WSP08794 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~ . . uphecd the legitimacy of the marketing criteria with the wit~drawal clause. Conc~usions None of the organizations lobbying for the CRSP power 31~ocation achieved everything initially sought. The investor- ow~ed utilities received no allocation, but did manage to con';ince the Bureau to allow them to build portions of the CRSP transmission system. The Upper Basin groups were not successful in limiting the power market area to the Upper Basin nor in acquiring a recapture clause calling for ultimately all CRSP power to be sold only within the Upper Basin. But they did secure Arizona support for the concept of sharing seasonal di,ersity and power pooling as well as insuring maximum power revenues for a healthy Upper Basin Fund. LOwer Basin preference customers did not receive as large a permanent allocation as they might have otherwise and they were committed to giving up significant amounts of CRSP power through the withdrawal formula. But they did secure a permanent allocation based upon one-fifth of tr.e CRSP generation, adjusted for seasonal diversity./70 Conditions in the West have changed since the Upper Basin and Lower Basin first sauared-off in 1922 over the Colorado River, Economic development, population growth, and an ever increasing pressure on ~he region's natural resources once again threaten to pit Upper against Lower Basin. The compromise created by the Upper Colorado River Commission, the Cplorado Water Conservation Board and the Colorado River Basin Consumers' Power, Inc., on the allocation of CRSP power has, however, weat~ered the tests of time and poli~ical expediency. It has proven itself to be a judicious and equitable compromise, one in which all parties sacrificed some dearly-held position for the sake of achieving a workable agreement. No one group benefits more from maintaining this carefully-developed compromise than the people of the Colorado River Basin. 15