226894 research outputs found
Sort by
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", Views and Recommendations of Affected States and Federal Agencies on August 1963 Report, January 1964, coverPacific Southwest
WATER PLAN
VIEWS and RECOMMENDATIONS of AFFECTED STATES and FEDERAL AGENCIES on AUGUST 1963 REPORTEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,006,603 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", Views and Recommendations of Affected States and Federal Agencies on August 1963 Report, January 1964, no paginationVIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
AFFECTED STATES AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
ON AUGUST 1963 TASK FORCE REPORT
ON THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN
This volume contains the views and recommendations of the States and Federal agencies which would be affected by the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, and our analyses of how the comments were accommodated or otherwise considered in the report.
Views and recommendations were received from the following States and Federal agencies:
State of Arizona
State of California
State of Nevada
Upper Colorado River Basin States
Colorado
New Mexico
Utah
Wyoming
Department of Agriculture
Department of Army
Department of Commerce
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Department of Labor
Federal Power Commission
719-078 O-64-1 BEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 971,991 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", Views and Recommendations of Affected States and Federal Agencies on August 1963 Report, Response from Arizona, January 1964, page 5Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Page 5
of the central Arizona project..." (Printed Hearings on S. 1658, page 8.)
In respect of S. 1658, the bill introduced by the Honorable Carl Hayden and the Honorable Barry Goldwater to authorize the Central Arizona Project, much has been said about including language providing for a Basin Account. Arizona is in accord in principle with this suggestion. As long ago as May 6, 1960, in a letter to Commissioner Dominy, written in connection with discussions to be held on proposals to re-negotiate Hoover Dam power contracts, I states:
"The State of Arizona is not opposed to the re-negotiation of existing contracts relating to production and purchase of electrical energy generated at Hoover Dam power plants, provided, however, that rates to be charged therefor shall include a maximum component sufficient, consistent with the marketability of power, to produce revenues wherewith to pay in whole or in substantial part project costs allocated to irrigation beyond the ability of irrigation water users to repay, all in accordance with the established policy of policy of the federal Reclamation Law."
Thus, I have consistently favored the Basin Account approach.
On the 3rd day of May, 1963, you directed a letter to the Honorable Henry M. Jackson, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in which you recommended the enactment of the bills authorizing the construction of the Dixie Project, on condition that certain amendments to the authorizing bills be made. The Dixie Project is one of the projects included in the initial phase of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. The Honorable Kenneth Holum, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, while testifying at Senate hearings on such Project on May 7, 1963, stated:
"Mention of the problems of the whole area is germane to a discussion of the Dixie project because this is a meritorious unit that can and should be authorized and constructed, whether the authorization is accomplished by special legislation as a separate participating project or as part of a more comprehensive authorizing act that addresses itself to the total problems of the region." (Printed Hearings on S. 26 and S. 655.)
On October 21, 1963, the full Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs reported favorably on the Dixie Project Bill. Included in such bill was provision for financial assistance from a Basin Account. It is reasonable that this State should expect the same departmental support with respect to the Central Arizona Project and S. 1658 as was accorded the Dixie Project.
Included as elements in the initial phase of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan are Bridge Canyon Dam and Marble Canyon Dam and power plants on the main stream of the Colorado River, including transmission and appurtenant facilities. As you are aware, the Arizona Power Authority has pending before the Federal PowerEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,673,119 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", Views and Recommendations of Affected States and Federal Agencies on August 1963 Report, Comments on Response from Arizona, January 1964, no paginationDiscussion of Comments of the State of Arizona
Authorization of the Central Arizona Project is currently being sought in the Congress by the State of Arizona. A Bureau of Reclamation report demonstrating the financial and engineering feasibility of this project is attached as supplemental information supporting the report on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. This project is included without change in the principal physical works involved for immediate authorization as an integral part of the Initial Pacific Southwest Water Plan which provides at the same time for the establishment of the Pacific Southwest Development Fund and for incorporation of this project in the Plan. Thus, the Pacific Southwest Water Plan is a vehicle designed for the early authorization of the Central Arizona Project and a limited number of other worthy projects in the Pacific Southwest.
The report recognizes the pressing needs of the municipalities in Arizona's northern counties for supplemental water. It proposes a priority planning program for the preparation of feasibility reports on such projects so that the Congress may consider authorization measures as early as possible. The report also recognizes the need for water exchange agreements that will be necessary to provide a water supply for many such projects and proposes that the Secretary of the Interior be authorized to require such agreements in contracts for supplemental water.
