226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Letter Concerning Marble and Bridge Canyon Dams
No full textLetter: To Mr Svendsen, Draft, 1965 (carbon copy), page 66
of your letter. I am fearful that Sierra Club members and other sincere preservationists are getting a very one-sided picture of this controversy and will appreciate anything you can do, as you propose, "to expose the other side of the coin to fellow club members."
Sincerely yours,Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,547,033 byte
The Chips are Down for Grand Canyon
No full textDocument: The chips are down for Grand Canyon," reprinted from The Sierra Club Bulletin, February, 1965, page 4They are 'necessary' only if we insist on using a particular water subsidy system, even when to do so would submerge the heart of one of the scenic wonders of the world."
4) Isn't the power generated by these dams of major importance to the Southwest?
Such power is acknowledged in the report on the Southwest Water Plan to be only "a small increment of the projected future power demand of the area..." It obviously could be generated by public or private thermal plants, fueled either by fossil fuels (oil, gas, or coal) or nuclear fission. It appears that no engineering analysis has been made and released of this alternative: providing the needed pumping power with thermal plants and providing the subsidy for the plan either from non-power revenues or from public thermal plant revenues.
5) Aren't alternative sources of power, such as steam plants, more expensive?
Steam plants would admittedly have fuel costs, and hydroelectric plants would not. At 3.6 mills per kilowatt hour, however, 3% interest on the $487,000,000 investment saving would buy enough fuel to generate over four billion kilowatt hours per year; it would take about thirty years for the savings on fuel of the hydroelectric plants to pay for their higher cost and the interest thereon. Thus steam plants could be built much faster, would save the heart of the Grand Canyon, and would have a lower cumulative cost until fuel costs exceeded the savings on initial investment some thirty years after completion of the plants.
6) What alternative sources of water are possible?
Many projects exist or are contemplated to import water from areas of surplus to areas of deficit-without, in the process, destroying a unique scenic resource. And research on the desalinization of sea water accelerates year by year.
7) Does the law establishing Grand Canyon National Park allow dams and reservoirs to be built within it?
The Bureau of Reclamation says yes. It quotes Section 7 of the Grand Canyon National Park Act: "That, whenever consistent with the primary purposes of said park, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to permit the utilization of areas therein which may be necessary for the development and maintenance of a Government reclamation project [emphasis added]." The primary purpose of the park is "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." Bridge Canyon reservoir would obliterate the scenic values of the river flowing between canyon walls, would destroy the river (and the plants and wildlife dependent upon it) as a "natural object" that the national park was designed to protect, and could not in any sense be consistent with the primary purposes of the national park.
8) Won't the proposed dams provide some important recreation in areas now accessible to only a few people?
We already have on the Colorado River more than 600 miles of reservoir recreation behind Flaming Gorge, Navajo, Glen Canyon, Hoover, Davis, Parker and Imperial dams. There is recreational value in swift-running water, too.
Some things you can do to help save Grand Canyon
No one person can try to involve himself in all the arenas the club must fight in these days, but each person can choose one or two and do what he can in those. Grand Canyon, the redwoods, the Northern Cascades-these are the principal national battles. Proposals for national parks or seashores of recreation areas (Oregon Dunes, Sleeping Bear Dunes, the Allagash, Great Basin, Sawtooth Mountains) and protection of rivers, some of them wild, are other concerns. Reclassification of wilderness will take a decade.
But no one need to be overwhelmed by all this. There are now 27,000 of us, each with 100 friends (let us hope), and each of them with a few, who can be involved in, say, one national arena and one or two local arenas.
Perhaps you have already chosen one. All we ask is that enough of you go to work on Grand Canyon among other duties, and that you never once forget what a force the devoted individual is-with particular reference to Rachel Carson and Howard Zahniser. They made a difference in the way the world will look a century from now. So can you. Don't underestimate yourself.
Assuming that you don't underestimate, and that you wish to help Grand Canyon, here are steps to choose from-and the more the better.
1) Keep trying to inform yourself better. But meanwhile, trust your feelings about what ought to happen to Grand Canyon and what ought not to happen to it. Ask good questions, urging that any damaging steps await good answers.
2) Write the President, The White House, Washington 25, D.C. Write the Secretary of the Interior, Stewart L. Udall. Write your senators, your representatives, and your state legislators if you are a Californian or an Arizonan. Write to editors of your paper, your magazines, your radio and TV stations, whenever an occasion arises, urging that alternatives be sought ratther than permitting the impairment of Grand Canyon. Carbons of your letters will be appreciated at club headquarters.
