DOCSLIB.ORG

064688982.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
064688982.Pdf THE METRO R DISTRICT 33 MAILINGADDRESS POSTOFFICE BOX 54153 LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90054 OFFICE OF PHONE624.9261 GENERALCOUNSEL April 10, 1967 AREACODE 213 FILED by order of the Board of D~rectcrs of The Me~ropo~ftan Vkd.~r D~r~ct Board of Directors ~ ~, , 0~ .)3uL~ern.u, ~ The Metropolitan Water District of SouthernCalifornia tsi~e~gh&d...AP.R i.jL :1i67 B u i 1 d i n g .±‘~-~-~ Execu~ve Gentlemen: Secretary Report on Colorado River Basin ProjectLegislation During the week of March 13, 1967 the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the House Committee on Interior and InsularAffairs held four days of publichearings in Washington, D.C. on legislation that would authorize a Colorado River Basin Project (CRBP), including the CentralArizonaProject (c1P), and establish a National Water Commission. The GeneralCounsel de scribed this legislation in detail to your Board in letters dated February 13 and March 10, 1967, copies of which were sent to all Directors. The HydrographicEngineer, two members of the Legal staff, and the LegislativeRepresentative in Washington, D.C., attended the hearings on behalf of Metropolitan. The Subcommittee is not expected to take any formal action on the bills until next month. The SenateSubcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Interior and InsularAffairs has set hearings on Colorado River Basin Projectlegislation for the week of May 1, 1967 in Washington, D.C. The Subcommitteereceivedtestimony from representatives of each of the Colorado River Basin states, the Secretary of the Interior, the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles,conservationistorganizations, and variousindividuals. A synopsis of this testimony is attached. The majority of the materialsubmittedduring the hear ings had previously been submitted to the Subcommitteeduring hearings on this same type of legislation, held in 1965 and 1966. The GeneralCounselreportedthosehearings in letters to your Board dated September 13, 1965 and June 13, 1966, copies of which were sent to all Directors. Board of Directors — Page Two New materialcovered at the recenthearingsinvolved alternative power proposals by the Secretary of the Interior and the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los.Angeles. .The Secretary’sproposal would substitute a $92 million prepaidpurchase of thermal power for pumpingwaterto.Central Arizona, in place of new Colorado Riverhydropowerdevelopments at Bridge and MarbleCanyons. The Secretarywouldpurchase this power from a steam—electric plant that would be built, owned and operated by non—federalutilitiesassociated with WesternEnergy Supply and TransmissionAssociates (WEST),probably in Northeastern Arizona. The staff is currentlyattempting to accumulatesufficient information to adequatelyreview this proposal. The City’spumpedstoragehydropowerproposal for Hualapai (BridgeCanyon) Dam represented the major new development of. the hearings. This proposal would more than triple the generating capacity of. the proposedHualapaipowerplant,raising it from 1500 megawatts, to 5000 megawatts by utilizing a combinedhydro—pumped storagepeakingplant incorporatingreversible pump turbines. In addition, the Federalinvestment could be reduced about 50 percent if the power plant and transmission lines were financed by non— federalutilities. However, the City’stestimonyemphasized that authorization was necessarywithin the next ten to twelvemonths in order to realize the economies of scale available by orderly integration with other plannedcapacities and transmissionfacili ties. Prelimina~ryreview by Metropolitan’s staff indicates that thetCity’sproposal would be more feasible than the Bureau of Reclamation’soriginal BridgeCanyonproposal. On April 5, 1967, the Colorado River Board of Californiaadopted a resolution, attachedhereto, supporting the City’sproposal. Subsequent to the hearings, the Eel River Association sub mitted a. statement for the hearingsrecordrequesting the Committee to considerCalifornia’s North Coast as the initial source of water to be developed to offset the prospectiveshortages in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Similarproposals had been urged during the hearings by Wyoming, Utah and Arizona, and, on April 4, Utah’s Senator Moss introduced a new Colorado River Basin Project bill (S. 1409) that would authorize a feasibilityreport for a project to import 4.5 maf from California’s North Coast, 2 maf for uses enroute and 2.5 maf for satisfaction of the MexicanWater Treaty and Lower Basin losses. Because of the significance of this proposal to Cali fornia, the CaliforniaAdvisoryCommittee on WesternStates Water Planning has scheduled