226894 research outputs found
Sort by
To Authorize the Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
No full textDocument: A Bill, February 3, 1967 (photocopy), page 9-8-
District and others (Globe Equity Number 59) and to all other rights existing on the effective date of this Act in New Mexico and Arizona to water from the Gila River, its tributaries and underground water sources, and shall be junior thereto and shall be made only to the extent possible without economic injury or cost to the holders of such rights.
SEC. 3. The conservation and development of the fish and wildlife resources and the enhancement of recreation opportunities in connection with the Central Arizona project works authorized pursuant to this Act shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213).
SEC. 4. The Secretary shall determine the repayment capability of Indian lands within, under, or served by the Central Arizona project. Construction costs allocated to irrigation of Indian lands (including provision of water for incidental domestic and stock water uses) and within the repayment capability of such lands shall be subject to the Act of July 1, 1932 (47 Stat. 464), and such costs as are beyond repayment capability of such lands shall be nonreimbursable.
SEC. 5. The interest rate applicable to those portions of the reimbursable costs of the Central Arizona project which are properly allocated to commercial power development and municipal and industrial water supply shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which the first advance is made for initiating construction of such project, on the basis of the computed average interest rate payable by the Treasury upon its outstanding marketable public obligations which are neither due nor callable for redemption for fifteen years from the date of issue.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,551,728 byte
To Authorize the Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
No full textDocument: A Bill, February 3, 1967 (photocopy), page 12-11-
(1) Releases to supply one-half the deficiency described in article III(c) of the Colorado River Compact, if any such deficiency exists and is chargeable to the States of the upper division.
(2) Releases to comply with article III(d) of the Colorado River Compact.
(3) Storage of water not required for the releases specified in clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection to the extent that the Secretary, after consultation with the Upper Colorado River Commission and representatives of the three lower division States and taking into consideration all relevant factors (including, but not limited to, historic streamflows, the most critical period of record, and probabilities of water supply), shall find to be reasonably necessary to assure deliveries under clauses (1) and (2) without impairment of annual consumptive uses in the upper basin pursuant to the Colorado River Compact: Provided, That water not so required to be stored shall be released from Lake Powell: (i) to the extent it can be reasonably applied in the States of the lower division to the uses specified in article III(e) of the Colorado River Compact, but no such releases shall be made when the active storage in Lake Powell is less than the active storage in Lake Mead, (ii) to maintain, as nearly as practicable, active storage in Lake Mead equal to the active storage in Lake Powell, and (iii) to avoid anticipated spills from Lake Powell.
(b) Not later than July 1, 1968, the criteria proposed in accordance with the foregoing subsection (a) of this section shall be submitted to the governors of the seven Colorado River Basin States and to such other parties and agencies as the Secretary may deem appropriate for their review and comment. After receipt of comments on the proposed criteria, but notEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,560,858 byte
Colorado River Association Newsletter
No full textColorado River Association Newsletter, February 1967, page 2the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission and by the Arizona Power Authority that text of a new State law to permit the building of the Central Arizona Project without federal support will soon be submitted to the legislature. The Arizona "go-it-alone" enabling bill anticipates licensing by the Federal Power Commission of Arizona-owned dams at both Bridge and Marble canyons.
MORATORIUM on licensing hydropower dams at Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon on the Colorado River is subject of legislation introduced by Cong. John Saylor (R-Penna.) as HR 1272 and by Cong. Richard L. Ottinger (D-NY) as HR 2128. The bills would continue the two-year restriction on the Federal Power Commission which expired with 1966.
ARIZONA Game Protective Assn. Jan. 15 endorsed legislation calling for construction of Hualapai Dam in Bridge Canyon of the Colorado River and instructed N. A. Winter and Phil Clemons to say to the National Wildlife Federation convention in San Francisco in March that the people in whose State the dam is proposed want it built. The unanimous endorsement followed presentations pro and con by the Central Arizona Project Association and by the Sierra Club.
