Laserfiche WebLink
<br />UPPER COLORADO REGION <br />RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM <br />PAUL BLEDSOE <br />001 - COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE <br />DECEMBER 3, 1996 <br /> <br />1) What is our official response to the David Brower proposal to open the divenion <br />tunnel and draw down Lake Powell. For example, even apart from policy <br />considerations, is such an adion technically feasible? <br /> <br />The action is technically feasible, but would cost a significant amount of money, <br />Reclamation has not studied how that could best be done, and does not intent to spend <br />funds to conduct such a study unless directed by Congress or the Secretary, In the <br />absence of authority to undertake such an action (following question), it would be <br />inappropriate to spend money on such a study, <br /> <br />In terms of our response to the Brower proposal, we believe that there would be <br />widespread ramifications and impacts to such a proposal that probably would indicate it is <br />not in the best interest of the country to undertake such an exercise, <br /> <br />The proposal would obviously require an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with <br />NEPA and consultation to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Impacts related to <br />the Clean Water Act and other legislation would also have to be studied, <br /> <br />Such a proposal would also require legislation to allow Lake Powell to be drained, either <br />for the Brower proposal to completely drain or for the Glen Canyon Institute to drain to <br />minimum power head, Current operation is in compliance with the Colorado River Basin <br />Project Act of 1968 (pL 90-537), Also, draining the reservoir would make it difficult to <br />comply with the Colorado River Project Act of 1956 (pL 87-485), <br /> <br />2) Can Lake Mead handle the storage which would be necessary if Lake Powell were <br />drained? <br /> <br />The answer is no, Lake Mead cannot handle the consumptive uses of the Colorado Basin, <br />even for the scenario of present Upper Basin storage, The inability to meet this need will <br />especially be the case when the Upper Basin of the Colorado River is at full development, <br />per the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact <br />of 1948, <br /> <br />By the terms of the 1922 Compact, the Upper Basin States guaranteed delivery of 75 maf <br />in any ten-year period, Drought periods during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's <br />recorded annual flows at Lee Ferry ofless than 7,5 mafwith a low of4,4 mafin 1934, <br />Without the carry-over storage in Lake Powell available during such times, existini uses in <br />the Upper Basin might be curtailed in similar droughts, Without Lake Powell storage, <br />