226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Recommendations for the Pacific Southwest
No full textDocument: Recommendations, August 1963 (thermofax), page 9lowering of costs for water desalting, however, hold impressive promise for future solution of the region's water supply problem. Advancements in water desalting technology conceivably could make costs by this means lower than for surface water imports, Cooperation between the United States and Mexico would be required in the location of desalting projects on or near the Gulf of California.
12. Phases I and II of the selected Pacific Southwest Water Plan outlined in this report would provide for all but 900,000 acre-feet of the water needs of the region until about 1990. The additional 900,000 acre-feet would have to be achieved either by overdrafting or preferrably, by a full-scale program of water management to provide for conservation, salvage and reuse of available water.
13. By the year 2000 Phases I and II would fall about 2,170,000 acre-feet short of demands, and after 2000 demand will increase even faster. To meet water demands of the growing population after 1990, a third a third phase of development, providing for massive import or desalting systems, will have to be initiated. Planning should start at an early date for meeting these needs.
14. Construction of the basic facilities needed now to provide water cannot be delayed pending the results of long-range research and investigation. They must proceed immediately and concurrently. Because of the long time interval between the start of construction and delivery of waters under the programs proposed, delays in the start of construction could be disastrous to the area.
15. The studies presented in this report show conclusively that not only is the physical solution available for water needs of the Pacific Southwest for the next 25 or 30 years, but that such solution is financially feasible. It could be financed from a combination of
-5-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,726,830 byte
Recommendations for the Pacific Southwest
No full textDocument: Recommendations, August 1963 (thermofax), page 10revenues from the sale of water and power at favorable rates.
16. Phases I and II of the selected water plan would have a benefit to cost ratio of 2.1 to 1. They would pay out by 2044, or 50 years after the last increment is installed. Non-reimbursable purposes include flood control, fish and wildlife, recreation and area redevelopment. Reimbursable purposes include municipal and industrial water supply, irrigation and commercial power. Irrigation costs would be returned in 50 years, without interest. Municipal and industrial costs would bear 3 per cent interest, as would power, but would fell _ short of repayment within 50 years. Power would pay out, with interest, by the year 1998, after which power revenues would provide M&I assistance until 2033. Thereafter power revenues would accumlate in the proposed Pacific Southwest Development Fund until 2044, at which time the Fund should have a surplus of approximately 2 billion from which future projects could be financed. Such a fund appears essential to meet the region's growing water needs after 1990.
17. To assure congressional control over future developments to be financed from the Fund, we propose that the Fund serve as a source of revenues from which Congress might make appropriations, and that each future project require specific statutory authorization to participate in the Fund.
Need: (??) in power identify source of powerEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,702,742 byte
Pacific Southwest Water Plan: Possible First Phase
No full textDocument: Pacific Southwest Water Plan: Possible First Phase, August 1963 (thermofax)PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN: POSSIBLE FIRST PHASE
Basin-wide Projects
Colorado River Main Stream
Bridge Canyon Dam & Powerplant 375,000,000
Marble Canyon Dam & Powerplant 220,000,000
Water Salvage & Recovery Projects 5,000,000
Indian & Other Agency Projects 15,000,000
Initial Participating Projects
Central Arizona Project 382,000,000
California State Water Plan Aqueduct Enlargement 275,000,000
So. Nevada Water Supply Project-first stage 42,000,000
Disde Project 45,000,000
Hooker Dam Project 28,000,000
Total 1,387,000,000
Note: These totals are reduced from items presently included in the Bureau of Reclamation's report, by deferring for later authorization such items as:
1. Bridge Canyon, two generators and part of the transmission system:
2. Marble Canyon, part of transmission system
3. Central Arizona, one barrel of the Maxwell-Dam-Tusson Aqueduct, Charleston Dam and Aqueduct and Buttes Dam.
4. California Water Plan, some pumping capacityEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,993,699 byte
Summarization of Arizona's Interests in Colorado River Water
No full textDocument: summarization of Arizona's interests in Colorado River water, 1963, author unknown, page 11. One of the principal purposes of our coming to Washington is to understand the reasons for Senate Bill 502 as introduced by Senator Hayden. It has raised some questions in the minds of interested parties in Arizona as to whether it is helpful or harmful.
