Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/ <br /> <br />--- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />for fish and wildlife, and the generation and sale of <br />electrical power as an incident of the foregoing purposes. <br /> <br />43 U.S.C. S 1501(a). <br /> <br />The 1968 Act also directs the secretary to establish criteria for <br />the long-range operation of the reservoirs on the Colorado River, <br />43 v.s.C. S 1552, and provides that Section 7 of the Colorado <br />River Storage Project Act of 1956, shall be administered in <br />accordance with the criteria established by the Secretary, 43 <br />U.S.C. S l552(c). The criteria were established and published in <br />a document entitled, Colorado River Reservoirs Coordinated Long- <br />Range Operation, signed by then Secretary Hickel on June 4, 1970, <br />and provide that the reservoirs be operated with appropriate <br />consideration of their use for all purposes, -including flood <br />control, river regulation, beneficial consumptive uses, power <br />production, water quality control, recreation, enhancement of <br />fish and wildlife, and other environmental factors.- Thus, <br />notwithstanding any priority given to power production by the <br />1956 Act, it can certainly be argued that the 1968 Act and the <br />established criteria clearly evidence an intent that power be no <br />more equal than other enumerated purposes. <br /> <br />As .e have orally advised your staff, we are of the opinion that <br />the Secretary may change the operation of the dam, provided there <br />are well supported reasons, such as resource considerations, <br />which require the change. We also are of the opinion that the <br />issue of compliance with the National Environmental policy Act <br />(NEPA) needs to be examined more closely. While we are not <br />prepared to say that a change in the operation of the dam will <br />necessarily trigger the requirements of NEPA, we believe that it <br />could be a possibility, and the issue has been raised in the WAPA <br />opinion. We note in this regard a decision issued by U.S. <br />District Judge J. Thomas Green on April l4, 1988, in Salt Lake <br />City, et al. v. Western Area Power Administration, et al., Civil <br />No. C86-l00G, U.s.D.C., (0. Utah), which granted summary judgment <br />for defendants on the issue of WAPA's promulgation of power <br />marketing and allocation criteria for Glen Canyon Dam, but denied <br />summary judgment on the issue of WAPA's compliance with NEPA. We <br />are uncertain at this time what ramifications this decision may <br />have on the question of the application of NEPA to the Bureau's <br />operation of Glen Canyon Dam. <br /> <br />Finally, we have referred this matter to the Associate solicitor <br />for Energy and Resources and the Acting Associate solicitor for <br />Conservation and Wildlife for their review and further analysis. <br />Our examination of the WAPA opinion has been limited by our not <br />having ready access to the legislative histories and other <br />materials concerning the statutes at issue. Also, we feel it <br />