My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Chapter 1: Summary of "The Law of the River"
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Chapter 1: Summary of "The Law of the River"
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:30:00 PM
Creation date
6/9/2010 1:57:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison RICD
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/3000
Title
Chapter 1: Summary of "The Law of the River"
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
7 <br />CHAPTER i 21 <br />The most controversial of the principles was No. 5, which was that an allowance should be made for com- <br />puted deficiency in firm energy generation at Hoover which might be caused by the four storage units in the <br />Upper Basin; i.e., Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Curecanti, and Navajo, but excluding the effects of <br />evaporation from the surface of such reservoirs as a part of the theoretical streamflow used in the formula for <br />computing allowance. (The initial draft considered only the presence of Glen Canyon on the river and was <br />silent regarding evaporation losses.) <br />The allowance for computed deficiencies in Hoover firm energy is the difference between two calcula- <br />tions —the first in the so- called Hoover basic firm, which is the firm energy that would have been produced at <br />Hoover without the four storage reservoirs on the river and using an overall efficiency factor for power opera- <br />tions of 83 percent. The second calculation would be to adjust the energy actually generated at Hoover to an <br />efficiency factor of 83 percent (rather than 70 -78 percent efficiency actually experienced) . <br />The Secretary would determine how the allowance would be accomplished; i.e., (1) monetarily, if the in- <br />cremental cost, that is, fuel replacement cost of generating substitute energy, is less than the selling rate for <br />power from the Upper Basin projects, or (2) whether it might be well to compensate the Hoover Dam power <br />contractors with kilowatt hours through the interconnection of the two power systems. <br />This principle, in particular, was vigorously attacked by the Upper Basin States as without legal basis and as <br />implying a responsibility on the Upper Basin for energy deficiencies at Hoover which they denied. However, <br />Principle No. 5 made provision for reimbursing the Upper Basin Fund after 1987 from Hoover Dam power <br />revenues for purchasing power to meet Hoover deficiencies, but not for nonfirm or other energy from the <br />storage project's powerplants. Interior's intention to secure reimbursement was reflected in an Additional <br />Regulation No. 1 to the General Regulations for Generation and Sale of Power in accordance with the <br />Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act, adopted by Secretary Udall on July 12, 1962, 27 F.R. 6850, <br />which stated that the rates to be charged for electric energy after 1987 would include a component to return <br />} to the United States funds adequate to reimburse the Upper Basin Fund. No interest would be included in the <br />reimbursement. Reclamation indicated its intention to make minimum use of dollars and maximum use of <br />energy from Federal powerplants, but not firm energy which would otherwise be sold at firm power rates. <br />The principles would be applicable during the filling period, defined as the time required to fill Glen Can- <br />yon (elevation 3700), with a cutoff date of May 31, 1987, the date when the Hoover power contracts expire. <br />Provision was also made for earlier termination if conditions warranted and called for consultation with the <br />States before such action. <br />During the filling period, uses of water below Hoover Dam, other than power, will be satisfied, including - <br />delivery of not more than 1.5 maf /yr to Mexico. <br />Minimum power head (elevation 3490 - 6.1 maf available surface storage) would be sought at Glen Can- <br />yon at the earliest practicable time without drawing Lake Mead below its rated head (elevation 1123 - <br />14.5 maf available surface storage) . <br />The partial closure of Glen Canyon Dam was accomplished March 31, 1963, when computation of <br />Hoover deficiencies began, at which time Lake Mead held 22.3 maf. This dropped to 15.4 maf at the end of <br />January 1964. Lake Powell was about 3410 (80 feet short of the minimum power point of 3490) . With the <br />forecast of another poor runoff in 1964 the gates of Glen Canyon were ordered opened on March 26, 1964, <br />by the Secretary to maintain elevation 1123 at Lake Mead, despite Upper Basin requests that water be re- <br />tained in Lake Powell in order to start generation of energy by August 1, 1964. <br />However, 6 weeks after the gates were opened, on May 11, 1964, the Secretary announced the closure of <br />the gates at Glen Canyon and the modification of the 1962 Filling Criteria to reduce by 40 feet, from eleva- <br />tion 1123 (rated power head) to elevation 1083 (minimum power pool), the water level below which Lake <br />Mead would not be drawn. This was conditioned on the fact that, in addition to the allowance for deficiencies <br />in firm energy pursuant to the 1962 Filling Criteria, the United States would replace impairments in Hoover <br />Powerplant capacity and energy which result from lowering Lake Mead below. elevation 1123 by reason of <br />storage of water in Lake Powell, and would also relieve the allottees of the costs of extraordinary <br />maintenance of the turbines and generators resulting from such lowering. These costs would be charged to <br />the.Upper Basin Fund but were not subject to reimbursement as was the case for deficiencies in firm energy as <br />/ determined pursuant to the 1962 Filling Criteria. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.