DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Budgets of the Walker River Basin and Walker Lake, California and Nevada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Budgets of the Walker River Basin and Walker Lake, California and Nevada Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Water Budgets of the Walker River Basin and Walker Lake, California and Nevada Evaporation ET by other than ET by other than riparian vegetation riparian vegetation Evaporation Precipitation Riparian, Diversions Diversions Local other ET Riparian ET Precipitation Pumpage Riparian and runoff saltcedar ET Return Pumpage flow Pumpage Walker River inflow Weber Walker River outflow Reservoir Walker Lake Subsurface Stream Recharge discharge infiltration Subsurface Stream Induced discharge infiltration recharge Induced recharge Subsurface Subsurface inflow flow Subsurface outflow to Wabuska lineament Subsurface outflow to Double Spring Wabuska–Schurz Reach Schurz–Lake Reach Walker Lake Reach Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5157 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Photographs from left to right: Left: Alfalfa field in Antelope Valley, Nevada and California, with the Sweetwater Range in the background, May 31, 2006. Middle: Sacks filled with onions during the 2006 autumn harvest, Pete Hendrichs Road, Mason Valley, Nevada, October 13, 2006. Right: View from Walker Lake looking southwest at Mount Grant, Nevada, February 28, 2005. (Photographs taken by Thomas J. Lopes, U.S. Geological Survey.) Diagram: Water budget components for the lower Walker River basin, Nevada. The length of the arrow indicates the relative amount of flow. The Walker Lake reach includes surrounding riparian and phreatophytic vegetation and the town of Walker Lake. Water Budgets of the Walker River Basin and Walker Lake, California and Nevada By Thomas J. Lopes and Kip K. Allander Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5157 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Lopes, T.J., and Allander, K.K., 2009, Water budgets of the Walker River basin and Walker Lake, California and Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5157, 44 p. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................2 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2 Description of the Walker River Basin ..............................................................................................2 Physiography ................................................................................................................................6 Climate ...........................................................................................................................................9 Native, Invasive, and Agricultural Vegetation ........................................................................9 Population ...................................................................................................................................11 Previous Investigations......................................................................................................................11 Methods.........................................................................................................................................................13 Precipitation Normals ........................................................................................................................13 Streamflow Normals at Gaging Stations ........................................................................................15 Streamflow Normals at Ungaged Drainages .................................................................................19 Correction to Evapotranspiration Rates ..........................................................................................23 Upper Walker River Basin Surface-Water Budgets ................................................................................................................25 Antelope Valley ...................................................................................................................................25 Smith Valley .........................................................................................................................................26 Bridgeport Valley ................................................................................................................................27 East Fork of the Walker River ...........................................................................................................28 Mason Valley .......................................................................................................................................28 Lower Walker River Basin Water Budgets ................................................................................................................................28 Wabuska to Schurz Reach ................................................................................................................30 Overall Water Budget ...............................................................................................................30 Groundwater Budget .................................................................................................................34 Schurz to Walker Lake Reach ..........................................................................................................35 Overall Water Budget ...............................................................................................................35 Groundwater Budget .................................................................................................................37 