DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is the Central Arizona Project?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is the Central Arizona Project? What Is the Central Arizona Project? It is a so-called reclamation project to take Colorado River water to land in the central part of Arizona, near Phoenix. The principal excuse advanced by the project proponents for its construc­ tion is to provide a "rescue" supply of Colorado River water to 226,000 acres of war-boom land in Arizona. On this basis the cost of such un­ precedented government "relief" is $1, 838 an acre for the irrigation features alone. Comparison with official records shows that this per-acre cost is I I 00% greater than the average for all other western reclamation projects to date. No public lands will be opened for entry to war veterans or other citizens under provisions of the project. It will be used exclusively for the benefit of present land owners. More than one-half of the land involved is owned by 420 individuals who would receive average benefits of $550,000 each, at the expense of the Nation's taxpayers. According to an official estimate made by the Secretary of the Interior, American taxpayers would be required to pay $2,075, 729 ,000 in additional taxes to subsidize the Arizona project. What the taxpayer in each state would have to pay is shown on the reverse side of this sheet. Principal construction features of the costly project are described in Senate Bill 75, now pending in Congress. They include (I) Bridge Canyon Dam and ~ower plant on the Colorado River, 120 miles above Hoover (Boulder) Dam, (2) Parker pump lift, to take irrigation water from the Colorado River near Parker Dam and Ii# it to a total height of 985 feet, (3) a 300-mile system of canals and pipe lines to deliver water for raising ordinary field crops, such as alfalfa, hay and potatoes, on Arizona lands. Strenuous attempts to get the fantastic project approved by Congress are being made by Arizona promoters in the face of the defense emergency. Construction of the huge system would consume vast quantities of critical materials ·and would add to the drain on manpower without contributing in any way to the defense effort. In peace time or in war time, the Central Arizona Project has no justifica­ tion from the standpoint of national economy or the Nation's taxpayers. Senate Bill 75, and its companion bill, H.R.1500, should be defeated. Write to your Congressman today and let him know that you are strongly op­ posed to the wasteful government spending and the higher taxes called for in those bills. COLORADO RIVER ASSOCIATION, 306 W. 3rd ST., LOS ANGELES 13, CALIF. Cost To Nation's Taxpayers-By Stafes­ Of Central Arizona Proiect ····~@~···· Official Statement By Secretary of Interior Indicates Extra Tax Burden of $2,075,729,000 for Interest Alone if Congress Approves Fantastic Proiect Bill S. 7 5 ····~@~···· State's % of Total Cost to Taxpayers State's % of Total Cost to Taxpayers State (See Note 1 below) (See Note 2 below) State (See Note 1 below) (See Note 2 below) Alabama 1.17 $ 24,286,000 New Hampshire .29 6,020,000 Arizona .37 7,680,000 New Jersey 3.29 68,291,000 Arkansas .72 14,945,000 New Mexico .28 5,812,000 California 8.32 172,701,000 New York 14.67 304,509,000 C_oh:trado.~-----·80__ _ 16,606 000 North Caroli.=n=a __ 1.59 33 004 000 Connecticut 1.67 34,665,000 North Dakota .34 7,057,000 Dclaware AO 8,303,000 Ohio 5.78 119,977,000 Florida 1.29 26,777,000 Oklahoma 1.17 24,286,000 Georgia 1.40 29,060,000 Oregon 1.04 21,588,000 Idaho .32 6,642,000 Pennsylvania 7.62 158, 171,000 Illinois 7.59 157,548,000 Rhode Island .56 11,624,000 Indiana 2.29 47,534,000 South Carolina .76 15,776,000 Iowa 1.58 32,797,000 South Dakota .36 7,473,000 Kansas 1.15 23,871,000 Tennessee 1.37 28,438,000 Kentucky 1.20 · 24,909,000 Texas 4.38 90,917,000 Louisiana 1.22 25,324,000 Utah .34 7,056,000 Maine .44 9,133,000 Vermont .18 3,736,000 Maryland 1.68 34,872,000 Virginia 1.49 30,928,000 Massachusetts 3.40 70,575,000 Washington 1.65 34,250,000 Michigan 4.71 97,767,000 West Virginia .92 19,097,000 Minnesota 1.86 38,609,000 Wisconsin 2.10 43,590,000 Mississippi .71 14,738,000 Wyoming .18 3,736,000 Missouri 2.53 52,516,000 Dist. of Columbia } 1.48 30,721,000 Montana .35 7,265,000 Hawaii and Alaska Nebraska .86 17,851,000 Nevada .13 2,698,000 U.S. TOTAL 100.00 $2,075, 729 ,000 Note 1 - Percentages of total tax burden that each state will bear were computed by the Council of State Chambers of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Note 2- Cost to the nation's taxpayers of $2,075,729,000 is an official estimate of Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary of the Interior. It is based on the provisions of S. 75 (Central Arizona Project Bill) and the following specified conditions: construction cost estimate of $708,780,000 made by the Bureau of Reclamation (Senate Report No. 832, 81 st Congress, I st Session); an interest rate of 21/i %; an eight-year construction period; and a 75 year financing period. The Secretary's statement appears in his letter dated June 28, 1950, to J. Hardin Peterson, Chairman of the House Public Lands Committee. The statement was approved by the Bureau of the Budget. These figures prove tha.t the Central Arizona Proiect will not be self-supporting, as claimed by its promoters. Actually, it will cost taxpayers of all the states BILLIONS. Spending this huge sum will not help the current National defense effort in a.ny way. Instead, it would divert and use up manpower and large supplies of steel, cement, copper and other critical ma.terials. ( See other side) ('!4'... _ 43 1-52 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • ATTACHMENT B Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower
    ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT B Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower Colorado River This attachment to the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria DEIS describes the dams and reservoirs on the main stream of the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona to Morelos Dam along the international boundary with Mexico. The role that each plays in the operation of the Colorado River system is also explained. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COLORADO RIVER DAMS AND RESERVOIRS Lake Powell to Morelos Dam The following discussion summarizes the dams and reservoirs along the Colorado River from Lake Powell to the Southerly International Boundary (SIB) with Mexico and their specific roles in the operation of the Colorado River. Individual dams serve one or more specific purposes as designated in their federal construction authorizations. Such purposes are, water storage, flood control, river regulation, power generation, and water diversion to Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico. The All-American Canal is included in this summary because it conveys some of the water delivered to Mexico and thereby contributes to the river system operation. The dams and reservoirs are listed in the order of their location along the river proceeding downstream from Lake Powell. Their locations are shown on the map attached to the inside of the rear cover of this report. Glen Canyon Dam – Glen Canyon Dam, which formed Lake Powell, is a principal part of the Colorado River Storage Project. It is a concrete arch dam 710 feet high and 1,560 feet wide. The maximum generating discharge capacity is 33,200 cfs which may be augmented by an additional 15,000 cfs through the river outlet works.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Slideshow Title TK
    The Colorado River: Lifeline of the Southwest { The Headwaters The Colorado River begins in the Rocky Mountains at elevation 10,000 feet, about 60 miles northwest of Denver in Colorado. The Path Snow melts into water, flows into the river and moves downstream. In Utah, the river meets primary tributaries, the Green River and the San Juan River, before flowing into Lake Powell and beyond. Source: Bureau of Reclamation The Path In total, the Colorado River cuts through 1,450 miles of mountains, plains and deserts to Mexico and the Gulf of California. Source: George Eastman House It was almost 1,500 years ago when humans first tapped the river. Since then, the water has been claimed, reclaimed, divided and subdivided many times. The river is the life source for seven states – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming – as well as the Republic of Mexico. River Water Uses