****
CONG. CRAIG HOSMER will explain the Southwest's water predicament to the Columbia River Water Congress March 6-7 in Wenatchee, Wash., under auspices of Wilfred Woods' DAILY WORLD newspaper... Dallas Cole, Chief Engineer of the Colorado River Board of Calif., will undertake the same task in Corvallis, Ore., May 11 at a seminar session at Oregon State Univ. of the Water Resources Research Institute.
Bills to establish a National Water Commission are numbered S. 20 (Sen. Jackson) and HR 1458 and HR 1416 (Congs. Wyatt and Ullman).
US WATER RESOURCES Council now has Wallace Christensen heading the San Bernardino office of the PacSW Inter-Agency Committee where 550,000 (up from 30 million yearly from Columbia River hydropower income to help pay for Idaho irrigation projects when the account becomes operative.
AN INTERBASIN aqueduct carrying surplus water from the Columbia River to the over-committed Colorado River could serve areas not now irrigated in 14 Oregon counties and in 9 Nevada counties. As increments to a major inter-basin water transfer, many projects involving this acreage would be feasible which independently would not be feasible.
****
IF NORMAL precipitation is experienced for the remainder of the wet season, the April-July run-off in the Colorado River Basin will be 10 million acre-feet instead of last year's 4.6 million, said the BuRec at year's end. Heavy snowfall Dec. 3-7 is credited...Asst. Sec./Int. Kenneth Holum a week later reported plans to expand greatly the program to "milk"Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,908,746 byte
Cover Sheet for So. Boundary
No full textCover sheet: To Orren Beaty, 1966 - 1968OB:
Rich Allen returned this.
B
March 24
1. So. Boundary-Blm much $8,000 for alutract Study.
2. Economic studies ? Have to finance scopeEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 468,458 byte
Cover Sheet for Map of Orme Dam
No full textCover sheet: To OB & Hollum, from George Hedden, 2/15/66DATE: 2/15/66 NUMBER: S - 8670
FROM: REMARKS:
HEDDEN, George W. Aset Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs Phoenix Area Ofc OB to Holus--per our conversation.
RFRD: WP RFRD: Beaty RFRD: RFRD:
DATE: 2/25 DATE: 3/23 DATE: DATE:
SUBJECT: 1/21 Is one map of Orme Dam and Reservoir Vioinity also is alternate dam site. ACK'D:
DATE REPLY DUE:
SIGNED:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
ROUTE REPLY THROUGH DCCO
1-102
(OCT 1964)
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1965-747-681Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 564,169 byte
Motion of Arizona Power Authority for Commission Decision
No full textDocument: Motion of Arizona Power Authority for Commission Decision and Order Issuing License, Dec 28, 1966, page 8-8-
concern and the National Park Association sought permission, and was permitted, to intervene. Even then its opposition was directed against the Intervenors' Kanab Tunnel Plan, not Arizona's Marble Canyon project. Consistently therewith, when the Presiding Examiner rejected the Kanab Tunnel Plan and recommended, instead, the licensing of Arizona's Marble Canyon project, the National Park Association did not oppose Arizona's project and took no exception thereto. 2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 925,645 byte
Pacific Southwest Water Plan - Report January 1964
No full textReport:United States Department of Interior, Stewart L. Udall, Secretary, Bureau of Reclamation, Floyd E. Dominy, "Pacific Southwest Water Plan", Accompanying letter from Assistant Secretary for Water and Development to Secretary of the Interior, January 1964, page 5for further study. Together the works proposed were designed to erase the existing water deficiencies in the Pacific Southwest and meet the needs of future municipal and industrial growth to about the year 1990. In both Phases, substantial emphasis was placed on the salvage of water and more efficient water use.
