226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Cover Sheet Note
No full textCover sheet: From MAW, Department of the Interior, to Orren Beaty, 1962DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
Oven,
Here are the notes Stooh or the Aing N
Calig argumentEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 440,320 byte
Federal Power Commission - Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248 - Order Granting Limited Intervention Out of Time
No full textDocument: United States of America, Federal Power Commission, Order Granting Limited Intervention Out of Time, November 2, 1962, page 8Arizona Power Authority ) Project No. 2248
MORGAN, Commissioner, dissenting:
This case 1/ will involve the exercise of the most solemn responsibility entrusted to the Federal Power Commission by the people of the United States. It will involve the determination of that project which, in the judgment of this Commission, will be best adapted to the comprehensive development of the principal river which Nature has chosen for the watering of the vast, arid, inland areas of the Pacific Southwest.
In doing so, we will be called upon to implement and fulfill that provision of the public law which most completely symbolizes the prime purpose and raison d'etre of this Commission, Section 10 (a) of the Federal Power Act. 2/ The breadth of our responsibility here, and the approach we must follow in exercising it, will require us to determine --
(1) the waterway to be developed;
(2) the comprehensive plan selected for its development; and
(3) the project best adapted to that plan.
1/ The examiner's decision herein is not before us for final action at this time. However, because it is based in part upon a record that represents the "plans and programs of the Department of the Interior . . . in an erroneous fashion and without due regard to the considered policies and programs of the Secretary," it is necessary to advert to that decision in considering the motion filed with us by a Cabinet Officer in the Executive Branch to reopen the record.
2/ 16 USCA 803 (a). "The project adopted, including the maps, plans, and specifications, shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of waterpower development, and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,331,587 byte
Federal Power Commission - Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248 - Order Granting Limited Intervention Out of Time
No full textDocument: United States of America, Federal Power Commission, Order Granting Limited Intervention Out of Time, November 2, 1962, page 15-8-
On May 19, 1961, we asked the Secretary of the Interior to comment upon the Authority's application, as amended, for Marble Canyon. The Secretary replied on November 1, 1961, saying in part:
"This Department recommends that a license not be issued and that the matter be deferred until the Congress shall have had an opportunity to consider federal resource development in the light of the disposition finally made by the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona v. California (original 10). This suit involves a determination of the respective rights of the parties to the waters of the Lower Colorado River Basin.
"Pending a Supreme Court decision, this Department has been unable to proceed with the necessary studies for complete and full utilization of the waters of the Colorado River between the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. Any development of this reach of the river should be in the interest of maximum use for all purposes, not only for hydroelectric power.
***
"Until the Supreme Court's decision is reached, conclusions as to further large-scale developments of Colorado River water in Arizona necessarily must continue in abeyance.
***
"The public interest therefore clearly requires that there be full opportunity for this Department to complete its investigations and for the Congress to be given full opportunity to review the entire question of project development and the relationship of Marble Canyon development to the entire Central Arizona project in the light of the water supply determinations when made by the Supreme Court.
"To take action at this time would be to remove an important element from the picture while the case is still in the hands of the Court and therefore before this Department or the Congress will have had an opportunity to proceed further."
The hearing herein proceeded. On September 10, 1962 the examiner issued his decision which would grant, with the support of the staff, a license to the Authority for its Marble Canyon project, over the opposition of the City of Los Angeles, the several California intervenors and the Navajo Tribe of Indians.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,050,844 byte
Letter - Department of Water and Power, The City of Los Angeles
No full textLetter: From Samuel B. Nelson, to Stewart Udall, October 26, 1962 (thermofax), page 2The Honorable Stewart L. Udall -2- October 26, 1962
contractors at the Hoover Project. The loss to all such contractors is estimated to total about 247,000.
We have no doubt that the economic advantage to the Colorado River Storage Project is fully sufficient to justify the Secretary in operating Lake Mead during this contract year as above outlined, even though this operation results in a very costly reduction in energy production at Hoover Power Plant. On the other hand, since this method of operation is solely for the benefit of the United States as owner and operator of these upstream projects, it seems to as obviously unconscionable that the financial burden should be imposed upon the power contractors at the Hoover Project.
In conclusion, we respectfully request that you give to us an opportunity to confer with you in the hope that we may reach agreement as to the measure of the compensation due to us.