There are many demands for Colorado River water: • Agriculture and Livestock • Municipal and Industrial • Recreation • Fish/Wildlife and Habitat • Hydroelectricity • Tribes • Mexico Source: USGS Agriculture The Colorado River provides irrigation water to about 3.5 million acres of farmland – about 80 percent of its flows. Municipal Phoenix Denver About 15 percent of Colorado River flows provide drinking and household water to more than 30 million people. These cities include: Las Vegas and Phoenix, and cities outside the Basin – Denver, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. Recreation Source: Utah Office of Tourism Source: Emma Williams Recreation includes fishing, boating, waterskiing, camping and whitewater rafting in 22 National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks and National Recreation Areas along river.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydroturbines Its All Downhill from Here…
    Hydroturbines Its all downhill from here… Maureen Hymel City of Phoenix Water Services Department Historical use of water as energy • 31 BC to 14 AD Water wheels used in Roman engineering (vertical) • 31 AD Ancient China used water wheels (horizontal) • 1500s Water wheels used for mining • 1909 USBR built its first hydroelectric plant to help build Roosevelt Dam • 1920 only 2% of energy was used to make electricity • 1937 formation of SRP Agricultural Improvement & Power District SRP Hydro Generation Watts in a name? A new frontier for old technology • Water wheel usually used for mechanical work • Hydropower • Hydrogeneration • Hydroturbine • Microturbine • Hydroelectric Power Courtesy of Doug Filer, Army Corp of Engineers Open channel vs closed pipe Vertical • Elevation change (available head) • Volume • Velocity • Load on generator Elevation change or feet of Head • 510’ Head Glen Canyon Dam (Lake Powell) 27,000,000 AF • 249’ Head Theodore Roosevelt Dam 2,910,200 AF • 72’ Head Parker Dam (Lake Havasu) 648,000 AK • 29’ Head/1400 kw South Canal (SRP Canal) • 14’ Head/ 750 kw Arizona Falls (SRP Canal) • Note: Some offshore installations work off tide water SRP Arizona Falls • 14 ft elevation change/16” pipe • 750 kilowatts • 150 homes powered City of Phoenix Water System • Service area varies 940’ to 2020’ • Pressure Zones generally 100’ elevation intervals • Water mains 2” to 108” • Storage tanks and reservoirs provide 2’ to 43’ of operating head COP Hydro-generation Studies • 1987 Energy audit at four WT plants and considered hydro-generation on gravity mains • 1991 In-line Hydro-generation Feasibility Study multiple pressure zones at 24 St WTP • 2003 COP participated with SRP to re-construct Arizona Falls • 2004 Hydro-generation potential for a new PRV station and a modified PRV at 24 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoover Dam: Evolution of the Dam’S Design
    Hoover Dam: Evolution of the Dam’s Design J. David Rogers1, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., F. ASCE 1K.F. Hasslemann Chair in Geological Engineering, Missouri University of Science & Technology, Rolla, MO 65409; [email protected] ABSTRACT: Hoover Dam was a monumental accomplishment for its era which set new standards for feasibility studies, structural analysis and behavior, quality control during construction, and post-construction performance evaluations. One of the most important departures was the congressional mandate placed upon the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to employ an independent Colorado River Board to perform a detailed review of the agency’s design and issue recommendations that significantly affected the project’s eventual form and placement. Of its own accord Reclamation also employed an independent board of consultants which convened twice yearly several years prior to and during construction of the project, between 1928 and 1935. Reclamation also appointed a special board of consultants on mass concrete issues, which had never been previously convened. Many additional landmark studies were undertaken which shaped the future of dam building. Some of these included: the employment of terrestrial photogrammetry to map the dam site and validate material quantities; insitu instrumentation of the dam’s concrete; and consensus surveys of all previous high dams to compare their physical, geologic, and hydrologic features with those proposed at Hoover Dam. The project was also unique because the federal government provided of all materials, except the concrete aggregate, to minimize risk of construction claims and delays. EARLY INVESTIGATIONS Background Investigations along the lower Colorado River which eventually led to the construction of Hoover Dam were initiated by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ca-Lower-Colorado-River-Valley-Pkwy
    I • I I I ) I I A REPORT TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ---1 I 'I I I I THE LOWER I COLORADO I RIVER I VALLEY • PARKWAY I I D- '°'le> F; 1-e. ·• NFS- ' f\CAc:.+... \ V"C. , ~ P,of>oseol I ~~~~=-'~c f~l~~c~~w I THE LOWER COLORADO I filVERVALLEYPARKWAY I I I A proposal for a National Parkway and Scenic Recreation Road System along the Lower Colorado River Valley in 'I California, Arizona, and Nevada. I NATIONAL PARK .i DENVER SEfiViC I ·-.-:. a.t ..1flkllb""ll.--';,.i. n II"~ r.· " •· \..' ;: · I ;:~::::.;.;:;.:J I I I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service I in cooperation with Lower Colorado River Office Bureau of Land Management • PLE~\SE RtTUR?j TO: I February 1969 I , lJnited States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 I I Dear Mr. President: We are pleased to transmit herewith. a report on the feasibility anc;l desirability of developing a nation~l p;;i.rkwa,y and sc;enic recreation I road system within. the Lower C9l9rado River· Vaiiey in Arizona, Califo~nia, and Nevada, from the Lake Mead National Recreation I Area and Davis Dam on the north to the International Boup.d:;i.ry ~ith Mexico on the south in: the vicinity of San Luis, Arizqna arid Mexic.o.· . ·. ' .. ·.' . ·. I This :i;eport is based on ci. study 11,'lade by the Lower Col<;>rado River Office ap.d the NatiQnal :Par~ Service pf this Depa.rtmep.t with engineerin.g assistance by the Buqlau of Public Roads of the Departmep.t of .
    [Show full text]
  • 1972 Operation of the Colorado Riyer Basin 1973 Projected 0Llcrations
    1972 Operation of the Colorado Riyer Basin 1973 Projected 0llcrations ANNUAL REPORT 1972 Operation of the Colorado River Basin 19i') Projected Ope tions (prepared pursuant to the Colorado River .Basin Project Act of 1968, Public Law 90-537) U. S. Department'of the Interior Rogers C.>B. Morton, Secretary Bureau of Reclamation Ellis L.Armstrong, Commissioner January 1973 Table of Contents Page Map - Upper Colorado and Lower Colorado River Basins ..... Inside Cover Authority for Report .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ......ii Introduction' ....... ~ ........ ... ........ .. .... .. .. .ii ActualOperations under Criteria -Water Year·1972 .....•.... 1 Upper Basin Reservoirs ..•.... ... ... ... .................2 Lower Basin Reservoirs ........... .. .............. 14 River Regulation ' 20 Beneficial Consumptive Uses 21 Upper Basin Uses >••••.••••••••••••• 21 LowerBasin Uses and Losses 21 Water Quality Control.. .. ...... .. ................ .' . .. 22 Water Quality Operationsduring Water Year 1972 .. 22 Future Water Quality Control.. .......... .. ... .. ..... .. 22 Enhancement of Fish and Wildlife ........ .. .... .. .. .. 23 Upper Basin 23 Lower Basin 23 Preservation of Environni"ent 2S Projected Plan of Operation under Criteria for Current Year 26 Determination of "602(a) Storage" .. .. ...... .. ..... .'. ..26 Lower Basin Requirements .................. .>. ........ 27 Plan of Operation Water Year 1973 ... .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .... 29 Upper Basin Reservoirs .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ..... .. .. .• .. .. 29 Lower Basin Reservoirs .... .. ...................... 33 At the end of September 1971, Blue Mesa Curee Bti Unit Reservoir had 532,300 acre-feet of active storage and a water surface elevation of 7,484 feet. During April-July 1972, inflow to Blue Mesa was 469,000 acre-feet, or about 59 percent of the long-time average. This amount of water caused the reservoir to reach a seasonal high of 7,485 feet and an active storage of 543,300 acre-feet early mJuly. During water year 1972, fishing was enhanced below Gunnison Tunnel by the flow of not less than 300 c.f.s.