3) Brush up on the Grand Canyon book, Time and the River Flowing, borrowing it from a library or a friend if you can't afford it yet, to learn all you can about the hardest point to make: why "a little reservoir way down in a deep canyon" is not a harmless boon to accessibility, as the Bureau of Reclamation tries to make out it is. Once you have borrowed the book, lend it to others (within reason). Or give it (if you bought it yourself).
4) Make up (or send for) a slide set, together with notes for a short talk, and seek occasions to show it often. Suggest to each audience what it can do to help.
5) Be ready to show our Glen Canyon film and Grand Canyon film (now being completed) as soon as we announce their availability-or to purchase copies if you can afford to aid their dissemination.
6) Send in clippings that can warn us, enlighten us or encourage us at headquarters.
7) Follow through. It takes time, but a letter responding courtcously to the reply, clarifying a point that was missed, asking further questions, can build up a good relationship.
8) Send money to help finance defense of the canyon.
9) Volunteer to join the Grand Canyon Task Force. Tell us what you can do and how much time you can spare.
26BEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,583,088 byte
Colorado River Association Newsletter March, 1965
No full textDocument: Colorado River Association Newsletter, March 1965, page 3arid areas of the Southwest. Not that he urged it, he added....Donel J. Lane, executive secretary of the Oregon Water Resources Board, last January told the Oregon Wildlife Federation it had been assumed for years that the Northwest had legal right to water in the area but that court decisions in the Pelton Dam issue and in the Cowlitz River Dam fight had shaken this belief...Gov. Mark Hatfield has asked for $332,982 to start a study of Oregon's water needs for the next century and the legislature is talking it over...He will have more to say at the Western Govenors Conference in Portland March 15...The Spring melt of mountain snows has Oregonlans worried too...Byron Price, superintendent of the Eugene Water and Electric Board gave a Valentine's Day message to 150 farmers that they shouldn't laugh at plans to ship Northwest surplus water to the Southwest, saying, "these plans are sufficiently practical that we should take them seriously. We should look them over as the merchant who has water to sell"...
WASHINGTON STATE Director of Conservation Roy Mundy is asking the legislature for bills to require registration and valioation of water claims and rights, to provide for forfeiture of water rights not utilized for 5 years, to re-establish a system of county water-masters, and to modernize fees for administering water codes. Purpose is to start a supply/demand forecast...Jan. 27 Mr. Mundy was quoted in the Seattle Times as disturbed by reduction of federal budget funds for construction in the State...Jan. 27 Mr. Mundy was quoted in the Seattle Times as disturbed by reduction of federal budget funds for construction in the State...Jan. 15 the UP-I reported Sen. Henry Jackson as still "unalterably opposed" to any diversion of water from the Columbia River...H. Maurice Ahlquist, new acting chairman of the Columbia Basin Compact Commission, told the UP-I that "he didn't think Californians were kidding" about seeking surplus water in the Northwest...Prof. Ralph Johnson of the University of Washington law school published in the U. of W. Business Review an article observing that the Northwest "owns" its water just as the Southwest "owns" its natural gas, with the difference that rivers are public property and natural gas is privately developed and marketed.
IDAHO legislators are processing a bill to establish a Water Resource Agency to administer the constitutional amendment approved at the last general election...William Holden, who headed the committee that drafted the amendment, is on record with the Idaho Reclamation Association that the concept fo regional planning of water use must be accepted in the public interest, including export of surplus water with proper safeguards for the future needs of the states of origin.
CANADA'S MINISTER of Northern Affairs and National Resources last December noted estimates that his country has nearly half the world supply of fresh water, the bulk of which wastes to polar seas. Minister Arthur Lang was quoted by the Denver Post Dec. 13 as saying, "Absolutely radical, but completely serious, proposals advocate the diversion of quantities of this water to the south of us where the need for an increased water supply is currently greater than our own. This means that now---and I do mean now---is the time when Canada's leaders must determine our national and regional needs for as many years ahead as it is reasonable to estimate." He sees that some dry areas of Canada could benefit, that CanadianEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,176,798 byte
Arizona v. California
No full textDocument: San Diego County water data, 19653
DECREE, MARCH 9, 1964
ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA.