In (??) it has almost tuer a Wonderfull in some guaters
2. The second purpose of this meeting is to state and review the serious problem and differences which exist in Arizona as to the Central Arizona Project. Related to this are the following:
A. On February 15, 1958, the Arizona Power Authority filed applications for licenses to construct dams and hydro electric power plants on the Colorado River at two sites:
(1) Marble Canyon
(2) Bridge Canyon
Following the filing of these applications it was the view of the Interstate Stream Commission and others that the application for a license at the Bridge Canyon site might be harmful to the best interests of the State of Arizona with respect to the Central Arizona Project, particularly since the City of Los Angeles had also filed an application for a power plant at the same location. As a result, in the fall of 1960, an informal agreement was made between all of the interested parties in Arizona, including the A.P.A. that they would defer pressing the application at the Bridge Canyon site but instead they would push forward for a license at Marble Canyon.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,796,438 byte
Note
No full textDocument: Note to Don Shearon from Orren Beaty, 1963Re Note to Don Shearon from Orren Beaty:
"Don - this man's facts are a little mixed up. I think you might get Bureau of Reclamation to reply, straightening the facts out where necessary, but without arguing.
Referred to Mr. Dominy by Mr. Shearon 1/9/63Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 397,132 byte
The Proposed Lower Colorado River Project - An Outline of the Study
No full textDocument: Attachment A, The Proposed Colorado River Project, 1963, page 2River Project would, of course, require several decades to construct and a very large investment of funds. It would concern the areas that use Colorado River water below Lee Ferry on the Colorado River, the division point between the upper and the lower basins.
Population Increases
The goal of the study would be a proposed project to serve water and incidental power to this section of the United States which is experiencing the most rapid increase in population of any part of the country. The metropolitan areas of southern California now have a population of about 10 million people. It is estimated that in a little more than three decades, say by the year 2000, the population in this area will treble to approximately 30 million people. The metropolitan area around Phoenix, Arizona, had a population of about a half million people in 1958. In a little more than three decades, the population in this area is estimated to reach 2-1/2 million people, or five times the 1958 population. To support this growth, we need to move now on plans that will produce the necessary water supplies to sustain such growth.
Inadequacy of Present Source of Water
The inadequacy of the Colorado River system to meet this region's continuing and rapidly growing water needs is already
2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 732,835 byte
The Proposed Lower Colorado River Project - An Outline of the Study
No full textDocument: Attachment A, The Proposed Colorado River Project, 1963, page 8and saline water plants may be developed in a few years to a point where they can be used and assist in an over-all repayment program.
Future power rates are to be studied with some adjustment of Hoover Dam and Parker-Davis Dam power rates in prospect if these developments are initially incorporated financially into the lower Colorado River Project. If not so initially incorporated, any power revenues from these structures after the end of the present pay-out period could assist in meeting water costs. Agreement with the present Hoover power contractors would be necessary for any change in Hoover power rates prior to the expiration of present contracts.
Conclusion
In essence, the proposed lower Colorado River Project would recognize the need for a broad regional solution to the serious water problems of the Pacific Southwest and that such an approach properly conceived could be of mutual advantage to present and future water and power users in all parts of this fast growing section of the United States. The objectives would be the development of additional water supply as needed, the creation of a source of financial assistance to aid in the repayment of project works, the provision of power for pumping, and the production of power to meet other needs.
8Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 728,746 byte
Letter - Salt River Project
No full textCover letter: From R. J. McMullin, General Manager, Salt River Project, to Stewart Udall, November 27, 1962SALT RIVER PROJECT
P.O. BOX 1980
PHOENIX I, ARIZONA
November 27, 1962
VICTORI. CORBELL, PRESIDENT
FLOYD N. SMITH, VICE PRESIDENT
R.J. McMULLIN, GENERAL MANAGER
note-Aug Jaiked write Rrd Mc(??)neullin on 11/28/62
Honorable Stewart Udall
Secretary of the Interior
Department of the Interior Bldg.
