Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The State of Colorado is a signatory to both the Colorado River Compact and the Upper <br />Colorado River Basin Compact. Colorado has also been an active participant in negotiating other <br />components of the Law of the River. Colorado entered into the compacts and worked on the <br />passage of other federal laws in order to guarantee access in oeroetuity to a fair and reasonable <br />share of the waters of the Colorado River, while recognizing the rights of others in the same <br />resource. The people of Colorado on both sides of the Continental Divide rely on Colorado River <br />water to meet their present and future needs. <br /> <br />The flows of the Colorado River are not steady or reliable, as the past 10 years have shown <br />us. Yet under the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Basin has a firm delivery obligation to <br />the Lower Basin. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam is the linchpin of the system, allowing the <br />Upper Basin States to use water while still meeting their delivery obligations, even during a long <br />period of drought. Congress has repeatedly recognized this in the Colorado River Storage Project <br />Act of 1956, the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, and the Grand Canyon Protection <br />Act of 1992. Power revenues from Glen Canyon Dam are also essential to water development, <br />as they assist the Upper Basin States in repayment of projects that are needed to put Upper Basin <br />water to use. Power users and the Upper Basin States are also considering dedicating power <br />revenues to assist in recovery efforts for endangered fish. <br /> <br />For these reasons, Colorado opposes the proposal to bypass the Glen Canyon Dam <br />powerplant and release 40,000 - 42,000 cfs in April 1995. First, there are serious legal problems <br />with this proposal. Over the past year, Colorado has provided both verbal and written legal <br />analyses, demonstrating that bypassing the power plant violates several provisions of the Law of <br />the River. See July 27, 1993 letter from Commissioner James S. Lochhead to Wayne Cheney, <br />and April II, 1994 letter from James S. Lochhead to Lee 1. McQuivey, both attached hereto. <br /> <br />To reiterate, bypassing the powerplant violates the Colorado River Storage Project Act (43 <br />U .S.c. ~620f), which requires operation of Glen Canyon Dam powerplant to produce the "greatest <br />practicable amount of power and energy that can be sold at firm power and energy rates." This <br />provision assures revenues for both repayment of federal investments, and for Upper Basin water <br />development, through the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund (43 U.S.C. ~620d). <br /> <br />The proposal also violates the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. ~ 1552(a)), <br />and the Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs (paragraph <br />II(4)), which together require the avoidance of spills from Glen Canyon Dam. Congress <br />considered the avoidance of spills to be "obviously consistent with good river management." <br /> <br />Bypassing the powerplant violates both the spirit and the letter of the Grand Canyon <br />Protection Act of 1992. The Act is to be implemented "in a manner fully consistent with and <br />subject to" the above elements of the Law of the River, which provide for the development and <br />allocation of Colorado River waters. ~ 1802(b). The total amount of power produced by Glen <br />Canyon Dam was not to be affected by any operational changes authorized under the Act, as <br />shown by the attached hearings and reports. The proposal would require a significant change in <br />monthly scheduling of Glen Canyon releases, shifting up to 600,000 acre-feet of releases from <br />other months to the month of April. This violates the Grand Canyon Protection Act's <br /> <br />2 <br />