226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Blue Envelope Memorandum on Possible First Phase for Pacific Southwest Water Plan
No full textMemorandum: From Orren Beaty, to William I. Palmer, August 8, 1963, page 1THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
August 8, 1963
Blue Envelope
Memorandum
To: William I. Palmer, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation
From: Orren Beaty, Assistant to the Secretary
The Secretary needs a breakdown for use at today's luncheon meeting with the Senators which does not necessarily describe the recommendations we expect to make for the Pacific Southwest water plan but which might represent what Congress would eventually authorize. The breakdown should look something like this:
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN: POSSIBLE FIRST PHASE
Basin-wide Projects
Colorado River Main Stream
Initial Participating Projects
Central Arizona Project
Enlarge California State Water Plan Acqueduct
Southern Nevada Water Supply Project 42,551,000
Hooker Dam Project 28,128,000
Dixie Project 44,868,000
Total
Note: (At this point cover the omissions which will permit the total to be something of 1.3 or 1.4 billion dollars.)Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,078,161 byte
Letter Discussing Convictions
No full textLetter: From Stewart Udall, to Carl Haydn, July 22, 1963 (carbon copy), page 1July 22, 1963
Dear Carl:
I deliberately delayed replying to your letter of July 13 until I had an opportunity to talk with Governor Brown in Sacramento last Friday.
First, let me state that our policy committee meeting on Monday, July 15, was very successful. In my opinion, we are developing plans which would provide a solid structure on which the Lower Basin states can construct a regional water plan. These plans fit readily within the framework which I discussed with you on July 11.
My discussions with Governor. Brown reinforced my earlier convictions that:
1) The responsible California leaders in Sacramento and in Washington--including the Governor and the two Senators--will give strong support to a regional plan if it contains elements that will enable the State to meet its long-term water needs in the Pacific Southwest. (They are also well aware of the fact that the initial legislation cannot, and should not, be "loaded up" with authorizations which would make the initial legislation too costly to win the necessary congressional support.)
2) These same California leaders will need time to analyze our task force report in order to formulate a firm California position, and will consider any action by the Congress before next January as premature action which they would be duty bound to delay and obstruct.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 3,046,317 byte
Memorandum on Water Shortage and Waste in California
No full textMemorandum: Water shortage and waste in California, July 20, 1963, page 3@@
1. No recognition is given to effective precipitation of 0.15 feet per year.
2. The "requirements" presuppose a "salt content" of 1.25 tons per acre-foot (t.a.f.). The average for the 16-year period ending in March 1958 was only 1.02 t.a.f. and in the future will not exceed 1.09 t.a.f.
3. They assume a leaching requirement of 22% founded on 1.25 t.a.f. although based upon past, present or future conditions it is 10% or less.
4. It is physically impossible to pass through the average soils of Imperial Valley more than 9% of the water applied.
5. Seepage losses from the distribution system may be reduced by 90% by lining portions of the system.
6. Approximately 75% of the All-American Canal losses below Pilot Knob could be recovered by pumping.
7. Unnecessary seepage loss and waste for system regulation in excess of that occurring in the period of 1955-57 is included.
8. An amazing 100,000 acre-feet per year to satisfy domestic uses of a static population of approximately 63,000 persons is included.
On November 13, 1962, Mr. Wilmer presented to the Supreme Court another exhibit entitled "Indicated California Agricultural Needs Giving Effect to Reasonable Conservation Practices". A copy of that exhibit has been designated as Table 3 and is attached. The needs as shown on Table 3 are predicated upon the acreages actually irri-
3Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,059,818 byte
Memorandum on Information for July 25 Conference with Governors
No full textMemorandum: From Assistant Commissioner Palmer, to Orren Beaty, "Information for July 25 conference with Governors," July 12, 1963, page 1UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
???
JUL 12 1963
Prep. Mermo
IN REPLY
REFER TO: 700
Memorandum
To: Mr. Orren Beaty, Assistant to the Secretary
From: Assistant Commissioner Palmer
Subject: Information for July 25 conference with Governors
In reply to your memorandum of July 8 on the above subject, I suggest the following agenda items for discussion with the Governors:
1. Need for State support in promoting and assuring efficient use of water
It would be most desirable to obtain the pledge of each Governor that his State would administer firmly existing regulations designed to effect efficient water use and would, if necessary, initiate steps to obtain new legislation to this end.
