WSPC03493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(i\,; ); :i:! _:i,' ~',~ ia:le~; > ",' , '" I'" :.',',.,,' ',': ;'1' E. ~ .';!"i"!: :;-~ ,'. Jil .:,~,.!;: :.' i~l- :' ~~:' '}~~~: ':;'3:~.~ . .I~' "'"'., ;. . ~:~ --- \j()2.811 . . VII-12 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS The Lower Division suggested that Subarticle 11(3), which, as proposed, provided "After commencement of delivery of mainstream water by means of the Central Arizona Project, ' . ." be revised to read: "After com- mencement of delivery of mainstream water into centraf Arizona by means of the Central Arizona Project, . . ." since "into central Arizona" previously appears in Subarticle III (2) , This suggestion was not adopted but, in lieu thereof, the phrase "into central Arizona" was deleted from Subarticle 1lI(2) as unnecessary. The word "will" was not changed to "shall" in Subarticle 1II(2) as was suggested by the Lower Division, I f In Subarticle 1II(3)(a) the statutory citation has been added to the reference to "Arizona v. California" for clarity. In Subarticle 1lI(3)(b) the Lower Division proposal that the reference to "Normal" be followed by "as defined above" in Subarticle 1II(3)(a) was nat considered necessary. However, a Lower Division proposal was adopted that the reference to "factors" in Subarticle 1II(3)(b)(i) and in Subarticle 1II(3) (c)(i) be l hanged to "re. quirements" in order to be consistent with Subartic1e III(l) which is the reference point and since "require- ments" is the term used therein. The Lower Division proposal that Subarticle 1II(3)(c)(iv), which refers to "historic stream flows, including the mast critical period of record;" be expanded by the addition of "and its probability of occurrence" as not adopted because the suggested addition was considered redundant. However, the Lower Division proposed Article 1II(3) Ic) (v) was adopted and reads: "(v) Priorities set forth in Article 1I(A) of the Decree in Arizona v, California; and" The Lower Division proposal that former Subarticle 1II(3) Ic)(v). redesignated as Subarticle 1II(3)(c)(vi), which referred to "water quality factors, environmental conditions. and usefulness of Lake Mead for recreational and fishery purposes.", be revised as follows was adopted, except that the word "purposes" was substituted for "factors": "(vi) The [factors] purposes stated in Article 1(1) of these Operating Criteria," In Subarticle iV(1)(b) the Upper Division proposal was adopted that the definition of "surplus" be expanded by a stc:tcmCrlt that the term "3Urp!US" as used in these criteria is not to be construed as applying to, being in- terpretive of, or in any manner having reference to the term "surplus" in The Colorado River Compact. However. the reference therein to "these criteria" was changed to "these Operating Criteria". In Subarticle iV(l)(c), the definition of "'Net inflow to Lake Mead' as used in Subarticle 111 (3)(b)(iv) herdn. . ." has been expanded to include as omitted reference to "and (c)(iii)" following the rderence to "Ar- ticle 1lI (c)(b)(iv)." The Lower Division proposal for a new Article IV(1)(d) definition of "Available capability" was adopted ex- cept that the phrase "at any time" was deleted therefrom so that it provides: "(d) 'Available capability', as used in Article 1i(4) herein, means that portion of the total capacity of the powerplant that is physically available [at any time] for generation." ' Finally. the Lower Division definition of "Release from Lake Mead" which was designed to encompass "water either pumped from Lake Mead or delivered to the Colorado River below Lake Mead" was not adopted because the relevant statements in Article 1lI concerning water either pumped from Lake Mead or released from Lake Mead are well understood and adequately covered the factual situation. ..~ , , !