Laserfiche WebLink
<br />COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />chase replacement energy, Such a proposal would require legislation <br />since it would, among other things, in practical effect involve applica- <br />tion of revenues received from Hoover power sales for purposes not <br />consistent with the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act. <br />By the proposal to make an allowance we are in effect guaranteeing <br />energy to the extent of the deficiency computed by the formula, We <br />hav'e been asked to consider also guaranteeing capacity. It is our <br />understanding that the Hoover power contractors would consider <br />capacity as having been guaranteed if we provided in the criteria that <br />Lake Mead would .not be drawn down below elevation 1,146 (17 <br />million-acre-feet available surface storage) at least during the time <br />Lake Powell is filling to dead storage level. It has also been suggested <br />that holding Lake Mead to elevation 1,146, while gaining dead storage <br />in Lake Powell, would provide more of a cushion for downstream water <br />users in the event of a dry year following the year in which Lake <br />Mead may already have been drawn down to 17 million acre-feet. <br />After considering tl;lese suggestions, we are, first of the opinion that <br />based upon knowledge of historical operation no undue risk is run <br />when elevation 1,123 (14.5 million acre-feet) is made the minimum <br />draw-down point; second, the important objective of gaining minimum <br />power head at Glen Canyon (elevation 3,490) in the earliest practicable <br />time would be defeated; and third, we have already provided for not <br />drawing Lake Mead below the rated head of the Hoover powerp1ant, <br />To maintain Lake Mead above elevation 1,123 under all conditions <br />would in effect be guaranteeing overload capacity, Because of these <br />factors no change has been made in principle 7, <br />Other changes in the present draft are summarized as follows: <br />To conform with It recent decision, the official name "Lake Powell" <br />has been used in lieu of "Glen Canyon Reservoir." <br />In principle 1, an insert has been made to indicate that the general <br />principles and criteria might be affected by possible future acts of the <br />Congress. <br />Principles 2 and 10 have been combined as suggested at the con- <br />ferences, Old principle 10 has been eliminated, and principle 2 has <br />been expanded. Also, as suggested, provision has been made for the <br />Secretary to consult with both the upper and the lower basin interests <br />before termination ilf the general principles and criteria for reasons <br />other than attainment of the two specific conditions set forth in prin- <br />ciple 2, The Commissioner's memorandum to the Secretary dated <br />January 18, 1960, as well as our oral statements at the three meetings, <br />explained old principle 10 in the light of possible earlier termination <br />of the general principles and criteria due to obtaining sufficient <br />storage to permit cyclical operation, We must also point out that the <br />principle would likewise permit termination under conditions of un- <br />satisfactory filling, ", <br />Principle 8 has been shortened by deleting the indented portion. <br />This is in accordance with the suggestions received at the conference, <br />The principle enunciated has not been changed, <br />Prmciple 9 has been revised to recognize the possibility that there <br />might be some generation of secondary energy at the Hoover power- <br />plap.~ during the filling period, With the criteria on water releases <br />described in principle 3, it is not likely that there will be any secondary <br />energy generated dUring the filling period, Nevertheless, should there <br />be incidental secondary energy, it will be disposed of in the same <br />manner as has been the case in the past, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />