My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08794
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08794
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:49:40 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:16:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.100.50
Description
CRSP - Power Marketing
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
6/1/1983
Author
Karen Smith
Title
Dividing the Power - The Colorado River Basin States and the Colorado River Storage Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Department of Interior had accepted the suggestions of <br />th~ UCRC and the CRBCP. As Felix Sparks (CWCB) told Colorado <br />Governor Steve McNichols, "The marketing criteria is exactly as <br />proposed by the State of Colorado."j67 The maximum s~mmer <br />a~location of 20 percent of CRSP power and the winter allocation <br />of 7 percent is reserved to the secondary market or Southern <br />Division, wrote the Denver Post, which was identical with what <br />the State of Colorado proposed. Quoting Felix Sparks, the Post <br />reoorted the marketing criteria was "a good break for the - <br />state... It was the maximum we figured we were entitled to under <br />this project. "/68 <br /> <br />The Denver Post editorial of May 20, 1960 reflected the high <br />emotions which had surrounded the power allocation process. <br /> <br />There was some fear that the booming <br />Southwest would be given a perpetual right <br />to power that, in all fairness, should <br />eventually serve the area where the water <br />that generated it originates. <br /> <br />Thus the problem was to give the Upper Basin <br />a long-run guarantee of the power while <br />letting it go in the interim to the eager, <br />wealthy, and nearby markets of Arizona, <br />Nevada, and California. <br /> <br />The order solves the problem by allocating <br />the permanent or "primary" market area f6r <br />most of the power to the Upper Basin, but <br />allowing the energy to he sold downstream <br />until the upper states want to "recapture" <br />it. <br /> <br />To permit downstream contracts to be made, <br />Seaton ruled that those states should be <br />allocated permanent rights to up to 20 ?ct. <br />of the power in the summer down to 7 pct. in <br />the winter. <br /> <br />This gives the Lower Basin states enough <br />perpetual rights to permit them to b~co~e <br />interested in making firm, long-run <br />contracts for the power without giving them <br />a stranglehold on the whole output. 69 <br /> <br />Challenges to the power marketing criteria Secretary Seaton <br />a~:hcrized came primaril~' from the Arizona ~0wer Aut~ority, wnich <br />otJected to the ,,'ithdrawa1 clause. Support (<or the ?er;;;anent. <br />al~ocation compromise wor<ec out by Arizona preference cU5tomer <br />re~)[e:;er,tative5 anu the l!:?"pe: Basin came [[(.-'liI ':.~e BUre3iJ and <br />ne~Jy-ap~olnted Secretary of Interior Ste~~r[ Udal~. ~lle ~lnth <br />~jr=ult Court of Aooeals ~efused to hear the sui: fil~~ ~l t~e <br />r.._"_r,-':: ~'-': i!'1~~~~~~~~'~'!:.__;;'~~~~E.2.~~':...~_Hc:'2:.:.!_:.-_'~:;~:_:'~::'''~:.~~!, ~n,~ <br /> <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.