OCR Text |
Show UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Denver 2, Colorado Mr. E. W. Bashore, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington 25, D. C. Dear Mr. Bashore: I recently returned from a rather long visit in Phoenix, and Vaud Laxson spent last week in this office summarizing the estimates and making financial studies of the proposed Central Arizona Diversion. The estimates seem to be' in good order and it was possible to make a preliminary financial study to compare the three routes. Before 1 left Phoenix Mr. Larson and I called again on the Governor and assured him that figures would probably be available for his consideration in June. It is hoped that this will permit study by Arizona and permit the selection of the most favored route. You realize that three routes have been studied and estimates prepared on the cost of delivering Colorado River water to a point on the Salt River above Granite Reef Dam. These routes are the Marble Canyon-Verde River involving a dam in Marble Canyon, a tunnel 14-3 miles long, some of which is under 5,000 feet of cover, dumping into Verde River where a series of plants will generate power. The second proposes to divert at the Bridge Canyon Dam and flow by gravity through a tunnel 87 miles long and in lined canals for about 150 miles or more. The third proposes pumping 1,040 feet from the reservoir above Parker Dam into a lined canal delivering above Granite Reef. All of these estimates are based on diverting 2,000,000 acre-feet in 11 months with a design capacity of tunnels and conduit of 3,000 c.f.s. A rather hasty summation of these estimates reveals that all three resulted in a cost-to-benefit ratio almost identical for these routes. For all of them the cost-to-benefit ratio is substantially 1:1. In other words, no one route has any outstanding preference over any other as far as this cost-to-benefit ratio would indicate. In fact none of them looked particularly favorable. Because of this we decided to nake up another set of estimates of a capacity of 1,500 c.f.s., or 1,000,000 acre-foot diversion. After exploring the sentiment in Arizona I feared the use of only one water quantity. This would be interpreted as the Bureau's determination of the amount of water available to Arizona under the comoact and the contract. 'ACTION REQUIRED BY, |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |