WSP05306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Basin Project Act, however, states preferences for uses ocher than power 37 production. For several reasons, electrical generation is An important option coday. Upper Basin power generation can justify dams that will provide more storage upriver and return significant reVenues. Lower Basin interests may also favor such development as prospective customers of the power, Questions are rife as to the rights and obligations of the two basins with respect to power generation and the preferences expressed in the law of the river. Can the Lower Basin demand delivery of its share of water when it is not needed for agricultural and domestic uses so that it can be used for hydroelectric power generation? Does it matter whether such deliveries will result in reduction of Upper Basin agricultural and domestic uses or whether 38 they can be accommodated simply by releases of stored water? Can the Lower Basin demand that excess stored waters (over the compact entitlement) be deliv- d 1 1 f ' ,39 ere so e y or power generatlon. Can the Upper Basin have credit against its compact obligation for any excess releases made to generate power but not demanded for Lower Basin uses? Water users who are obliged to repay development costs for the dam system may favor power generation because pover revenues are ~1C::"::Il~apPlied to reduce the repayment obligation. Yet because some of the largest water cus- tomers on the Colorado use vast amounts of power to pump their water to dis- tant locations, there is no clear division of interests. Indeed, influential water users press to keep power prices low. For instance, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) which uses more of the Lower Basin's share of water than 40 any but the vast combined agricultural interests of the Imperial Valley, is 41 also one of the largest power consumers. It has much more to gain from a contract for extremely low-priced power than from infinitesimal reductions in - 14 -