In transmitting the report to the Governors of the affected States, you made it clear that while the report had been approved as a proposed report for transmittal in accordance with the Flood Control Act of 1944, nevertheless, as Secretary, you had made no final judgments concerning the component parts of the plan and that it was your intention to maintain an open mind on all of its details until the comments and recommendations received in the course of the statutory review were taken into account.
The obvious thoroughness with which the proposed report was reviewed by the States and Federal agencies, the statesmanlike nature of the comments submitted, the constructiveness of the many suggestions received, and the prompt responses were most gratifying. The suggestions for modification and improvement of the proposed plan were most valuable. They were instrumental in decisions leading to revision of the proposed plan and preparation of this final report. The entire region endorsed the broad underlying concepts of a comprehensive regional approach, establishment of a Pacific Southwest Development Fund, and the attainment of optimum use of existing water supplies through maximum emphasis on water salvage. There was general recognition of the great potential of desalting as a major future source of new water supply. There is a common ground on which the people of the Pacific Southwest can unite in forging solutions to their interrelated water problems.
Within the framework of these basic concepts and in recognition of the many constructive suggestions for improvement received, the plan presented in the Task Force report has been revised substantially. Physical works proposed for congressional authorization at this time are limited to those related to a proposed initial plan. We can be confident that timely solutions for the long-range future will be developed if a framework for regional development and the basin fund principle are established now. However, reference now to any specific plans or features which might be considered as parts of such long-range solutions would be misleading. Reference to those items has been deleted. Instead, we propose that a regional commission be established to coordinate long-range planning.
5Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,636,892 byte
Pacific Southwest Water Plan - Report January 1964
No full textReport: United States Department of Interior, Stewart L. Udall, Secretary, Bureau of Reclamation, Floyd E. Dominy Commissioner, "Pacific Southwest Water Plan", Report of Commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation, January 1964, page 15In addition to advancement of the objectives of the Act, "the committee believes that the agency or organization obtaining the water should be willing to pay at least 50 percent of the overall cost of producing it, including both capital cost and operation and maintenance cost, and should be in a position to take over the plant at the end of the demonstration period and operate it without further Federal subsidy."
Section 2(k) of the Anderson-Aspinall Act provides that the Department of the Interior may "cooperate with other Federal departments and agencies, with State and local departments, agencies and instrumentalities, and with interested persons, firms, institutions, and organizations."
In accordance with this congressional policy, the Federal Government may contribute to the construction of desalting plants by local, private, and public agencies or State agencies under limited conditions, but as the Act prescribes only after specific additional authorizations by the Congress.
Water Storage and Delivery
Arizona--Central Arizona Project--The Central Arizona Project would be designed to divert 1,200,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Colorado River under ultimate conditions, via high-lift pumping plants and an open, concrete-lined aqueduct, into central Arizona for supplemental irrigation and for municipal and industrial uses by the cities of Phoenix and Tucson. Initial efficiencies of pumping equipment and other facilities would permit operation of the project during early years at greater capacity than under ultimate conditions. This would permit Arizona to utilize more fully its entitlement of the consumptive use of 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water per annum, and would aid in bridging the gap between the time of construction of the Central Arizona Project and the time when, with the assistance of Development Fund revenues, works could be planned and constructed to completely eliminate Arizona's present water deficiencies and provide also for its growing demands.
Under ultimate conditions, the project would annually deliver 312,000 acre-feet for municipal and industrial use. In 1960 there were about 1,200,000 acres of land developed for irrigation, and the project is designed to deliver 758,000 acre-feet of supplemental water for irrigation uses. The present ground-water overdraft in the project area would be substantially reduced from about the present effective overdraft of about 2,200,000 acre-feet annually.
