BOARD02022

• Board Meeting Date: 3/11/1959
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

1382

the downstream consumptive use require-
ments and, of course, that produced the
quantities of water annually that could
be passed through the power plant at
Hoover and those figures were given to Mr.
McClellan to analyze them on what the
effect this reduction in energy that would I
be generated at Hoover would have on the
amortization schedule that is set up for
the amortization of Hoover Dam and also
on the power contract.

There is no point - as under these
criteria and only filling of 17 million
acre feet - of trying to kid ourselves that
there is going to be any benefits accrue to
Hoover Dam by withholding l7 million acre
feet in Glen Canyon. That is simply l7
million acre feet that will not go through
the generators at Hoover and I don't see how
you can say that would do Hoover any good
so that we must admit that there is no bene-
fit to Hoover from that standpoint and not
necessarily any benefit to the nation as a
whole except as they will reflect in later
operations at Glen Canyon. Of course, later
operations when Glen Canyon is full, then
every drop of water that goes through the
generators at Glen Canyon will also go through
the generators at Hoover Dam and will natural-
ly result in a greater production of relative-
ly low cost. electrical energy for the area
and there will be some national benefits
there.

Over a long range period and assuming
that the flows may be sucp: as they have been
in the past, there can be some benefits accrue
to Hoover Dam over the long haul. There will
be some reduction in the sediment load de-
posited at Hoover Dam and from there, of
course, at any time when the flow in a series
of successive years would be such that spill
would have to be effected at Hoover from it,
that water could be impounded in Glen Canyon I
and the additional river regulation would
accrue as a:'benefit to HRover Dam as well as
to the upper basin.-