a publichearing in Sacramento on April 18, to collect and coordinatevarious views within the State. Since this proposalinvolvesMetropolitan’sinterest in both the..State Water Plan and the ColoradoRiver, it appearsdesirable that Met ropolitananalyze it closelywith a view to presenting a statement at the April 18 hearing. Board of Directors — Page Three A Federalexport of water from California’s North Coast (e.g., Eel, Kiamath and TrinityWatersheds) might involve a con flict with the obligation of the State of California to develop water from those sources to maintain the suppliesrequired for servicing the existingwater contracts,includingMetropolitan, which the State has entered into pursuant to the authority of the Burns—Porter Act. In view of this possibility, it may also be desirable that Metropolitanpresent a statement at the forthcoming Senatehearingsregarding this provision of Senator Moss’ bill. Another new development in the hearings was a renewal of the conflictbetweenArizona and California over protection for California’sexistingworks against the CPJ~P when water supply shortagesoccur. In the previous two hearingsbefore the House Subcommittee,Arizona had agreed to an annualprotection of 4.4 maf for Californiaagainst the C2~P. In the recenthearings, how ever, Arizonaopposed a 4.4 maf Californiaprotection,arguing that such a protection puts too much of the burden of augmenting the Colorado River water supply on Arizona, and observing that such shortages should not occur until the 1990’s. Efforts to resolve the conflict over protecting Cali fornia’sexisting uses have developed in several areas. Some of the compromiseproposals that have been informallyproposed are: (1) reduceCalifornia’sprotection to 3.850 maf and supply Met ropolitan with an additional 0.550 maf of exchangewater from California’s North Coast; (2) divide the risks of shortage so that the C~P bears the first~0.400 maf of shortage, and California and the C2~P bear the next 0.400 maf of shortageequa1~1y; and (3) terminateCalifornia’s 4.4 maf protection after 35 years. In addition to their opposition to a 4.4 maf protection for California’sexisting uses, Arizona also urged increasing the size of the CAP aqueduct to 3000 cfs (2.0 maf annualcapacity). The Bureau of Reclamation’soriginal CAP proposalprovided only for an 1800 cfs (1.2 maf) aqueduct, and SenatorKuchel and Congress man Hosmer have retained this limitation in their respectivebills, S. 861 and H.R. 6271. ChairmanAspinall and the Secretary of the Interior have proposed an increase to 2500 cfs (1.6 maf). Recent studies by the Colorado River Board of Californiaindicate that an increase of the CAP aqueduct to 2500 cfs might be detrimental to California and Metropolitan. One item of major interest to Metropolitan that was not discussed in detail at the hearings was the use of the Hoover power revenueswhichwould accrue after the costs of that facility have been repaid in 1987. Since those revenues will be provided by powerusers in SouthernCalifornia, it appearshighlyunfair that they be used to subsidize the CAP. Californiaagreedduring Board of Directors — Page Four last year’snegotiationsonH.R. 4671 to utilize these revenues in conjunction with those from the proposedHualapai and MarbleCanyon Dams to financeaugmentation of the Lower.~Colorado River Basin’s water supply. However, if the Congress does not authorizeeither Hualapai or MarbleCanyonDams, Metropolitanshould urge pro visionsprotectingHoover power revenues from use by the CP~P. An additionalelement that developedduring the hear ings was a generalretrenchment on the types of Colorado River water augmentationstudies that would be authorized. Arizona and the Secretary have both abandonedspecificwater importationstudies and ChairmanAspinall has downgraded the studies in his bill from feasibilitystudies to reconnaissancestudies. Arizona’ssoften ing on specificimportationstudiesappearsparticularlydangerous in view of her attempts to increase the size of the CM’ aqueduct and her refusal to honor the California 4.4 maf protectionagree ment. Because of the rapid pace of developments on this legisla tion, and the vagaries of Congressionalfeelings on California’s 4.4 maf protection,Hualapai Dam, and importationstudies, it is suggested that your Board follow this matter with particular at— tentionthe next few. weeks, This office will continue to audit these~matters,including the forthcomingSenatehearings and t~ie April 18 CaliforniaAdvisoryCommitteehearing, and will report developments to your Board. Very trulyyours, /9 Charles C. Cooper, GeneralCounsel RESOLUTION COLORADO RU7ER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA April 5, 1967 The ColoradoRiver Board supports such amend ment of the pendingColorado River bills now before the Congress of the United States as may be necessary to permit the full exploration and development of the hydro pumped storagepeakingplant for Hualapai Dam and Reser voir at BridgeCanyon,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Central Arizona Project
