|
<br />.~
<br />%
<br />~
<br />v
<br />
<br />j
<br />~
<br />~
<br />
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />i
<br />I
<br />,
<br />,
<br />I
<br />i
<br />I
<br />
<br />I,..
<br />I
<br />I
<br />,
<br />
<br />I:
<br />
<br />
<br />1064
<br />
<br />LOWER COLORADO RIVER BABIN PROJECT
<br />
<br />We believe this to be cOI1l;istent with the intent of the Colorado River Storngc
<br />Project A('t nnd. tllnt the lan~utl~e provides the Seerellll"Y. /lfter consultation
<br />with Basin int~rcst!;, the neces..'illry lntitmle in determining the l'xtt'nt of stora~e
<br />reasonably required. Among the relevant fll.ctol's to ue ('ollsidered in making
<br />detel'minatioJls,mlljor emphasis certainly will be givf'1/. to eritical periods (If
<br />strenm!low record. As the Upper Basin depletions increal"e with time, the
<br />controlling critical periods will lengthen Ilnd the refjllir!'(l amouuts ot carryover
<br />stol'ag€' will iucrease. The estahH:::hlllellt of requlrenlents for carryovr,r sl:orHg-p.
<br />based on critical period con:<<iderlltiOIls alone could lend tn n risk of rf'J~erv(lir
<br />spill" :mdwll.stage, or overdelivf.'ry of water to l\il"xlco. 'l'herefore, it wOlllll be
<br />proper t.o consider also probability of wate.r supply as provided iu Section
<br />601(h) (3). Also, the produMion of power and energy il1a relevant factor that
<br />ml1;,:t be considered if the finandal l'casibilits' of Federal devclopmeuu; in the
<br />Colnrlldo Rh'cr Basin is to be rensonahly assured,
<br />'f'he r~'mainder of Sf~ction !lGl (b) (3) l'f't--! forth spf'f'itlc crltcria for the Ilis-
<br />trihutinn of \Vuter available in eXCl'SS Of thnt rl'quired for (1), (2), and tbe
<br />fir;;t part of (3) precMing. This is by far tile most difficult portion of Section
<br />001 to \Ulderstand and evaluate. :Before .commt\ntlng specifically on the lan-
<br />glll.:,'I' involved, some I<eneral comments w()tlJd apllear llppropr:late.' .
<br />Duriug llfoloug('.d periOdS of low runotr, there would be no available excess
<br />wnl"r and this latter portion of (8) would not apply. During prolonged periOd!!
<br />of high runoff when excess water Is available, tlli' problems of reservoLr opern-
<br />tion are Dot critical and the npl,Uca.tion of this latter portion of (3) would not
<br />be of particular significance. Thus, it is only >\ithln the remainlug rang!':)
<br />of runoff se<juenc-es that tile. criteria specified would be particularly lIleaniilg-
<br />ful, Furthermore, based on our projection of future Upper Bnain depletions,
<br />tht> rO'qulrement.'3 for carryover storage in the Upper Basin reservoirs wOlllrJ,
<br />within 20 to 25 years, be such that only on rare occasions would there be avail-
<br />able excess waters to which the criteria of the latter pnrt of (3) would apply,
<br />Therefore, both the conditions and the perlod nuder wbleh these critclin woulc1
<br />na:;e pmctical application would be much less than might appear on the su.rfact'.
<br />'1'11t' lnttcr pnrt of S('ction 001 (b) (3) contains three spf'I'illc operllting eritertn,
<br />an (j\lfllHied h.V' the proviso begluning on line 23, As developed hel'ellfter, it
<br />llppeoars to us that the proviso should be B. limitation only. to the f1flit listed
<br />criterion. It is not dear from the dl'llft that the order of listin~ cswblishes
<br />a priority for their applieiltlon. This might well be clarified, but as a practical
<br />matt':'r it appears irrelevnnt. .. . ,
<br />The :first listed criterion (1) provides that excess water available 8S defined
<br />above :;;hall be relea.sw from I,ake Powell to the extent it can be rMsonnbly
<br />applil'd in the St.'ites of the I.Qwer Dnision to the uses S}Jecifled in ArtiCle III (e)
<br />of the Colorado RI\'er Compact. This appears to be consistent with Article
<br />rIl(e) of the Compact. Tbe proviso beginning on Hue 23, however, would
<br />modify tllls criterion to the extrnt that no releases would be made wheu the
<br />active storage in Lnke POwell is less than the active storage In I_ake Mead.
