|
Post by alwaysorange on Sept 11, 2020 9:40:32 GMT -8
Kind of ironic but if the season was still on tomorrow's game would have been cancelled
|
|
|
Post by obf on Sept 11, 2020 9:47:34 GMT -8
Kind of ironic but if the season was still on tomorrow's game would have been cancelled Air quaity seems better today (AQI around 220 last I checked, closee to 500 the last few days)... what is the cut off for cancelling sporting events due to ar quality? Looking at the AQI forcast Saturday is supposed to go back to 500ish Are the winds supposed to pick up again?
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Sept 11, 2020 9:55:54 GMT -8
I know we are WAY off in the weeds at this point, but it isn't like there is actual Beaver FOOTBALL to talk about Maybe someone can answer this question. I was reading about a local company in town who is designing a nuclear power plant that is going to be built in Idaho. However, no one in Idaho is going to own the plant or use the power. It is a bunch of Utah power companies building it. Further complicating the issue is that it is being built in the Idaho National Lab compound which, I think(?!), is Federal land. So, who is important/exporting power to whom? Is Idaho exporting and Utah importing even though Idaho pretty much has nothing to do with the project? Is the Federal government exporting since it is being built on Federal land? Is Utah even importing anything since it is paying for an building the whole shebang? Is the location that the uranium was mined involved in the import/export of power at all? Kind of a tradition in Idaho. Arco, ID, a mile high small town in Central Idaho, in 1955 was the FIRST nuclear powered city in the world.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Sept 11, 2020 10:10:01 GMT -8
Kind of ironic but if the season was still on tomorrow's game would have been cancelled Air quaity seems better today (AQI around 220 last I checked, closee to 500 the last few days)... what is the cut off for cancelling sporting events due to ar quality? Looking at the AQI forcast Saturday is supposed to go back to 500ish Are the winds supposed to pick up again? I don't know if there's a specific rule, but 300 is the Hazardous starting point - I cannot imagine a game being held if in the 300s. We are having recreational sports cancelled in the 150 range here in NorCal. www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/
|
|
|
Post by obf on Sept 11, 2020 10:13:13 GMT -8
Air quaity seems better today (AQI around 220 last I checked, closee to 500 the last few days)... what is the cut off for cancelling sporting events due to ar quality? Looking at the AQI forcast Saturday is supposed to go back to 500ish Are the winds supposed to pick up again? I don't know if there's a specific rule, but 300 is the Hazardous starting point - I cannot imagine a game being held if in the 300s. We are having recreational sports cancelled in the 150 range here in NorCal. www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/I wouldn't even want to attend a game if it was even what it is now (220), let alone if it goes back up to 500. Can't imagine trying to do a physical activity in it.
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Sept 11, 2020 12:24:33 GMT -8
I know we are WAY off in the weeds at this point, but it isn't like there is actual Beaver FOOTBALL to talk about Maybe someone can answer this question. I was reading about a local company in town who is designing a nuclear power plant that is going to be built in Idaho. However, no one in Idaho is going to own the plant or use the power. It is a bunch of Utah power companies building it. Further complicating the issue is that it is being built in the Idaho National Lab compound which, I think(?!), is Federal land. So, who is important/exporting power to whom? Is Idaho exporting and Utah importing even though Idaho pretty much has nothing to do with the project? Is the Federal government exporting since it is being built on Federal land? Is Utah even importing anything since it is paying for an building the whole shebang? Is the location that the uranium was mined involved in the import/export of power at all? The power plants are still in the "experimental" stage, so even though they have a license now to build, using the Federal nuclear research area in Idaho is an intermediate step to getting permission to install these in general locations. NuScale's design is based off of submarine power plants and concepts developed at the Oregon State U. Radiation Center. If successful, they could very rapidly become a major source of power, especially for areas that are off the main grid. And speaking of grid(irons), there probably would have been no practice this week in Corvallis, with all this smoke I am not even sure they could keep the air clean enough in the indoor practice facility.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Sept 11, 2020 12:25:23 GMT -8
I know we are WAY off in the weeds at this point, but it isn't like there is actual Beaver FOOTBALL to talk about Maybe someone can answer this question. I was reading about a local company in town who is designing a nuclear power plant that is going to be built in Idaho. However, no one in Idaho is going to own the plant or use the power. It is a bunch of Utah power companies building it. Further complicating the issue is that it is being built in the Idaho National Lab compound which, I think(?!), is Federal land. So, who is important/exporting power to whom? Is Idaho exporting and Utah importing even though Idaho pretty much has nothing to do with the project? Is the Federal government exporting since it is being built on Federal land? Is Utah even importing anything since it is paying for an building the whole shebang? Is the location that the uranium was mined involved in the import/export of power at all? Kind of a tradition in Idaho. Arco, ID, a mile high small town in Central Idaho, in 1955 was the FIRST nuclear powered city in the world. Atomic City!
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Sept 11, 2020 12:27:34 GMT -8
I don't know if there's a specific rule, but 300 is the Hazardous starting point - I cannot imagine a game being held if in the 300s. We are having recreational sports cancelled in the 150 range here in NorCal. www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/I wouldn't even want to attend a game if it was even what it is now (220), let alone if it goes back up to 500. Can't imagine trying to do a physical activity in it. Years ago the game in Boise was the worst smoke I've ever been in. So I got hammered, and so did the Beavs.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 11, 2020 13:08:12 GMT -8
Rivers generally belong to upriver states. This is generally true within the United States and internationally. But not on the Colorado River. California gets 4.4 million acre-ft/year of the Colorado River's water, which is the largest share of any of the seven states on the Colorado. (New Mexico and Wyoming are not on the Colorado but are on tributaries.) And California gets the most despite its watershed being the smallest of the seven states and with no major tributaries flowing through California. By way of example, almost all of the water in Arizona feeds into the Colorado River (only some areas along the Mexican border go elsewhere), but Arizona is limited to 2.85 million acre-ft/yr. Instead, the water is diverted into the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, Los Angeles and San Diego. I was not talking about the Klamath Basin Water. There is no diversion of water there that takes water from Oregon. There are diversions, once the water crosses into California that feed into the Sacramento Valley. It is an oversimplification, but the San Joaquin Valley is the South half of the Central Valley. The Sacramento Valley is the North End of the Central Valley. The two rivers meet and jointly feed into the Bay. The diversion of water that I was referring to was the diversion of the Pit River. The North Fork of the Pit River used to connect to Goose Lake in Lake County (south of Lakeview, which is an increasingly ironic name) to the point that Goose Lake no longer feeds into the Pit River and was dry from 2013 to 2015. The diversion still keeps Goose Lake unnaturally low. The upshot of all of this is California decimates the Colorado and Goose Lake watersheds and ecosystems therein, but we are supposed to give them a pass, because they are spending billions and billions on renewables? Give me a break! Also, even after spending billions and billions on renewables, California still imports millions of Mwh from the other States in the WECC (mostly) and internationally. And they have the third-lowest GDP per Mwh consumed of any state in the country. So Minnesota owns the Mississippi? You know that is not true. You also know there is absolutely not basis in US law whatsoever that "ownership" of a river is given to "up river states" You also know that makes zero sense. You are spinning on this one dude. The majority of water law in the Western US is based on Prior Appropriation Doctrine. Who ever used the water first, owns the water. Upstream, downstream, doesn't matter. If you put the body of water to significant use first, you owned that body of water. Every western state, Including California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Arizona use the Prior Appropriate Doctrine to establish water rights. This same doctrine allows for the selling, division and buying of water rights. The Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922 and established water rights for the seven states that the river runs through. Allotments for water were assigned in 1928, Nobody "owns" the Colorado river. It isn't Colorado's river. it isn't Arizona's river. it is property of the people. That is how it works in the US. Multiple states agree an amount of water right to it. It doesn't mean it hasn't been contentious... But making the claim California imports it's water on the Colorado is factually AND legally incorrect. The river is in the state, they have legal right to 4.4 million ft acres. In Colorado, where the river is in their state, they have the legal right to 3.86 million ft. acres. In Arizona, where the river is in their state, they have the legal right to 2.8 million ft acres... "I am morally certain that neither in my lifetime, nor in your lifetime, nor the lifetime of your children and great-grandchildren will there be an inadequate supply of water for the Metropolitan project (the Colorado River Aqueduct, which siphons off water from the Colorado River 242 miles to Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties)."--Simon H. Rifkin (1959). Rifkin was the special master (judge) in the three-year Arizona v. California case, which ultimately led to the 1963 Arizona v. California Supreme Court case. Arizona was joined by the States of Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The State of California was a Defendant with the Palo Verde Irrigation District (which, as of 2017, had sold all of its water rights to the other Defendants), the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the City of Los Angeles, and the City and County of San Diego. Historically, the Prior Appropriation Doctrine applies to individuals, not to states. And it generally only applied within states. The Supreme Court applied it to the states and in an interstate way for the first time in its June 5, 1922 Wyoming v. Colorado decision. The decision was noted as unusual, because it prevented upriver Colorado from taking actions, which would negatively impact downriver Wyoming on the Laramie. In response, the seven Colorado River states met at Bishop's Lodge, Santa Fe, New Mexico, beginning on November 9, 1924 and mostly agreed to Colorado River Compact on November 24, 1922 (five months after the Wyoming v. Colorado decision). The third Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, chaired the meeting. The