226894 research outputs found
Sort by
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 9-9-
as based on "inaccurate and misleading information" and concluded (p. 42):
"The dams do no violence to the scenic beauty of the Grand Canyon National Park nor to the adjacent portions of the Colorado River. In fact they will enhance the ability of the average citizen to view the wonders of the canyon from the bottom up and provide extensive additional outdoor recreation opportunities."
Further, there is ample evidence of record with respect to alternative proposals. Thus, the record contains extensive evidence concerning the Kanab Tunnel Plan advanced as an alternative by some Southern California Intervenors. In addition, while the Commission denied the request of the Secretary of the Interior to reopen the record subsequent to issuance of the Examiner's recommended decision, the Commission permitted the Secretary to intervene and to file exceptions to the decisions. The Secretary utilized this opportunity to urge at length and in detail that his proposed Marble Canyon project, rather than Arizona's, better satisfied the requirements of Section 10 (a), and hence merited a Section 7(b) reference. We have already shown that a Section 7(b) reference would, in the light of Congressional inaction during the period of the moratorium, be a futile and unnecessary gesture on the part of the Commission. Suffice it to say here that the Secretary's submission provides adequate data upon the basis of which the Commission can weigh the merits of Arizona's proposal against the Secretary's alternative.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 944,139 byte
Memorandum Concerning Colorado River Basin States Meeting
No full textMemorandum: To Stewart Udall, from Edward Weinberg, "Colorado River Basin States meeting, Los Angeles--Colorado River legislation," December 12, 1966, page 1IN REPLY REFER TO:
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
December 13, 1966
Memorandum
To: Secretary
From: Deputy Solicitor
Subject: Colorado River Basin States meeting, Los Angeles
December 12, 1966--Colorado River legislation
The participants are as set out on the attached list. Ival Goslin was unable to be present because of illness.
Following is a brief summary of the position of each of the States as given by its spokesmen.
1. Colorado (Larry Sparks).
Sparks has proposed that H.R. 4671 as reported out by the House Committee be amended as shown on Attachment B. These amendments, (a) provide for a reconnaisance study rather than a feasibility study of a minimum 2.5 maf import into the Colorado River mainstream below Lee Ferry, (b) eliminate Marble Canyon, and (c) reduce Hualapai to the low dam which would back water through the monument but not into the park. At its meeting on December 14, the State Water Board is expected to endorse this position.
2. Arizona (Trask).
Arizona is pursuing simultaneous alternatives. One is Federal legislation which is the preferred alternative. The other is a State project. No decision can be made on the specifics of the Federal legislation that the State will support, beyond agreement that it would be a basin approach, until the Congressional delegation has an opportunity to confer with other interested parties, including Senator Jackson. Arizona is not, therefore, in a position to comment on any specific proposals at this time.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,505,825 byte
Analysis of Alternative Plans Colorado River Basin Project
No full textDocument: Analysis of Alternative Plans Colorado River Basin Project, December 1966?, page 3Category 1--Plans which do not add
revenues to the Development Fund
These are the "barebones" plans insofar as facilities to be provided and their costs are conceived. The new features contemplated would include only the Central Arizona Unit, water salvage programs, and recreation and fish and wildlife facilities. The only exceptions are Plans 8 and 9 which would provide for federally financed thermal generation sufficient to provide low-cost pumping power as an addition to the Central Arizona Unit.
The key elemets in these plans are the financing provisions for the Central Arizona Unit, which fall into three groups:
Group 1 --Financial assistance through writeoff of Federal costs, Plan 1.
Group 2 --Increase in water rates for irrigation and/or municipal and industrial water and/or levy of ad valorem tax sufficient to repay all costs within 50 years, Plans 2, 2A, and 2B.
Group 3 --Financial assistance in whole or in part from Hoover-Parker-Davis power revenues plus increased water rates as may be required to achieve project payout in 50 years, Plans 2C, 2D, 3, and 4.
The most important consideration in comparing these plans for the financing of the Central Arizona Unit alone is that of the pricing of project water supplies. The water rates which were postulated in the plan presented to the Congress (50 per acre-foot for municipal and industrial water, both prices at the aqueduct) were developed in accordance with conventional Reclamation policies.
The irrigation water price is limited by teh average payment capacity of the prospective water users. If low-cost pumping power were made available, such as in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, the 7.08 per acre-foot). A portion of the capital costs allocated to irrigation would be repaid from other revenues.
The M&I water rater would cover all capital and O&M costs associated with M&I with the appropriate interest (50 and thus provides some surplus revenue.
