BOARD01321 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

And then it goes on to set up a formula for the reduction of the charges to be made to the contractors. As a matter of fact, over the years, and a little less than 50% of the time, these firm power contracts were not fulfilled even though Glen Canyon was not in existence, and nobody worried about the fact. But suddenly, we have a new fund known as the 'Upper Basin Fund' which is an attractive target to now raid and to give a scanctity to contracts which heretofore were of no great concern to anyone. If the Upper Basin Fund is raided in this manner, then we feel that we are in serious trouble in the Upper Basin states. I What the proposed criteria in effect does, is pass along to the Upper Basin all the risk of the flow of the Colorado River over which we have no more control in its natural state than do the Lower Basin states. The entire risk is visited upon the Upper Basin states. If we have to bear the brunt of a low flow plus a raid upon the scanty revenues that will be derived during such operation, then we are in serious trouble in the Upper Basin. We feel that under no circumstances can we ever permit any diver- sion of these Upper Basin funds. It is total- ly unnecessary. There is no reason for such a concept. The Boulder Canyon Adjustment Act was passed specifically to take into consider- ation that those estimates of the late 1930's might not be accurate, and it also specifically provides that the Secretary of the Interior can extend the repayment period of Hoover Dam. That being the case, these power rates can be adjusted today to t~,e care of any amortiza- tion deficiency without injury to either the Upper or Lower Basin. I So why now is there a thought that we must make up these so-called power deficien- cies, utilizing, remember, all the time, our own water and at all times delivering to the Lower Basin all of the water to which it is entitled?