    [Show full text]
  • Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area
    Salinity of Surface Water in The Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area, By BURDGE IRELAN, WATER RESOURCES OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER-SALTON SEA AREA pl. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-E . i V ) 116) P, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract El Ionic budget of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to Introduction 2 Imperial Dam, 1961-65-Continued General chemical characteristics of Colorado River Tapeats Creek E26 water from Lees Ferry to Imperial Dam 2 Havasu Creek -26 Lees Ferry . 4 Virgin River - 26 Grand Canyon 6 Unmeasured inflow between Grand Canyon and Hoover Dam 8 Hoover Dam 26 Lake Havasu 11 Chemical changes in Lake Mead --- ---- - 26 Imperial Dam ---- - 12 Bill Williams River 27 Mineral burden of the lower Colorado River, 1926-65 - 12 Chemical changes in Lakes Mohave and Havasu ___ 27 Analysis of dissolved-solids loads 13 Diversion to Colorado River aqueduct 27 Analysis of ionic loads ____ - 15 Parker Dam to Imperial Dam 28 Average annual ionic burden of the Colorado River 20 Ionic accounting of principal irrigation areas above Ionic budget of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to Imperial Dam - __ -------- 28 Imperial Dam, 1961-65 ____- ___ 22 General characteristics of Colorado River water below Lees Ferry 23 Imperial Dam Paria River 23 Ionic budgets for the Colorado River below Imperial Little Colorado River 24 Blue Springs --- 25 Dam and Gila River - 34 Unmeasured inflow from Lees Ferry to Grand Quality of surface water in the Salton Sea basin in Canyon 25 California Grand Canyon 25 Summary of conclusions 39 Bright Angel Creek 25 References ILLUSTRATIONS Page FIGURE 1 .
    [Show full text]
  • Salinity in the Colorado River Basin: Causes, Effects, and Implications
    SALINITY IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN: CAUSES, EFFECTS, AND IMPLICATIONS Nick Murphy UC Davis HSGG (Ocean Observatories Education) Note: 1 ppt = 1000 mg/L SALINITY OF THE COLORADO RIVER • Salinity increases downstream from headwaters (BoR 2013) • 600 mg/L at Glen Canyon Dam • 723 mg/L at Hoover Dam • 879 mg/L at Imperial Dam • Colorado River salt loads - • 1940-1980 – 9.3 million tons per year • 2005- present – 7.7 million tons per year • Estimated salinity damages ~$382 million annually (BoR 2017) BoR, 2013 Progress Report PROCESSES OF SALINIZATION • Salt Loading • Dissolution and leaching of salt • Main Contributors: • Inefficient irrigation/runoff • Dissolution of geologic materials • Salt Concentration • Direct: Concentrated through evaporation and transpiration • Indirect: Diversion of high-quality water WHY IS SALINITY A PROBLEM? • Agricultural Damages (El-Ashry et al. 1974, Rhoades 1984) • Decreases in yield • Legacy Salt Accumulation • Negative agricultural effects begin at TDS (total dissolved solids) of 700-850 mg/L • Infrastructure Damages • Corrosion • Precipitation blocking of pipes • Drinking Water Standards • 500 mg/L set by EPA as a Secondary Drinking Water Standard CAUSES OF SALINITY - Irrigation (Agricultural) - Natural - Municipal and Industrial - Reservoir Storage U.S. Dept. of Interior, 2003 AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION • Inefficient irrigation practices leads to leaching of salts from the root zone (upper 1-2m) • Leaky water conveyance infrastructure also a contributor U.S. Dept. of Interior, 2003 NATURAL • Point and non-point sources • Non-point: Diffuse contributions of low-conc. sources (non-agricultural soil and geologic formation contributions) • Saline aquifers overlying Mancos Shale unit (Gardner and Young, 1988) • Point Sources: high-conc. sources (springs, salt domes) (BoR, 2017) • Examples: Glenwood-Dotsero Springs Unit, Paradox Valley Unit RESERVOIR STORAGE - Increased evaporation occurs in reservoirs - Measured examples (Paulson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERIOR REPORTS PLANS READY for AERIAL FISH PLANTING in LAKE POWELL--May 19, 1963
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR FISH ANDWILDLIFE SERVICE Interior 5634 For Release MAY 19, 1963 INTERIORREPORTS PLANS READY FOR AERIAL FISH PLANTINGIN LAKE POWELL Tomorrow an airplane will take off from the airstrip at Page, Arizona, on a mission of interest to every fisherman in the Nation--a major step in the Depart- ment of the Interior's development of a huge recreational area in several Rocky Mountain States. The plane will be equipped with a special tank containing 500 pounds of two- inch rainbow trout and enough water to assure survival on their journey. A few minutes from Page as the plane flies, but days of hard travel on the ground, the plane will dip low over the lake being formed by the Colorado River behind newly completed Glen Canyon Dam, and the pilot will pull a lever dropping fish and water into the depths of Lake Powell. When he completes his six trips for that day, he will have placed one million fingerling trout in the new reservoir-- trout from the new Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery Arizona, downstream from Boulder City, Nevada, operated by the Fish and Wildlife Service's Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. On Wednesday, the same plane will again make six trips into the spectacularly beautiful capon of the upper Colorado to plant another million rainbows, these from the Williams Creek and Alchesay National Fish Hatcheries in eastern Arizona. Two days later, another million little trout from the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery will take the short air trip up into the canyon to find their homes in the rapidly forming lake.