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short 1982 Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10) 6-9-1982 The Central Arizona Project Jon Kyl Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/new-sources-of-water-for-energy- development-and-growth-interbasin-transfers Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Contracts Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Hydrology Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Transportation Law Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Kyl, Jon, "The Central Arizona Project" (1982). New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10). https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/new-sources-of-water-for-energy-development-and-growth-interbasin- transfers/21 Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Jon Kyl, The Central Arizona Project, in NEW SOURCES OF WATER FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH: INTERBASIN TRANSFERS (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 1982). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Cogjm.Pre Film 1963-09-24.Pdf (216.9Kb)
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR * * * * * * * * * * * * * ********news release BUREAU OF RECLPJ.AATION Peterson - Interior 4662 WATE For Release SEPTEMBER 24, 1963 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TO PREMIERE NEW~~IN NEVADA DURING PRESIDENT'S VISIT The world premiere of the Bureau ~lamation's new documentary motion held in- Las-Vegas, Nev .. -,--durin President Kennedy's visit there September 28, the Department of the Interior announced today. The 13!-minute 16 mm. color-and-sound film will be shown on a large screen in the Las Vegas Convention Center rotunda immediately preceding the President's address. On his way to Las Vegas during his conservation tour, the President will fly over nearby Hoover Dam, pioneer Reclamation multipurpose structure, and its reservoir, Lake Mead, for an aerial inspection. The dam and reservoir, along with Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell, 370 miles upstream, are featured in the film. "Clear Water on the Colorado 11 presents spectacular scenes of the once-muddy and almost inaccessible Colorado River in the canyons of Arizona and southern Utah, now desilted and cleared by Glen Canyon Dam which began storing water March 13, 1963. The film portrays the miracle of a silt-free Colorado River between the headwaters of Lake Mead and the headwaters of Lake Powell. The film points out that Glen Canyon Dam--topped out September 13, 1963, has desilted and cleared the Colorado River just as did Hoover Dam downstream 28 years ago. A tremendous load of sediment, varying from 24 to 270 million tons in different years, has been deposited at the head of Lake Mead since Hoover Dam was closed in 1935.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Southwest Water Plan
    United States Department of the Interior Stewart L. Udall, Secretary Pacific Southwest b WATER PLAN = REPOR January 1964 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Floyd E. Dominy, Commissioner UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON 25, D. C. January 21, 1964 8URE#U OF RECLAMATlON The Secretary LOWER COLORAOO REGION LIBRARY of the Int,erior Sir: On November 6, 1963, you directed me to supervise the preparation of a revised report to the President and the Congress proposing, on a regional basis, a plan of action designed to deal constructively with the acute water problems of the Pacific Southwest. The attached report of the Commissioner of Reclamation, in which I concur, was prepared under my direction. As you directed, we have been responsive to the views of the affected States, wherever possible. We have maintained coordination with other divisions of the Department, and considered the views of other Federal agencies. The report outlines a plan of action designed to meet the immediate and long-range water needs of the Pacific Southwest, defined in this report as the water service area of the Lower Colorado River Basin including southern California. It presents an initial plan for approval. We recommend prompt authorization of those features of the initial plan for which adequate engineering and economic investi- gations have been completed. Approval of the basic plan and authorization pf the recommended features will start the Pacific Southwest on the road back to water sufficiency. In 1930 the population of the Pacific Southwest was 3-1/2 million. In 1960 it had grown to 10-1/2 million.
