7416 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for fish and wildlife, and the generation and sale of electrical power as an incident of the foregoing purposes. 43 U.S.C. 5 1501(a). The 1968 Act also directs the Secretary to establish criteria for the long-range operation of the reservoirs on the Colorado River, 43 U.S.C. S 1552, and provides that Section 7 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, shall b6 administered in accordance with the criteria established by the Secretary, 43 U.S.C. 5 1552(c). The criteria were established and published in a document entitled, Colorado River Reservoirs Coordinated Long- Range Operation, she by then Secretary Hickel on June 4, 1970, and provide that the reservoirs be operated with 'appropriate consideration of their use for all purposes, "including flood control, river regulation, beneficial consumptive uses, power production, water quality control, recreation, enhancement of fish and wildlife, and other environmental factors." Thus, notwithstanding any priority given to power production by the 1956 Act, it can certainly be argued that the 1968 Act and the established criteria clearly evidence an intent that power be no more equal than other enumerated purposes. As we have orally advised your staff, we are of the opinion that the Secretary may change the operation of the dam, provided there are well supported reasons, such as resource considerations, which require the change. We also are of the opinion that the issue of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) needs to be examined more closely. While we are not prepared to say that a change in the operation of the dam will necessarily trigger the requirements of NEPA, we believe that it could be a possibility, and the issue has been raised in the WAPA opinion. We note in this regard a decision issued by U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Green on April 14, 1988, in Salt Lake City, et al. v. Western Area Power Administration, et al., Civil No. C86-100G, U.S.D.C., (D. Utah), which granted summary judgment for defendants on the issue of WAPA's promulgation of power marketing and allocation criteria for Glen Canyon Dam, but denied summary judgment on the issue of WAPA's compliance with NEPA. We are uncertain at this time what ramifications this decision may have on the question of the application of NEPA to the Bureau's operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Finally, we have referred this matter to the Associate Solicitor for Energy and Resources and the Acting Associate Solicitor for Conservation and Wildlife for their review and further analysis. Our examination of the WAPA opinion has been limited by our not having ready access to the legislative histories and other materials concerning the statutes at issue. Also, we feel it B-2