|
<br />r.
<br />
<br />-~~~~_.<~>>:.
<br />
<br />148
<br />
<br />PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW
<br />
<br />[Vol. 15
<br />
<br />1994J
<br />
<br />GRAND CANYON PROTECTION ACT
<br />
<br />the dam.811
<br />Plainly, the limits imposed on the power plant will affect consumers.
<br />An analysis of those impacts is warranted, and is part of the EIS being
<br />prepared.\IO In the short fun, due to a surplus of generating capacity in the
<br />West, most government projections estimate a total cost to Western of$6.8
<br />million per year .91 Based on the $8 million figure, this cost would result in a
<br />1O.cent increase to the typical residential customer's monthly bill.'l
<br />Obviously, the impact would be proportionately higher to business and
<br />agricultural entities that use more electricity. Other estimates of short-
<br />term costs to Western, however, are as low as $3 million per year.IIS
<br />Irrespective of the actual costs, Western raised its wholesale power rate
<br />from $1.45 per kilowatt-hour (Kwh) to $1.78 per Kwh, a 23% increase.940
<br />Even at this price, the rate is substantially less than the open market price
<br />of $4. 50 per Kwh. 95 Completion of the Glen Canyon Dam EI$-a draft of
<br />which was released on January 6, 1994-should provide more data on the
<br />long-term costs associated with changes in dam operations (i.e., those
<br />incurred when surplus capacity is diminished).,e
<br />
<br />After all the studies, administrative orders, and agreements regarding
<br />the operation of Glen Canyon Dam, questions still remained: What had
<br />been accomplished in the way of long-term protection for the Grand
<br />Canyon? More fundamentally, should preservation of the Grand Canyon
<br />be the driving force behind all decision-making related to operations at the
<br />dam? The BOR still had,no overall goal for operating the dam, other than
<br />meeting water delivery requirements, and thus, Western was able to
<br />dictate daily releases. In response to growing concern, Congress ultimately
<br />established new guidelines for operations at Glen Canyon Dam which were
<br />intended to make protection of the Grand Canyon a priority.
<br />
<br />"I" T """" \. "" "
<br />'~> ::T~', ' HE.~GRA:ND,' CANYON 'PROTECTION ACT
<br />
<br />A; Overview of Legislative History
<br />
<br />The GCPA was the product of a long, drawn-out process. Arizona
<br />Senator John McCain's efforts were instrumental in the Act being signed
<br />into law on October 30, 1992. Senator McCain first introduced the GCP A .
<br />in 1990. It was immediately recognized that operations at Glen Canyon
<br />Dam affected a number of diverse interests, and any legislation modifying
<br />its operation would be controversial. However, there was substantial
<br />agreement that protection of the Grand Canyon was paramount." Politics
<br />and gridlock prevented the GCPA from passing when it was first
<br />introduced. The GCP A was _either tied to other, more controversial pieces
<br />of legislation (an omnibus reclamation package), or "improperly" at-
<br />tached toan appropriations bill and thus defeated on procedural,!;\:rounds.98
<br />Even in its final form, the GCPA was tied to an omnibus water bill which
<br />was passed in the waning hours of the 102d Congress and signed. by
<br />President Bush one day before it would have died.99
<br />The stated purpose of the GCPA is protection of the Grand Canyon
<br />and other resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam.10o These resources
<br />include aquatic and riparian ecosystems, recreation, and numerous cul-
<br />tural sites. 101 The fact that the Secretary of the Interior had already taken
<br />steps in this direction did not diminish the need for the GCP A, but actually
<br />
<br />89. Inaone_yearreviewofinterimoperations.exceptioncriteriawereinvokcdsporadically due
<br />totransmissionandgeneratingsystememergencies.NoneofthedcviationsIastedlongerthanonehour.
<br />The EIS team is assessing environmental impacts. Wegner, supra note 78, at 7.
<br />90. Western is also developing a separate EIS entitled the Salt lake City Area/Integrated
<br />Projects (SlCA/IP) Electric PQwer Marketing EIS. The scope or the EIS is to assess the impacts of
<br />current and alternative electric power marketing programs (seven in all),particularlythoseimpactSon
<br />the human and natural environment downstream from all applicable SLCA/IP hydropower genera.
<br />tion facilities. This EIS is independent of the Glen Canyon Dam EIS but will incorporate those studies
<br />and their results as part of Western's review. WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION, ELECTRIC
<br />POWER MARKETING EIS UPDATE fOR THE SALT LAKE CITY AREA INTEGRATED PROJECTS 2-3 (Apt.
<br />22. 1991). The primary facilities in theSlCA/IP include G]en Canyon Dam, Aaming Gorge Dam in
<br />Wyoming,and the Aspinall Unit in western Colorado.ld. at 6-7 (May I, 1992). Western's draft EIS is
<br />due out in early 1994, with thefinalEISandRewrdofDccisiondueout by early 1995.Id.at I (JulyS,
<br />1993).
<br />91. EDF. supra note 5. at I.
<br />92. Id.
<br />93. Bishop. supra note SO. at 12.
<br />94. Power Curs ar Glen Canyon Dam Hits as Duree Tests Wate~Flow Impacts, ELECTRIC
<br />UTILITY WEEK, Aug. 12. 1991. at 17.
<br />9S. EDF, supra note S. at 8; Bishop, supra note 50, al 12.
<br />96. The draft EIS recommends a modified low fluctuating flow (MlFF) as the preferred
<br />alternative ror operations at Glen Canyon Dam. This alternative is essentially identical 10 the interim
<br />flow criteria presently being used except for the addition of habitat maintenance flows, endangered fish
<br />research. and other elements common to all the alternatives that were added to provide additional
<br />resource protection. St;MMARY DRAfT EIS. supra note 80, at 21. These cornmon elements include an
<br />adaptive management program, monitoring, and protection of cultural resources. flood frequency
<br />reduction measures. beach/habitat huilding ftows, introduction of a new population of humpback
<br />chub. further study of selective withdrawal (water intake into the powerplant), and the continuation of
<br />emergency exception criteria.Id. at 8-13. The draft EIS also indicates thai the effect of restrictions
<br />imposed on dam operations hy any of the alternatives likely to be chosen in the final EIS will be a
<br />reduction in the flexibility of power operations and an increase in power marketing costs and rates.
<br />
<br />Quantifying theincreases, the BOR estimates tbat those households being served by a small utility will
<br />5CC an increase in electricity costs of anywhere from $6 to$40 per year (0.9% to 6.4% increase) if the
<br />MlFF is ultimately implemented. Id. at 57.
<br />97. 137 CONGo REC. S]8,743 (daily cd. Nov, 27, 1991) (statements of Sen. McCain).
<br />98. Id.; sttalso 137 CONGo REC. SI2,942-S0 (daily cd. Sept. 13, 1991) (statements of Sen.
<br />McCain).
<br />99. Hoye, supra note 4. The bill, entitled the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
<br />AdjustmentActof 1992, Puh. L. No. 102-S75.106Stat.4600 (1992),contained 30piccesoflegislation
<br />affectingWestemstates.ld.
<br />100. GCPA I 1802(a).
<br />101. SU SUNMAR.Y DRAFT EIS, supra note 80, at 6.
<br />
<br />-~
<br />
<br />149
<br />
<br />"
<br />,
<br />
<br />i
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />
<br />\,
<br />
|