemed necessary to secure united support in the Lower Basin. The prognosis was that, with this united front, Administration approval and backing would result in rapid progress for the legislation.
Our liaison with Southern California is excellent. Rich Johnson and I spent a day earlier this month with the top command of Metropolitan Water District, and there is complete cooperation from this group. Likewise, I know that our three representatives have been in close touch with the California delegation in the House.
But nothing can move without action from your Department and the Bureau of the Budget, both representing the Administration. We have been patiently waiting for some action from Budget Bureau, but the days continue to drag on. Meanwhile, each day sees growing strength from various sectors of the opposition to this bill--conservationists, Upper Basin, etc.
I know that you share our concern. On April 8 we have another Board meeting of the Central Arizona Project Association. Each month I have told the Board that we expected that a month from then we would have substantial progress to report. I am fearful that on April 8 I must again be in the position of saving "no news." This is most discouraging to our people who have been led to believe that the current compromise legislation was the key to rapid action on our project.
DIRECTORS WAYNE M AKIN, WALTER A BATTY. WALTER R. BIMSON, GEORGE W CHAMBERS, JOSEPH A. CHAMBERS, HERMAN CHANEN, VICTOR I. CORBELL.
EVO J. DECONGINI. R J ELLIS. JOHN E. EVANS. NORMAN FAIN, DEWEY FARR. FRANK M. FEFFER. SR. KARL L. FICKES. SHERMAN HAZELTINE. JOHN M. JACOSS.
RICH JOHNSON, CHARLES R KUZELL, O. M. LASSEN, ERNEST W. McFARLAND, D. S. McGREGOR, R. J. McMULLIN, LAWRENCE MEHREN, HAROLD E. MYERS.
JONES OSSORN, H. DENE PATTILLO, H. S. RAYMOND, EARL C. RECKER O. W. RUGG. RINEY B. SALMON. LAWSON V. SMITH, L. ERWIN STAPLEY.
JOHN P. VANDENBURGH, A. M. WARD, J. C. WETZLER.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,954,846 byte
Scope of Lower Colorado River Basin Plan
No full textDocument: Attachment 1, Scope of Lower Colorado River Basin Plan, March 1965, page 1Attachment 1
I. Scope of Lower Colorado River Basin Plan
What would constitute a minimum acceptable regional plan authorization at this time, including the establishment of Federal policies to guide future planning and development?
In approaching the answer to this question, there are two overriding considerations:
1. There exist today critical shortages of water in the Pacific Southwest, particularly in the Central Arizona area. That area is mining its local water supply, depleting the underground water by 2,200,000 acre-feet annually in excess of the annual replenishment. As the population and economy of the Pacific Southwest expand, the demands for water will continually increase while the amounts of water available from the main source of supply, the Colorado River, will continue to diminish, thus compounding the present critical situation. The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that, with main stream river salvage, Colorado River water available for use in the three Lower Basin States of California, Arizona, and Nevada will drop to 6.3 million acre-feet by 2030. By 1975, it will have dropped to almost 7.5 million acre-feet, by 1990 to 7.2 million acre-feet, and by 2000 to 6.7 million acre-feet. Present uses of main stream Colorado River by the Lower Basin States are about six million acre-feet.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,581,526 byte
Scope of Lower Colorado River Basin Plan
No full textDocument: Attachment 1, Scope of Lower Colorado River Basin Plan, March 1965, page 113. Extremely large financial obligations have been assumed by both irrigation and municipal and industrial water users upon the belief that they would have for use within the Lower Basin not less than 7.5 million acre-feet per annum as a firm supply. This belief was fostered in large measure by the United States acting pursuant to acts of Congress; e.g., the Kinkaid Act of 1920 and the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928. Studies initiated under the Kinkaid Act, which provided the engineering data upon which the agreements were reached under the Colorado River Compact of 1922, indicated a supply of water far in excess of that which we now estimate is the firm supply available to the Lower Colorado River Basin. Unquestionably, many of the past financial obligations assumed by water users within the Lower Basin would not have been undertaken, with approval by the Congress, had not a firm water supply of 7.5 million acre-feet per annum appeared assured. In addition, most of these obligations were undertaken prior to the time the United States agreed to deliver 1,500,000 or more acre-feet per annum to Mexico. When the treaty was ratified it was assumed, as pointed out in the discussion under I, that the long-term average annual virgin river runoff of the Colorado Basin was 2,000,000 acre-feet more than is actually the case.
11Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,421,878 byte
Scope of Lower Colorado River Basin Plan
No full textDocument: Attachment 1, Scope of Lower Colorado River Basin Plan, March 1965, page 15Starting with Hoover Dam and going upstream, the major dams of the Colorado system would be Hoover, Bridge Canyon, Marble Canyon, Glen Canyon, and Flaming Gorge, with the Curecanti Unit dams and Navajo Dam on the tributaries to the east. The reservoirs created by these dams would have total surface area of about 410,000 acres. Interspersed with these would be the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Mesa Verde, Rocky Mountain, and the proposed Canyon Lands National Parks. Also, there would be the Grand Canyon, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Dinosaur, and Rainbow Bridge National Monuments, plus 30 others of lesser significance. The area covered by these parks and monuments totals about 3,000,000 acres. In additon, there are numerous State parks, National Forests, and recreation areas.
Between the headwaters of Bridge Canyon Reservoir and Marble Canyon Dam there would remain 104 miles of virgin canyon, of which 91 miles would be in the Grand Canyon National Park. Elsewhere in the Colorado River system there would remain hundreds of miles of additional virgin canyon areas of spectacular scenic beauty.
Furthermore, neither Bridge Canyon nor Marble Canyon Reservoirs would despoil the beauty of the Colorado River canyon. Both would be contained within the inner gorge of the canyon topped by thousands of feet of towering walls. The reservoir surfaces would be stable with very little variation in elevation.
15Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,733,943 byte
Scope of Lower Colorado River Basin Plan
No full textDocument: Attachment 1, Scope of Lower Colorado River Basin Plan, March 1965, page 17IV. Purchase of Upper Basin or All-American Canal Water Rights
1. Would it be practical for the Lower Basin to purchase from the Upper Basin for a period of years water which otherwise could be devoted by the Upper Basin in developing future projects?
2. Would it be practical for the Metropolitan Water District to purchase the All-American Canal water rights now held by the Imperial and Coachella Valleys?
1. By the terms of the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the Upper Basin is entitled to a certain share of the waters of the Colorado River system. Thus, such a proposal could be effected only if the Upper Basin States agreed to it.
Basically, the proposal asks that the Upper Basin States agree to a moratorium on their economic development in consideration of dollar conpensation. Even if this proposal were theoretically capable of accomplishment, we believe it would be completely unacceptable to the Upper Basin States. The waters to which they have obtained entitlement were secured only after long, bitter controversy. Their status falls in the category of a heritage. For any public official of an Upper Basin State to imply that the State would be willing to trade its heritage and future economic growth for dollars would be unthinkable.
17Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,713,541 byte