Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Memoranda from the Bureau, a rormer Assistant Solicitor (exhibit II), <br />and the DOE look upon references to this document in legislative <br />history on the Garrison Diversion Unit as having the force and efrect <br />or law. Under' their views, as we understand them, legislation might <br />be required to reanalyze Pick-Sloan under current development concepts. <br />If the Assistant Secretary--Land ~d Water ResoUrces agrees with this <br /> <br />opinion, he should ask the Solicitor to review the matter to determine <br /> <br />what is required to undertake the action recommended in this report, <br /> <br />The 1963 Garrison study shows that Pick-Sloan power revenues for the <br />first 12 years of operation were less than anticipated, due to <br />adverse water conditions and slower-than-expected installation of <br />generating capacity, Under those conditions, it may have been <br />necessary to postpone repayment of certain costs under the ultimate <br />development method, in order to justify authorizing construction <br />of the Garrison and Oahe irrigation units' and subsequent irrigation <br />units. We find nothing in the 1965 Garrison authorization act, <br />howeve~ that clearly and specifically requires Pick-Sloan power <br />rates to be set under the ultimate, development method in all <br />circumstances. <br /> <br />It should be noted that between the start of Pick-Sloan and the <br />present, the character of actual va, planned development and opera- <br />tion has changed appreciably from ,that envisioned in the 1963 <br />Garrison study. A few examples fOllow: <br /> <br />18 <br />