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Stewart,
Enclosed are two copies each of the statements of position of the Board of Directors of Arizona Public Service Company concerning the Central Arizona Project.
The memorandum which was actually presented to the Executive Committee of the Central Arizona Project is the one on which I noted in pen "Read to CAP Board Exec. Comm. on 11/14/62 by John Jacobs, Chmn. of Bd. A.P.S." The second accompanied Rich Johnson's letter of November 19. The two memorandums are similar in most respects. However, please note that in the second memo they have deleted the paragraph on page 2 concerning the fact that we federal power advocates are now attempting to "aid and support the Bureau of Reclamation in the future federal encroachment and socialization of the power business in the state of Arizona."
We are looking forward to a briefing by you of the Department's plans; in the meantime we will standby to support the program when announced as we discussed on the telephone last Friday.
Kindest personal regards.
Sincerely yours,
RJM-mer
Enclosures
R.J. McMullin
General Manager
DIRECTORS AND GOVERNORS
C. S. ANDERSON G. H. BALL A. R. CARTWRIGHT A. M. CONOVALOFF H. C. DOBSON
J. H. EVANS J. S. HOOPES T. P. HURLEY W. L. SCHRADER C. H. WILLISEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,366,991 byte
Memorandum on FPC Order of November 2, 1962 in Marble Canyon Case
No full textMemorandum: FPC Order of November 2, 1962 in Marble Canyon Case, November 14, 1962 (carbon copy), page 6Memo re FPC Order of 11/2/62
in Marble Canyon Case
but Congress makes the policy for the United States, not the FPC staff. If a test of strength is to come, it is not hard to predict the result.
It is apparent, or at least there is very great danger, that the FPC intends to grant the Arizona Power Authority license and has grudgingly permitted us to intervene as a necessary courtesy. But this is not a matter of mere courtesy or prestige. Our Department has thousands of engineers and specialists studying the Colorado River from its headwates to the Mexican Boundary. It measures the snowpack in the Rocky Mountains and the salinity at the Border.
The staff of the FPC is wholly inadequate to decide what should be done on the Colorado. When the Secretary of the Interior points out that development should await an opportunity for Congress to express its will, the FPC should suspend action. After all, the Secretary of the Interior is not a humble litigant, hat in hand, hoping for a favor from the FPC. He represents the people of the United States.
The only public interest Commissioner Ross recognizes is the public's interest in the rapid transaction of business. The public
6Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,938,134 byte
Notes on Arizona v. California Argument
No full textDocument: Notes on Arizona v. California Argument, November 13, 1962 (carbon copy), page 1Notes on Arizona v. California Argument November 13, 1962
Northcutt Ely
Sec. 5-4. 4 mill is an irreduceable minimum. Master treats it as only one component -- that the Secretary's apportionment is binding and sets up a pro ration so that if releases are under 7.5, the 4.4 gets reduced on a 44/75 pro ration. Arizona 28/75.
Master ignores fact the Sec. 3a refers to Colorado River System including tributaries -- holds that a 4a refers only to water held by Hoover Dam -- water in main channel.
Ely says consumptive uses on tributaries should be counted against allocation of river water.
Doctrine of equitable apportionment interstate and priority of existing uses recognized by Master -- as between Arizona and New Mexico, and between upper and lower basins. He recognizes application of State law to intra-State users deriving their rights from Sec. 5--uses priority principles.
Master-- Users below Lake Mead can enjoin junior diversions (on a priority basis) above Lake Mead, but once the water hits Lake Mead, its apportioned on the 44/75 basis. Reservations before 1929, they get on the basis of the State's apportionment. Thus a refuge created in 1941 can get water in Arizona and not in California. where it was all used up before 1941.
Master says no rights definitely fixed until Federal apportionment was made by Secretary in 1944.
Ely says that priorities should be recognized interstate as well as intrastate.
Douglas--refers to Ickes v. Fox as similar. Does this present an injusticiable issue at this time?
Ely says there may be no dispute as yet until we see under what authorities Arizona attempts to take water. Ely says dispute is justiciable because the compact is controlling and should be enforced. But if compact is treated as not controlling, the way the Master does, the dispute is not now justiciable.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,913,456 byte