    [Show full text]
  • QUAGGA and ZEBRA MUSSEL SIGHTINGS DISTRIBUTION in the WESTERN UNITED STATES 2007 - 2009 ") Indicates Presence of Quagga Mussels ") Indicates Presence of Zebra Mussels
    QUAGGA AND ZEBRA MUSSEL SIGHTINGS DISTRIBUTION IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 2007 - 2009 ") indicates presence of quagga mussels ") indicates presence of zebra mussels NEVADA Lake Mead - January 2007 Lake Mohave - January 2007 CALIFORNIA Parker Dam - January 2007 Colorado River Aqueduct - March 2007 Washington Colorado RA at Hayfield - July 2007 Lake Matthews - August 2007 Lake Skinner - August 2007 Dixon Reservoir - August 2007 Lower Otay Reservoir - August 2007 Montana San Vicente Reservoir - August 2007 North Dakota ") Murray Reservoir - September 2007 ") ")") ")") Lake Miramar - December 2007 Oregon ")") Sweetwater Reservoir - December 2007 ") San Justo Lake - January 2008 ") El Capitan Reservoir - January 2008 Idaho ") ")")")") Lake Jennings - April 2008 ")")")")") Olivenhain Reservoir - March 2008 South Dakota ")") Irvine Lake - April 2008 ") Rattlesnake Reservoir - May 2008 Lake Ramona - March 2009 Wyoming ")") Walnut Canyon Reservoir - July 2009 ") Kraemer Basin - September 2009 ") Anaheim Lake - September 2009 ") Nebraska ARIZONA ") Lake Havasu - January 2007 Nevada ") ") Central Arizona Project Canal - August 2007 ") Lake Pleasant - December 2007 ") ")") Imperial Dam - February 2008 Utah Salt River - October 2008 ") ") ") ")") COLORADO Colorado Kansas Pueblo Reservoir - January 2008 ") ") ")")") Lake Granby - July 2008 California ")")")")")") ") ")") Grand Lake - September 2008 ")")")")")")") ")") Willow Creek Reservoir - September 2008 ")")")")")") ") Shadow Mountain Reservoir - September 2008 ") ") ") ")")") Jumbo Lake - October
    [Show full text]
  • Western Area Power Administration Desert Southwest Region's
    FINAL Western Area Power Administration Desert Southwest Region’s Facilities Historic Context Statement Edited by Lisa M. Meyer September 2014 FINAL Western Area Power Administration Desert Southwest Region’s Facilities Historic Context Edited by Lisa M. Meyer September 2014 DSW Region’s Facilities Historic Context Statement CONTENTS Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................. 1-1 Data Sources Consulted ......................................................................................................... 1-5 Current Document ................................................................................................................. 1-8 2. Statement of Context Part 1: DSW Region’s Transmission Power Systems………………………………………… ...................................................................................... 2-1 Temporal Context .................................................................................................................. 2-1 Geographic Context ............................................................................................................... 2-1 Historic Context ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]