<br />The pro"l'lst1 would have as- its OlJjPctlve the equalizing of active stofnge In Lake
<br />Powell a..nd I.Alke Mead and would establish the firm polley that watl:'J:' in Lake
<br />Pow('U not nerded to meet the rr(}uln'Jnenl:i'l of 601(b) 0). (2), and the first
<br />])lIrt of (3)~ wonld not bemad.Po a.vailable to meetT..ower Basin consumptive uS€'S
<br />whl'n a.ctive storage in Lake Mead is greater than llctiVt~ storage In Lake Powell.
<br />The second listed ('ri~rlon (Ii) has as its obj('ctive tllt' distl'i1ll1tlon of avnll-
<br />able ('xcess wllter in such manner as to equallzc as lIt'llrly as praetlcahle active
<br />starnge In Lake 1I1cll(1 and Lake Powel!. Tllis Itpnernl ohjertiyc hUE; been bnslc
<br />to past studi('s of the Bureau of Heclamatlon involving Colorado Rivc,r reser-
<br />voin; and Wl~ believe it S).J.Olll(1 appl.V generally in the future. We (:Iln visualize
<br />e..nditiollS, bowever, where it would be desirable nnd to the lld~'lll1t:age of all
<br />eOllCt"TlIed to operate over a linlitNI period ot time 111 a manner different than
<br />thllt spedfied in (ii), partlcularlS' wben both T.ake I'oweIl and Lake Mt'nd have
<br />substanrial l"eSer\'es of stort\{:e, Howeycr. we do !lot rell'lll'd this Illl Serious.
<br />Tbe proYlso bp.glnnfllg on Hue 23 nPJX'ars to he redundaJlt whcn afllllled to (it).
<br />T\yo q\l~stlons \YI'l'eraised at the Los Angeles meeting .rdntlng to the effett of
<br />fin: .
<br />, (a) Would it he pOSsible for I,lll,e Mead llower 'fnrilltics to be inopel"atiV&
<br />be<'lluse of Rpplh.'IlUol\ of (il) due to the lake Icyel be-Ing 11elow elevlltlon 1083
<br />whil€' at tIL€' !lame time Glen Canyon ]X>wer fadlitles would be in operation and
<br />Lake POwell would bp storing excess water? ." .
<br />
<br />'. "'~:;~:~.J;~r.
<br />
<br />.:'.---~. .-;.:
<br />".",1'_':\:
<br />
<br />'':-
<br />,S'"
<br />
<br />LOW
<br />
<br />(b) 'Vould it not
<br />Lnke Powell nnd To:'
<br />re:;<.,rvoirs under (1;
<br />In answ€'r to qut',
<br />efT"ctl\'e until such
<br />not oc'Cur. If Seeti,
<br />theoretically possiblE
<br />oct'ur. During the r
<br />rellll'!e at ll'llst G9 llJ
<br />Articl~ UI(d) of HI<
<br />rnt'nt, the possi bilHr
<br />the l](')>t seven yean
<br />Q uired rE"IeDJ;Pl; !rom
<br />Lake Powell relea~
<br />age over (.be next SH
<br />amount of stOrllgf, n
<br />required under Sect
<br />collsidN'at!on, would
<br />the millimmll active
<br />1975, tlle rt'{luin-d s
<br />When 10,7 million ac
<br />to such storage by t
<br />possibility that item
<br />occur,
<br />. In re!lpect to que!':
<br />bases for a. sele<:ted
<br />Te.<lults of these smdil
<br />
<br />1I0Q\'"".., h___ h______ ._.
<br />Glen Co.llyOn..,......u.n_
<br />
<br />'J..otal_.~_____..~ _; __.
<br />
<br />As can be seen, the
<br />The thIrd 'listed c
<br />of reservolrO~J'at1(
<br />would modty (iii) III
<br />tlve of (Hi). As 8tn
<br />Section 601(C) ai,
<br />Project Act !\hall be
<br />can see no objection I
<br />
<br />)lelJlorandllill to: In
<br />From: Paul L Billh}
<br />Subject: HrMg(, Gill
<br />mentnnd Gram]
<br />
<br />.. Conserva't1on iote!
<br />seek to secore the re
<br />froll B.a. 1{l1l. [n
<br />Brldg'(> en nyon DlllIl
<br />l'atiQpal Monument
<br />t.hat 1hls proposed 1
<br />
<br />&:~-2iiu--Gu--llt
<br />
<br />~ -::
<br />
<br />itii:.1~~
<br />
<br />..i:
<br />
<br />y~ -4
<br />
<br />
<br />.j
<br />
<br />.~~.p.,-
<br />~: ,'1- ~~.~
<br />'f.!
<br />ci~~ ;~~;j. .'p)" ,,}
<br />
|