WSP08794 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . would be inadeouate and the power sites taken./2 California openly opposed the CRSP during Congressional deoate on the project in the 1950's, convinced that satisfying Upper Basin economic and water development needs through this project would infringe upon California's established rights;/3 this only served to exacerbate Upper Basin uneasiness about Lower Basin designs on the river. The Upper Basin states jealously guarded their CRSP program, as a result of what they perceived as Lower Basin encroachment, and characterized the project as an Upper Basin one, intended to benefit the Upper Basin. Indeed, the Upper Basin states began to define the project parochially, limiting the marketing of power as well as water to the regional confines of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming. As originally envisioned by the states of the Upper Colorado River Basin and the Region 4 Office of the USBR (Salt Lake City), the CRSP power market area would center on Denver, Salt Lake City, and Albuquergue./4 The Region 4 Office reinforced Upper Basin opinion that the-market for the power produced by Upper Basin project? was in the Upper Basin states./5 Congress, on the other hand, had its own idea of how CRS? power should be marketed. Both the House and Senate Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs rejected versions of the bill which included a parochial power marketing clause, either limiting power sold to the Upper Basin or calling for some sort of clause recapturing power for ultimate use th~re. ~Instead, the committees recommended that all Colorado River Basin states be on the same basis with respect to acquiring electric power and energy from the project./6 - The final version of the CRS? enabling legislation (Public Law 485) did not reflect these Congressional discussions on CRSP power marketing, however, requesting only that the power plants be operated in conjunction with other federal power plants so as to produce the greatest practicable amount of power and energy that could be sold at firm power rates./7 Nonetheless, Congress had s~uarely faced the controversial issue of selling all eRSP power ultimately within the Upper Basin, and had come down on the side of eoual treatment to the seven states in the Colorado River Sa2in. T~e CRSP power marketing process was far more comolicated than one involving simply the allocation of capacity a~d energy. Backbo~e transmission lines from the power plants to ,otential loa~ ,~~ters had to D~ planned, interconnect10n of fea~ral hyd~oE:e2tric plants on the Lower Colorado Ri~er and Missouri Rl~Er 3asin systems with Glen Canyon and the CRSP ne~ded to be con;icered, and the ,uestion of how Hoover ar.d ?arker-Da~is Dams wou~d =perate while Glen Canyon's Lake Powell filled renulred re~cl~:lon before one kilowatt hour could De assigned, Dwarfing ~~~~~ 1~?lleS, however, wer~ two emotlonall~'-charged ~01nts of 2