Walker Lake .........................................................................................................................................38 Summary........................................................................................................................................................41 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................42 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................42 iv Figures Figure 1. Map showing locations of selected features in the Walker River basin, California and Nevada …………………………………………………………… 3 Figure 2. Photograph showing view looking north from the southwestern end of Walker Lake, Nevada …………………………………………………………… 4 Figure 3. Graph showing lake-surface altitude and dissolved-solids concentrations of Walker Lake, Nevada, from 1882 through September 30, 2008 …………………… 4 Figure 4. Photograph showing vew looking upstream and southwest at the streamflow-gaging station Walker River near Wabuska, Nevada. ……………… 5 Figure 5. Photograph showing Bridgeport Valley, California, looking south from Highway 395 towards the Twin Lakes area and 12,000-foot peaks of the Sierra Nevada. …………………………………………………………………… 5 Figure 6. Photograph showing riparian vegetation along the Walker River between the Wabuska gage and Weber Reservoir, Nevada …………………………………… 6 Figure 7. Photograph showing vew looking south at Walker Lake from the mouth of the Walker River, Nevada ………………………………………………………… 7 Figure 8. Photograph showing view from northeastern Smith Valley looking southwest towards Artesia Lake and the Pine Nut Range, Nevada ………………………… 7 Figure 9. Photograph showing view from Walker Lake looking southwest at Mount Grant, Nevada …………………………………………………………………… 8 Figure 10. Photograph showing view from Walker Lake looking east at a thunderstorm over the Gillis Range, Nevada …………………………………………………… 8 Figure 11. Map showing distribution of 88,600 acres of irrigated land in the Walker River basin, California and Nevada, during the 2000 growing season …………… 10 Figure 12. Map showing distribution of precipitation in the Walker River basin, California and Nevada …………………………………………………………… 14 Figure 13. Map showing locations of stream gages in the Walker River basin, California and Nevada ……………………………………………………………………… 16 Figure 14. Map and table showing locations of drainages in California and Nevada that were used to estimate runoff from ungaged drainages in the Walker River basin ……………………………………………………………………………… 20 Figure 15. Graphs showing predicted compared to observed 1971–2000 streamflow normals and constrained regressions compared to observed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan
    Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan El Dorado and Placer Counties, California and Douglas and Washoe Counties, and Carson City, Nevada September 2007 Prepared by: Lake Tahoe Response Plan Area Committee (LTRPAC) Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan September 2007 If this is an Emergency… …Involving a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other contaminants impacting public health and/or the environment Most important – Protect yourself and others! Then: 1) Turn to the Immediate Action Guide (Yellow Tab) for initial steps taken in a hazardous material, petroleum product, or other contaminant emergency. First On-Scene (Fire, Law, EMS, Public, etc.) will notify local Dispatch (via 911 or radio) A complete list of Dispatch Centers can be found beginning on page R-2 of this plan Dispatch will make the following Mandatory Notifications California State Warning Center (OES) (800) 852-7550 or (916) 845-8911 Nevada Division of Emergency Management (775) 687-0300 or (775) 687-0400 National Response Center (800) 424-8802 Dispatch will also consider notifying the following Affected or Adjacent Agencies: County Environmental Health Local OES - County Emergency Management Truckee River Water Master (775) 742-9289 Local Drinking Water Agencies 2) After the Mandatory Notifications are made, use Notification (Red Tab) to implement the notification procedures described in the Immediate Action Guide. 3) Use the Lake Tahoe Basin Maps (Green Tab) to pinpoint the location and surrounding geography of the incident site. 4) Use the Lake and River Response Strategies (Blue Tab) to develop a mitigation plan. 5) Review the Supporting Documentation (White Tabs) for additional information needed during the response.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Water Resource Plan | May 2018 Final
    AMERICAN RIVER BASIN Storm Water Resource Plan | May 2018 Final Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board using funds from Proposition 1. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the foregoing, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. American River Basin Storm Water Resource Plan – Final Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Intent and Content ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 2 2.0 WATERSHED IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................... 3 2.1 Watershed Boundaries (IRWMP Section 2.1) ..................................................................... 3 2.2 Internal Boundaries (IRWMP Sections 2.2, 2.8, & 2.9) ...................................................... 5 2.3 Water and Environmental Resources (IRWMP Sections 2.6.2, 2.6.3, & 2.8) ................. 11 2.4 Natural Watershed Processes (IRWMP Sections 2.6.1, 2.6.2, & 2.6.3) ........................... 13 2.5 Watershed Issues and Priorities (IRWMP Sections 2.6.2, 2.7 to 2.9, & Apdx. B) .........
    [Show full text]
  • State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES JASON KING, P.E. STATE ENGINEER ANTELOPE VALLEY (HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN 9-106) GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE INVENTORY WATER YEAR 2010 By: Brandy Cardona, NDWR TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 1 HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................ 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ..................................................................................... 3 HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1. Location Map of Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin 9-106 ............................... 4 Table 1. USGS Stream Flow Measurements .......................................................................... 4 GROUNDWATER LEVELS ......................................................................................................... 5 METHODS TO ESTIMATE PUMPAGE ...................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Location Map of Antelope Valley Groundwater Level-Monitoring Network ....... 6 PUMPAGE BY MANNER OF USE .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology
    EXHIBIT 89 The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology Dr. Saxon E. Sharpe, Dr. Mary E. Cablk, and Dr. James M. Thomas Desert Research Institute May 2007 Revision 01 May 2008 Publication No. 41231 DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE DRI Publication Number: 41231 Initial Issue Date: May 2007 Document Title: The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology Author(s): Dr. Saxon E. Sharpe, Dr. Mary E. Cablk, and Dr. James M. Thomas Revision History Revision # Date Page, Paragraph Description of Revision 0 5/2007 N/A Initial Issue 1.1 5/2008 Title page Added revision number 1.2 “ ii Inserted Document Change Notice 1.3 “ iv Added date to cover photo caption 1.4 “ vi Clarified listed species definition 1.5 “ viii Clarified mg/L definition and added WRPT acronym Updated lake and TDS levels to Dec. 12, 2007 values here 1.6 “ 1 and throughout text 1.7 “ 1, P4 Clarified/corrected tui chub statement; references added 1.8 “ 2, P2 Edited for clarification 1.9 “ 4, P2 Updated paragraph 1.10 “ 8, Figure 2 Updated Fig. 2007; corrected tui chub spawning statement 1.11 “ 10, P3 & P6 Edited for clarification 1.12 “ 11, P1 Added Yardas (2007) reference 1.13 “ 14, P2 Updated paragraph 1.14 “ 15, Figure 3 & P3 Updated Fig. to 2007; edited for clarification 1.15 “ 19, P5 Edited for clarification 1.16 “ 21, P 1 Updated paragraph 1.17 “ 22, P 2 Deleted comma 1.18 “ 26, P1 Edited for clarification 1.19 “ 31-32 Clarified/corrected/rearranged/updated Walker Lake section 1.20
    [Show full text]
  • Toiyabe Forest Plan Vista Towers Comm Site Amendment
    DECISION NOTICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Vista Towers Communications Project USDA Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Bridgeport Ranger District Mono County, California and Douglas County, Nevada Background Communications sites are one of the special uses recognized in the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1986). New communications sites on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are required to be designated as such in the LRMP, as required by Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, Chapter 90. The Forest Service has been given direction from the President and Congress to facilitate implementation of the Nation's strategy for wireless communications. • Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771) authorizes the use of National Forest System lands for telecommunications uses. • On August 1 0, 1995, President Clinton released a memorandum entitled "Facilitating Access to Federal Property for the Siting of Mobile Services Antennas." The memorandum requires, upon request, and to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, that executive departments and agencies make available, Federal Government buildings and lands for the siting of mobile service antennas. • The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332), Section 704(c) requires Federal agencies to facilitate the development and placement of telecommunications equipment on buildings and land they manage, when placement does not conflict with the agency's mission or current
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Sierra Fall Color
    Quick Fall Facts When and How to Get Here WHY OUR FALL COLOR SEASON FIND OUT WHEN TO “GO NOW!” GOES ON AND ON AND ON See detailed fall color reporting at The Eastern Sierra’s varied elevations — from www.CaliforniaFallColor.com approximately 5,000 to 10,000 feet (1,512 to 3,048 m) Follow the Eastern Sierra on Facebook: — means the trees peak in color at different times. Mono County (VisitEasternSierra) Bishop Creek, Rock Creek, Virginia Lakes and Green Mammoth Lakes (VisitMammoth) Creek typically turn color first (mid-to late September), Bishop Chamber of Commerce (VisitBishop) with Mammoth Lakes, McGee Creek, Bridgeport, Conway Summit, Sonora and Monitor passes peaking next (late September), and finally June Lake Loop, Lundy Canyon, Lee Vining Canyon, Convict Lake and the West Walker River offering a grand finale from FLY INTO AUTUMN! the first to third week of October. The City of Bishop From any direction, the drive to the shows color into early November. Eastern Sierra is worth it…but the flight connecting through LAX to Mammoth Yosemite Airport is TREE SPECIES possibly more spectacular and gets you here faster: Trees that change color in the Eastern Sierra www.AlaskaAir.com include aspen, cottonwood and willow. LIKE CLOCKWORK NEED HELP PLANNING YOUR TRIP? Ever wonder how Eastern Sierra leaves know CONTACT US: to go from bright green to gold, orange and russet Bishop Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Center as soon as the calendar hits mid-September? Their 760-873-8405 www.BishopVisitor.com cue is actually from the change in air temperature 690 N.
    [Show full text]
  • East Walker River Watershed Assessment
    East Walker River Watershed Assessment March 2012 Contributors and Acknowledgements Assessment and plan written by Rick Kattelmann Ph.D., retired hydrologist who specialized in watershed management and snow hydrology. He worked and contracted for a variety of agencies, public utilities, and conservation groups. Rick was the principal hydrologist for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project in the mid-1990s and authored more than 150 scientific and technical papers. He served two terms on the Mono County Planning Commission and wrote watershed assessments for the other principal watersheds of Mono County. Rick holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in forestry and watershed hydrology at U.C. Berkeley and a Ph.D. in snow hydrology from U.C. Santa Barbara. Assessment and plan production managed by Eastern Sierra Land Trust: Aaron Johnson, Lands Director, Heather Freeman, Office Coordinator, Karen Ferrell-Ingram, Executive Director Assistance with cartographic design and spatial analysis: Kimberly Forkner Funders/Support: Funding for this project has been provided by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, an agency of the State of California. The maps and cartographic products included in this report were made possible through a generous grant of the ArcGIS software by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) through the ESRI Conservation Program. Disclaimer Watershed Assessments are a snapshot in time of a location, synthesizing all the known information concerning that area. Omissions, errors, an d misunderstandings can occur. The authors request that corrections, additions, and suggestions be sent to the address below. Eastern Sierra Land Trust P.O. Box 755 Bishop, CA 93515 East Walker River Watershed Assessment Table of Contents Contributors and Acknowledgements ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving the Grand Canyon Watershed a Proposal for National Monument Designation
    Conserving the Grand Canyon Watershed A Proposal for National Monument Designation r! Photo: Marti&v& w, Kaibab Plateau, north rim of tlx Grand Canyon, Arizona 02010 GCWC WIL L1N COUNCIL W1DERNESS cnCtotr- Conserving the Grand Canyon Watershed A Proposal for National Monument Designation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A 12,000-year Human Record A Unique Landscape The proposed Monument holds lands of great signifi- Ranging from the arid Sonoran and Great Basin Des- cance to the Kaibab Paiute tribe, as well as Hopi, Zuni, erts to lush, boreal Rocky Mountain forests, the proposed Hualapi, Havasupai, and Navajo tribes, and was home Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument is an eco- to the Clovis, Basketmaker, and Puebloan peoples. More logical wonder. The proposed Monument embraces one than three thousand ancient Native American archaeo- of the most spectacular American landscapes— the Grand logical sites have been documented in the region, repre- Canyon— and encompasses a wild, rugged array of tower- senting just a fraction of the human history of the area. ing cliffs, deeply incised tributary canyons, grasslands, Ranging from settlements or habitations, to temporary and numerous springs that flow into the Colorado River camps, granaries and caches, and rock art, some of the in Grand Canyon. Unique geologic formations contribute sites date from as far back as the Paleo- Indian period— substantially to the proposed Monument' s spectacular 11, 000 BCE. biological diversity, with escarpments and canyons dating Kanab Creek falls within the traditional territory of back millions ofyears. At least twenty-two sensitive species call " Certain [ lanad] of theforest redereee dhoula the landscape home, including the endangered California condor and also be made predereed for the wigforest the rare northern goshawk.
