Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Ruland Robison <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />What is most important, however, is not the range of preliminary <br />alternatives identified but the process for identifying only those alterna- <br />tives that can be considered "reasonable" that will be sent to the Secretary <br />of the Interior for possible implementation. On page 15 of the March 1991 <br />Newsletter is a description of the "reasonable alternatives selection pro- <br />cess." We believe that if this process is followed as described, any alterna- <br />tives that would require changes in either statutes or compacts should be <br />eliminated from further consideration. The intent of this process remains <br />unclear, however, because in response to questions at both the Flagstaff and <br />Phoenix, Arizona meetings on the future "weeding Dutil process, the Bureau <br />representatives did not seem to know how they would proceed. <br /> <br />As described in the Bureau briefings at the subject meetings, we believe <br />that the currently formulated alternatives (1) "Run of the River" (2) "Histor- <br />ic Pattern" (3) "Year Around Steady Flows" and (4) "Seasonally Adjusted Steady <br />Flows" would require operations which would not result in the achievement of <br />water conservation purposes and would violate Public Law 84-485, the Colorado <br />River Storage Project Act (CRSP). and Public Law 90-537, the Colorado River <br />Basin Project Act (CRBPA). These alternatives cannot be considered reasonable <br />and, therefore should now be "...eliminated from detailed study, briefly <br />discussing the reasons for their having been eliminated" (40 CFR 1502.14(a)). <br /> <br />One briefing discussion "on other actions to be considered" also created <br />significant concern. Although Public Law 84-485 authorized the CRSP and <br />participating projects "...in order to initiate the comprehensive development <br />of the water resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin, for the purposes, <br />among others,...for the control of floods...", at Glen Canyon Dam there are no <br />flood control operations mandated, no flood control benefits identified, and <br />no flood control costs made non-reimbursable. The Colorado River Basin <br />Project Act (Public Law 90-537) does require operations to avoid anticipated <br />spills from Lake Powell. This Act also recognizes that hydropower development <br />and other project purposes are subservient to the primary purposes established <br />by Section 602(a). However, in implementing Section 602(a) of the CRBPA, the <br />"Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs" <br />(June 8, 1970) provides in Article 11(4) that equalization releases be <br />constrained to power plant capacity, and it could be interpreted to suggest <br />that "to avoid anticipated spills" also means to avoid power plant bypasses. <br />This interpretation is consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation's and Western <br />Area Power Administration's historical operating expectations. <br /> <br />CRBPA legislative history (House Report No. 1312) also discusses the <br />intent of Section 602(a). The following text provides further guidance: <br /> <br />The third listed criterion (iii), to avoid spilling water from <br />Lake Powell, is obviously consistent with good water management. <br /> <br />Subsection (c) of section 602 directs that section 7 of the <br />Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 Stat. 109), which relates <br />to power production, be administered in accordance with the crite- <br />ria set out in this section. This provision is appropriate and <br />