Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"~ "......'--.~,-........._,....-~. <br /> <br />Corfaro Water User's Association <br /> <br />"", .'. <br /> <br />, ....... <br />. '. <br />~ '- /. <br /> <br />AS AGENTS FOR <br /> <br />Cortaro - Marana Irrigation District <br /> <br />" ,j"'--""-,,-,, ..c......,. <br />:F 1,-,,-. _/ ~ :. .... . <br />I. ~a':.; <br />c",c L. <br /> <br />13B64 B NORTH SANDARIO ROAD <br />MARANA, ARIZONA BS23B <br /> <br />TUCSOJif791.2U1 <br />TELEPHONE '" ..... <br />MARANA 682.3233 . <br /> <br />l::r~r . <br /> <br />August 3, 1982 <br /> <br />.. '-- --.-' ---.. --.--... -..... <br /> <br />Mr, Al Gabiola, Area Manager <br />Department of Energy <br />Western Power Administration <br />P,Q. Box 11606 <br />Salt Lake City, UT 84147 <br /> <br />RE: Post-1989 Colorado River Storage Project <br />Marketing Criteria <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Gabiola: <br /> <br />The Cortaro-Marana Irrigation District of Pima County is <br />an Arizona political subdivision and a preference customer. <br /> <br />Cortaro-Marana Irrigation District has been vitally <br />concerned about the development of Colorado River Storage <br />Project (CRSPJ Marketing Criteria for the post 1989 periOd. <br /> <br />Cortaro-Marana Irrigation District submits the following <br />comments on the proposed consolidated power marketing plan as <br />reviewed by Western on June 10, 1982 in its Salt Lake City <br />pUblic information forum. <br /> <br />1. OPERATING CRITERIA AT GLEN CANYON DAM <br />Cortaro-Marana Irrigation District is strongly supportive <br />of the continuation of the existing operating criteria at <br />Glen Canyon Dam and 0 oses any manipulation of river flows <br />.which would reduce the current erating ch~ristic~ of <br />Glen. <br />,~ <br />2. RENEWAL OF EXISTING ALLOCATIONS <br />The exist~ng allocations and marketing of CRSP is derived <br />from a March 9, 1962 and a 1978 modification of Federal <br />Marketing criteria. In the circumstances of 1962, preference <br />customers had alternative energy sources other than CRSP. <br />One of those alternatives was a lesser cost alternative of <br />coal fired generation. It cannot seriously be doubted that <br />the United States in marketing 7% of the CRSP winter capability <br />and 20% of the CRSP summer capability to the Southern Division <br />and the balance to the Northern Division intended anything <br />other than to convince the customers they were buying a long <br />term embedded costs resource like a coal plant. <br /> <br />13 <br />