    [Show full text]
  • MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Community Wildfire Protection Plan
    MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared for: Mono County Mammoth Lakes, California Submitted By: Anchor Point Group Boulder, Colorado May, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN AND THE HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT..................................2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .....................................................................................................................................3 COLLABORATION: COMMUNITY / AGENCIES / COUNCILS.......................................................................4 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................5 VALUES.....................................................................................................................................................................10 RECREATION AND LIFESTYLE ..................................................................................................................................10 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ..................................................................................................................................10 CURRENT RISK SITUATION.......................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Data on Ground-Water Quality, Carson Valley and Topaz Lake Areas, Douglas County, Nevada, for Year Ending September 1987
    Data on Ground-Water Quality, Carson Valley and Topaz Lake Areas, Douglas County, Nevada, For Year Ending September 1987 By Carl E. Thodal U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 90-146 Prepared in cooperation with DOUGLAS COUNTY Carson City, Nevada 1992 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information Copies of this report may be write to: purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Room 227, Federal Building Books and Open-File Reports Section 705 North Plaza Street Federal Center Carson City, NV 89701 Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 jnt roduct ion ______ ________ _______ _______________ ^ Methods and materials used 4 Water quality data 10 References cited ^^ ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map showing location of study area 2 2-6. Maps showing location of monitoring wells: 2. In Carson Valley, Double Spring Flat, and rn » i H T -s '\~ __, o v^ o o ««*»_«*»_«*»«*»««*»«*»«*.«*»«*»««*»«*»««*»«*»«*»«*»_.« _«*»«*» -»«*»««*»___«. £ J. \J£S& ^.LJClJx^2clX.s2clO D 3. Where State primary drinking-water standards TkT^WCX.C v*d CAOCCUcU^ v/*»^^/"^^/"? «« « « « «_________ « « « « « _««.«.« « « « « « «.« _«___ «_>^« «.« « «.«.«___ « «w j^j^T T 4. Where State secondary drinking-water standards were exceeded ±.2. 5. Where indicator fecal bacteria were detected 13 6. Where manmade organic compounds were detected 14 7. Map showing dissolved radon-222 activities measured in water samples from monitoring wells 15 TABLES Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Indicator Species of the Kaibab National Forest: an Evaluation of Population and Habitat Trends Version 3.0 2010
    Management Indicator Species of the Kaibab National Forest: an evaluation of population and habitat trends Version 3.0 2010 Isolated aspen stand. Photo by Heather McRae. Pygmy nuthatch. Photo by the Smithsonian Inst. Pumpkin Fire, Kaibab National Forest Mule deer. Photo by Bill Noble Red-naped sapsucker. Photo by the Smithsonian Inst. Northern Goshawk © Tom Munson Tree encroachment, Kaibab National Forest Prepared by: Valerie Stein Foster¹, Bill Noble², Kristin Bratland¹, and Roger Joos³ ¹Wildlife Biologist, Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office ²Forest Biologist, Kaibab National Forest, Supervisor’s Office ³Wildlife Biologist, Kaibab National Forest, Williams Ranger District Table of Contents 1. MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 4 Regulatory Background ...................................................................................................... 8 Management Indicator Species Population Estimates ...................................................... 10 SPECIES ACCOUNTS ................................................................................................ 18 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ...................................................................................... 18 Cinnamon Teal .......................................................................................................... 21 Northern Goshawk ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bat Survey: Scientists Find Variety of Species, Page 3
    Award winning! Bat survey: Scientists find variety of species, page 3 Winter 2014 Bi-state compact to preserve Tahoe STEPS TOWARD REVITALIZATION turns 45 years old Staff Report Redevelopment projects expected to aid environment, economy The partnership between California and Nevada that created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency By Devin Middlebrook (TRPA) turned 45 years old in Tahoe Regional Planning Agency December 2014 and is approaching a half-century of progress in the protection and restoration of Lake Lake Tahoe’s communities have struggled Tahoe and its treasured environment. for decades from environmental, economic, and President Richard Nixon signed social pressures. The advent of Native American the bi-state compact to create the gaming throughout Northern California drove TRPA on Thursday, Dec. 18, 1969. massive casino job losses, which were compounded Nixon’s signature in the Oval Office followed the compact’s ratification by the recent recession. To many, a visible clue by Congress, approval by both was the number of run-down or vacant buildings states’ legislatures, and signatures of around the Lake. Many of these buildings were former governors Ronald Reagan in constructed in the 1960s, prior to the Tahoe Regional California and Paul Laxalt in Nevada. Planning Agency being established, during a period U.S. Sen. Alan Bible (D-Nev.) of rampant growth with a lack of development introduced legislation to approve the bi-state compact in Congress. Bible regulations. Fifty years later, as the recession took called Nixon’s signature of the bill hold, the Region looked tired and in disrepair. “the best news possible for those Times are changing.
    [Show full text]