Letter - Arizona Power Authority

Letter: From Wayne M. Akin and C.A. Calhoun, to Paul Fannin, February 1, 1961 (carbon copy), page 4The Hon. Paul Fannin, Governor State of Arizona Page 4 February 1, 1961 full information on alternatives to Arizona's plan for Marble Canyon, could not be diverted from its plan to prosecute vigorously its application for Marble Canyon. Both the City's representatives and Arizona's representatives agreed to return to their principals and discuss with them the proposition of asking the Federal Power Commission to separate the pending Marble Canyon-Bridge Canyon proceedings into two parts, hearing the Marble Canyon portion first, and postponing the Bridge Canyon portion until the possibility of compromise is explored, subject to the condition that either party might, upon adequate notice, ask that the hearings on Bridge Canyon be taken up. Principals were consulted, and as a result Messrs, Bateman and Tillman met again with Arizona representatives in Phoenix on November 10th. Agreement on the split Marble Canyon-Bridge Canyon hearing was reached. The City's representatives indicated that they must remain as adverse intervenors in the Marble Canyon hearing. On November 15th representatives of the City and of Arizona filed with the Federal Power Commission, jointly, a motion for separation of the hearing into the two parts, and asked for a 30-day extension of time for recasting of testimony to reflect the separation. The motion was granted, and accordingly, Arizona filed its written testimony on December 30, 1960, and oral hearings are acheduled to commence on April 6, 1961. During the National Reclamation Association convention in Bakersfield in mid-November, representatives of the City of Los Angeles, Nevada Colorado River Commission, and of Arizona met with Commissioner Dominy of the Bureau of Reclamation and told him of the plans for a joint approach to development of the Glen Canyon-Lake Mead stretch of the river. Mr. Dominy complimented the group on its efforts to achieve a non-controversial end result and offered the full cooperation of the Bureau, including access to its data. On November 22nd, representatives of the Interstate Stream Commission, Arizona Power Authority, Arizona Municipal Power Usexs' Association, Salt River Project, Arizona Public Service Company, and the Central Arizona Project Association met for a review of the proceedings up to that time, to insure full understanding and unified support of all interested parties. That being achieved, the matter of designating Arizona's representatives in negotiations and studies with California and Nevada was taken up. Messrs. Charles Read, Frank Snell, W. T. Willey, and E. G. Nielsen were named as representatives. Nevada has named A. J. Shaver, Chief Engineer of its Colorado River Commission, E. A. Morits, member of the Commission, and John Bonner, Assistant Attorney General, as its negotiators. California negotiators are Mr. Bateman, Mr. Tillman, Ralph Durke, an engineer employee of the City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power, and Raymond Matthew, Chief Engineer, Colorado River Board of California. The naming of Mr. Matthew is particularly significant in that it indicates the inclusion in these negotiations of the State and of the seven California entities particularly interested in ColoradoEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 4,952,867 byte