Compact determined that Lee Ferry, Arizona was the place where the Lower and Upper Basins met. The four Upper Basin states agreed to provide the three Lower Basin states with 75 million acre-feet over a 10-year period (7.5 million acre-feet/year). That was the total agreement. Nothing else was agreed upon at that time. The Compact was not ratified by Arizona, because it was silent on the issue of how much water California would get. California's Phil Swing (House) and Hiram Johnson (Senate) each put forward proposals to build two dams on the Colorado River, one for power and one for irrigation, the so-called Swing-Johnson Bills. They did so in 1922, 1923, 1925 and 1926. The first three Bills were either killed in committee or killed by the President/Speaker. The 1926 Bill came to the floor of the Senate on February 22, 1927. Despite work done by both Hiram Johnson and Robert M. La Follette, Jr. of Wisconsin (including not allowing the Senate to adjourn the night of February 22-23), both Arizona Senators with the assistance of "several other Senators" successfully filibustered from February 22, 1926 until 5:23 p.m. on February 23, 1927, preventing the Bill coming to a vote that session, which ended nine days later. The filibuster was called the "most spectacular session of the Senate" in 1927. Because of the fighting between Arizona and its Democratic allies and California and its Republican allies, the fight transformed from a regional fight into a more national fight. From August 22 to October 4, 1927, the seven governors met with the Commissioners of the seven states. The upper states proposed in 1927 that Arizona be given 3 million acre-feet/yr., California 4.2 million and Nevada 300,000 and that any excess be evenly divided by Arizona and California. Arizona's tributaries would be excluded, except when an American-Mexico Treaty regarding the Colorado River came into play. Neither Arizona nor California agreed to the apportionment. California wanted 4.6 million, and, in addition to the 3 million, Arizona wanted its tributaries completely exempted. The Swing-Johnson Bill was reintroduced on December 5, 1927. It passed the House with amendments on May 25, 1928. The Democrats held a 47-46-1 plurality in the Senate on March 4, 1927. However, Senators Andrieus A. Jones and Woodbridge N. Ferris each died to be replaced by Republican appointees. Frank B. Willis died, though, before the Arthur H. Vandenberg was installed. The Democratic Ohio governor appointed a Democrat, Cyrus Locher. In the November 6, 1928 election, Otis F. Glenn, a Republican was able to win in Illinois, which finally gave the Republicans a majority. Additional wins by Republicans in Delaware and New Mexico allowed the Republicans to maintain their majority. On December 5, 1928, The Senate took up the Swing-Johnson Bill two days after Otis Glenn was seated. The Senate believed that the dispute was whether California would get the 4.2 million that five of the states believed was fair (I do not know, if Nevada had a position) or the 4.6 million that California wanted. The Senate ultimately split the difference and set the number as 4.4 million. It passed the Senate with this amendment on December 14, 1928, over the objection of both Arizona Senators. It passed the House on December 18, 1928 over the objection of the Arizona Representative. It was signed into law by Republican Calvin Coolidge on December 21, 1928. The Boulder Canyon Project Act required at least six states to agree to the Colorado River Compact before it went into effect. Utah, which had held out with Arizona, ratified the Compact on March 6, 1929. The Republican, Herbert Hoover, confirmed that the Compact had been ratified by six of seven states and made the Act effective on June 25, 1929. Herbert Hoover stole the land for the Hoover Dam from Arizona and Nevada by Executive Order on April 25, 1930. On September 17, 1930, the Secretary of the Interior, Ray Lyman Wilbur named the dam the Hoover Dam. On that day, he drove the silver spike to mark the beginning of construction , near Las Vegas, Nevada. 10,000 people showed up including representatives of the Union Pacific Railroad and governors and representatives of six of the seven Colorado River States. No one from Arizona showed up in any official capacity. Arizona requested that Secretary Wilbur withhold funding for the Hoover Dam until all issues could be resolved between Arizona and California. He publicly declined on October 13, 1930. Arizona sued Secretary Wilbur and the other six Colorado River States that day. The Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit 8-1 (7 Republican justices and 2 Democrat justices) on three grounds. First, although it was undisputed that the Colorado River was not navigable, because of the Laguna Diversion Dam (the first dam built by California to siphon water into the Imperial Valley via Mexico), it could be made to be navigable by removing the Laguna Diversion Dam. Thus, Congress had the power to enact the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Because Congress had the power to enact the Boulder Canyon Project Act, Arizona law to the contrary was invalid. Third, all of Arizona's other arguments were not yet ripe for adjudication. California began work on the Colorado River Aqueduct in January 1933. California began work on the All-American Canal in 1934. Arizona filed another lawsuit against California in 1934, arguing that the Boulder Canyon Project Act is unconstitutional, which was dismissed on May 21, 1934. On November 10, 1934, Arizona put together a militia and used two ferry boats to ensure that the Parker Dam (Where the Colorado River Aqueduct starts. Half of the power of the Dam is devoted to pumping the water uphill over the Whipple Mountains into California.) would not be built on Arizona territory. Six members of the militia were sent back out in 1935 on a scouting mission. They reported back that the United States Bureau of Reclamation was constructing Parker Dam on Arizona territory. The governor sent a larger contingent to halt construction entirely. Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes halted construction and sued Arizona to prevent interference. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona. Congress passed a law to allow construction to begin again. The Hoover Dam was completed on March 1, 1936 (two years ahead of schedule). Despite being on the border between Arizona and Nevada, the current 2017-2067 Hoover Dam allocation is: California 53.11%, Nevada 23.88%, Arizona 18.00% and other (Tribes, electrical cooperatives, etc.) 5.00% (numbers do not add to 100%, due to rounding). The Parker Dam was completed by October 1938 and was formally dedicated on November 19, 1938. It created Lake Havasu. On January 7, 1939, the Colorado River Aqueduct began to siphon water off of Lake Havasu. The Imperial Dam was started in 1935 and completed in 1938. Beginning in 1940, water was diverted into the All-American Canal. 3.1 million acre-feet are diverted annually to the Imperial Valley. Because it was already a fait accompli, Arizona enacted the Colorado River Compact in February 1944. Beginning in 1949, water began being diverted into the Coachella Canal. Approximately 480,000 million acre-feet are diverted annually to the Coachella Canal. By 1952, Arizona determined that California was taking at least one million acre-feet per year over the 4.4 million acre-feet per year that it was not entitled to. Because California was taking so much water, Arizona could not begin work on the Central Arizona Project to bring water from Lake Havasu to several Native American Tribes and the Cities of Phoenix and Tucson. The case ultimately resulted in trial that stretched over three years, which was decided by that doofus, Rifkin (quoted above), at the end 1960. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court. The case resulted in the longest oral argument in modern Supreme Court history, 16 hours over four days, January 7-10, 1962. (The longest oral argument since 1967 is Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, the first Obamacare opinion. That was six hours.) It was reargued an additional two days in November 1962. The Supreme Court waited an additional seven months to issue its opinion. In a 5-3 decision (Chief Justice Earl Warren, a Californian, abstained), the Supreme Court determined that California had indeed been taking at least one million acre-feet per year above its allotment. (Two of the dissents appear to be that California was taking too much water, but less than a million acre-feet per year.) The majority opinion and one of the dissents noted that only 2.5% of the water in the Colorado River comes from California but California gets the largest share of the seven states. California has historically worked to steal as much water as it can from the Colorado River and continues to do so. It is heavily subsidized by the six Colorado River States in a way that no other State is to my knowledge. It then has historically worked to steal even more water than it is allowed to the detriment of the environment and the other six Colorado River states.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 11, 2020 13:19:25 GMT -8
Um, silly me; I don't get it. What has bashing/defending California got to do with the OP? California robs our States blind of electricity and water. And then people talk about how great California is without conceding how much that State is propped up by the States around it. They turned Goose Lake into a dust bowl and took Lakeview off the Lake! They have laid waste to the Colorado River Watershed! I mostly want those of us who do not live in California to be proud Sons of Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, etc. If you live or are from California that is one thing, but I am 99% sure that ATown is from Albany. (I mean c'mon!) California contains FUCLA, the University of Spoiled Children, Fresno State and their batteries, the spoiled rich kids at Stanford and their slightly slower cousins at Berkeley. (And some other schools presumably?) And then people come onto an Oregon State Beaver board, greatest University in the country, and talk about how great California is. Seriously? Show some pride! Go Beavs!
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 11, 2020 14:01:29 GMT -8
So Minnesota owns the Mississippi? You know that is not true. You also know there is absolutely not basis in US law whatsoever that "ownership" of a river is given to "up river states" You also know that makes zero sense. You are spinning on this one dude. The majority of water law in the Western US is based on Prior Appropriation Doctrine. Who ever used the water first, owns the water. Upstream, downstream, doesn't matter. If you put the body of water to significant use first, you owned that body of water. Every western state, Including California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Arizona use the Prior Appropriate Doctrine to establish water rights. This same doctrine allows for the selling, division and buying of water rights. The Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922 and established water rights for the seven states that the river runs through. Allotments for water were assigned in 1928, Nobody "owns" the Colorado river. It isn't Colorado's river. it isn't Arizona's river. it is property of the people. That is how it works in the US. Multiple states agree an amount of water right to it. It doesn't mean it hasn't been contentious... But making the claim California imports it's water on the Colorado is factually AND legally incorrect. The river is in the state, they have legal right to 4.4 million ft acres. In Colorado, where the river is in their state, they have the legal right to 3.86 million ft. acres. In Arizona, where the river is in their state, they have the legal right to 2.8 million ft acres... "I am morally certain that neither in my lifetime, nor in your lifetime, nor the lifetime of your children and great-grandchildren will there be an inadequate supply of water for the Metropolitan project (the Colorado River Aqueduct, which siphons off water from the Colorado River 242 miles to Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties)."--Simon H. Rifkin (1959). Rifkin was the special master (judge) in the three-year Arizona v. California case, which ultimately led to the 1963 Arizona v. California Supreme Court case. Arizona was joined by the States of Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The State of California was a Defendant with the Palo Verde Irrigation District (which, as of 2017, had sold all of its water rights to the other Defendants), the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the City of Los Angeles, and the City and County of San Diego. Historically, the Prior Appropriation Doctrine applies to individuals, not to states. And it generally only applied within states. The Supreme Court applied it to the states and in an interstate way for the first time in its June 5, 1922 Wyoming v. Colorado decision. The decision was noted as unusual, because it prevented upriver Colorado from taking actions, which would negatively impact downriver Wyoming on the Laramie. In response, the seven Colorado River states met at Bishop's Lodge, Santa Fe, New Mexico, beginning on November 9, 1924 and mostly agreed to Colorado River Compact on November 24, 1922 (five months after the Wyoming v. Colorado decision). The third Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, chaired the meeting. The Compact determined that Lee Ferry, Arizona was the place where the Lower and Upper Basins met. The four Upper Basin states agreed to provide the three Lower Basin states with 75 million acre-feet over a 10-year period (7.5 million acre-feet/year). That was the total agreement. Nothing else was agreed upon at that time. The Compact was not ratified by Arizona, because it was silent on the issue of how much water California would get. California's Phil Swing (House) and Hiram Johnson (Senate) each put forward proposals to build two dams on the Colorado River, one for power and one for irrigation, the so-called Swing-Johnson Bills. They did so in 1922, 1923, 1925 and 1926. The first three Bills were either killed in committee or killed by the President/Speaker. The 1926 Bill came to the floor of the Senate on February 22, 1927. Despite work done by both Hiram Johnson and Robert M. La Follette, Jr. of Wisconsin (including not allowing the Senate to adjourn the night of February 22-23), both Arizona Senators with the assistance of "several other Senators" successfully filibustered from February 22, 1926 until 5:23 p.m. on February 23, 1927, preventing the Bill coming to a vote that session, which ended nine days later. The filibuster was called the "most spectacular session of the Senate" in 1927. Because of the fighting between Arizona and its Democratic allies and California and its Republican allies, the fight transformed from a regional fight into a more national fight. From August 22 to October 4, 1927, the seven governors met with the Commissioners of the seven states. The upper states proposed in 1927 that Arizona be given 3 million acre-feet/yr., California 4.2 million and Nevada 300,000 and that any excess be evenly divided by Arizona and California. Arizona's tributaries would be excluded, except when an American-Mexico Treaty regarding the Colorado River came into play. Neither Arizona nor California agreed to the apportionment. California wanted 4.6 million, and, in addition to the 3 million, Arizona wanted its tributaries completely exempted. The Swing-Johnson Bill was reintroduced on December 5, 1927. It passed the House with amendments on May 25, 1928. The Democrats held a 47-46-1 plurality in the Senate on March 4, 1927. However, Senators Andrieus A. Jones and Woodbridge N. Ferris each died to be replaced by Republican appointees. Frank B. Willis died, though, before the Arthur H. Vandenberg was installed. The Democratic Ohio governor appointed a Democrat, Cyrus Locher. In the November 6, 1928 election, Otis F. Glenn, a Republican was able to win in Illinois, which finally gave the Republicans a majority. Additional wins by Republicans in Delaware and New Mexico allowed the Republicans to maintain their majority. On December 5, 1928, The Senate took up the Swing-Johnson Bill two days after Otis Glenn was seated. The Senate believed that the dispute was whether California would get the 4.2 million that five of the states believed was fair (I do not know, if Nevada had a position) or the 4.6 million that California wanted. The Senate ultimately split the difference and set the number as 4.4 million. It passed the Senate with this amendment on December 14, 1928, over the objection of both Arizona Senators. It passed the House on December 18, 1928 over the objection of the Arizona Representative. It was signed into law by Republican Calvin Coolidge on December 21, 1928. The Boulder Canyon Project Act required at least six states to agree to the Colorado River Compact before it went into effect. Utah, which had held out with Arizona, ratified the Compact on March 6, 1929. The Republican, Herbert Hoover, confirmed that the Compact had been ratified by six of seven states and made the Act effective on June 25, 1929. Herbert Hoover stole the land for the Hoover Dam from Arizona and Nevada by Executive Order on April 25, 1930. On September 17, 1930, the Secretary of the Interior, Ray Lyman Wilbur named the dam the Hoover Dam. On that day, he drove the silver spike to mark the beginning of construction , near Las Vegas, Nevada. 10,000 people showed up including representatives of the Union Pacific Railroad and governors and representatives of six of the seven Colorado River States. No one from Arizona showed up in any official capacity. Arizona requested that Secretary Wilbur withhold funding for the Hoover Dam until all issues could be resolved between Arizona and California. He publicly declined on October 13, 1930. Arizona sued Secretary Wilbur and the other six Colorado River States that day. The Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit 8-1 (7 Republican justices and 2 Democrat justices) on three grounds. First, although it was undisputed that the Colorado River was not navigable, because of the Laguna Diversion Dam (the first dam built by California to siphon water into the Imperial Valley via Mexico), it could be made to be navigable by removing the Laguna Diversion Dam. Thus, Congress had the power to enact the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Because Congress had the power to enact the Boulder Canyon Project Act, Arizona law to the contrary was invalid. Third, all of Arizona's other arguments were not yet ripe for adjudication. California began work on the Colorado River Aqueduct in January 1933. California began work on the All-American Canal in 1934. Arizona filed another lawsuit against California in 1934, arguing that the Boulder Canyon Project Act is unconstitutional, which was dismissed on May 21, 1934. On November 10, 1934, Arizona put together a militia and used two ferry boats to ensure that the Parker Dam (Where the Colorado River Aqueduct starts. Half of the power of the Dam is devoted to pumping the water uphill over the Whipple Mountains into California.) would not be built on Arizona territory. Six members of the militia were sent back out in 1935 on a scouting mission. They reported back that the United States Bureau of Reclamation was constructing Parker Dam on Arizona territory. The governor sent a larger contingent to halt construction entirely. Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes halted construction and sued Arizona to prevent interference. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona. Congress passed a law to allow construction to begin again. The Hoover Dam was completed on March 1, 1936 (two years ahead of schedule). Despite being on the border between Arizona and Nevada, the current 2017-2067 Hoover Dam allocation is: California 53.11%, Nevada 23.88%, Arizona 18.00% and other (Tribes, electrical cooperatives, etc.) 5.00% (numbers do not add to 100%, due to rounding). The Parker Dam was completed by October 1938 and was formally dedicated on November 19, 1938. It created Lake Havasu. On January 7, 1939, the Colorado River Aqueduct began to siphon water off of Lake Havasu. The Imperial Dam was started in 1935 and completed in 1938. Beginning in 1940, water was diverted into the All-American Canal. 3.1 million acre-feet are diverted annually to the Imperial Valley. Because it was already a fait accompli, Arizona enacted the Colorado River Compact in February 1944. Beginning in 1949, water began being diverted into the Coachella Canal. Approximately 480,000 million acre-feet are diverted annually to the Coachella Canal. By 1952, Arizona determined that California was taking at least one million acre-feet per year over the 4.4 million acre-feet per year that it was not entitled to. Because California was taking so much water, Arizona could not begin work on the Central Arizona Project to bring water from Lake Havasu to several Native American Tribes and the Cities of Phoenix and Tucson. The case ultimately resulted in trial that stretched over three years, which was decided by that doofus, Rifkin (quoted above), at the end 1960. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court. The case resulted in the longest oral argument in modern Supreme Court history, 16 hours over four days, January 7-10, 1962. (The longest oral argument since 1967 is Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, the first Obamacare opinion. That was six hours.) It was reargued an additional two days in November 1962. The Supreme Court waited an additional seven months to issue its opinion. In a 5-3 decision (Chief Justice Earl Warren, a Californian, abstained), the Supreme Court determined that California had indeed been taking at least one million acre-feet per year above its allotment. (Two of the dissents appear to be that California was taking too much water, but less than a million acre-feet per year.) The majority opinion and one of the dissents noted that only 2.5% of the water in the Colorado River comes from California but California gets the largest share of the seven states. California has historically worked to steal as much water as it can from the Colorado River and continues to do so. It is heavily subsidized by the six Colorado River States in a way that no other State is to my knowledge. It then has historically worked to steal even more water than it is allowed to the detriment of the environment and the other six Colorado River states. This post is so long all I can remember is "Swing-Johnson"
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Sept 11, 2020 15:09:06 GMT -8
Um, silly me; I don't get it. What has bashing/defending California got to do with the OP? California robs our States blind of electricity and water. And then people talk about how great California is without conceding how much that State is propped up by the States around it. They turned Goose Lake into a dust bowl and took Lakeview off the Lake! They have laid waste to the Colorado River Watershed! I mostly want those of us who do not live in California to be proud Sons of Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, etc. If you live or are from California that is one thing, but I am 99% sure that ATown is from Albany. (I mean c'mon!) California contains FUCLA, the University of Spoiled Children, Fresno State and their batteries, the spoiled rich kids at Stanford and their slightly slower cousins at Berkeley. (And some other schools presumably?) And then people come onto an Oregon State Beaver board, greatest University in the country, and talk about how great California is. Seriously? Show some pride! Go Beavs! If you love Oregon so much, why don't you live there?
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Sept 11, 2020 15:11:17 GMT -8
"I am morally certain that neither in my lifetime, nor in your lifetime, nor the lifetime of your children and great-grandchildren will there be an inadequate supply of water for the Metropolitan project (the Colorado River Aqueduct, which siphons off water from the Colorado River 242 miles to Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties)."--Simon H. Rifkin (1959). Rifkin was the special master (judge) in the three-year Arizona v. California case, which ultimately led to the 1963 Arizona v. California Supreme Court case. Arizona was joined by the States of Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The State of California was a Defendant with the Palo Verde Irrigation District (which, as of 2017, had sold all of its water rights to the other Defendants), the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the City of Los Angeles, and the City and County of San Diego. Historically, the Prior Appropriation Doctrine applies to individuals, not to states. And it generally only applied within states. The Supreme Court applied it to the states and in an interstate way for the first time in its June 5, 1922 Wyoming v. Colorado decision. The decision was noted as unusual, because it prevented upriver Colorado from taking actions, which would negatively impact downriver Wyoming on the Laramie. In response, the seven Colorado River states met at Bishop's Lodge, Santa Fe, New Mexico, beginning on November 9, 1924 and mostly agreed to Colorado River Compact on November 24, 1922 (five months after the Wyoming v. Colorado decision). The third Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, chaired the meeting. The Compact determined that Lee Ferry, Arizona was the place where the Lower and Upper Basins met. The four Upper Basin states agreed to provide the three Lower Basin states with 75 million acre-feet over a 10-year period (7.5 million acre-feet/year). That was the total agreement. Nothing else was agreed upon at that time. The Compact was not ratified by Arizona, because it was silent on the issue of how much water California would get. California's Phil Swing (House) and Hiram Johnson (Senate) each put forward proposals to build two dams on the Colorado River, one for power and one for irrigation, the so-called Swing-Johnson Bills. They did so in 1922, 1923, 1925 and 1926. The first three Bills were either killed in committee or killed by the President/Speaker. The 1926 Bill came to the floor of the Senate on February 22, 1927. Despite work done by both Hiram Johnson and Robert M. La Follette, Jr. of Wisconsin (including not allowing the Senate to adjourn the night of February 22-23), both Arizona Senators with the assistance of "several other Senators" successfully filibustered from February 22, 1926 until 5:23 p.m. on February 23, 1927, preventing the Bill coming to a vote that session, which ended nine days later. The filibuster was called the "most spectacular session of the Senate" in 1927. Because of the fighting between Arizona and its Democratic allies and California and its Republican allies, the fight transformed from a regional fight into a more national fight. From August 22 to October 4, 1927, the seven governors met with the Commissioners of the seven states. The upper states proposed in 1927 that Arizona be given 3 million acre-feet/yr., California 4.2 million and Nevada 300,000 and that any excess be evenly divided by Arizona and California. Arizona's tributaries would be excluded, except when an American-Mexico Treaty regarding the Colorado River came into play. Neither Arizona nor California agreed to the apportionment. California wanted 4.6 million, and, in addition to the 3 million, Arizona wanted its tributaries completely exempted. The Swing-Johnson Bill was reintroduced on December 5, 1927. It passed the House with amendments on May 25, 1928. The Democrats held a 47-46-1 plurality in the Senate on March 4, 1927. However, Senators Andrieus A. Jones and Woodbridge N. Ferris each died to be replaced by Republican appointees. Frank B. Willis died, though, before the Arthur H. Vandenberg was installed. The Democratic Ohio governor appointed a Democrat, Cyrus Locher. In the November 6, 1928 election, Otis F. Glenn, a Republican was able to win in Illinois, which finally gave the Republicans a majority. Additional wins by Republicans in Delaware and New Mexico allowed the Republicans to maintain their majority. On December 5, 1928, The Senate took up the Swing-Johnson Bill two days after Otis Glenn was seated. The Senate believed that the dispute was whether California would get the 4.2 million that five of the states believed was fair (I do not know, if Nevada had a position) or the 4.6 million that California wanted. The Senate ultimately split the difference and set the number as 4.4 million. It passed the Senate with this amendment on December 14, 1928, over the objection of both Arizona Senators. It passed the House on December 18, 1928 over the objection of the Arizona Representative. It was signed into law by Republican Calvin Coolidge on December 21, 1928. The Boulder Canyon Project Act required at least six states to agree to the Colorado River Compact before it went into effect. Utah, which had held out with Arizona, ratified the Compact on March 6, 1929. The Republican, Herbert Hoover, confirmed that the Compact had been ratified by six of seven states and made the Act effective on June 25, 1929. Herbert Hoover stole the land for the Hoover Dam from Arizona and Nevada by Executive Order on April 25, 1930. On September 17, 1930, the Secretary of the Interior, Ray Lyman Wilbur named the dam the Hoover Dam. On that day, he drove the silver spike to mark the beginning of construction , near Las Vegas, Nevada. 10,000 people showed up including representatives of the Union Pacific Railroad and governors and representatives of six of the seven Colorado River States. No one from Arizona showed up in any official capacity. Arizona requested that Secretary Wilbur withhold funding for the Hoover Dam until all issues could be resolved between Arizona and California. He publicly declined on October 13, 1930. Arizona sued Secretary Wilbur and the other six Colorado River States that day. The Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit 8-1 (7 Republican justices and 2 Democrat justices) on three grounds. First, although it was undisputed that the Colorado River was not navigable, because of the Laguna Diversion Dam (the first dam built by California to siphon water into the Imperial Valley via Mexico), it could be made to be navigable by removing the Laguna Diversion Dam. Thus, Congress had the power to enact the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Because Congress had the power to enact the Boulder Canyon Project Act, Arizona law to the contrary was invalid. Third, all of Arizona's other arguments were not yet ripe for adjudication. California began work on the Colorado River Aqueduct in January 1933. California began work on the All-American Canal in 1934. Arizona filed another lawsuit against California in 1934, arguing that the Boulder Canyon Project Act is unconstitutional, which was dismissed on May 21, 1934. On November 10, 1934, Arizona put together a militia and used two ferry boats to ensure that the Parker Dam (Where the Colorado River Aqueduct starts. Half of the power of the Dam is devoted to pumping the water uphill over the Whipple Mountains into California.) would not be built on Arizona territory. Six members of the militia were sent back out in 1935 on a scouting mission. They reported back that the United States Bureau of Reclamation was constructing Parker Dam on Arizona territory. The governor sent a larger contingent to halt construction entirely. Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes halted construction and sued Arizona to prevent interference. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona. Congress passed a law to allow construction to begin again. The Hoover Dam was completed on March 1, 1936 (two years ahead of schedule). Despite being on the border between Arizona and Nevada, the current 2017-2067 Hoover Dam allocation is: California 53.11%, Nevada 23.88%, Arizona 18.00% and other (Tribes, electrical cooperatives, etc.) 5.00% (numbers do not add to 100%, due to rounding). The Parker Dam was completed by October 1938 and was formally dedicated on November 19, 1938. It created Lake Havasu. On January 7, 1939, the Colorado River Aqueduct began to siphon water off of Lake Havasu. The Imperial Dam was started in 1935 and completed in 1938. Beginning in 1940, water was diverted into the All-American Canal. 3.1 million acre-feet are diverted annually to the Imperial Valley. Because it was already a fait accompli, Arizona enacted the Colorado River Compact in February 1944. Beginning in 1949, water began being diverted into the Coachella Canal. Approximately 480,000 million acre-feet are diverted annually to the Coachella Canal. By 1952, Arizona determined that California was taking at least one million acre-feet per year over the 4.4 million acre-feet per year that it was not entitled to. Because California was taking so much water, Arizona could not begin work on the Central Arizona Project to bring water from Lake Havasu to several Native American Tribes and the Cities of Phoenix and Tucson. The case ultimately resulted in trial that stretched over three years, which was decided by that doofus, Rifkin (quoted above), at the end 1960. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court. The case resulted in the longest oral argument in modern Supreme Court history, 16 hours over four days, January 7-10, 1962. (The longest oral argument since 1967 is Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, the first Obamacare opinion. That was six hours.) It was reargued an additional two days in November 1962. The Supreme Court waited an additional seven months to issue its opinion. In a 5-3 decision (Chief Justice Earl Warren, a Californian, abstained), the Supreme Court determined that California had indeed been taking at least one million acre-feet per year above its allotment. (Two of the dissents appear to be that California was taking too much water, but less than a million acre-feet per year.) The majority opinion and one of the dissents noted that only 2.5% of the water in the Colorado River comes from California but California gets the largest share of the seven states. California has historically worked to steal as much water as it can from the Colorado River and continues to do so. It is heavily subsidized by the six Colorado River States in a way that no other State is to my knowledge. It then has historically worked to steal even more water than it is allowed to the detriment of the environment and the other six Colorado River states. This post is so long all I can remember is "Swing-Johnson" Wilky gets paid by the word.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Sept 11, 2020 16:24:46 GMT -8
Um, silly me; I don't get it. What has bashing/defending California got to do with the OP? California robs our States blind of electricity and water. And then people talk about how great California is without conceding how much that State is propped up by the States around it. They turned Goose Lake into a dust bowl and took Lakeview off the Lake! They have laid waste to the Colorado River Watershed! I mostly want those of us who do not live in California to be proud Sons of Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, etc. If you live or are from California that is one thing, but I am 99% sure that ATown is from Albany. (I mean c'mon!) California contains FUCLA, the University of Spoiled Children, Fresno State and their batteries, the spoiled rich kids at Stanford and their slightly slower cousins at Berkeley. (And some other schools presumably?) And then people come onto an Oregon State Beaver board, greatest University in the country, and talk about how great California is. Seriously? Show some pride! Go Beavs! Source?
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Sept 11, 2020 16:38:18 GMT -8
Jiminy Christmas Wilky. I don't think anyone is impressed. At some point, we will have a discussion on 19th century Russian history (this is Benny's House - it will happen.) And then you will cut and paste War and Peace, trying to make yourself sound smart.
|
|