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Demands for the Colorado River
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 1985 Competing Demands for the Colorado River David H. Getches University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, International Law Commons, Legal History Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Citation Information David H. Getches, Competing Demands for the Colorado River, 56 U. COLO. L. REV. 413 (1985), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1027. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. David H. Getches, Competing Demands for the Colorado River, 56 U. COLO. L. REV. 413 (1985). Reprinted with permission of the University of Colorado Law Review, William S. Hein & Co., Inc., and the David H. Getches family. +(,121/,1( Citation: 56 U. Colo. L. Rev. 413 1984-1985 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Feb 29 13:56:07 2012 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Colorado River Commission November 8
    .~· . PACIFIC SOUTHWEST -vv ATER PLAN A DIGEST with COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Staff: Upper Colorado Rive r Commission November 8, 1963 ( \ COLORADO RIVER N E A 0 A 0 ""' (' ""' IAMtfkY~/ ~ < "' "'-· / .... " 0 -i> z ... E w 1- / E X c 0 ..... - .~:.--- ,_j' '-... E X c 0 SfAl [ (7' C Al,.I F()fi'HtA THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN Upper Colorado River Commission Staff November 8, 1963 I. INTRODUCTION The following statement is based upon an examination of the report on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan that was released by the Secretary of the Interior on August 26, 1963. Comments, opinions or suggestions have been prepared for the purpose of raising questions and aiding in evaluating the proposed Pacific Southwest Water Plan from the standpoint of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The four Upper Division States, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, should be interested in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan (PSWP) because anything that.affects the development of the water resources in one of the Compact-created Basins of the Colorado River could have effects of some nature on the other Basin. Although we are primarily interested in the development of the water and land resources of the Upper Basin and its future destiny we must carefully analyze any resources development plans of the Lower Basin in order to ascertain their possible effects on the future of our Upper Basin. In making our analyses we should strive to be objective and fair, and constructive and cooperative, in spite of the questionable tactics that have been used against us in the past by certain Lower Basin entities in their attempts to forestall the authorization of the Colorado River Storage Project and participating projects.
    [Show full text]
  • 5-11-67 Series III, No. 2 Status of Colorado River From: Helene C
    From: Helene c. Monberg 1618-17th St., NW 5-11-67 Washington, D.C.,20009 series III, No. 2 202-462-1929 Status of Colorado River Washington--The Colorado River Basin States are at an impasse. Even after two weeks of hearings before the House and Senate In- terior Committees this spring and literally hundreds of thousands of hours of meetings of experts of the seven states and the federal govern- ment, they are farther apart today than they have been in the past two years on resolving outstanding problems in the Colorado River Basin. Moreover, the one point that they do agree on--that the water in the Colorado River Basin must be augmented--they are in opposition to the stand taken by the Administration and the powerful conservation groups. They want to build a dam at Bridge Canyon on the Colorado River to provide a kitty for augmenting the water supply of the overworked Colo- rado River and its tributaries. The Administration and the conserva- tionists don't. Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall shocked many of his fellow Arizonans by stating at recent Senate hearings that the Pa- cific Northwest regarded a dam at Bridge, as proposed, as "a gun point- ed at her head.·• He added that he did not expect to see a trans-basin diversion of water from the Northwest to the Southwest occur during his lifetime. The Colorado River Basin states have other problems too. At 89 sen. Carl Hayden, D-Ariz., chief sponsor of the Senate version of Colo- rado Basin legislation, will not be able to carry the battle for Arizo- na as he has in the past.
    [Show full text]
  • Polishing the Jewel
    Polishing the Jewel An Administra ti ve History of Grand Canyon Na tional Pa rk by Michael F.Anderson GRA N D CA N YO N A S S OC I ATI O N Grand Canyon Association P.O. Box 399 Grand Canyon, AZ 86023 www.grandcanyon.org Grand Canyon Association is a non-profit organization. All proceeds from the sale of this book will be used to support the educational goals of Grand Canyon National Park. Copyright © 2000 by Grand Canyon Association. All rights reserved. Monograph Number 11 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Anderson, Michael F. Polishing the jewel : an adminstrative history of Grand Canyon National Park/by Michael F.Anderson p. cm. -- (Monograph / Grand Canyon Association ; no. 11) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-938216-72-4 1. Grand Canyon National Park (Ariz.)--Management—History. 2.Grand Canyon National Park (Ariz.)--History. 3. United States. National Park Service—History. I. Title. II. Monograph (Grand Canyon Association) ; no. 11. F788 .A524 2000 333.78’3’0979132--dc21 00-009110 Edited by L. Greer Price and Faith Marcovecchio Designed by Kim Buchheit, Dena Dierker and Ron Short Cover designed by Ron Short Printed in the United States of America on recycled paper. Front cover: Tour cars bumper-to-bumper from the Fred Harvey Garage to the El Tovar Hotel, ca.1923. Traffic congestion has steadily worsened at Grand Canyon Village since the automobile became park visitors’ vehicle of choice in the mid-1920s.GRCA 3552; Fred Harvey Company photo. Inset front cover photo: Ranger Perry Brown collects a one dollar “automobile permit” fee at the South Rim,1931.GRCA 30.