Four multipurpose dams and reservoirs--Buttes, Charleston, Hooker, and Maxwell--on the Upper Gila River system are included for flood control, water conservation, recreation, fish and wildlife and additional river
15Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,573,522 byte
Pacific Southwest Water Plan - Report January 1964
No full textReport:United States Department of Interior, Stewart L. Udall, Secretary, Bureau of Reclamation, Floyd E. Dominy, "Pacific Southwest Water Plan", Report of Commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation, January 1964, page 32Before the Federal Government should participate in a canal lining program, however, the problem of the disposition of the conserved water must be resolved. If water conserved by canal lining were to be devoted to irrigation of new lands in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, it would not be consistent with a primary objective of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan; i.e., to meet present water deficiencies and growing demands, but only to sustain, through the plan facilities, the existing level of irrigation development. If the conserved water were to be used not for irrigation of new lands but for meeting other water demands in California this would require, as a prelude, extensive negotiation and modification of existing agreements and contracts.
Proposals on such matters must originate in California. Because of the magnitude and importance of this untapped, inexpensive source of new water supply, it is urged that California take the initiative in seeking decisions, including proposals for contract modication, that will permit canal lining to be undertaken as part of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan or through some other program. The Federal Government should, of course, participate to the extent that its contractual responsibilities for Colorado River water are concerned. As soon as these matters are resolved and a feasibility report can be prepared, lining of these canals should be proposed for authorization.
8. Regional Power Intertie
There are advantages of electrically interconnecting with the Pacific Northwest through the proposed intertie, and plans are being considered to secure these advantages. They will be further considered as plans for the intertie become more concrete. Mutual advantages to the Bonneville Power Administration and the Central Valley Project must also be taken into account.
9. Staging of Construction to Meet Needs.
It is axiomatic in water resource planning that water be made available as the demand therefor is created. However, in the interests of economy, development should be staged so as to defer capital investments so as to coincide as closely as possible with the buildup in demand.
Accordingly, the implementation of the plan embodies a carefully staged development of the units included therein which will effect substantial economies without detriment to water users. As the population and water demands of the Pacific Southwest increase in the future, the demand-supply relationships may change from those assumed for purposes of this report, in which event suitable adjustments can be made in construction schedules.
32Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,696,516 byte
Pacific Southwest Water Plan - Report January 1964
No full textReport:United States Department of Interior, Stewart L. Udall, Secretary, Bureau of Reclamation, Floyd E. Dominy, "Pacific Southwest Water Plan", Report of Commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation, January 1964, page 35Supporting Material
The above presentation outlines the plan set forth in the Task Force report of August 1963, reviews the comments received from the States and Federal agencies, presents a modified or Initial Plan for your approval, and indicates major steps proposed for implementing the plan. To more fully present the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, the Task Force report has been revised in its entirety, but along the lines of its original format, to reflect the modifications adopted as a result of State and Federal agency review. The modified report is attached.
In the modified report the following chapters remain essentially unchanged: Chapter I - The Pacific Southwest; Chapter II - The Water Problem; Chapter III - Present Water Supplies and Uses; Chapter V - Power Requirements, Sources, and Markets; and Chapter IX - Study and Research. The remaining chapters have been revised substantially.
Revisions to the Appendix material are inserted where appropriate in front of the individual appendices of the Task Force report. Revisions have been made only in the appendices of the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Attached also are reports containing supplemental information on the Bridge Canyon Project, the Marble Canyon Project, the proposed water salvage programs, the Central Arizona Project (including as an annex the report of June 1963), the Southern Nevada Water Supply Project, and the Moapa Valley Pumping Project. The report of the Secretary of the Interior on the Dixie Project published as House Document No. 86, 88th Congress, contains full supporting information on that project.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Congress of the United States be asked to approve the Initial Plan and to implement it by the following:
(1) Guarantee, as a matter of Federal policy through the construction of necessary works, the equivalent of 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year in the Colorado River, either directly or through exchange, to satisfy the consumptive use of:
2.8 million acre-feet per annum in Arizona;
4.4 million acre-feet per annum in California;
0.3 million acre-feet per annum in Nevada;
at cost to users no greater than would otherwise have been incurred had there been sufficient water in the river to satisfy the aforesaid amounts.
35Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,526,615 byte