Respectfully,
SAMUEL B. NELSON
General Manager and Chief EngineerEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,712,534 byte
United States of America Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: United States of America Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248, Answer and Objection of Arizona Power Authority to Petition for Intervention, Notion for Leave to Intervene Out of Time, and Motion for Re-opening the Record of Presentation of Evidence of Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, October 10, 1962, page 2UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority
Project No. 2248
ANSWER AND OBJECTION OF ARIZONA POWER AUTHORITY
TO
PETITION FOR INTERVENTION,
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OUT OF TIME,
AND
MOTION FOR RE-OPENING THE RECORD FOR
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
OF
STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
The Arizona Power Authority (Authority), an agency of the State of Arizona, applicant in the above-captioned proceeding, hereby answers and objects to the Petition for Intervention, the Motion for Leave to Intervene Out of Time and the Motion for Re-opening the Record for Presentation of Evidence, all filed on October 1, 1962 by Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior (Petitioner). In support of this answer and objection, the Authority respectfully shows as follows:
I
Section 1.8 (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure sets out the provision for the filing and service of petitions to intervene in proceedings pending before the Commission and expressly provides in pertinent part as follows:Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 815,623 byte
Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248, Petition of Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, For Re-opening the Record For Presentation of Evidence, October 1, 1962, page 4he may be allowed to submit competent and pertinent evidence as aforesaid with relation to the issues in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
STEWART L. UDALL
Secretary of the Interior
Petitioner
FRANK J. BARRY
Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior
Washington 25, D. C.
EDWARD W. FISHER
Deputy Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior
Washington 25, D. C.
EDWARD WEINBERG
Room 6413, Interior Building
Washington 25, D. C.
LEON JOUROLMON
P. O. Box No. 3621
Portland 8, Oregon
Counsel for the
Secretary of the Interior
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 682,732 byte
Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: Before the Federal Power Commission, In the Matter of Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248, Petition of Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, For Re-opening the Record For Presentation of Evidence, October 1, 1962, page 7Colorado River Board of California
Mr. Raymond Matthew, Chief Engineer 909 South Broadway Los Angeles 15, California
Mr. Northcutt Ely Ely, Duncan and Bennett 1200 Tower Building Washington 5, D. C.
National Parks Association
Brookhart, Becker & Dorsey Smith W. Brookhart, Esq. Malvern J. Sheffield, Jr., Esq. 1700 K Street, N. W. Washington 6, D. C.
Southern California Edison Company
John R. Bury, Esq. P. O. Box 351 Los Angeles 53, California
Federal Power Commission
Mr. Joseph B. Hobbs Staff Counsel Washington 25, D. C.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 1st day of October, 1962.
of Counsel for the Secretary of the Interior
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 720,832 byte
United States of America Federal Power Commission Decision - Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: United States of America Federal Power Commission, Decision, Arizona Power Authority, Projection No. 2248, Issued September 10, 1962, page 5-5-
The California Interveners assert that there is much of Arizona's presentation with which they are not in perfect accord and advance contentions similar to those made by the City.
The Navajo Tribe of Indians asserts that the Marble Canyon project as proposed by Arizona may not best be adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the Colorado River from Glen Canyon dam to Lake Mead; that the land required for the dam site and a portion of the reservoir are a part of the Navajo Indian reservation and consequently, there is required a finding by this Commission that the project will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purposes of the Navajo Indian reservation; and that the Commission should, pursuant to Section 7 (b) of the Federal Power Act, refer the development of the Marble Canyon stretch of the Colorado River to the Congress.
The National Park Association contends that the Marble-Kanab alternative plan would adversely affect Grand Canyon National Park and other national reservations, and that the latter plan should not be considered in deliberating whether a license should issue to Arizona for the Marble Canyon hydroelectric development. The applicant, Arizona, concurs in that contention.
The Proposed Development
The Applicant
The Authority is a duly constituted agency of the State of Arizona, originally created as the agency through which the State of Arizona could contract with the Secretary of the Interior for the State's allotted share of power and energy from the Hoover Dam Power Plant. The Authority is presently performing that function and in addition is receiving and distributing other electric power developed from the waters of the main stream of the Colorado River at the Bureau of Reclamation's Davis and Parker Dams. Included among Arizona's customers are two municipalities, four irrigation districts, three electrical districts, seven electric cooperatives and a number of private utilities. The Authority is likewise authorized to take such steps as may be necessary, convenient or advisable to construct and operate hydroelectric plants on the Colorado River at other sites. The Applicant has complied with the laws of the State of Arizona with respect to the use of water.
The Authority's evidence reveals that between 1948 and 1960 Arizona's sales to distributors, including losses, increased from 1829. 7 million to 6134.4 million kilowatt-hours, an increase of about 335 percent. Power requirements increased in the same period from a coincidental peak demand of 390,000 in 1948 to 1,504,300 kilowatts in 1959.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,339,133 byte
United States of America Federal Power Commission Decision - Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: United States of America Federal Power Commission, Decision, Arizona Power Authority, Projection No. 2248, Issued September 10, 1962, page 6-6-
The Applicant caused to be made a study based upon statistics for past years relative to sales of electricity in Arizona by various classifications. Those statistics were analyzed to establish growth trends and the relationship between population, types of consumers and consumer use. The purpose was to determine whether, and when, a market would exist in Arizona sufficient to absorb the power and energy which could be generated at the proposed Marble Canyon development (Marble Canyon). The witness who undertook this study assumed that except in unusual circumstances no large industrial loads would be supplied by the distributors. He, therefore, excluded this classification and confined his analysis of the power market to distributor uses.