    [Show full text]
  • 1944 State of Arizona Report of How to Bring Water to Phoenix Area
    1/22/19 1944 state of Arizona report of how to bring water to Phoenix area Published in 1946 Proposes a high Bridge Canyon Dam that would impound water into Grand Canyon National Park Proposes Marble Canyon – Kanab Creek Project NPS Director opposes high Bridge Canyon Dam and MCKC projects; does not oppose low Bridge Canyon Dam 1 1/22/19 2 1/22/19 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP) ACT (1956) • Preceded by decision to drop proposed dam site at Echo Park in Dinosaur National Monument • it is the intention of Congress that no dam or reservoir constructed under the authorization of this chapter shall be within any national park or monument. • Authorization to build • Curecanti (Aspinal) Unit on Gunnison River • Flaming Gorge on Green River • Navajo on San Juan River • Glen Canyon on Colorado River • Create Upper Colorado River Basin Fund • Revenue generated by dams • Pay for participating projects • powerplants to be operated so as to produce the greatest practicable amount of power and energy that can be sold at firm power and energy rates • impounding of water nor production of electricity shall not preclude nor impair the appropriation of water for consumptive uses 3 1/22/19 Brower tried to argue that Glen Canyon Dam should not be closed and should only be utilized after Lake Mead had filled with fine sediment Glen Canyon Dam closed in March 1963 4 1/22/19 Pacific Southwest Water Plan proposed in January 1963 Importation of water from outside the basin Desalinization plants for the lower basin Immense new power needs to be met by nuclear
    [Show full text]
  • Picture This Beautiful Brown Over Your Fly Tying Bench. and Feel
    PENNSYLVANIA (continued) Orvis Philadelphia 1423 Walnut Street Picture This Beautiful Brown Over Philadelphia 19102 — 215-567-6207 Orvis Philadelphia 8605 Germantown Avenue Your Fly Tying Bench. And Feel Chestnut Hill 19118 — 215-242-9332 TENNESSEE Good All Over Again About The The Great Outdoors Shop 110 E. Mountcastle Drive Last One You Watched Swim Away. Johnson City 37601 — 615-282-4255 Choo Choo Fly and Tackle 739 Ashland Terrace Chattanooga 37343 — 615-875-0944 TEXAS Hunter Bradlee Co. 4025 Northwest Parkway Dallas 75225 — 214-363-9213 Orvis Houston 5848 Westheimer Road Houston 77057— 713-783-2111 VERMONT Orvis Manchester Historic Route 7A Manchester 05254 — 802-362-3750 VIRGINIA The Outpost 2 Cottage Row, The Homestead Hot Springs 24445 — 703-839-5442 The Classic Sportsman Marketplace at Kingsmill, Route 60E Williamsburg 23185 — 804-220-4911 Orvis Roanoke Market Square, 1 9 Campbell Avenue Roanoke 24011 — 703-345-3635 Releasing the next trout you catch — to spawn more wild trout and WASHINGTON possibly to fight again another day — is the subject of this stunning Clearwater Fly Shop 417W. First new art poster published by Trout Unlimited. Kennewick 99336 — 509-582-1001 This full-color poster, featuring gold foil-stamped calligraphy, is WISCONSIN the first fine art quality reproduction to celebrate catch-and-release. Laacke & Joys, Co. It measures 24 inches wide by 18 inches high and is printed on heavy, 1433 N. Water Street Milwaukee 53202 — 414-271-7878 glossy, archival-grade paper. Lunde's Fly-Fishing Chalet A wonderful addition to your tackle room, fishing camp, den, or 2491 Hwy 92 Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Boatman's Quarterly Review
