WSP11917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 WRW washn x x x Dam /, Both bills require the Secretary to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) within three years and to implement interim criteria to operate Glen Canyon Dam to protect Grand Canyon, the Glen Canyon National Recreational Area in Arizona and Utah and other na- tural resources below the dam which have been harmed by the dam's op- eration, particularly by the generation of peaking power at the Glen Canyon power plant. These statutory mandates are in both bills even tho Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan, Jr., acting under current auth- ori ty, has already ordered the Bureau of Reclamation (BujRec) to start work on an EIS and prepare to develop interim criteria to oper- ate Glen Canyon Dam after ongoing studies are completed. Critics com- plain he acted only after increasing political pressure from Congress and environmentalists following release of a 1988 Interior Department study based on five years of research indicating operation of the dam had damaged downstream resources, including Grand Canyon. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) also started an EIS last December on its power contracts that came up for renewal last year and the impact of generation of firm power at the Glen Canyon power plant. WAPA act- ed after it was sued by several environmental organizations. The Miller bill authorizes the costs of the EIS and other envi- ronmental studies carried on by Interior to be reimbursed by Colorado River power and water users. The McCain-DeConcini bill makes the cost of the Interior EIS non-reimbursable, to be paid for out of federal appropriations. Costs are a major difference between the two bills. Environmentalists favor the Miller bill over the McCain-Deconcini bill, partially because of the former's reimbursable costs provision. Colorado River power and water users claim both bills are unneeded, but if they have to make a choice, they prefer the McCain-DeConcini bill, including its non-reimbursable provision. RHODES-CAMPBELL AMENDMENTS TO MILLER BILL The Rhodes-Campbell amendments to the Miller bill adopted in mark-up on July 18 made that bill less objectionable to Colorado River water and power interests. The amendments were drafted with the help of these water and power interests. Rhodes and Campbell spon- sored three amendments, two of which were accepted by Miller and the House Interior Committee at the mark-up on July 18. The first one, which was accepted, provided that the Secretary of Interior shall operate Glen Canyon Dam "and take other reasonable mitigation meas- ures" to protect Grand Canyon. It was designed to affirm the author- ity that the Secretary already has to "implement the full range of measures to mitigate the adverse effects of the powerplant operation" on the river downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. The amendment backers, mainly power interests, claimed the Miller bill restricted the Secre- tary's authority to take other, non-operational mitigation measures to protect Grand Canyon. The second Rhodes-Campbell amendment was withdrawn after Miller objected to it. It would have stricken language in the bill directing the Secretary to adopt operations to "minimize" impacts on downstream resources in establishing interim operating procedures for the dam. It would have substituted the word "reduce" for "minimize." Colorado River power interests object to the term "minimize." (more) :,? ~ ?-' =' :;~~ ;-t., ,'. ,.j <. ::-:j f ~~ ;:> '-11 ..,~~ <,,: