Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;;~) <br /> <br /> <br />{) <br /> <br />STATE OF: NEW MEXICO <br /> <br />STATE ENGINEER OFFICE <br />SANTA FE <br /> <br />5 E REV"OL05 <br />STAff iNGlNUF( <br /> <br />August 22, 1989 <br /> <br />BAT AAN MEMORIAL BUILOING <br />STAn: CAMOl <br />SANTA FE. mw MfxlCO 8750:; <br /> <br />The Honorable Manuel Lujan <br />Secretary of the Interior <br />U. S. Department of the Interior <br />18th and C Streets, N.W. <br />Washington, D. C. 20240 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Secretary: <br /> <br />On July 27, 1989, representatives of the Colorado River <br />Basin states (states), the Colorado River Energy Distributors <br />Association (CREDA), and the Upper Colorado River Commission <br />(Commission) met with you to discuss the preparation of an <br />environmental impact statement (EIS) on the operation of Glen <br />Canyon Dam. During that meeting you announced your decision to <br />direct the Bureau of Reclamation 1:0 prepare an EIS. At that <br />time, representAtives of the states, CREDA and the Commission <br />indicated that they would not object to your decision. Further- <br />more, the states' representatives indicated their intent to be <br />active participants in the EIS preparation process and urged that <br />the ongoing Glen Canyon Environrnerltal Studies (GCES) be continued <br />without interruption. <br /> <br />Now that you have made the decision to prepare an EIS, <br />proposals are being made by some parties to establish interim <br />flow conditions (changes in minimum flow levels and fluctuations) <br />below Glen Canyon Darn pending completion of the EIS. The states <br />firmly oppose establishment of an interim flow condition that is <br />different than existing operations. <br /> <br />In the states' judgment, there currently are insufficient <br />data to either support the need for or the magnitude of interim <br />flows. While some data gathered in Phase I of the GCES suggest <br />that certain resources might benefit from a change in the flow <br />regime below Glen Canyon Dam, those data did not establish what <br />level of flows would be appropriate. More importantly, Phase I <br />of the GCES did not even analyze what positive or negative <br />effects a change in the flow regime would have on the Congres- <br />sionally authorized multi-purpose uses of Glen Canyon Dam. Any <br />changes in the flow regime bl::low Glen Canyon Dam, interim or <br />permanent, would be warranted only after the EIS on dam <br />