WSP05607 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Honorable Manuel Lujan J\ugust 22, 1989 Page Three in the operation of Glen Canyon Dam must be considered and studied in preparing the EIS along with other non-structural alternatives, the "no action" alternative and structural alterna- tives such as a re-regulating structure below Glen Canyon Dam. To do otherwise would not only be premature, but also "..ould prejudge the results of the EIS and would limit the value of any data collected. It is recognized that "test flows" may be needed by the researchers to study impacts resulting from various flow conditions or releAses from Glen Canyon Dam. The states will support "test flows" of a short duration provided they are just.ifiable, coordinated research efforts, and the impacts are kept to a minimum. The states see the beginning of a pOllitive spirit of cooperation and improved communication on this issue and believe that the "test flows" will develop much-needed information to help support future decisions. Finally, the states would reiterate that reservoir op- erations are subject to the consultation requirements of Section 602 of Public Law 90-537 (Colorado River Basin Project Act) as we stated in our July 18, 1989 letter to you. Furthermore, we would emphasize that if you implement interim flow operations notwith- standing the views expressed in this letter, then those inter~n operations must be in compliance with the mandated criteria set forth in Section 602 (a) of Public Law 90-537 and in accordance with the authorized purposes of the Colorado River Storage Project. Those listed below have asked me to sign this jointly drafted letter on their behalf, as well as my own. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss our concerns with you in more detail if you find that would be helpful. . N. W. Plummer, Arizona Dennis B. Underwood, California J. William McDonald, Colorado Jack L. Stonehocker, Nevada D. Larry Anderson, Utah