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

OOLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT

43

.

fund be used to make up deficiencies in basic firm energy generation
at Hoover powerplahts. It proposes further that any money used
from the upper basin fund for this purpose would be reimbursed
without interest from Hoover power revenues after 1987. It also
plainly states that there would be no compensation for nPl?er basin
energy used to meet the defieiencies in Hoover generatlOn. No
explanation is given for the reasons behind the proposal to reimburse
the dollars advanced and the denial of reimbursement for the energy
used.
As far as I have bben able to aseertain there is nothing in any of
the eompaets or eongressional aets that constitute the "law of the
river" that would direet the Seeretary of the Interior, or even authorize
him, to take either money or energy derived from a subsequent
development on the Colorado River, such as that at Glen Oanyon, for
the benefit of a prior established facility, such as, Hoover Dam and
Reservoir. Also, under the Colorado River Storage Projeet Aet, all of
the revenues of the basin fund are alloeated to specifie purposes, and
thesc purposes do not include paying for defieieneies in generation at
Hoover as a part of the operation and maintenanee at Glen Oanyon.
Diminutions m generation at Hoover were eontemplate.d at the time of
signing the Hoover :POWe1' contracts. In fact, those Hoover power
eontraets are between the Seeretary and the Hoover power allottees,
and the upper basin as a third party has no responsibility under the
contraets.
As you ean see, I am very much opposed to the eoneept expressed in
principle 5 of your proposed "general prineiples" that would Iequire
the use of upper basJh revenues or energy for the purpose of paying for
defieieneies in generation at Hoover Dam that might be eaused by the
operation of Glen Oanyon Dam and other upper basin powerplants.
As a result of inquiries made by my office to your solieitor, I under-
stand that the tenus of the Boulder Canyon Project Aet and the
Boulder Canyon Projeet Adjustment Aet and the general regulations
promulgated thereunder are not adeqnate to provide for meeting
the so-ealled deficieriey-in-generation problems that might be created
at Hoover Dam. It is therefore apparent that if this problem is to
be resolved through the use of existing legislation, amendments to
these aets may be necessary in order to give the Seeretary authority
to meet the situation that exists. between himself and the Hoover
power allottees with respeet to fulfilling the Hoover power eontraets.
If you ean propose remedial legislation I would be very happy to
examine it and the possibilities of its enactment by the Oongress.
If you, as Seereti1ry, find that it is absolutely neeessal'Y, due to
eonditions beyond your eontrol, that revenues of the upper basin
fund or energv gen~rated at upper basin powerplants must be used
for the pmpose of making up .deficieneies in basie firm. energy genera-
tion at Hoover Dam during the filling period of upper basin reservoirs,
I feel t.hat it is mandatory that your proposed filling eriteria be
modified in eertain i'espeets. Several suggestions for modifieation of
your proposed eriteria have emanated fr.om teehnieians representing
the upper division States, ineluding New Mexieo. I feel that these
proposals should be .given serious eonsideration by your office as well
as by all interested parties in the Oolorado River Basin.

;:

.