9367 (4) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of storage and affect the upper basin yield. We will be closely looking at this in the coming years. There are impacts to the Colorado River Compact. Unless the recommendations coming for Glen Canyon Dam take the same direction as Flaming Gorge, it is unlikely that the releases to the Lower Basin from Glen Canyon will violate the current minimum release objective of 8.23 million acre-feet. However, if the requirements to mimic natural conditions force the Upper Basin reservoirs to evacuate significant storage levels either to eliminate spills or to provide large spring releases each year, the resulting yield available for depletion would decrease and directly affect the Upper Basin states. There are potential impacts to the current Long Range Operating Criteria. This applies to the managing of the balance of storage between the upper and lower basins through the levels of Lakes Powell and Mead. Such a balance is intended to direct the orderly supplying of surplus Upper Basin water for Lower Basin use as well as sharing recreational and power benefits. Remember, during prolonged drought periods the releases from Lake Powell are limited to 8.23 million acre-feet. Impacts could result if the required releases of water are greater than the 8.23 million acre-feet in a drought year, or if the volumes vary from year to year. If that happens, possible revision of both the Operating Criteria and the law (P.L. 90-537) would have to be addressed. Finally, the altered releases may create additional water for the Lower Basin. The 1922 Compact says that the Upper Basin cannot withhold water that the Lower Basin can put to domestic and agricultural use. Without the storage balancing provision, water could be called directly out of Lake Powell. The balancing of storage places a limit on this use by preserving Lake Powell storage. Down to the limit of 602(a) storage level, draw downs at Mead must be matched by draw downs at Powell. That balance would be disrupted by requiring extra release for spring peaks, resulting in higher Lake Mead storage and greater tendency for Lower Basin use to exceed the levels specified in Arizona v. California. Finally, since appropriate NEPA compliance is needed on any permanent operational changes brought about through Section 7 consultation, we may run into a piece-meal EIS problem. A strong case can be made by some that a basin-wide EIS is then in order. Writing such an EIS may be a nearly insurmountable job. As if all of that isn't enough, we haven't yet considered the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement. This week the Cooperating Agencies, led by Reclamation, have been meeting in Phoenix to wrestle with the Draft EIS. We will have that draft out for public review, comment, and hearings next February. At the present time, we are trying to determine how we will handle the question of a preferred alternative. Consider all we have talked about tonight concerning competing interests, then focus that on this EIS. The 8