For the purpose of determining the potential market for the power from the Marble Canyon project, there was taken into account the power that would be available from other sources including the scheduled additions and probable retirements of fuel-burning stations in the state during the period until Marble Canyon could be brought on the line. The Authority's witness expressed the opinion that the capacity of the Marble Canyon development would be needed by 1968 to meet the capacity requirements of the Arizona market.
The Reach of the River
The Marble Canyon dam as proposed by the Authority would be constructed on the Colorado River just upstream of Grand Canyon National Park, and the reservoir created by the dam would extend to the tailwaters of the Glen Canyon dam, a federally constructed and operated development.
The evidence reveals that there is an upper and a lower Colorado River Basin. The division point between the two is 1.8 miles downstream from Lees Ferry and this is the zero point of river mileage. The Marble Canyon dam site as it is proposed is at river mile 39.5 while the upstream border of the National Park is at river mile 52. The junction of the Little Colorado River and the Colorado River is at river mile 61.
The total length of the reach of the Colorado River from the Bureau of Reclamation's Glen Canyon project to the headwaters of Lake Mead, the reservoir created by the Bureau's Hoover Dam, is 253 miles, of which about 105 miles are within the Grand Canyon National Park. 1/ This entire section of the river is within the State of Arizona. Between the tailwater at the Glen Canyon dam site and the maximum controlled reservoir level at Lake Mead there is a drop in elevation of 1,919 feet, of which about 1,010 feet occurs within the Grand Canyon National Park. At the upstream border of the National Park, the river level is at about elevation
1/ Which for convenience will frequently hereinafter be referred to merely as the National Park.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,360,213 byte
United States of America Federal Power Commission Decision - Arizona Power Authority, Project No. 2248
No full textDocument: United States of America Federal Power Commission, Decision, Arizona Power Authority, Projection No. 2248, Issued September 10, 1962, page 24-24-
The power plant suggested by the City would be located underground. That plant and all surface features of the project except one adit located at Tapeats Creek would be outside the Grand Canyon National Park and monument. The power plant would consist of seven units of 215 megawatts rated capacity and three units of 167 megawatts rated capacity. Peaking capability assumed at 15 percent above rated capacity would result in generation of about 2,300 megawatts at that plant.
It was assumed that the three 167-megawatt units at Kanab Creek together with the 30-megawatt unit at Marble Canyon would deliver energy to Arizona load centers. This would give a total of 531 megawatts of rated capacity as compared with the 510 megawatts of ultimate installation proposed by the Authority at Marble Canyon. The balance of 1,505 megawatts of rated capacity would be transmitted to a proposed junction switching station near Hoover Dam. At that point the power would be available for distribution to the State of Nevada, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the municipalities of Los Angeles, Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, California.
The City now owns and operates a 287.5 kilovolt transmission line which extends from the Hoover Dam Power Plant to the Los Angeles area. This line would be rehabilitated or upgraded and additional new facilities would be built. The City's plan of development contemplates that a transmission system be built to connect the Kanab Creek and Marble Canyon Power plants with load centers in California, Arizona and Nevada. The Kanab Creek-Phoenix Transmission System, which would be included in the plan, is similar in construction to that proposed by the City for its Marble Canyon project. It is assumed that a junction switching station would be constructed near Hoover Dam. Three 380-kilovolt single-circuit transmission lines would be constructed from the Kanab Power Plant to the proposed junction switching station where connection would be made with the City's existing Boulder Transmission Line from Hoover Dam to Los Angeles. From Marble Canyon, lines would extend in a southerly direction to Flagstaff, Prescott, Cave Creek, Phoenix and Mesa, Arizona.
Interest on that portion of the project which involves rebuilding the Boulder Transmission Line and the additional circuit to Los Angeles was calculated at 3-1/2 percent, that being the rate at which the City might sell bonds for this purpose. It was assumed that the remainder of the project would be constructed as a federal project and interest during construction thereon was calculated at 2.632 percent which was the interest rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury for 1961 for the Frying Pan-Arkansas project.
The City's witness estimated the total construction cost of the complete Marble-Kanab development at 825,977,000 for generating facilities and 903,645,000 and $185,153,000 respectively. However, theEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,330,149 byte