WSP11917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 WRW washn x x x minimize ~~ They claim the term "minimize" directs the Secretary "to adopt ex- treme interim measures...which would have significant adverse impacts on power generation." At this writing, Colorado River power interests and the committee staff are still trying to agree on a word or word- ing satisfactory to all interests. The third Rhodes-Campbell amendment, which was accepted, provid- ed that the Secretary shall operate the water storage and delivery functions of the dam "subject to and consistent with" the Colorado River Compacts and other laws relating to Colorado River regulation. Water interests in the Colorado River Basin were successful in get- ting this amendment added to the Miller bill to assure that the inherent purposes for which the dam was built are carried out. SENATE HEARINGS ON MCCAIN-DECONCINI BILL The July 24 hearings on the McCain-DeConcini bill underscored the lack of faith that envionmentalists have in the Interior Secre- tary to protect resources below Glen Canyon Dam from erratic river level fluctuations due to peaking power generation at the Glen Canyon power plant, from flooding, beach erosion and other damage. As no Secretary of Interior has chosen to exercise his authority to protect downstream resources, they claimed, legislation is necessary. Edward M. Norton, Jr., president of the Grand Canyon Trust, tes- tified Lujan acted to initiate the EIS process and proposed develop- ing operating criteria for Glen Canyon Dam only after "Members of Congress and many concerned citizens strongly protested (Interior's) policy of deli berate delay." Both Norton and former Interior Secre- tary Stewart L. Udall questioned an assertion by WAPA that Section 7 of the 1956 Colorado River Storage project (CRSP) Act (P.L. 84-485) requires WAPA and BujRec to operate Glen Canyon Dam for maximum peak- ing power generation. Udall said WAPA argues that "Section 7 of CRSP overrides all other purposes, uses and values of the Colorado River." When he voted for CRSP as a Congressman from Arizona, Udall stated, "I and...most of my colleagues in the House...in 1956 never thought for a moment that Section 7 of the CRSP Act meant that Glen Canyon Dam had to be operated as a daily threat to the Grand Canyon. II As most of the damage to Grand Canyon appears to be coming from the generation of peaking power at Glen Canyon Dam's power plant, Colo- ado River Guide Martin Litton of portola Valley, Calif., suggested that generation of peaking power be moved down the Colorado River to Hoover Dam, which has no national park immediately below it like Glen Canyon Dam. Bradley queried public power representatives about this suggestion. They were cold to it. Administration witnesses led by Reclamation Commissioner Dennis B. Underwood and WAPA Administrator William H. Clagett and Colorado River Basin water and power interests strongly urged the Bradley Subcommittee members to consider the precedent they would set if they vote for the McCain-DeConcini bill. They are concerned about its statutory requirements and the deadlines it imposes on the Interior Secretary to complete an EIS and draw up interim criteria to operate Glen Canyon Dam. They claimed it would reduce the Secretary's flex- ibility as water master on the Colorado River, which is a critically important water supply to the seven Colorado River Basin states.#### (more) ::.; ::;~ .. ~ r.~:, \t~ ~{'~ ,.-;j '~j ., /.'i :"; t,,> . ., i'" , ;'~ r ~ ;.'"i ., < .,,',