WSP05142

• File Number: 8220.101.17
• Description: Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 8/20/1972
• Title: Draft of Reply to Paper by Dr. James R. Guadagno
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

3600 feet could be made up at Hoover.

If this is the

. LJr~y/

case, it should be

mentioned that no significant change in the operating levels at Hoover

can be foreseen because of changes in maximum allowable water levels at

Lake Powell. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain how the capacity

lost at Glen Canyon could be regained at Hoover.

The cost of prod~cing energy at Hoover Darn is immaterial to the

Upper Basin anyhow, because under the law there is no w~ of crediting

power revenues created by generation there to the Upper Basin.

The doctor's statement that nothing can be done now to help

retrieve the federal government's investment in Glen Canyon Dam and the

Colorado River Storage Project is another untruth refuted by the facts.

. All that is necessary for the government to retrieve its investment and,

~ addition, create an Upper Colorado River Basin Fund of over a billion

dollars by year 2059 is to operate Lcl.e Powell as Congress intended when

it passed the Colorado River Storage Project Ac~ ~~ the Colorado River

Basin Project Act. For instance, in fiscal 1971, pOlrer operating revenues

paid all power operating and interest costs and repaid ~8.4 million of the

principal on costs allocated to construction of power facilities for a

cumulative total payment of $13.3 million to the end of the fiscal year.

Interest-bearing investment in power features will be repaid by the end

of fiscal year 2008. By 2011 all power, irrigation, and municipal and

industrial allocations of the entire Colorado River Storage Project and

the power allocations of the Seedskadee participating project and Central

Utah Project will be entirely repaid.

-

14