The report recognizes that the Initial Pacific Southwest Water Plan will only partially meet Arizona's present deficiencies of water supply. A major objective of long-range planning will be to develop additional water supplies to erase Arizona's present deficiencies and meet its growing water needs as well.
The desalting plant has been eliminated from the Initial Plan with the expectation that research in desalting techniques will be carried forward aggressively under other Federal-State programs.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,555,343 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", Views and Recommendations of Affected States and Federal Agencies on August 1963 Report, Response from California, January 1964, title pages, no paginationEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 565,107 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", Views and Recommendations of Affected States and Federal Agencies on August 1963 Report, Response from California, January 1964, page 66
CALIFORNIA COMMENTS
controversy by providing water for all economically justified demands within the Region.
The Supreme Court of the United States concluded, in Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546 (1963), that the Congress, in authorizing the Boulder Canyon Project, had vested in the Secretary of the Interior authority to apportion the water of the Lower Colorado River in the event that the annual supply is less than 7.5 million acre-feet. By making additional water available to the Region, the Plan as proposed might forever abviate the need, from a water supply standpoint, for the Secretary of the Interior to exercise this authority. Nevertheless, from a financial standpoint, the proposed program is inadequate because the Secretary would still have to define the relative rights of the three Lower Basin States in the event of shortage on the main stream of the Colorado River, if he were to allocate properly the costs of the more expensive imported supplies.
Certainly the era of conflict over rights in the Lower Colorado River will persist, if the Secretary of the Interior is not relieved of the necessity of exercising his responsibility to apportion shortages of supply of the Lower Colorado River for either reason. The Secretary's proposed program would only shift the conflict from water supply to water project financing.
Hence, it is our recommendation that the Plan be modified to provide for inclusion of a guarantee to the states of Arizona, Nevada, and California, that a basic supply which permits a beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet per annum will be maintained in the Region and will be available to the three states either in the Colorado River or from other sources at costs not in excess of what the costs would have been from the Colorado River.
The 7.5 million acre-feet available to the Region would be divided among the states, in accordance with the opinion of the Court in Arizona v. California, supra, as follows: California, 4.4 million acre-feet; Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet; and Nevada 0.3 million acre-feet. Should any state, in the interest of development of the optimum regional program reduce its use from the Colorado in order to permit another state to use the Colorado, an equivalent substitute supply must be made available to the state relinquishing its use of the Colorado. The cost of the substitute supply to the relinquishing state must not exceed the cost to it of its Colorado River supply. The substitute supply, must, of course, not only be equal to the Colorado River relinquishment in quantity, but must also be at least equal in quality and dependability.
A portion of the Development Fund must be dedicated to guarantee the continuous provision of a basic supply of 7.5 million acre-feet per year to be divided among the three Lower Basin States.
The guarantee we require does not replace the supplies California has lost above the basic 4.4 million acre-feet. California is now using about 5.1 million acre-feet per year of Colorado River water, and by this guarantee we recognize that California may eventually be required to reduce its uses from the Colorado to 4.4 million acre-feet, in strict accordance with the California Limitation Act.
We propose the guarantee as an instrument to insure the states of the Lower Colorado River Basin enjoyment of the amount of water to which the Court says each is entitled. Without this kind of a guarantee all Lower Basin States face an eventual physical shortage below their theoretical entitlements if one postulates the adoption of the Special Master's formula of apportioning shortages.
3. Guarantee of Protection for Areas of Origin. It is proposed in the Report that areas of present surplus, the so-called "areas of origin" within the states, and the states of origin themselves, be afforded the protection of legislative policies analogous to those recently adopted by the Congress for the New Melones Project in California, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962, 76 Stat. 1173. 1Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,876,356 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", Views and Recommendations of Affected States and Federal Agencies on August 1963 Report, Response from California, January 1964, page 1111
DISCUSSION AND FULL RECOMMENDATIONS
later than July, 1964. It is further recommended that intensive studies be initiated immediately by Region 2 of the Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with the Department of Water Resources to further examine alternative conveyance from the Delta to Wheeler Ridge, including provisions for future service to areas on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley.
