226894 research outputs found
Sort by
A Summary of the Fish and Wildlife Features of the Central Arizona Project and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textReport: "Summary of the Fish and Wildlife Features of the Central Arizona Project and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan", February 1965, page 22"Each generation has its own rendezvous with the land, for despite our fee titles and claims of ownership, we are all brief tenants on this planet. By choice, or by default, we will carve out a land legacy for our heirs."
Stewart L. Udall
The Quiet Crisis
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1963
-22-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,761,481 byte
A Summary of the Fish and Wildlife Features of the Central Arizona Project and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textReport: "Summary of the Fish and Wildlife Features of the Central Arizona Project and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan", February 1965, page 28preservation of the Great Basin Canada goose, whose wintering habitat has been severely reduced by these programs in the Lower Colorado River Valley. It is also important to other waterfowl. The new refuge would provide excellent new fishing and hunting opportunities and other outdoor recreation for thousands of people.
"All of the proposals in the Fish and Wildlife Service Appendix, for water, developments, funding, and studies, are proposed in the interest of mitigating fish and wildlife losses and realizing fish and wildlife benefits that may be credited to the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. These proposals reflect cooperative, coordinated planning, the fulfillment of which will make the Pacific Southwest and its area of influence a finer place in which to live.
"Water should be supplied at Federal cost from project sources directly, or by exchange, for the operation of both Federal and State fish and wildlife installations, including fish hatcheries, fishing lakes, wildlife management areas, and refuges...."
The Fish and Wildlife Appendix transmitted with the above letter contains over 60 pages of explanatory discussion, tables and maps. It was approved by Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Dominy in the preceding letter of January 15, 1964, with Secretary Udall concurring with the full Pacific Southwest Water Plan on January 22, 1964.
The following pages, 9 through 37, are excerpts from the Fish and Wildlife Service Appendix.
-28-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,946,395 byte
A Summary of the Fish and Wildlife Features of the Central Arizona Project and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textReport: "Summary of the Fish and Wildlife Features of the Central Arizona Project and the Pacific Southwest Water Plan", February 1965, page 33Explanation of Items in Table 3.
All to be borne by Federal Government
except Arizona fishing lake construction
Arizona Fishing Lakes
The initial, immediate action phase of fish and wildlife development for the Pacific Southwest Water Plan includes about 50 fishing lakes to be constructed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in connection with the Central Arizona Project. These lakes would provide 2,000,000 mandays of fishing, mostly for trout. Based on the interim schedule for evaluating benefits adopted by the Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources, these 50 fishing lakes would produce annual benefits of 350,000 each for a total of 50,000 to $75,000 would be required at each one for roads, access facilities, parking areas, and the like, the costs of which would be borne by responsible land-managing agencies.
The lakes would average about 100 acres in size. The majority would be located in the higher elevations of Arizona. None would be far from good roads. They would be managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the majority stocked with trout.
Water to fill and maintain these fishing lakes would be supplied by the Central Arizona Project. They would require a total of 60,000 acre-feet a year with a total annual consumptive use after filling, due to evaporation, of not over 40,000 acre-feet. Water for these lakes would be supplied on a non-reimbursable basis. That is, the cost of water would be borne by the Federal Government and the water would be delivered without charge to the Arizona Game and Fish Department. This action would be taken in recognition of the widespread outdoor recreation benefits of the lakes and also in recognition of the heavy investment by the State in these lakes.
Most of the lake sites will be beyond reach of the new water-conveyance system planned for the Central Arizona Project. Where the use of water for the fishing lakes might be in conflict with established water rights, exchages of water would be effected to provide, in effect, Central Arizona Project water to supply these lakes. Engineering surveys by the Arizona Department will make possible the selection of the sites for the proposed fishing lakes. With the majority located near the heads of drainages that are usually dry, less than half the 40,000 acre-foot estimated loss would ever reach Central Arizona diversion facilities. Present evapo-transpiraion losses from existing trees and other vegetation that would be replaced by lake surfaces would further greatly reduce the net water losses.
-33-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,200,388 byte
Letter to Members of the Twenty-Fourth Arizona Legislature
No full textLetter: From Sidney Kartus, to Members of the Twenty-fourth Arizona Legislature, December 15, 1958, page 2to export the remaining unused waters out of the Colorado River watershed to adjoining river valleys such as the Arkansas and the Rio Grande. How they expect adequate or feasible hydro-electric power to be made in the future at dams whose effectiveness they intend largely to destroy by removal of water out of the drainage basin above these dams is an engineering riddle which they leave unmentioned and unanswered. It is another paradox on the order of Hoover Dam which in its ultimate capacity has no real function on the river once Glen Canyon dam is finished. That they propose to accomplish such exportations in contravention of prior rights for diversion of Colorado River water to the central valleys of Arizona is an example of the practice to which we have already referred.
