WSP08906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~:}t:i I . In this regard. we are concerned that development of "emer.gency interim operating criteria" at this time. as contemplated by H.R. 4498. would divert scientists and other personnel from the immediate tasks at hand. Furthermore. because of the test flow program. about half of the time the releases from the Glen Canyon Dam power plant between now and September. 1991. will be at rates prescribed by that program. with the few remaining intervals of time being required to collect data concerning the "no action" baseline condition for the EIS. Thus. imposition of "emergency interim operating criteria" would disrupt the needed scientific field work and be counterproductive. Concerning the funding of the EIS. the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. and the purchase of power necessitated by the test flow program. we agree with CREDA that such costs should be funded from appropriations for. and be treated as nonreimbursable mitigation costs under. section 8 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956. Such costs are being incurred in the public interest and should therefore be borne by the general treasury. We have so recommended to the Secretary. In Closing. I would like to respond to one question which Congressman Vento asked of Mr. Falbo. the witness for CREDA. In your question. Mr. Chairman. you seemed to imply that decisions were made in 1987 which changed the Glen Canyon Power Plant to a peaking power fa~ility for the first time. In fact. the power plant has always been operated to produce peaking energy. It is designed to release over 28.000 cfs and would not have been so designed were it not intended to be a peaking power facility. This capacity has been used since the reservoir filled Suffi(:iHntly in mid ,qc,r, t.f\ ". " . through the power plant. Nothing happened in 1987 that changed these historic peaking power operations. What did happen in 1986-87 was that adjustments were made in annual reservoir operations to reduce the probability that sustained high flows (often referred to as clear water floods) would occur in the future. The states concurred in these adjustments. Given this. and the current amount of vacant ~pacu in Lhu ru~ervoir. the likelihood of such sustained high floWl' o"",,,rtng in the next two-three years is very low. if not rti 1. Again. we thank you for this opportunity to testify. We would appreciate it if this oral presentation could be supplemented with a written statement i~ the seven Basin Statu~' r"pr"~enLaLiv"n determine that it is appropriate to do so. -2'-