17. Federal Participation in Enlargement of California Aqueduct Limited to Financing. The report does not clearly show the manner in which the federal government would participate in enlargement of the California Aqueduct. The State must be assured that federal participation would be only by financing, subject to appropriate repayment arrangements, so that the State would continue to be able to meet its responsibilities to its own water supply contractors for the design, construction, operation, and extension of the California Water Facilities.
The State must retain the exclusive responsibility for marketing all waters transported through the aqueduct for sale in Southern California, and must not be required to compete with the United States in the State's service area. Likewise, of course, the water produced from any salt water conversion plant must be sold to the State for marketing through its operation of the State Water Project.
18. Extent of Federal Financial Participation in California Aqueduct Enlargement. The costs of enlarging the California Aqueduct are presented in the Report on an incremental cost basis, although the probability that actual costs of water would reflect use of appropriate cost allocation procedures is recognized. The extent of financial participation by the United States in enlargement of the California Aqueduct must be determined in accordance with the proportionate use fromula of Article 24(b) of the State's Standard Provisions for Water Supply Contracts.
19. Inclusion of Trinity Projects in Initial Authorization. The new water supplies to be imported to the Region from Northern California under Phase I should represent a complete water resources development involving both conveyance and conservation features. This would necessitate the inclusion of Phase I of the Trinity Diversion and South Fork Trinity Projects. Project planning for these future North Coastal projects has not yet been performed at feasibility level.
It is recognized, also, that inclusion of these conservation features in Phase I would materially increase the scale of appropriations required for the initial program. However, the two Trinity River projects, although proposed as features of Phase II, are scheduled for initiation of construction in 1969 and 1973, early in the construction period of Phase I. It follows that the two Trinity Projects can be included in Phase I without increasing the program funding requirements for the Phase I construction period.
It is recommended that the Trinity Diversion and South Fork Trinity Projects, or suitable alternatives, be authorized as features of Phase I, with the restriction that construction may not be initiated until feasibility studies have been completed and the projects have been demonstrated to be acceptable to the State of California.
Consideration should be given to pooling those portions of supplies presently developed or to be developed by federal and state projects in California that are in excess of the growth requirements of the specific service areas which these projects were designed to meet. Interim use of these temporary surpluses as a source of supply for the Pacific Southwest Region would enhance economic justification and financial feasibility of the individual projects and, while not eliminating the need for immediate authorization of the Trinity Diversion and South Fork Trinity Projects, would permit several years delay in construction of these features of the Plan.
20. Construction of Desalting Plant Under Some Other Federal Program. The Plan anticipates the funding of construction in Phase I of a prototype 50million gallon-per-day flash evaporation desalting plant from the Pacific Southwest Development Fund. It is our recommendation that this plant be constructed at the earliest practical date as a combination desalting and power generation plant with a nuclear reactor serving as the heat source.
One of the primary functions of the proposed seawater conversion installation would be to serve as a large-scale production pilot model in the development of plants with capacities of 150 million or more gallons per day. In view of the universal need for the information that would be so developed and the general applicability of research in the field of desalinization, it is recommended that this development be undertaken in the Pacific Southwest Region, but not be made a part of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. Rather, it is recommended that this feature be financed and constructed as a part of a more general program of the federal government, with the State Department of Water Resources cooperating.
21. Deletion of Unidentified Tributary Projects from Phase I. The projects proposed for construction on the tributaries of the Lower Colorado River in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah should be omitted from Phase I until such time as they can be identified and their engineering feasibility and economic justification can be demonstrated.
22. Power Considerations. The Report states that saleable energy from the existing Hoover, Parker, and Davis Power Plants was assumed to be 4 mills per kilowatt hour for Hoover energy, and 4.7 mills perEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,956,690 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", Views and Recommendations of Affected States and Federal Agencies on August 1963 Report, Response from Nevada, January 1964, page 2The Honorable Stewart L. Udall
November 1, 1963
Page 2
pared on this project and since the local area has given unanimous support to finalizing plans for development, we strongly urge that this small project be included as an element of the first phase. Surely studies are at least as far advanced on this project as on some of the other developments proposed for inclusion in the initial phase.
The report does not indicate how the additional waters created by teh groundwater recovery and water salvage programs will be allocated between the States. This should be spelled out in the report with Nevada getting its fair and equitable portion of the increased water supplies made available from these programs.
We are concerned regarding your departure from past policy and law with regard to the repayment of the costs allocated to municipal and industrial water supply works. Your consolidated payout study shows assistance from power revenues to repayment of municipal and industrial water supply works in an amount of 40 an acre foot when, in fact, the annual cost of water from this increment is estimated to be 63 an acre foot. Your report also indicates that you propose to construct a 100 an acre foot. You propose to charge only 10 an acre foot.
As the price for water to repay the municipal and industrial water supply investment is well within the repayment ability of the municipal and industrial users we strongly urge that you forego any further consideration of subsidizing the municipal and industrial water function. I believe that you are placing the authorization of the entire plan in grave jeopardy by giving consideration to subsidizing this function. Certainly the State of Nevada is not only willing but is desirous of repaying any and all costs of the Southern Nevada Water Supply Project with interest.
Your report recommends the "enlargement of the California State Water Project Aqueduct" as an element in the initial phase plan. However, the storage works required to create the additional water supply for delivery through this unit are shown to be included in the continuing program. It appears to us that it would be prudent to include the storage works associated with "enlargement of the CaliforniaEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,647,503 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", Views and Recommendations of Affected States and Federal Agencies on August 1963 Report, Response from New Mexico, January 1964 page 6The Honorable Stewart L. Udall
6
November 27, 1963
the Colorado River system in the Lower Basin is chargeable to the beneficial consumptive use apportioned to the Lower Basin by the Colorado River Compact: 3) Table 16 of the report reflects scheduled releases from Upper Basin reservoirs averaging 8.6 million acre feet annually by the year 2000. Bureau of Reclamation representatives advise that this projection is based on estimated depletion in the Upper Basin averaging 5.4 million acre feet annually at that time. Such a projection is not inappropriate for planning purposes but should not be construed or used in any way to limit the rate of development in the Upper Basin. The water resources of the Upper Basin states must be developed, within the limitations of the Colorado River Compact, at the rate required to meet the growing water needs in those states. Legislation authorizing the Pacific Southwest Water Plan should include language fully safeguarding the rights of the Upper Basin states under the Colorado River Compact, but, of course, not limiting in any way the rights and opportunities for water development and use in the Lower Basin;
4) The report proposes that power revenues from the Boulder Canyon and Parker-Davis projects surplus to costs of operation, maintenance and replacement for these projects be credited to the Pacific Southwest Development Fund after the construction costs of these projects have been repaid. The criteria for the filling of the storage units of the Colorado River Storage Project provide that any deficiency in power production at Hoover dam resulting from such filling shall be met with power from units of the Colorado River Storage Project or the purchase of replacement power with money from the Colorado River Storage Project Fund and that the cost of meeting such deficiency shall be returned to the Colorado River Storage Project Fund from Hoover power revenues after 1987. This commitment of Boulder Canyon project revenues should be taken into account in planning the financing of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. Legislation authorizingEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,587,464 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", Views and Recommendations of Affected States and Federal Agencies on August 1963 Report, Response from Utah, January 1964 page 3-3-
Honorable Steward L. Udall
November 21, 1963
This new idea in the reclamation field should be given careful consideration as a matter of resource development policy.
Senate Bill 26 to authorize the Dixie Project, Utah, has already been approved by the Senate and is before the House. We urge this project be authorized at the earliest possible date. S. 1658 for the Central Arizona Project is also pending before Congress. In the event that either or both of these bills are approved by the Congress before authorization of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, steps should be taken to integrate these projects into the plan as participants in the development fund and operation of the river. However, we feel that we would have to oppose any delay in authorizing the Dixie Project simply to have it made a part of the Southwest Water Plan.
We heartily agree with the Study and Research program to help meet the water needs of our future populations which you have outlined in Chapter IX of your report. We believe that the detailed inventory of water supply uses and wastes must be continued so that we can have a complete log of water resources in the basin.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and offer recommendations on a matter so important to our Nation, the Pacific Southwest, and to our State. Utah stands ready and willing to discuss any elements of the PSWP with you or representatives of your department, or to aid in drafting legislation to accomplish the necessary purposes. We fully realize that a development of the type encompassed by the PSWP will have far-reaching operational and legal implications involving all geographical and political areas of the Colorado River Basin.
May I emphasize that while we approve this Plan in principle, we wish to reserve the right to review and comment on more detailed plans as they are developed, either for a general Pacific Southwest plan or for various parts.
Sincerely,
George D. Clyde
Governor
GDC/mwEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,382,543 byte