2. Lower Basin Development Fund
I believe we should seek the strong support of the Governors for the creation of a Lower Basin Development Fund to assist in financing future works necessary to provide the region with adequate water supplies. Inherent to the establishment of such a fund would be the expectation that rates for power from Hoover and Parker-Davis after payout would be adjusted consistent, among other things, with the needs for financial assistance to the overall basin plan.
3. Division of shortages
The views of the Governors as to the discharge of the Secretary's responsibility under the recent Supreme Court decision in dividing Colorado River water among the States in the event of shortages should be obtained.
4. Disposition of water saved by salvage
State support should be sought, including legislative action if necessary, in making salvaged water available for municipal and industrial uses in lieu of dedicating such water within the State where salvage is accomplished for expansion of irrigation.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,503,156 byte
The Supreme Court's Decision in Arizona v. California and it's Effect on California's Water Supply
No full textDocument: The Supreme Court's Decision in Arizona v. California and its effect on California's water supply, Northcutt Ely, July 12, 1963, page 1The Supreme Court's Decision
in Arizona v. California
and its effect on
California's water supply
Statement
Before
The Feather River Project Association
Long Beach, California
July 12, 1963
By
Northcutt Ely
of
Ely, Duncan and Bennett
Washington, D.C.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,415,607 byte
The Supreme Court's Decision in Arizona v. California and it's Effect on California's Water Supply
No full textDocument: The Supreme Court's Decision in Arizona v. California and its effect on California's water supply, Northcutt Ely, July 12, 1963, page 2I am honored by the invitation to speak today to the Feather River Project Association on the effect of the Supreme Court's Colorado River decision on California's water supply. The views that I will express today are my own; I am speaking in a personal capacity.
First, as to the Court's decision:
The statute construed
The Court, like the Special Master, holds that the controversy among Arizona, California, and Nevada turns on the construction of two sections of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, sections 4(a) and 5.
Section 4(a) provided that the act should not become effective until all seven Colorado River basin states should ratify the Colorado River Compact, or, if only six should ratify, unless California should enact a statute limiting uses of water in this state. The prescribed limitation is in two components: the beneficial consumptive use of 4,400,000 acre-feet per annum of the waters apportioned to the lower basin states by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River Compact, plus not to exceed one half of the excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the Compact. Article III (a) of the Compact apportions to the upper basin and the lower basin respectively, in perpetuity, the beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of the waters of the Colorado River system, defined in Article II as including tributaries as well as main stream. California's legislature enacted the required Limitation Act in 1929. A second paragraph of section 4(a) authorized, but did not require, the states of Arizona, California, and Nevada to enter into a compact which would apportion 2,800,000 acre-feet to Arizona, 300,000 to Nevada.
Section 5 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to contract for the storage and delivery of water, and directed that no one should have the use of the stored water without a contract.
No three-state compact was ever entered into. The Secretary of the Interior, proceeding under Section 5, made contracts in 1930 and 1931 with users in California undertaking to store and deliver quantities up to 5,362,000 acre-feet per year. In 1942 and 1944 he made contracts with the State of Nevada to deliver up to 300,000 acre-feet to that state, and in 1944 he made a contract with the State of Arizona to deliver 2,800,000 acre-feet, plus one half of the excess or surplus to users in that state. Of this, about 1,700,000 represents water not needed by existing Arizona projects, but wanted for future projects. Arizona thereupon ratified the Colorado River Compact. All of these quantities are in terms of "beneficial consumptive use," that is, the quantity diverted minus that returned to the river.
None of these contracts purport to make any interstate allocation or to determine interstate priorities in the event of a water shortage. The Arizona contract specifically disclaims any such intent.
The projects involved
In the next several years Arizona attempted, unsuccessfully, to secure enactment of legislation to authorize construction of the Central Arizona
-1-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,762,415 byte
Letter Regarding Arizona v. California
No full textLetter: From Senator Clair Engle, to Governor Edmund G. Brown, July 9, 1963, page 2Honorable Edmund G. Brown --2.
