WSP06185 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. (.....-) Second, within the constraints of monthly volumes of water to be released, hour-to hour, daily, and weekly fluctuations in releases are made in accordance with hydroelectric power generation needs as determined by the Western Area Power Aclmini~tration. S. Rep. No. 267 at 133 (1992). (emphasis added) Congress carefully distinguished between annual and monthly reservoir operations under the Annual Operating Plan ("AOP") . procedure pursuant to CRBPA and the Long-Range Operating Criteria, and weekly to hourly peaking power operations. Further, specifically referring to Section 1802(b), the Senate report describes the intent of that section as: Not merely to provide a savings clause, but to establish that the Secretary's responsibilities for water storage, allocation and delivery under the Law of the River are primary and control the Secretary's actions under this title. S. Rep. 267 at 135. Finally, section 1804( c)(I)(A) requires the adoption of ne.w operating criteria "separate from and in addition to those specified in section 602(b) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968: The legislative history is clear: The Committee does not intend that this section interfere with the Secretary's preparation of annual operating plans under section 602(b) of the 1968 Act, . .which govern the operation of Glen Canyon Dam for the purpose of meeting water storage, allocation, and delivery requirements under the Law of the River. The Secretary's responsibilities in that regard are unaffected by this title.... Then, subject to and consistent with that annual operating plan and his responsibilities thereunder, the Secretary shall prepare an additional plan of operations for Glen Canyon Dam pursuant to this title. S. Rep. 267 at 137. Congress understood that the AOP process set both annual and monthly amounts of water to be released. Thus, beach/habitat building flows, which .would significantly shift monthly deliveries contrary to the AOP, are not authorized. . In addition, the Grand Canyon Protection Act was intended to address problems created by peakine power releases. The Act's sponsor repeatedly identified "fluctuating," .erratic," or "irregular" releases for the production of "hydroelectric peaking power" or "peak electric po.wer demands" as the problem his bill .would solve. 136 Cong. Rec. S9180 (daily ed. June 28, 1990); 137 Cong. Rec. S829 (daily ed. Jan. 14, 1991); 138 Cong. Rec. S17666 (daily ed. Oct 8, 1992). Congress clearly contemplated that the total amount of power produced at Glen Canyon would not change under the Act. Hearings on S. 144 and H.R. 429 at 364, 367 (statement of David Marcus); Hearings on H.R. 4498 at 41, 174-175, 179 (statements of Tom Moody and David Marcus). All analyses provided to Congress assumed there .would be no powerplant bypasses. Hearings on S. 144 and H.R. 429 at 364, 367; H.R. Rep No 641 at 30-62. The Senate Report noted that new criteria under the Act were "likely to result in a significant loss of peaking generation." S. Rep. No. 267 at 139.-(emphasis added) 5