BOARD00004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Agenda Item 23h -GCAMP January 14,2000 Page 2 00 Before agreeing to any proposal of this nature, we should discuss it with the Western Area Power Administration and the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, detennine what the economic loss is and whether or not such loss would be acceptable to power interests. We also need to know whether or not the lost revenue has any negative impact on CRSP and participating projects other than extending the repayment period. We also need to realize that this release may be beneficial to surplus opportunities in the lower basin. Finally, we must be absolutely finn that such operation will not increase in any way the projected amount of release from the Upper Basin during that year or trigger additional flood control releases from Lake Mead. Given the January 1, 2000 forecasted inflow into Lake Powell, which is 55% of average at this time, this is not likely to be an immediate issue. Our bigger'issue, if the forecast holds, will be telling California that this is an 8.23 MAF delivery year and that there is no surplus declaration on which to rely to keep the MWD aqueduct full. Recommendation This is an infonnational item, but of significant importance that wM%.nted the Board to have time to fully consider the opportunity in the event climatic conditions change. If we can couch the addition of a forth hydrologic trigger in a fashion that we are all comfortable with, then from a policy standpoint we should support a request from the TWG to the AMWG and subsequently to Reclamation to further investigate this opportunity. The next AMWG meeting is set for January 20, 2000 in Phoenix and Peter may have more to report following the meeting. We also plan to discuss this with the Colorado River Policy Advisory Council on January 27th. Attachments