Under the Supreme Court decision, Secretary Udall is in effect made a "water master" on the Lower Colorado River, having the power not only to allocate water among the respective States but internal to those States with respect to Colorado River water. I do not believe that the Secreatary wants this responsibility. In my opinion, he would prefer to take the other course suggested by the Supreme Court: that is that the guidelines for the allocation of water in the Lower Colorado Basin in times of shortage be established by Congress.
It is my view that the guideline for the allocation of water in times of shortage should be first priority to those projects that are first in time and first in use. This has been the traditional rule in the west. If adopted here it would safeguard those projects now in existence in all the Lower Basin States. It would require any new projects to be second in priority. It would preclude the possiblity of building a new project and in times of shortage drying up one already built and in operation.
I hope that before coming to the meeting with Secretary Udall you will give careful consideration to the above suggestions with respect to California's position.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely yours,
CLAIR ENGLE
U. S. SenatorEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,263,914 byte
Memorandum on Lower Colorado River Project
No full textMemorandum: From Commissioner of Reclamation, to Assistant Secretary, Water & Power Development, Lower Colorado River Project, June 6, 1963, page 2On page 16 the descriptions of the projects listed under "Construction Priority" do not include one for the Bridge Canyon Dam and Reservoir Division, Arizona.
The annual value of benefits for Municipal and Industrial presented in the summary on page 30 should be changed to $54,000,000 to conform with the value shown on page 22. This will also require a correction of the total of the annual values from all activities shown in two places on that page and on page 6.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 2,665,299 byte
Letter on Rescheduling Meeting
No full textLetter: From Stewart Udall, to Grant Sawyer, Governor of Nevada, June 28, 1963 (carbon copy)SECRETARY OF INTERIOR
JUNE 28, 1963
OB: fm
HCO
GOVT PD
HONORABLE GRANT SAWYER
GOVERNOR OF NEVADA
CARSON CITY, NEVADA
TO AVOID SHHEDULE CONFLICTS ON PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED DATES FOR MEETING WITH ME REGARDING COLORADO RIVER PROBLEMS, I HAVE RESCHEDULED IT FOR 10:00 A.M. JULY 25, THE DAY FOLLOWING CONCLUSION OF GOVERNORS' CCONFERENCE IN MIAMI. SUGGEST ATTENDANCE BE LIMITED TO THE CHIEF
END SHEET 1
HCO Sheet 2
WATER ADVISERS OF EACH OF THE GOVERNORS AND NOT THE LITIGANTS IN RECENT COURT CASE. LETTER DETAILING THIS FOLLOWS.
STEWART L. UDALL
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
OB:fmEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,889,222 byte
Colorado Water Congress Newsletter
No full textDocument: Colorado Water Congress Newsletter, June 25, 1963, page 7-7-
Arizona over looked one point. All may be equal before the highest court in the land. But all are not equally prepared!
Southern Californians had been preparing for years for a showdown on interpretation of Colorado River documents. They had retained Northcutt Ely, a brilliant water lawyer. They had applied the contested water to beneficial use. This time the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and appointed a special master, attorney George Haight of Chicago, to hear the case. California moved at once to bring upper basin states into the suit. Arizona and the upper basin states objected. After two years of investigation, Haight recommended against bringing in the upper basin states, but said Utah and New Mexico should be made parties in their lower basin capacities. Two weeks after rendering this opinion, Haight died. He was replaced by Simon Rifkind, New York attorney and former federal judge. The Supreme Court sustained Haight's recommendation. Colorado evidently thought this ended her responsibilities in this suit. History may show that Colorado erred tragically in not having an observer assigned to this lawsuit.
The long suit finally gotunderway in San Francisco in June, 1956, following intervention by Nevada and intervention by the U.S. in behalf of lower basin Indians. Arizona got off to a bad start, fumbled the legal ball, changed lawyers in mid-stream amid much back-home criticism. Then she struggled on, in an uphill battle against the massive competence of California's lawyers and engineers.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,694,259 byte