226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Letter Concerning House Vote on H.R. 3300
No full textLetter: Watkins M. Abbitt, from Stewart Udall, May 13, 1968 (carbon copy)Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,813,328 byte
Letter Concerning President's Message to Congress
No full textLetter: To Stewart Udall, from Wayne N. Aspinall, March 8, 1968, page 1Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,461,293 byte
Steiger Attacks Udall River Plan
No full textPhoenix Gazette: "Steiger Attacks Udall River Plan," no date (photocopy)PAGE 12
'DISRUPTS COALITION'
Steiger Attacks
Udall River Plan
Congressman Sam Steiger, R-Ariz., today sharply attacked Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall's revised proposal for the Lower Colorado River and the Central Arizona Project.
"The entire Arizona delegation is concerned, but I guess I'm the first to speak out," Steiger told The Phoenix Gazette before addressing the Phoenix Rotary Club's luncheon meeting at Hotel Westward Ho.
Steiger denied he was making a bid to become the "bad boy" of the state nonpartisan coalition on the pursuit of water. "The state's congressional delegation is still unified... but I am definitely disenchanted with the revised Udall plan."
THE CONGRESSMAN explained that he realizes Udall has to go along with the Johnson administration but "our alignments and arrangements with the rest of Congress were all made. Then the administration comes in with another arrangement...
"Now we go back up the mountain again..."
Steiger took particular issue with the Udall plan's move to place Marble Canyon in an enlarged Grand Canyon National Park.
HE DECLARED:
"That's unnecessary and harmful ... it is just a sop to the conservationists and serves to further cloud the issue."
The freshman representative, who says he is loath to keep the traditional silence of first-year congressmen, reiterated that his airing of opposition to the revised Udall plan is "not a reflection of disunity" in Arizona's united congressional delegation on water.
"THE UDALL proposal has served to disrupt the fragile coalitions that had made it appear that congressional approval of the CAP as a federal project was likely this year," Steiger, a Prescott rancher, declared in a speech before the Phoenix Rotary Club today.
Steiger, at the same time, urged Arizona to speedily go ahead with the CAP as a state project.
The Udall revised proposal at a federal cost of $719-million eliminated present construction of any lower Colorado dams to provide required electric power and substituted purchase of power from a thermal electric generating plant constructed under sponsorship of public and private electric utilities.
(Picture)
SAM STEIGEREpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,918,014 byte
Summary Report - Central Arizona Project with Federal Prepayment Power Arrangements
No full textSummary Report, Central Arizona Project with Federal Prepayment Power Arrangements, February 1967, page viINTRODUCTION
The Central Arizona Project initially was recommended to the Congress for construction by the Secretary of the Interior in 1948. The conceptual framework and principal objectives of the project have remained substantially unchanged since that time; however, details of the project plan, repayment, and specific features have been changed to reflect the negotiations, legal decisions, and additional studies which subsequently have taken place.
The Pacific Southwest Water Plan, which was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in January of 1964, incorporated the Central Arizona Project, as a unit, into a plan for regional water resource development designed to meet the immediate and long-range water needs of the Pacific Southwest. The Hualapai (Bridge Canyon) Dam, which had previously been a feature of the Central Arizona Project, was included in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, but as a separate unit. The report on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan was reviewed by the States of the Colorado River Basin and the interested Federal agencies, and aspects of the plan became the basis for proposed legislation to authorize construction of the Colorado River Basin Project which was considered in the 89th Congress.
The action of the House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, which, in turn, reflects a great deal of interstate negotiation and compromise, introduced furtherEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,042,489 byte
Summary Report - Central Arizona Project with Federal Prepayment Power Arrangements
No full textSummary Report, Central Arizona Project with Federal Prepayment Power Arrangements, February 1967, page 11purposes. The right would also include delivery of the power on jointly shared transmission facilities. Current studies indicate that 400,000 kilowatts of capacity would be required in connection with the Central Arizona Project as proposed with the Granite Reef Aqueduct sized at 2,500 c.f.s. In this way, the project would obtain power for pumping at a low cost reflecting the economy of large thermal electric powerplants; shared economical, high-capacity, extra-high-voltage transmission facilities; and the benefits of Federal financing.
Payment for the capacity entitlement would be made to the plant owners from time to time during the construction period by advancing a portion of construction costs in a ratio not to exceed the ratio of the capacity entitlement acquired to the total plant capacity. Transmission of power and energy to points of project use would be provided both by Federal construction of transmission lines and by acquiring capacity in lines jointly used by plant owners and the Government through the Government advancing a portion of the construction costs of such dual-use lines in a ration not to exceed the ratio of the capacity requirement of the Government to the total of capacity of such facilities.
In addition to the payments associated with construction, the Government would also pay to the owners of plant and transmission lines a commensurate portion of the annual operation and maintenance cost and of the replacement costs as they occur.
12Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 720,227 byte
Summary Report - Central Arizona Project with Federal Prepayment Power Arrangements
No full textSummary Report, Central Arizona Project with Federal Prepayment Power Arrangements, February 1967, page 28Summary of Reimbursable and Nonreimbursable Costs
Project Cost Interest During Construction @ 3.225% Total for Repayment
Reimbursable
Irrigation -- 322,301,000
Municipal and industrial 194,029,000 14,784,000 208,813,000
Power 91,950,000 2,489,000 94,439,000
Irrigation (48,366,000) ( -- ) (48,366,000)
M&I (16,459,000) (940,000) (17,399,000)
Commercial (27,125,000) (1,549,000) (28,674,000)
Recreation 1,525,000 217,000 1,742,000
Fish and wildlife 294,000 40,000 334,000
Total 610,099,000 627,629,000
Nonreimbursable
Flood control 11,164,000
Recreation 4,818,000 -- 4,818,000
Fish and wildlife 23,835,000 -- 23,835,000
Indian distribution system1/Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 850,192 byte
Summary Report - Central Arizona Project with Federal Prepayment Power Arrangements
No full textSummary Report, Central Arizona Project with Federal Prepayment Power Arrangements, February 1967, page 31(72,337,000), and ad valorem tax revenues (145,836,000).
Municipal & Industrial Water--M&I water users return all reimbursable costs with interest within 50 years. In addition, M&I water revenues provide repayment assistance to irrigation.
Power--All costs of powerplant and transmission facilities are returned from irrigation and M&I pumping charges and revenues from commercial sales with appropriate interest. Surplus power revenues assist in the repayment of irrigation.
Fish and Wildlife and Recreation--The costs associated with these functions which are reimbursable under the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (P.L. 89-72) will be repaid under cost-sharing agreements with local entities.
Summary of Repayment Analysis with Ad Valorem Tax
Purpose Reimbursable Costs Net Revenues Available for Repayment Surplus or Deficit
Irrigation 322,301,000 226,455,000
Municipal and Industrial 208,813,000 217,095,000 8,282,000
Power, Total 94,439,000 166,776,000 72,337,000
Fish and wildlife 334,000 334,000 --
Recreation 1,742,000 1,742,000 --
Subtotal 481,793,000 -627,629,000 $627,629,000 --
32Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 738,736 byte
Note Concerning Sign about Secretary Udall
No full textNote and photo, 5/12/67OFFICE OF
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
5/12/67
This sigin has disappeared
Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 945,086 byte
Statement of U.S. Senator Thomas H. Kuchel
No full textDocument: Statement of Senator Thomas Kuchel on H.R. 3300, March 13, 1967, page 2-2-
I believed this when I introduced the first regional planning bill in the 89th Congress, S. 1019. My confidence in this solution was reinforced when 35 of my California colleagues in the House, and all three of Arizona's Congressmen, introduced exact counterparts of it. It was confirmed when this distinguished Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, by a two-thirds majority, reported favorably one of these counterparts, H.R. 4671, introduced by Congressman Udall of Arizona, in the 89th Congress.
The essential elements of the regional plan, the "one-for-all, all-for-one" plan, as contrasted with the "go-it-alone" point of view, are all contained in the Aspinall-Johnson-Hosmer-Kuchel-Moss bills.
The vital features are:
(1) We propose early, vigorous and meaningful steps to augment the inadequate flows of the Colorado River. We propose, as a first step, that the Secretary of the Interior, functioning under guidelines established by the National Water Resources Council and the proposed National Water Commission, investigate long-range water supply and demand, determine how much should be imported, determine what sources can furnish this without injury to the areas of origin, and what importation projects can be recommended to Congress for authorization.
Do we not, in this wonderful Nation of ours, seek to prevent waste wherever it occurs? Should not our government determine where the great rivers in this country, which annually dump vast amounts of fresh water into the seas might beEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,014,779 byte
Memorandum Concerning Weather Modification on the Colorado River Basin
No full textLetter: To Stewart Udall, from Pierce Linaweaver, "Weather Modifications on the Colorado River Basin," March 13, 1967, page 2If the flow averages 18.0 million acre feet per year, after weather modification begins, the chances that weather modification really does NOT work and that the high flows are just a wet cycle are then the following:
Years of Measurement After Weather Modification Begins Chances that flow is greater than 18.0 million acre feet per year but weather modification does NOT work
1 1 in 4
3 1 in 9
9 1 in 60
Thus after 3 years, there is only one chance in nine that the average flow would have been 18 million acre feet per year anyway. So it will take many fewer years to be reasonably convinced of success, if weather modification yields as high as 3.0 million acre feet per year.
Thus, interpretation of the success of weather modification depends on the actual increase in yield and on whether a wet or a dry cycle occurs during the years of measurement. I hope this will indicate some of the uncertainties involved and why it is difficult to make definitive statements on the probable success of weather modification. Consequently, my answer to the stated question would be:
It may take 10 years of measurements, after full-scale weather modification begins, if the increased yield amounts to 1.5 million acre feet per year on the Colorado River Basin. It will take fewer years if it turns out that the yield from weather modification is higher.
Pierce
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,352,458 byte