My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC03421
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
15000-15999
>
WSPC03421
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:35:01 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:55:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.100.10
Description
Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
12/1/1964
Title
AZ Vs CA - Arizona V California and Pacific Southwest Water Problems - California Assembly Interim Committee Reports - 1963-1965 - Volume 26-Number 13
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
174
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />0U20G6 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PROBLEMS 69 <br /> <br />Marble Canyon Darn on the Colorado River, which is added to the <br />Central Arizona Project in this plan (as well as the other regional <br />plans), would be a thin arch concrete design darn rising 310 feet above <br />the stream bed with a reservoir of 363,000 acre-feet capacity. It would <br />have a power plant with an installed capacity of 600,000 kilowatts which <br />is estimated to generate 2,310,000,000 kilowatt hours annually. <br />One of the features of the plan, as presented, was the export of <br />water from northern California to Arizona in the Havasu Aqueduct, <br />which would have_ paralleled the general route of the existing Colorado <br />River Aqueduct of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali- <br />fornia but would have transported water in the opposite direction. The <br />opposition of Californians to this proposal was unanimous in that it <br />was illogical at best. <br />As the administrator of the California Resources Agency indicated <br />to this committee, "It prematurely and unnecessarily committed the <br />plan to an exportation to Arizona of water from northern California." <br />The Revised Pacific Southwest Water Plan and the recent enlargement <br />of the Sate Water Project by the state have indicated that the pre- <br />liminary figures on which the plan was based overstated the water <br />requirements of southern California and the adverse affect of Arizona <br />v. California. While the original Pacific Southwest Water Plan con- <br />templated import of water into southern California in the amount of <br />1.2 million acre-feet and export from California to Arizona of the like <br />amount, it will be seen that subsequent proposals, including the Revised <br />Pacific Southwest Water Plan, contemplate much smaller importations <br />to southern California. As indicated below, the state's overall 230,000 <br />acre-foot enlargement of the California aqueduct provided a satisfac- <br />tory additional water supply to meet the expected needs of southern <br />California through 1990. <br />Two projects included in the plan should be briefly described at this <br />time as they are included in all of the regional proposals. <br />Although located in western New Mexico, Hooker Darn and reservoir <br />is proposed as a part of the Central Arizona Project. Located on the <br />upper Gila River it isa multipurpose reservoir to provide flood control, <br />river regulation, recreation and fish and wildlife benefits. The capital <br />cost of the darn and reservoir is estimated at about $28 million. <br />The Dixie Project would be located on the Virgin and Santa Clara <br />Rivers in southwest Utah.5. It will consist of the multipurpose Virgin <br />City Dam, plus smaller darns and canals. Power will be generated at <br />the dam and at canal drops. The project would provide about 5,000 <br />acre-feet of municipal and industrial water annually. It would also <br />provide supplemental water supplies to 9,400 presently irrigated acres <br />and full supply to about 11,600 acres of new irrigated land. The capital <br />cost of the project is estimated to be $45 million. <br /> <br />5a A separate Department of the Interior report on this project, 85th Congress, 1st <br />Session (House Document No. 86) gives complete detail on the project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.