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,291,231 byte
Analysis of Alternative Plans Colorado River Basin Project
No full textDocument: Analysis of Alternative Plans Colorado River Basin Project, December 1966?, page 9Category 3 - Plans which include federally owned, large, thermal, or thermal-pumped storage powerplants
This group of plans postulates the substitution of a large, federally owned, thermal, or thermal-pumped storage powerplant to provide to the extent possible the financial assistance which would otherwise be derived from major hydroelectric dams. The objectives of the plants would be to provide low-cost project pumping power, financial assistance to irrigation, and contributions to the development fund.
Plans 10A, 10B, and 10C involve large thermal powerplants for baseload generation. A 2,350-megawatt nuclear plant in the vicinity of Camp Pendleton, Califonia (10A), and 2,350-megawatt coal-fired plants located at Topock, Arizona, and the 4-Corners area were studied. These were sized to provide essentially the same power output at the plant (2,100 megawatts) as Hualapai and Marble Canyon Dams after thermal plants provide 12 percent reserves.
For comparative purposes only, all alternates in Category 3 were analyzed with a rate which would produce the same average revenue per kilowatt-hour, about 6.2 mills per kilowatt-hour at 35.7 percent load factor, as the rates used in Category 2.
The energy charge, however, was based upon the fuel cost of large nuclear generation, the lowest cost energy source. This results in an average rate per kilowatt-hour of about 3.4 mills at the 85 percent plant factor assumed for these large thermal plants.
Transmission costs and losses from each alternative location were based, again for comparative purposes, upon the same distribution of commercial sales within the power market area. The results are as follows:
Total Cost Basin Account Surplus
(Millions of dollars) (Millions of dollars)
Plan Year 2025 Year 2047
10A, Nuclear at Pendleton 1,012 688 1,686
10B, Coal at Topock 1,017 -267 524
10C, Coal at 4-Corners 1,184 -350 560
While the large California coastal nuclear thermal plant shows the most favorable payout under these assumptions, it should be pointed
9Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,204,034 byte
Analysis of Alternative Plans Colorado River Basin Project
No full textDocument: Analysis of Alternative Plans Colorado River Basin Project, December 1966?, page 3Category 1--Plans which do not add revenues to the Development Fund
These are the "barebones" plans insofar as facilities to be provided and their costs are conceived. The new features contemplated would include only the Central Arizona Unit, water salvage programs, and recreation and fish and wildlife facilities. The only exceptions are Plans 8 and 9 which would provide for federally financed thermal generation sufficient to provide low-cost pumping power as an addition to the Central Arizona Unit.
The key elements in these plans are the financing provisions for the Central Arizona Unit, which fall into three groups:
Group 1 --Financial assistance through writeoff of Federal costs, Plan 1.
Group 2 --Increase in water rates for irrigation and/or municipal and industrial water and/or levy of ad valorem tax sufficient to repay all costs within 50 years, Plans 2, 2A, and 2B.
Group 3 --Financial assistance in whole or in part from Hoover-Parker-Davis power revenues plus increased water rates as may be required to achieve project payout in 50 years, Plans 2C, 2D, 3, and 4.
The most important consideration in comparing these plans for the financing of the Central Arizona Unit alone is that of the pricing of project water supplies. The water rates which were postulated in the plan presented to the Congress (50 per acre-foot for municipal and industrial water, both prices at the aqueduct) were developed in accordance with conventional Reclamation policies.
The irrigation water price is limited by the average payment capacity of the prospective water users. If low-cost pumping power were made available, such as in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, the 7.08 per acre-foot). A portion of the capital costs allocated to irrigation would be repaid from other revenues.
The M&I water rate would cover all capital and O&M costs associated with M&I with the appropriate interest (50 and thus provides some surplus revenue.
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,460,882 byte
Analysis of Alternative Plans Colorado River Basin Project
No full textDocument: Analysis of Alternative Plans Colorado River Basin Project, December 1966?, page 4Omitting the revenue-producing powerplants from the plan has two effects upon the repayment situation. First, that source of repayment assistance for irrigation capital cost is lost. Second, the Source of low-cost pumping power is lost except for Plans 8 and 9, and more costly commercial power must be purchased, resulting in an increased cost for O&M.
Plan No. 1 examines the conditions which would prevail if there were no change in water rates, no source of repayment assistance, and commercial power were purchased for pumping. In this case, an M&I water rate of 50.64 would be necessary to cover all costs allocated to M&I. The M&I water rate without substantial change, therefore, would remain in accordance with policy.
The increase in pumping power costs would result in irrigation O&M costs of 14.07 per acre-foot. Thus, there would be an annual deficit in O&M repayment and no repayment of capital costs allocated to irrigation. A total writeoff of conventially reimbursable costs of 165,000,000 represents O&M deficits.
