226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Letter Concerning Letter about Colorado River Basin Project Bill
No full textLetter: To Stewart Udall, from John D. Dingell, May 15, 1968Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,606,700 byte
Letter Concerning Support for H.R. 3300
No full textLetter: To Stewart Udall, from Robert T. Stafford, May 13, 1968Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,607,546 byte
H.R. 3300 - In the House of Representatives
No full textDocument: H.R. 3300, 90th Congress, 1st Session, January 23, 1967, page 2626
1 such quantities without adverse effect upon the satisfaction
2 of the foreseeable water requirements of any State from
3 which such water is imported into the Colorado River sys-
4 tem. Such imported water shall be made available for use
5 in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.
6 (c) To the extent that the flow of the main stream of
7 the Colorado River is augmented by such importations in
8 order to make sufficient water available for release, as deter-
9 mined by the Secretary pursuant to article II (B) (1) of the
10 decree of the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona
11 against California (376 U.S. 340), to satisfy annual con-
12 sumptive use of two million eight hundred thousand acre-feet
13 in Arizona, four million four hundred thousand acre-feet in
14 California, and three hundred thousand acre-feet in Nevada,
15 respectively, the Secretary shall make such additional water
16 available to users of main stream water in those States at the
17 same costs and on the same terms as would be applicable
18 if main stream water were available for release in the quan-
19 tities required to supply such consumptive use, taking into
20 account, among other things, (1) the nonreimbursable allo-
21 cation to the replenishment of the deficiencies occasioned by
22 satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty burden provided for in
23 section 401, and (2) such assistance as may be available
24 from the development fund established by title IV of this
25 Act.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,000,383 byte
Answer of Secretary of the Interior to Arizona Power Authority's Motion
No full textDocument: Answer of the Secretary of the Interior to Arizona Power Authority's Motion for Commission Decision and Order Issuing License, Rev. Draft, 1/4/67, page 2hearing to all parties, determine that it is in the public interest to resume these proceedings (assuming that Congress has not in the meantime foreclosed the matter), the record should be reopened and all persons now parties, and those who hereafter may be allowed to intervene, be permitted to adduce additional evidence on all pertinent issues of water and related land resources development including, but not limited to, the relationship of the proposed Marble Canyon project to other developments on the Colorado River between Lake Mead and Glen Canyon dam; the consideration of scenic, scientific and recreational resources between Lake Mead and Lake Powell; the construction, operation, and financing of the proposed Central Arizona project; the sources and marketing of hydroelectric and thermal power and energy in the region; and the appropriate Federal role in the water and related land resources development of the region. By reason of deficiencies therein the existing record does not in any event support the issuance of a license.
I.
The Commission should continue the suspension of further licensing proceedings herein until after such time as Congress has had adequate opportunity to complete its consideration of all relevant proposals for the conservation, management and development of the water and related land resources of the Lower Colorado River Basin.
1. By its order of September 14, 1964, the Commission, acting pursuant to Public Law 88-491, 78 Stat. 607, suspended proceedings
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,495,280 byte
Answer of Secretary of the Interior to Arizona Power Authority's Motion
No full textDocument: Answer of the Secretary of the Interior to Arizona Power Authority's Motion for Commission Decision and Order Issuing License, Rev. Draft, 1/4/67, page 4failed to complete its consideration of the relevant issues not because of any lack of effort or interest, but because of the intensity of competing viewpoints, the broadening circle of political concerns, and the historic implications for national resources policy extending far beyond the narrow considerations of any single hydroelectric project.
3. The questions of whether to undertake development of the Marble Canyon site and how best to do so are inextricably dependent on the evolution of the best comprehensive plan for regional development. Congress has pressed with consistent and unusual determination to amass the facts, to assess alternatives, to consult all legitimate interests, and to seek a decision. In 1951 the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, by committee resolution, determined that further consideration of water resources development in the Lower Colorado River Basin should be held in abeyance until the legal issues involving rights to the beneficial use of the water of the lower river had been determined by the courts. The State of Arizona promptly initiated litigation in the Supreme Court which was not finally determined until the decision in Arizona v. California was rendered in June of 1963 and the decree entered on March 9, 1964. Even before then, the Chairman of the House Interior Committee had called on the Secretary of the Interior to formulate a regional plan for the Lower Colorado River Basin. Within two months after the decision was announced, the Department of the Interior published and circulated for State and Federal review its initial proposed Pacific Southwest Water Plan. An amended Plan was
4Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,460,920 byte
Answer of Secretary of the Interior to Arizona Power Authority's Motion
No full textDocument: Answer of the Secretary of the Interior to Arizona Power Authority's Motion for Commission Decision and Order Issuing License, Rev. Draft, 1/4/67, page 108. The initial application in this proceeding was filed on July 15, 1958; the hearings were concluded on December 7, 1961. Since that time the record was reopened once to permit the Secretary to file on February 14, 1964, a copy of his January 1964 revision of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. The decsion of the Presiding Examiner, which was issued on September 10, 1962, was based on the evidence of record as of December 7, 1961, and the oral arguments in February, 1963 were directed to this same record. The information contained in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan is before the Commission but was not considered by the Examiner.
9. Contrary to Applicant's motion, we submit that, at such time as the Commission may determine to resume consideration of this case (if Congress has not in the meantime foreclosed the matter), the record should be reopened and all persons now parties, and those who hereafter may be allowed to intervene, should be permitted to adduce additional testimony on all pertinent issues of water and related land resources development. For the reasons hereinafter stated we believe that material changes in law and fact have occurred since the record herein was closed which require the acceptance of additional evidence and that the public interest clearly requires that this be done. This evidence will be relevant to the issues of whether Applicant's proposed project is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for the development of the water and related land resources of the region as required by Section 10(a) of the Act and whether the Commission should refer the matter to the Congress for consideration under Section 7(b) of the Act, as well as the merits of the individual proposal.
10Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,418,949 byte
Answer of Secretary of the Interior to Arizona Power Authority's Motion
No full textDocument: Answer of the Secretary of the Interior to Arizona Power Authority's Motion for Commission Decision and Order Issuing License, Rev. Draft, 1/4/67, page 1110. An impressive series of events have occurred since the hearings were concluded in December 1961 which bear on the facts and issues pertinent to a determination of this proceeding. These may be summarized briefly as follows:
(a) The Congressional consideration and national debate on the Lower Colorado River Basin Project. As discussed in paragraph 4 above, these have established at least five major issues of resource policy that are relevant to the proceedings herein.
(b) The decision and decree of the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963), 376 U.S. 340 (1964). This adjudication cleared the way for consideration of the Central Arizona project, recognized the historic congressional policy of unitary development of the water resources of the basin, and confirmed the authority of the Secretary to allocate waters of the river in the event of shortage.
(c) The enactment by Congress of new laws, particularly the Water Resources Planning Act, 79 Stat. 244, approved July 22, 1965, which establish a congressional policy of broadly comprehensive planning for the water and related land resources of major river basins.
(d) The restudy of all meaningful alternatives for Lower Colorado River development directed by the Secretary of the Interior in September 1966. The results of this study will be available to Congress in connection with its further consideration of Lower Colorado River Project legislation and should be presented to the Commission in the event the proceedings herein are resumed.
11Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,426,529 byte
Answer of Secretary of the Interior to Arizona Power Authority's Motion
No full textDocument: Answer of the Secretary of the Interior to Arizona Power Authority's Motion for Commission Decision and Order Issuing License, Rev. Draft, 1/4/67, page 16(e) The appropriate Federal role in the water and related land resources development of the region. We have explained under the discussion of our first grounds for opposition to Applicant's motion, why we believe the adjournment of the 89th Congress does not, as Applicant contends, relieve the Commission of its responsibility to consider the question of Federal reference under Section 7(b). It may well be, when all the evidence is in and final judgments are possible on a total plan of development, that considerations of national policy still will dictate Federal development of any particular site. Amendatory legislation may be required to carry out optimum development, relating to such possible issues as utilization of Hoover and Parker-Davis revenues, revisions in Federal water project laws, extension of Grand Canyon National Park, and many others. Even if non-Federal construction of some developments is then favored, amendment of Federal statutes may be required to permit this to take place on the desired basis.
12. Finally, it is clear from events reported in the Arizona press and elsewhere, that the Applicant itself is in the process of restudying and revising its own proposals for and participation in the development of the water resources of the river and the State, and consequently, that the record should be reopened at an appropriate time for presentation to the Commission of Applicant's total program. This review and restudy was launched by the Governor of the State last September in an effort to perfect a State proposal as a possible alternative to Federal development in the event Federal development is not obtained. A Symposium on State Financing of Central Arizona Project was
16Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,448,845 byte
Information on Orme Dam Rights-of-Way Problems
No full textDocument: "Information on Orme Dam Rights-of-Way Problems", 1966 - 1968, page 7only on the basis of increased conservation and flood control capacity over that shown in present reports. Under these circumstances, the Bureau could not be held to any commitments regarding flow lines or reservoir fluctuations since the plan of development for an independent Orme Project would differ considerably from that now being studied under the Central Arizona Project investigations.
7Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 533,189 byte
Fact Sheet on Current Water News
No full textDocument: News fom the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Winter - 1966, page 11DUAL-PURPOSE POWER-DESALINATION PLANT
Background
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California voted by an overwhelming margin on August 9, 1966, to proceed with plans for construction of by far the world's largest sea water conversion plant. Construction will be subject to approval by Congress and various Federal, State and local agencies. The Board's action followed more than six months of consideration given to a study made by the Bechtel Corporation, a world-wide engineering firm.
A study to determine the location, feasibility and preliminary design of a nuclear-fueled plant capable of producing 150 million gallons of distilled water a day was authorized by the Board in July, 1964. That is enough fresh water for a population of 750,000. The largest existing desalination plant, located on the island of Aruba in the Caibbean, has a capacity of 3.5 million gallons daily. In August, 1964, MWD, the Office of Saline Water of the Department of the Interior and the Atomic Energy Commission signed a contract under which each agreed to pay one-third of the cost of the study with MWD being given the over-all responsibility for its conduct. Bechtel conducted the study in three phases, the first two of which were completed in July, 1965, and the third in late December of that year.
Dual-Purpose Concept
The concept of a nuclear-fueled plant which would produce large quantities of electric power, in addition to desalted water, led to a proposal from the Southern California electric utilities, including the Southern California Edison Company, the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles and the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, under which they would participate in the project.
The dual-purpose power-desalination plant will consist of two nuclear steam supply systems, two conventional condensing steam turbine generators, a backpressure turbine generator, and multi-stage flash evaporator facilities for distilling sea water. Each nuclear steam supply system will supply all of the steam required for its associated condensing turbine generator plus one-half the steam requirement of the backpressure turbine generator and multi-stage flash evaporator. Electric power will be produced in all three units, the total output being approximately 1800 megawatts or more than that of Hoover Dam. Steam from the backpressure turbine will be exhausted to the desalination plant where its remaining heat will be utilized to convert ocean water to fresh water by the distillation process.
more..............Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,400,151 byte