    boatman’s quarterly review the journal of Grand Canyon River Guides Inc. volume 10 number 1 winter 1996 - 1997 Future of Glen Canyon Dam Katie Lee Future of Science ctober 1, 1955, Glen Canyon… Bridge Canyon Dam Each new discovery surpasses the last—it seems the tougher these canyons are to Openetrate the more beauty they hide. I leave a part of me in the arms of Navajo Selective Withdrawl Canyon; leave blood and tears in exchange for what I’ve seen and will remember all my life. Over, under and around Wingate boulders, thru water in tunnels of tumbled rock, past New Organizations rabbitbush, datura and stunted cottonwood, we make our way to the base of the Kayenta… Ah-hhh, bedrock at last! Whale Foundation As we round a bend and come over a small rise, I feel like I’ve been hit in the middle of my Adopt-A-Beach everything. I grab for Frank’s arm and say, Wait a minute, Bigfeets, I don’t think I can New Fees take much more of this ... it’s too beautiful! Suddenly I’m crying. He nods, takes my hand Farewells and squeezes hard. When I look at him there are tears in his eyes as well. Air Tour Rules I stop to ask myself, what’s here that triggers an emotion so overwhelming it brings tears? It’s Mary Gibbs not like theatre where our emotions are aroused by what we hear, and we cry over words and Condors Fly evolving situations. This is rock… inert… water, air, aromas, silence, light and shadow- Pork Chops play.
    [Show full text]
  • 1975/01/03 S1296 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement” of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 20, folder “1975/01/03 S1296 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement” of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized. Digitized from Box 20 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library THE WHITE HOUSE ACTION WASHINGTON Last day - Saturday, January 4 January 2, 1975 MEMORANDDr1 THE P;;ESID~T FRQ1.1: KEN~ SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill: Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act, S. 1296 BACKGROUND This bill, which is very strongly endorsed by Senator Goldwater, Senator Fannin and Congressman Rhodes, will approximately double the size of Grand Canyon National Park and add some 185,000 acres to the Havasupai Indian Reservation. The bill will authorize appropriations of not to exceed $1,250,000. The Administration has generally favored expanding the Grand Canyon National Park boundries but Interior and Agriculture had initially opposed the Havasupai Indian Reservation expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • Undamming Glen Canyon: 3
    STANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL 122 STANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 19:121] Volume 19 Number 1 January 2000 1. Losing Precious Water 173 2. Equity 176 Undamming Glen Canyon: 3. The Compact 182 Lunacy, Rationality, or Prophecy? 4. Local Implications 184 D. Power: Unharnessing the River 185 Scott K. Miller* 1. The Costs of Less Power 185 2. The Burdens of Less Power 187 I. Introduction 122 E. Recreation: Draining "The Great Recreational Resource 189 II. "The Stream of History:" The Colorado River and 1. Recreation Losses 191 Glen Canyon 124 2. Recreation Gains 191 A. The Colorado in Its Natural State 124 F. Environment: Restoring Ecosystems and B. From Dams to Dories 128 Endangered Species 195 III. The Law of the River 131 1. Endangered Species 195 A. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 132 2. Pollution 198 B. The Boulder Canyon Project Act and Hoover Dam 138 3. Contingent Environmental Concerns 202 C. The Colorado River Storage Project Act and VI. CONCLUSION 203 Glen Canyon Dam 141 D. David Brower and the Fight Against Dams I. INTRODUCTION In the Upper Basin 144 E. Glen Canyon Dam 150 At the fall meeting of Richard Ingebretsen's newly-formed Glen Canyon Institute, David Brower sat and ardently listened to the discussion about F. The Grand Canyon Dams 153 1 IV. The Modern Era of Western Water Management 157 draining Lake Powell, the reservoir created by Glen Canyon Dam.1 Two A. Renaissance of River Production 157 weeks later, on November 16, 1996, in what was the culmination of a fifty-year B.
    [Show full text]