My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01185
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01185
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:29:40 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:14:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.500.20.A
Description
Colorado River Operations
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
8/15/1986
Author
UCRC
Title
Draft - Upper Colorado River Commission Action Related to Operation of the Colorado River Reservoir System
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Basic Concepts" that the Upper Division States should be mindful of during <br /> <br />the formulation of the long-range operating criteria. (Refer to the <br /> <br />discussion under "Commission position.lt) <br /> <br />The report of the Engineering Committee proceeded to identify specific <br /> <br />positions of importance to the Upper Division States. One position <br /> <br />concerning Upper Basin storage noted that section 602 only requires that <br /> <br />"probabilities of water supply" be taken into consideration. The October 30, <br /> <br />1969 "Report of the Committee on Probabilities and Test Studies to the Task <br /> <br />Force on Operating Criteria for the Colorado River" implied a probability <br /> <br />criterion of "98.4+%" as the maximum that should be imposed on the Upper <br /> <br />Division by the long-range operating criteria. <br /> <br />The Engineering Committee also noted that the Secretary's storage <br /> <br />requirement provides for annual releases of 8.23 maf from Lake Powell. With <br /> <br />an allowance of 20,000 acre-feet inflow from the Paria River, annual delivery <br /> <br />at Lee Ferry would be 8.25 maf. (The Bureau of Reclamation claims that it is <br /> <br />coincidental that this figure equals 7.5 mafplus 750,000 acre-feet, or the <br /> <br />Article 111(a) Lower Basin Compact apportionment of 7.5 maf per year plus <br /> <br />one-half of the 1.5 maf Mexican Water Treaty delivery.) <br /> <br />The long-range <br /> <br />operating criteria were to include a statement that releases of 8.23 maf per <br /> <br />year should not be construed as the obligation of the Upper Division States <br /> <br />under Article III of the Colorado River Compact. Section 11(5) of the Long- <br /> <br />Range Operating Criteria contains a disclaimer for that purpose. <br /> <br />Comments on the draft criteria from the Lower Division States pointed to <br /> <br />Bureau studies that indicated that the Upper Basin would not suffer shortages <br /> <br />or violate minimum power head under any rule curve tested. As a result, the <br /> <br />Lower Basin States asserted that great latitude should be granted in the use <br /> <br />of the total active storage in Lake Mead. <br /> <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.