The Federal Power Commission may well take note of the fact that there is far from unanimity in the upper basin states with respect to the purposes underlying the intervention plea even though it was submitted by an official commission representing those states. Their own inhabitants who live within the river basin are as strongly opposed to the exportations as we are and have made their opposition known at congressional hearings which are matters of record. They like Arizona would suffer incalculable damage if such exportations are permitted. Neither the act of Congress authorizing such exportation objectives in connection with Glen Canyon Dam, nor any edict of the Federal Power Commission extending such an aim to Bridge Canyon and Marble Gorge Dams would be allowed to stand. Unreasonble exportations of water from the upper reaches of a river system to the detriment of those in its lower reaches who depend upon its waters has always been refused by the U. S. Supreme Court.
The Colorado River system is the most arid large river basin in the United States. Yet the history of all of its major development up to this time has been without exception a systemic exportation of what limited water and power it has to regions entirely outside of its drainage basin. If this is not regarded as contrary to the best economic utilization and development of the river system, which the Federal Power Commission was created to aid in protecting, then all known standards of conservation have ceased to exist.
We, the undersigned, therefore object to the plea for intervention by the Upper Colorado River Commission and ask that it be denied, and that if allowed to intervene, its proposals with respect to Bridge Canyon and Marble Gorge Dams be rejected by the Federal Power Commission.
Yours truly,
Sidney Kartus, as successor to
Fred T. Colter, filee, and president of Arizona Highline Reclamation
Association and Glen-Bridge-Verde
Highline Pre-organizations Irrigation and Power District
Colter Water Project Assn., Inc.
Melvin A. Green, President
Sidney Kartus, Secretary
-2-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,424,995 byte
Final Report to Arizona Legislative Council
No full textReport: "Final Report to Arizona Legislative Council, Containing Summary of Observations on the Trial Sessions in Arizona vs. California, et al No. 10, Original, U.S. Supreme Court, Before the Special Master, Hon. Simon H. Rifkund, at San Francisco, California, Concluded in August, 1958" October 20, 1958, page 11and economical use of the waters of the river for Arizona and the entire basin. A proper suit should allege these and all other water rights, filings, and projects of Arizona and those claiming under it on the Colorado River and its tributaries. Such a suit should join the upper basin states, and discard instaead of interpret the Santa Fe Compact. On these triple grounds, Arizona can expect to prevail in the courts in a future suit, and not otherwise.
I am grateful to you, the members of the Legislature, and to the Council and its staff, for the opportunity of making these observations and rendering these reports which I trust will be a service to the State of Arizona and her people, for the realization of the full measure of their rights in the waters of the Colorado River.
Sincerely yours,
Sindney Kartus,
Observer for the
Arizona Legislative Council
-11-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,551,664 byte
Remarks at Lions Club Meeting at Kingman, Arizona
No full textDocument: "Remarks at Lions Club Meeting At Kingman, Arizona; November 19, 1957, on the Colorado River Matter", November 19, 1957, page 6All of this has transpired under the Santa Fe Colorado River Compact of 1922 which Arizona with this prospect before her refused to ratify for more than twenty years.
The Special Master in the Colorado River trial now going on has commented for the record that the compact was adopted under the illusion that its authors could see a hundred years into the future, that it "ducked", in his words, the Indian claims and left them to future generations, and referred to its thorny method and unhappy phraseology. It is certainly an illusion to consider that Arizona under any circumstances can receive anything more substantial from the river than it has in the past, or that would fulfill our equitable rights in that stream until the Compact is annulled by the legislature or in the courts.
Under the Sante Fe Compact, the Upper Basin States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming are required to deliver to the Lower Basin at Lee's Ferry an average of 7,500,000 acre feet annually. When from this amount there is deducted a million and one-half acre feet for the Mexican Treaty, nearly one-half million acre feet for evaporation, and other losses, there will not be enough water left to supply already built projects below Hoover Dam and none for new or proposed projects such as Central Arizona diversion.
The Indian tribes are not subject to the Compact by its terms. Their claims, among which are a 765,000 acre feet annual diversion at the Parker Reservation and others in many counties in the State, would further reduce water available for non-Indian uses
-6-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,054,488 byte
Reconnaissance Engineering and Geological Report on the Bridge Canyon Tunnel
No full textReport: "Reconnaissance Engineering and Geological Report on the Bridge Canyon Tunnel", January 17, 1956, page 9is in its geological structure and history. In this respect also, the situation is favorable in that there has been little thrusting, crowding, folding or other deformation of large consequence in recent time affecting this plateau block.
For an engineering structure of this type the danger from seismic activity is almost nil and need not be counted as a hazard.
EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Before final estimates and plans for construction are matured, exploratory investigations should be made to check some of the conditions that at the present stage have to be assumed. These have to do with certain structural features suggested by surface evidence with respect to deep-seated condition of the rock and water.
Doubtless a more detailed search of the surface will discover some additional evidence bearing on rock structure and relation. But actual exploratory search with the aid of boring. trenching and test exploration will be required to secure direct evidence of conditions under cover at depth.
It is usual in such work to make a boring in the vicinity of each shaft to full depth. On such evidence it will be possible to check the average condition of the rock at a few points, at least at tunnel depth. Other areas where surface evidence suggests changes in rock structure or excess water should be searched further with whatever means possible for better understanding of the formation.
One such area is the topographic depression referred to as Willow Creek, which is marked by much disintegration of the rock. Another is the marginal area in the vicinity of the outlet portal approaching the Big Sandy River.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This preliminary survey is based on my own observations, those of previous parties and all available and pertinent information bearing on the nature of the task represented by the proposed Bridge Canyon tunnel as a means of obtaining water from the Colorado River for use in Central Arizona. Whether or not there is a question of which route is the better one is not the question in this report. This report contains large portions of the previous report by the Board because it was felt that it is better to try to add to rather than repeat.
It is recommended that a detailed geological strip map be made of the surface over the proposed tunnel. This map should be 10 to 15 miles wide and should extend into the Big Sandy River valley. There may be very good possibilities that one could cross into the valley with the tunnel and thereby lessen the depths of the access shafts, and make a less costly operation in many other respects. Thus, the problem needs a more detailed eveluation of the geology and engineering difficulties as bearing on the location, construction, and ultimate cost of the tunnel.
The full use of geology and engineering is mandatory in an undertaking of this size. The area covered is very large, many proportions of which are almost inaccessible. Any tunnel at
-9-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,606,508 byte
Notes of Meeting between Hayden and Others
No full textNotes: Short hand transcription of meeting between, Fannin, Hayden, S. L. Udall, M.K. Udall, Goldwater, Rhodes and others, 1963?, page 1Hayden lets Fannin lead of Fannin has prepared statement.
Hayder - with Respect to 502 (Reads his earlier statement) Point is for one purposes, Bridge is disirable site, but it back water into Grand Canyon - at Echo wildlifes, etc. Stood up on their kind-legs and beat it.
(To SLU) By the way, the fast natural Cover we want to get in line is that your director of NPS.
SLU - We're working on that herine photos, etc.
If we fail-Marble is only Source of power for building Central Arizona. Turn it over to SLU.
Timely meeting regret some of the boss-currents, etc.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,143,112 byte
Notes of Meeting between Hayden and Others
No full textNotes: Short hand transcription of meeting between, Fannin, Hayden, S. L. Udall, M.K. Udall, Goldwater, Rhodes and others, 1963?, page 3Aspinall & condemn are still here in important roles - are proud of what they have done.
What is the art of the possible - Boils down to what we can get through the House.
Thinks Basin approved is 10 to 1 better than if Arizona goes it alone.
High Britge chance better then 50-50 if Basin approach is tried.
less than 50-50 if State goes it alone on a federal central Ariz. Project.
Treat River as comment asset of both States represents the wisdom of his long year here.
Sen. Hayden action was wise A. B. West to present Charts.
Goldwater objects - but Hayden & fannin had it act.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,106,222 byte
Notes--Salmon-Gookin - Will
No full textNotes: no title, "N.M. - Reynolds & Mann….", 1963?, page 2APA Commission fighting the Project
Riney-Dixie Project
authorized separately How about C.A.P.? Rand SLU-If n.m. gives us trouble - Calif name, then perhaps Dixie won't be paned without revenue anyway.
Makes these hard decisions when we have to.
Riny Duke - Inviting Comments we should have common reply?
Yuma-want to amend bill to validate the contracts they now hold - perhaps are in excess of that provided by lawEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 3,164,920 byte