WSP04363 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Another problem is economic development of power on transbasin diversion projects, such as Central Utah, Gunnison-Arkansas, and Colorado- Big Thompson. Our Commission commented officially on the Gunnison-Arkansas Project proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation. The initial phase consists of a diversion from Roaring Fork Basin to the Arkansas River, where the diverted water and available natural flow would be used for irrigation, water supply, and power. The project, like most others for diverting Colorado River water out of the Upper Basin" would provide opportunity for power development by utilizing the diverted ~ater in the adjacent basin. However, in nearly all cases, the water would produce more power, after development of the Colorado River is complete, if it remained in the Basin. But the diversions are primarily for irrigation and municipal water supply, which have priority under the Colorado River Ccmpact and related documents over use of water for generation of power, so we assume that if the diversions are economically feasible and within the water rights of the states concerned, the losses in power generation in the Colorado River are allowable and do not at this time constitute a charge against the diversions. The problem of priority of rights to Colorado River power has been raised. Potential developments in some states are considerably greater than prospective loads for many years in the future. Therefore, if the projects were to be utilized only in the states in which they are located, some de- velopments would be delayed many years. This raises the question as to transmitting the power initially into distant market areas in other states, but since large expenditures for transmissipn facilities would be required, that may not be feasible unless long-term contracts are negotiated. The Lower Basin market area will require an add~tional 4,300,000 kilowatts by 1970, whereas potential hydro developments in the Lower Basin are only about 2,700,000 kilowatts. In the Upper Basin, only 600,000 kilowatts of addition- al power will be required by 1970, whereas potential hydro developments total 2,700,000 kilowatts. This unbalance of loads and supply suggests that power should be transmitted from the Upper to the Lower Basin, to avoid indefinite delays in Upper Basin developments for irr~gation. Selection of projects for initial !development is a problem. Power from projects available to the Lower Basinimarket area could be utilized there in the near future. However, the Marble Canyon, Kanab Creek, and Bridge Canyon Projects in the Lower Basin would be dependent on storage regulation and sediment control by the Glen Canyon Project in the Upper Basin. There is a demand in the Los Angeles area for power from Glen Canyon, and if the project is constructed in the n$xt few years, the power could flow initially to that area. Upper Basin States, however, are unwilling that it be sold permanently to the Lower Basin. Filling the large reservoir created by the Glen Canyon Dam would be a problem. We believe that in a series' of average or above average years, it could be filled and firm power simultaneously maintained at Hoover Dam. However, in a series of dry years the filling would require reduction in contractual firm output at Hoover. Deficiencies in Hoover generation could be supplied from Glen Canyon or from Lower' Basin projects yet to be construct- ed. There are difficulties in this proce~ure, and there may be objections. However, since the undeveloped Lower Basin projects would require construction of Glen Canyon Reservoir it would be advantageous for all concerned to fill this reservoir quickly. . -26-