WSP11917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. . . page 5 WRW washn x x x testified J. William McDonald, director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, testified on behalf of the seven Colorado River Basin states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. He said they have .serious reservations about several aspects of the bill,. particularly its impact on the Colorado River Compacts, that it would set .an ill-advised precedent for Congressional involvement in the details of daily reservoir operations. better left to the In- terior oepartment, that it would divert scientific personnel from their work in completing the EIS "expeditiously" by requiring devel- opment of emergency interim operating criteria, and it could adverse- ly affect the research test flow program now getting underway. He claimed the legislation .is not needed," hence .should not be acted upon." He spoke from a letter the Basin states sent Lujan April 23. Former Gov. Scott M. Matheson, D-Utah, representing the Inter- mountain Consumer Power Agency (ICPA), Joe A. Falbo of the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, and Marty Kanner of the American Public Power Association testified against the bill, as Clagett would have done if Miller had allowed him to do so. They claimed no emergency exists to justify action on the Miller bill, and they said the EIS process should be completed before any action is taken to change the operation of the Colorado River. They were con- cerned about provisions in the bill requiring power revenues to fund all or part of the Glen Canyon EIS and related studies. Total esti- mated costs could run as high as $30-$40 million, Falbo stated. Matheson stated, "Public power should not have to absorb the costs for the EIS and related studies nor should it have to bear the economic burden for operational changes that benefit others or the public as a whole. WAPA is in the process of recommending, effective October 1990, a 46 percent increase in CRSP power rates. A recent decision from the federal district court in Utah has also adversely affected CRSP customers. Finally, a bill pending before Congress to complete the Central Utah project in Utah could also result in an addi tional rate increase for ICPA." These rate hikes would be "a triple hit" against area public power entities, Matheson stated. Kanner testified costs of protecting Grand Canyon need not be borne solely by the federal taxpayer. "Federal water policy tradi- tionally assigns repayment responsibility to non-federal interests when direct beneficiaries are identifiable. In the case of Glen Cayon Dam, it may be appropriate to assign costs and repayment responsibil- ity to recreation interests--both river rafters and sport fishermen,. as has been done in the Tennessee Valley Authority, he said. Clagett's testimony was revised on April 25, WRW has been told. In the version WAPA planned to present on April 26, Clagett strongly urged more research be done before interim criteria are imposed be- cause once they are put in place, they are very difficult to change. He said proposed changes in reservoir storage criteria in the Colo- rado River now being negotiated between Reclamation and the seven Colorado River Basin states could eliminate the risk of water re- leases in excess of the 33,100 cubic-feet-per-second powerplant capacity at Glen Canyon Dam. He was concerned about costs of alterna- tive fuels to replace hydro peaking power at Glen canyon Dam.-HCM-30-