WSP00620

• File Number: 8220.100.40
• Description: CRSP
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 3/14/1963
• Author: USDOI
• Title: Sixth Annual Report on the Statuts of the Colorado River Storage Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Annual Report

8

CO~ORADORIVER STORAGE PROJECT

believe the wording now used adequately covers this matter, (See
my memorandum i of January 18, 1960,) To insert the words "or
losses" would, in bur opinion, confuse the issue b)' introducing the
aspect of replaci~g river losses (as distinguished from reservoir
losses) for no apP!>rent reason, We have inserted the word "and/"
after the words "Lake Powell" as suggested.
Principle 5;-This principle, dealing as it does with partial allowance
for diminution of Hoover energy during the filling period and subse-
quent partial reimbursement of the Upper Colorado River Basin fund,
both contains the' heart of the solution to formulation of acceptable
filling criteria and!invokes the most perplexing problems, The recent
comments on thi$ principle cover a wide range of previously held
positions varyin!j ifrom that of the upper basin States that they are
under no obligat]{jn to m~ke allowance for Hoover power d~fici~nci~s
to that of the lower basm States that allowance for defiClenclOs m
diminution of botl;t energy and capacity at Hoover .should be provided
without reimburs~ment, Neither extreme,in our opinion, is practical
or serves the purposes sought.
Principle 5 as s'et forth m the revised general principles and filling
criteria recommended in my memorandum of June 13, 1961, represents
the selection of ,a middle-ground solution based on an impllJ'tial
appraisal of all of the issues involved. In essence, it is a product of
judgment as to what constitutes a practical procedure, Such judg-
ment. must be made, however, and we sincerely hope accepted, if the
related issues are to bekept clear of court actions or other 10ng-drawn-
out procedures, fhich, we believe, would work to the . advantage of
neither the upper nor lower basin interests nor to the overall develop-
ment of the wat~r resources of the Colorado River Basin, We still
believe that principle 5, as proposed and explained in my June 13, 1961,
memorandum, is ~he most practical appreach available.
Other points relating to principle 5 were raised that warrant
discussion.
The upper basin interests reiterated their proposal that the Colorado
River developmeJ?t fund be used either to make necessary replacement
energy purchases or to reimburse the Upper Colorado River Basin
fund on a curreJ:.t basis. We believe that this proposal has merit
and should be further explored. If there is found to begenera1 sup-
port for this among the various basin interests, I would recommend
that. the Departjnent sponsor such legislation as may be required.
The upper ba~in interests point out that principle 5 provides a
guarantee of enetgy to the Hoover power allottees but only an intent
to reimburse the,Upper Colorado River Basin fund, As pointed out
in my memoranqum of June 13, 1961, this is as far as the Seeretary
ean go at this ti'1';e without additional legislation.
The lower basin interests suggest that evaporation from storage
project reservoir$ should be taken into aceount in determining dim-
inution in Hoov$r energy. This was diseussed in my memorandum
of June 13, 196~, and the reasons for our position stated therein
have not ehangell,
It was suggested that Hoover replacement energ)' should be de-
livered at times as well as at points~cceptable to both the Secretar)'
and the Hoover;power allottees. As stated in my memorandum of
June 13, 1961, iUhe allowance is made by delivering energy, it will be
delivered in a nionthly pattern designed to fit those months when