Plans 2, 2A, 2B examine various meams of increasing project water revenues to accomplish repayment of reimbursable costs, without other sources of assistance and using purchased commercial pumping power. The following are representative rates necessary:
Rates
Assumptions /Acre-foot
Irrigation M&I
1. Irrigation remains 10, M&I repays all remaining costs (Plan 2A) 10.00 77.30
2. Irrigation pays O&M, M&I repays all other costs (Plan 2) (Variation) 14.07 65.41
3. Irrigation and M&I each repays its allocated costs (Plan 2) 22.03 50.64
Plan 2B assumes that water rates of 50.64 are maintained, and the remaining revenues obtained from an ad valorem tax on all taxable property in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima Counties. It is estimated that a tax rate of 100 (or 2.5 mills per dollar) of assessed valuation would be necessary and would need to be started in 1969 to build up a reserve.
4Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,405,218 byte
Notes--Montezuma
No full textDocument: Statement of Douglas J. Wall, November 16, 1966, page 3 handwritten notes on backMontezoma Expect letter from Salt River ProjectEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,426,731 byte
Meeting of Seven Colorado River Basin States
No full textDocument: Statement of Douglas J. Wall, November 16, 1966, page 22. That they consult with our delegation in Washington, with the members of the Legislature, with the Department of the Interior and with the many public and private agencies concerned and deliver, before the end of this year, a feasibility report demonstrating what can be done on the basis of the best available information.
3. That, in addition, they consider, within the framework of this report, a long-range program for the fullest possible development of our total water resources all over the State, in order that all of Arizona can benefit substantially from this study.
4. That the State should prepare to make a full-scale effort on behalf of a federal reclamation project in the next Congress if the factors, when the new Congress convenes, indicate good chances of success.
The Stream Commission and the Power Authority are proceeding cooperatively to comply with the Governor's directive, and will report to him before the end of this year.
In the meantime, the Stream Commission has adopted the following position which is pertinent to the purpose of this meeting:
On motion made and adopted by the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission at its meeting of October 12, 1966, the following positions were taken and their transmittal to the Governor of Arizona and the members of Arizona's congressional delegation was ordered:
1. All commitments and guarantees made by the State of Arizona and included in H. R. 4671, as that Bill was reported and recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the U. S. House of Representatives, are considered to be null and void as of the date of adjournment of the 89th Congress.
-2-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,529,028 byte
Resolution
No full textDocument: Resolution, Arizona Interstate Stream Commission, October 12, 1966 (thermofax), page 1RESOLUTION
The Arizona Interstate Stream Commission in meeting duly assembled, having considered again the position of the State of Arizona with respect to its allotment of 50,000 acre-feet per annum of Upper Colorado River Basin water under Article III (a) (1) of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, unanimously adopted the following resolution:
RESOLVED: That unless and, until a judicial determination is made to the contrary, that the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission adhere to its position that said 50,000 acre-feet of water per annum apportioned to the State of Arizona under Article III (a) (1) of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact is under the exclusive control of the State of Arizona subject only to the provisions of the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact;
RESOLVED FURTHER: That it is not in the best interests of the State of Arizona to consent or otherwise agree to the disposition of this water except as a part of the construction or authorization of the Central Arizona Project, either as a State project or a Federal project or a combination of both;Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,134,840 byte
The Public Forum - Water Resources Protected
No full textNews article: Salt Lake Tribune, The Public Forum, "Water Resources Protected," October 5, 1966 (thermofax)SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
Salt Lake City, Utah
October 5, 1966
The Public Forum
Water Resources Protected
Editor, Tribune: The Wasatch Mountain Club has for more than 40 years explored, enjoyed and helped in the conservation of Utah's magnificent wilderness.
The conservation committee of the club is working to support the U.S. Forest Service in establishing the High Uinta Wilderness Area. We are dismayed at the recent action by the Upper Colorado River Commission urging an apparent endless delay in establishment of the area.
The commission's reasoning is faulty on at least two counts. They want to delay until "it can be demonstrated as a result of complete planning that the works for the Central Utah Project will not be required within the boundaries . . . " but the commission has already had two years to make specific studies and ample time to consult with the forest service on boundaries.
"In addition, the Wilderness Act itself makes ample provision for any future real needs of the Central Utah Project. Section 4, Part D reads: "The following special provisions are hereby made: (4) within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this act, the President may, within a specific area, and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, waterconservation works, power porjects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to the development and use thereof upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial."
WILLIAM VIAVANTEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 3,163,024 byte