(3) For power;
Provided, however, that the United States may release water in satisfaction of its obligations to the United States of Mexico under the treaty dated February 3, 1944, without regard to the priorities specified in this subdivision (A);
(B) From releasing water controlled by the United States for irrigation and domestic use in the States of Arizona, California and Nevada, except as follows:
(1) If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy 7,500,000 acre feet of annual consumptive use, there shall be apportioned 2,800,000 acre feet for use in Arizona, 4,400,000 acre feet for use in California, and 300,000 acre feet for use in Nevada;
(2) If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy annual consumptive use in the aforesaid states in excess of 7,500,000 acre feet, such excess consumptive use is surplus, and 50% thereof shall be apportioned for use in Arizona and 50% for use in California; provided, however, that if the United States so contracts with Nevada, then 46% of such surplus shall be apportioned for use in Arizona and 4% for use in Nevada;
(3) If insufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy annual consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre feet in the aforesaid three states, then the Secretary of the Interior, after providing for satisfaction of present perfected rights in the order of their priority dates without regard to state lines and after consultation with the parties to major delivery contracts and such representatives as the respective states may designate, may apportion the amount remaining available for consumptive use in such manner as is consistent with the Boulder Canyon Project Act as interpreted by the opinion of this Court herein, and with other applicable federal statutes, but in no event shall more than 4,400,000 acre feet be apportioned for use in california, including all present perfected rights;Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 3,297,284 byte
Letter Concerning Execution of Compromise
No full textLetter: To Carl Hayden, from Reps. Hosmer, Reinecke, et. al., February 5, 1965 (carbon copy), page 2-2-
Senator Hayden
February 5, 1965
we are anxious to present a bill for early consideration, so that Auburn-Folsom South legislation can be passed as soon as possible, and, in any event, no later than concurrently with the compromise bill you have now endorsed.
If you can agree with us in the program outlined above, we will proceed together with determination and diligence to procure the passage of legislation authorizing the Auburn-Folsom South Project, the Central Arizona Project, and when studies are completed, the works necessary to augument the water supply of the Colorado River.
Please accept the assurance of our esteem and affection.
Sincerely,
Craig Hosmer
Ed Reinecke
Charles C. Teague
James B. Utt
Bob Wilson
Burt L. Talcutt
Augustus F. Hawkias
H. Allen Smith
Harlan Hagen
Alphonzo Bell
Glennard P. Lipscomb
John E. Moss
John V. Tunney
John J. Mac Fall
Richard T. Hanna
George E. Brown. Jr.
Bernie Sisk
Ronald P. Cameron
Edward R. Roybal
Lionel Van Deerlin
Phillip Burtan
James Corman
Cecil R. King
George P. Miller
Del Clawson
Ken W. Dyal
James Roosevelt
Charles Wilson
Don Edwards
Robert L. Leggett
Chet HolifieldEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,843,809 byte
H.R. 4671 In the House of Representatives
No full textDocument: 89th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 4671, February 9, 1965, page 1010
1 execution of contracts with the United States providing for
2 payment for the storage and delivery of the imported water
3 which is included in such excess, at rates and charges deter-
4 mined by the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of
5 law otherwise applicable to the units of the project making
6 such water available.
7 SEC. 305. The mainstream salvage unit shall include, to
8 the extent the Secretary determines to be consistent with
9 maintenance of a reasonable degree of undisturbed habitat
10 for fish and wildlife in the area, programs for water salvage
11 through phreatophyte control along and adjacent to the
12 mainstream of the Colorado River, and through ground-water
13 recovery in the Yuma area but no ground-water program
14 hereby authorized shall be undertaken in the Yuma area until
15 the Secretary of State has reported to the President on con-
16 sultations which he may have had with the Government of
17 Mexico pursuant to the Water Treaty of 1944 (Treaty
18 Series 994) and the President has approved a definite plan
19 report thereon.
20 SEC. 306. The southern Nevada water supply unit shall
21 consist of the following principal works: intake facilities.
22 pumping plants, aqueduct and laterals. transmission lines,
23 substations, storage and regulatory facilities. drainage fa-
24 cilities, and appurtenant works required to provide water
25 from Lake Mead for distribution for municipal and industrialEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,878,173 byte
Memorandum Concerning Proposed Bill "To Authorize the Construction"
No full textMemorandum: From Northcutt Ely, "Memorandum to Members of the California Congressional Delegation (House): re Proposed bill "To authorize the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Lower Colorado River Basin Project, and for other purposes," February 5, 1965 (photocopy), page 1ELY, DUNCAN AND BENNETT
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
TOWER BUILDING
WASHINGTON 5, D. C.
