7416 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS 1969. The California draft followed the format of Reclamation's initial draft and provided the model for the criteria later adopted by the Secretary. The major points of the California draft included retention of the Filling Criteria until they terminate under their own terms; the ability of the Secretary to revise the criteria; no rule curve to be promulgated at this time since it did not impact the Upper Basin and would not be a factor for at least 20 years, but the Secretary would determine annually the quantities of storage to be maintained in the Upper Basin reservoirs; i.e., "the Section 602(a) Storage" and the factors relevant thereto; a minimum release of 8.23 maf per year when either the forecast total of Upper Basin storage is below that of the "602(a) Storage" or the active storage of Lake Powell is below that of Lake Mead; the 8.23 maf figure would not be a commitment that it did or did not include the amount needed to meet the Mexican Treaty obligation of the Upper Basin; releases greater than 8.23 maf would be made when the active storage of Lake Powell is above Lake Mead and the forecast Upper Basin storage exceeds the "602(a) Storage"; releases would not be made that would bypass the normal capacity of Glen Canyon Powerplant; prior to commencement of Central Arizona Project deliveries, all Lower Basin consumptive uses would be met and thereafter releases from Lake Mead would implement Arti- cle II(B) of the Decree in Arizona v. California; shortage conditions would become operative when the fore- cast for the September 30 elevation at Lake Mead is less than 1100 feet and if reduced to 1090 feet, releases at Lake Mead would be curtailed to the quantity of water released at Lake Powell; i.e., CAP would be re- duced to municipal and industrial requirements. F. Arizona Draft On November 19, 1969, Arizona submitted its proposals for the Operating Criteria. They provided, among other things, for flexibility and formal review every 5 years; 8.7 maf of water (this was Arizona's estimate of sustainable yield from its studies) to be released from Lake Powell in any year that spill is not im- minent when the forecasted September 30 active storage of Lake Powell is less than the forecasted Sep- tember 30 active storage of Lake Mead; when the April-July runoff forecast indicates that the forecasted ac- tive storage in Colorado River Storage Project reservoirs on September 30 will be greater than the require- ments for active storage to assure 8.7 maf to the Lowei Basin while meeting Upper Basin annual consump- tive uses without impairment, more than 8.7 maf would be released if needed to meet annual requirements of water from Lake Mead and to equalize active storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead on September 30 of the current water year; and no bypass of Glen Canyon Powerplant. It was also Arizona's position that the Filling Criteria should terminate on their own terms and all active storage in Lake Mead should be used to minimize Lower Basin shortages. G. Nevada's Views On November 21, 1969, Nevada filed its comments which paralleled those of California as to not using a rule curve, retention of the Filling Criteria, and no iirawdown of Lake Mead below elevation 1090. H. Upper Basin Comments On November 19 1969, the Engineering Committee of the Upper Colorado River Commission provided Its comments. It emphasized the need for storage of water in the Upper Basin to permit maximum use of its entitlement and to assure delivery of an average of 7.5 maf annually to the Lower Basin, but stressed that the use of water for power was subservient to its use for domestic and agricultural purposes. It also made the following specific position points: (1) The Filling Criteria and "deficiency" payments must be terminated as they are detrimental to Upper Basin interests; that to May 30, 1969, the replacement of these deficiencies has depleted the Upper Colo- rado River Basin Fund by $44.5 million computing Glen Canyon energy transferred to Hoover power con- tractors at 3.0 mtls/kWh, or $75 million if computed at 6.0 mils/kWh; that if the Filling Criteria are con- tinued the Lower Colorado River Basin Fund should bear the cost of the "deficiencies" rather than the Up- per Basin Fund. A-5