Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ,., .. ~ <br />.l.U~J. <br /> <br />a result of the City of Blythe and the <br />East Blythe County Water District <br />being reported separatelv from Palo <br />Verde Irrigation District in the <br />Department of thf' Interior's annual <br />report on diversions and returns <br />pursuant to Article Vlb) of the 19&4 <br />Arizona v. California Decree was <br />raised. The Water and Power <br />Resources Service representatives <br />agreed to look into this issue. Another <br />issue raised was the rights for the <br />water supply being served to the fort <br />Mojave Indian Reservation Tribal <br />Village by the City of Needles. <br /> <br />l1/ater 5upp~v for NoncomraCl Users <br />Along the lower Colorado River <br /> <br />The Board's 1978 Annual Report, in <br />discussing the Yuma Desahing Plant <br />Reject Stream Replacement Study, <br />mentioned a stud~' by the Water and <br />Power Resources Service of pumping <br />ground water from wells to be <br />constructed along the AU.Amt'rican <br />Canal near its intt'rsection with the <br />Coachella Canal. In 1979, the Service <br />held mft'tings with rE'presentatives of <br />the Imperial Irrigation District and <br />other California water contractors to <br />discuss their findings from this study <br />and the possibilities o( exchanging <br />pumped ground water for Colorado <br />River mainstream water to serve <br />Bureau of land Management <br />recreational lands and other <br />noncontract water users along the <br />lower Colorado River. The water <br />agencies expressed willingness to <br />agrft' to such an exchange subject to <br />certain conditions. <br />The Service believes that the studies <br />have progressed to the point where a <br />feasibility investigation should be <br />commenced. A three-year <br />investigation would cost about <br />$250,000 and could be completed by <br />1983, which would give sufficient time <br />for construction of the necesyry <br />water supply facilities by 1985 when <br />the Central Arizona Project is <br />expected to be completed and <br />California's diversions are expected to <br />be reduced. The Colorado River <br />BOdrd adopted a resolution supporting <br />a feasibility investigation by the <br /> <br />Service to be completed no later than <br />December 1983. <br /> <br />Glen Cmyon Fillirw Criteria <br /> <br />The Upper Basin states continued <br />their efforts to terminate the 1962 <br />Glen Canyon filling Criteria, which, if <br />successful, would end the payments <br />from the Upper Colorado River Basin <br />fund to the Hoover Allollf'eS to meet <br />deficiencies in Hoover energy <br />generation caused by the filling of tht' <br />Upper Basin reservoirs. On March 23, <br />1979, the Upper Colorado River <br />Commission passed a rt'solution <br />calling for the Secretary of the Interior <br />to announce that the critNia shall no <br />longer be applicable one year from <br />the date that the combined active <br />storage in lake Powell and lake <br />Mead totals 41,000,000 acre-feet. The <br />Secretary sent letters to the governors <br />of the S('ven Colorado River Basin <br />states and Hoover Dam Power <br />Allottf;'f'S announcing a meeting on <br />June 14, 1979, in Las VE'gas to discuss <br />possible termination of the criteria. <br />The Board's Chief Engineer gave a <br />statement at the June 14 meeting in <br />opposition to termination, which <br />statement was supported by Arizona, <br />Nevada, and the Hoover Allollf'eS, <br />whilt' a spokesman for the Uppt>r <br />Basin states gave a statemt'nt favoring <br />termination. <br />In October, the Rf'gional Director <br />of the \Vater and Power Resources <br />Service's Upper Colorado Regional <br />Office announced by letter his <br />intention to adopt a year 1980 dnnual <br />operation "power optimization" plan <br />for the Colorado River Storage Project <br />and planned to recommend that the <br />Secrf'tary of the Interior terminate the <br />Glen Canyon Filling Critt'ria if, through <br />a "paper accounting", lake Powell <br />would have filled to elevation 3,700 <br />feet during 1980, utilizing a theoretical <br />"storage conSE'rvation" plan. The <br />Chief EnginE'er coordinated with <br />California power entities in responding <br />to this proposal. The letter stated <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />strong objections to termination of the <br />Glen Canyon filling Criteria based on <br />fictitious lake Powell levels arrived at <br />through a "paper accounting" <br />method, and pointed out that the <br />proposal furthers the interests of the <br />Upper Basin states over those of the <br />Lower Basin states. Also, it again <br />raised a potentially divisive issue that <br />has been raised and settled several <br />times in the past decade. <br />As of the end of 1979, the Regional <br />Director had not transmiued any <br />recommendation to the Secretary of <br />the Interior concerning the Glen <br />Canyon filling Criteria. <br /> <br />Colorado Rh'er Reservoir <br />Operatin/l Criteria <br /> <br />In March 1979, the Water and <br />Power Resources Service notified the <br />SE'ven Colorado River Basin states by <br />letter that the Service will discontinue <br />investigations, ~un in 1978, into the <br />basis and procedures for dt'termining <br />the amount of storage in Upper Basin <br />re<Rrvoirs required pursuant to the <br />Operating Criterid for Colorado River <br />reser....oirs under Section b02(a) of the <br />1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act <br />lcalled "602(.1) storage"). State <br />representatives had questioned the <br />need for any studies at this time. <br />HoweVer, the h,,,tter also brought up a <br />new issue, the annual determination <br />of Section 602(a) storage as r(>Quired <br />by the Operating Criteria. The letter <br />stated that the basis for that <br />determination shall be tht' following <br />four factors: (1) Upper Basin <br />depletion estimate, (2) LE'e ferry <br />delivery of 8,250,000 acre-feet <br />annually, (3) water supply during the <br />most critical period of record. and <br />(4) reservoir drawdown limited to <br />minimum power head. Since these <br />factors were not in conformity with <br />the criteria established in 1970, the <br />Chief Engineer worked with <br />representatives from Arizona and <br />