NORTHCUTT ELY
C. EMERSON DUNCAN, II
ELMER F. BENNETT
JEROME C. MUYS
DAVID BOOTH BEERS
TELEPHONE
METROPOLITAN 8-6474
TELETYPE 202-965-0708
February 5, 1965
Memorandum to Members of the California Congressional Delegation: (House):
Re: Proposed bill "To authorize the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Lower Colorado River Basin Project, and for other purposes." (Draft of February 2, 1965.)
This draft results from an agreement reached at a meeting January 21, 1965, between the Secretary of the Interior, the Senators and Governors of Arizona and California, and several of their Congressmen.
Several California Congressmen plan to introduce this bill simultaneously on February 9, 1965. If you concur, will you please introduce it on that day, and not before.
The bill has been drafted by representatives of the Interior Department and of the two States. It is approved by the Colorado River Board of California, on which are represented the Metropolitan Water District, the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles, San Diego County Water Authority, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, and Palo Verde Irrigation District. I share the responsibility for this draft, believe it is a good bill, and am prepared to testify on behalf of it. On behalf of the Colorado River Board, I respectfully request that you introduce it and press for its passage.
These are its essentials:
1. Investigation of importation projects. Title II authorizes investigations to find sources and plan projects for importation of at least 2.5 million acre-feet into the main stream in the Lower Basin, but does not authorize their construction. No particular sources are named. The Secretary is to make his report within three years.
2. Protection of California's 4.4 million acre-feet in connection with authorization of the Central Arizona Project. Title III authorizes construction of the Central Arizona Project, but section 304 (p. 7) makes this subject to the protection for California that is proposed in the Kuchel bill, S. 294. Thus, if less than 7.5 million acre-feet is available, diversions for the Central Arizona Project must be so limited as to assure 4.4 million acre-feet for California's existing projects (plus water, as well, for existingEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,584,138 byte
Letter Concerning Review of Draft Bill
No full textLetter: From Administrator of Resources, to Governor Edmund G. Brown, February 3, 1965 (thermofax), page 3-3-
The Honorable Edmund S. Brown
February 3, 1965
their most earnest study, with a view to its early introduction as a united California effort to execute the compromise with Arizona.
Very sincerely yours,
Administrator of Resources
cc: Jack BurbyEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,002,590 byte
(Modified S. 75) a Bill
No full textDocument: Modified S. 75, Draft, 2/2/65, page 11(except such construction costs as are allocable to the furnishing of a water supply to Nellis Air Force Base and other Federal defense installations, which costs shall be nonreimbursable); and
(c) the contractor shall take delivery of water from Lake Mead at the intake works and shall sell and deliver such water at wholesale under contracts to be approved by the Secretary, which shall include an obligation on the part of each purchaser to exercise such powers as it may possess to levy and collect taxes or assessments for purposes of meeting the charges for service thereunder. Sec. 307. The Secretary shall construct, operate, and maintain such additional works as shall from time to time be authorized by the Congress as units of the project.
Sec. 308. (a) The Secretary shall provide for recreation and fish and wildlife development in connection with units herein and hereafter authorized as follows: investigate, plan, construct, operate, and maintain or otherwise provide for basic public outdoor recreation facilities adjacent to reservoirs, canals, and other similar features of the units, and facilities and measures for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife as the Secretary finds to be appropriate; acquire or otherwise include lands and interests in lands
11
2/2/65Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 773,736 byte
(Modified S. 75) a Bill
No full textDocument: Modified S. 75, Draft, 2/2/65, page 17(3) to the extent that revenues are available in the Development Fund after making the payment required by clause (1) of subsection (d) and subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, costs incurred in connection with units herein or hereafter authorized, in providing (in any years in which insufficient Colorado River mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary, to satisfy consumptive use in Arizona of two million eight hundred thousand acre-feet, in California of four million four hundred thousand acre-feet, and in Nevada of three hundred thousand acre-feet) water to make up such deficiencies at costs to the users that would have prevailed had mainstream Colorado River water been available for consumptive use in the aforesaid amounts, such costs to be allocated among the purposes for which mainstream Colorado River water is made available and to be returned within the period specified in subparagraph (1) of this subsection: Provided, That water made available by such units that is not needed to make up the aforegoing deficiencies shall be disposed of by the Secretary at rates or for repayment determined in accordance with the provisions of law otherwise applicable to said units.
(f) The interest rate applicable to those portions of the reimbursable costs of each unit of the project which are properly allocated
17
2/2/65Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 753,734 byte