Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />~' <br /> <br /> <br />i}\\il <br />'_'~~;"l,,-:; <br />:~~~il! <br /> <br />~- ~.::p.:; <br />:~!~lr <br />"'\;' ~."" <br /> <br />~~~iJ ; <br /> <br />;,-,-::;r.' <br /> <br /> <br />002875 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />VlI-lO <br /> <br />UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS <br /> <br />to "current calendar year" was not adopted because the existing language comports with the exact language <br />of Section 602(b) of P.L. 90.537, In the last sentence of Subarticle 1(2) the reference to "projected plans of <br />'operation" has been revised to "projected plan" as suggested by both Divisions, Upper Division proposals in <br />Subarticle 1(2) were adopted that the reerence to "water quality" as one of the uses of the reservoirs to which <br />appropriate consideration shall be given be revised to "water quality control" and the phrase that the pro- <br />jected plan of operation "shall be revised as necessary" was changed to "may be revised". Also, the phrase in <br />the last sentence of Subartic1e 1(2) that the "Governors of the Colorado River Basin States advised of any <br />changes. . ." was changed to "Governors of the Colorado River Basin States shall be advised of any <br />changes. . ." so that it now reads: <br /> <br />"The projected plan of operation may be revised to reflect the current hydrologic conditions. and the Con. <br />gress and the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States shall be advised of any changes by June of <br />each year." <br /> <br />The Upper Basin proposal that a reference to "the primary objectives of Section 602(a) of P,L. 90-537" be <br />inserted in the first sentence of Subarticle 1(2) has been rejected because it would then be incumbent to ex- <br />plain what are considered "primary objectives" as opposed to "secondary objectives" and it is unnecessary to <br />become involved in these concepts at this time. An Upper Division proposal was rejected that "designated <br />representatives" of the Governors be included in the parties to be advised of changes in the projected plan of <br />operation because this is not a statutory requirement with regard to the plan of operation although it is are. <br />quirement of Section 602(b) that there be consultation regarding modification of the criteria. <br /> <br />In the first sentence of Subarticle U(I), designated "Operation of Upper Basin Reservoirs", a Lower Division <br />proposal was adopted in order to be consistent with the language of Section 602(a) of P.L. 90-537 and. in <br />accordance therewith, the reference to the Secretary's determination of the quantity of water considered <br />necessary as of September 30 to be in storage "after consideration of and compliance with the provisions" of <br />Section 602(a) was revised to delete the above.quoted portion and to substitute therefor '.as required by", In <br />Subarticle 1I(l) (d), one of the factors to be considered in the Secretary's determination of the quantity of <br />602(a) storage of Lower Division proposal would have provided: <br /> <br />"Estimated future depletions in the Upper Basin, [including] assuming recurrence of critical periods of <br />water supply;. . ," <br /> <br />However, this was rejected although a change was made by inserting "the effects of' between "including" <br />and "recurrence" so that Subarticle 1I(l)(d) now reads: <br /> <br />"Estimated future depletions in the Upper Basin, including the effects of recurrence of critical periods of <br />water supply;. . ." <br /> <br />In Subarticle 1I(l) (e) which included a reference to the "Report of the Committee on Probabilities and Test <br />Studies" as another of the factors to be considered by the Secretary in determining the quantity of Section <br />602(a) storage, the Upper Division proposed to limit the effect of the report "to the extent it is applicable to <br />the 98.4 + % rule curve developed therein". This was rejected because such a reference is unnecessarily <br />restrictive and because the entire report and not only a portion thereof should be considered at this time. The <br />Upper Division also advocated the immediate application of the 98.4 + % rule curve to determine the <br />amount of storage needed in the Upper Basin reservoirs to meet the requirements of Section 602(a) of P.L. <br />90.537. Test operation studies referred to in Subarticle 1I(l)(e) or'the Operating Criteria show that factors <br />other than a rule curve will, for many years. govern the storage of water in the Upper Basin reservoirs. <br />Hence, a rule curve is not now included in the Operating Criteria. Experience gained under the Operating <br />Criteria will assist in formulating an appropriate rule curve. Also. an Upper Division proposal to substitute <br /> <br />