Chapter 1: Summary of "The Law of the River"

Home Browse Search

22 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS Minimum power operating level (6.1 maf at elevation. 3490) was achieved in Lake Powell on August 18, 1964. Energy generation began September 4, 1964. To obtain this minimum power pool at Glen Canyon Dam the flow at Lee Ferry was restricted to 2,520,000 acre -feet in water year 1963 and 2,427,000 acre -feet in water year 1964. Because of the tight water situation, Secretary Udall also directed Lower Basin water users, on May 16, 1964, to reduce their water demands by 10 percent for the period of July through December 1964. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California was exempted from the 10 percent cutback. Also, a suit by the Yuma Valley water users to overturn the decision was unsuccessful. The water surface elevation of Lake Mead dropped to a low of 1088.1 in December 1964, but was restored to rated power head elevation of 1123 on June 23, 1965. The Upper Basin has repeatedly sought termination of the Filling Criteria or relief from use of the Upper Colorado Ri River Basin Project Act whichrprovidesforcreimbursemeont to UpperiBasi Sec the n.Fundfor monies Colorado R used therefrom and replaced Additional Regulation No. 1. Upper Basin efforts to terminate the Filling During discussions on the formulation of the Operating Criteria, Criteria were unsuccessful, as were other attempts in 1975 and 1978. The Filling Criteria are elaborated on in Chapter VI. M. The Colorado River Basin Project Act - Public Law 90 -537 This Act was signed September 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 885, and was the result of many years of negotiation and compromise between California, the other Colorado River Basin States, the Columbia River Basin States, the Federal Government, and conservation groups and others. Immediately after the Supreme Court Opinion in Arizona v. California on June 3, 1963,_ and even before the Decree issued March 9, 1964, the Senate Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Committee Insular Affairs met to consider S.1658, introduced by Senators Hayden and Goldwater of on Interior and Arizona on June 4, 1963, to authorize the Central Arizona Project (CAP) . Arizona's need for the project was . based on the claim that Arizona's economy was threatened unless "additional water was available to it and that 4j ground -water pumping of 3.5 maf far exceeded annual recharge of 1.0 maf. �n The hearings proceeded over the protests 'of California's Senator Kuchel that Interior had not yet reported r on the pending legislation as required by law and that Secretary Udall had just completed his Basin -wide pro - s a part. California also was seeking a rehearing in posal, the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, of which CAP wa uses a priority . Arizona v. California. Senator Kuchbl also °ona forexisting Arizona w ter ses, a the need r for augmenting over CAP similar to that recognize d y the river. Several different versions of legislation were considered over the next several Congresses, ranging from a bare bones CAP, a Lower Colorado River Basin Project, to a Basin -wide project. The various versions re- volved around inclusion of Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon Dams as a source of power to pump the A P water and to aid CAP financially, both of which were strenuously opposed by environmental groups, quacy of the water supplies and its availability for additional projects, and the need for the extent of (2.5 to 8 maf) augmentation of the river which was opposed by the Columbia River Basin States because this Basin was a possible source of augmentation. In addition, the question of a priority for California's 4.4 maf and the length of such priority were key issues. It was suggested that such a priority would give California the victory it was denied in Arizona v. California. In the back of the debates were studies by Arizona of the possibility that Arizona would finance and build CAP with its own funds —a "go it alone" concept that had enormous potential impacts on all future Reclama- tion projects. Other Upper and Lower Basin differences revolved around the rate of development in the Up- per Basin, the use of Upper Colorado River Basin Fund revenues to purchase power to meet Hoover Power - plant deficiencies, the continuation of the Filling Criteria, the inclusion of Gila River flows as part of the water supply Mexican Water Treaty, and whether the Mexican Treaty burden should be ply available to satisfy th p . g p p _ pP made a na onal t► - obligation - , - and the Upper Basin's desire to protect their water su lies fo later use agai nst the temporary use in the Lower Basin.