|
<br />00
<br />.
<br />\IlOl
<br />C"':
<br />
<br />
<br />l;;
<br />
<br />
<br />cz,
<br />
<br />Vol. 19
<br />
<br />NO,1
<br />
<br />1984
<br />
<br />CoIHHftHfnr.!! froM the dtkj Cll/iH<<r
<br />Future Hoover power disposition considered
<br />~~
<br />t
<br />f ",'
<br />e'~-,
<br />['':1
<br />r
<br />
<br />lJriitlcHf's HOles
<br />
<br />
<br />by
<br />Myron B, HoIbutt
<br />
<br />Chief Engineer
<br />
<br />CoIornIo _
<br />Iloo1d
<br />of c.Jifumia
<br />
<br />In this article, 1 will be r<pMiog on
<br />legislation affi:cting !he fulUle dispcoilion of
<br />!he output from !he Hoo.et Dam Power
<br />Plant and related i=cs,
<br />The original Hoovet Dam powet roo.
<br />ttacts ""'" signed in !he 19JOs, and ""'" fur
<br />a period of lO yem from !he date the powet
<br />plant fim went into service: which W2$ May
<br />;1, 19;7, A IOta! of 4,2 billion kilowatt
<br />houts annually of linn enetJlY w<r< initially
<br />oontta<:ted fot, gtadually deat:asing ovet the
<br />tenn of contracts.
<br />All of the ellelJlY was fim allotted to
<br />CaliIomia agencies, which had to under.
<br />,,-rite the cost of Hoover Dam in order to get
<br />the project authorized. lacer. the energywas
<br />teallocated, with slight adjusttnents in 1941
<br />rollowing _ of!he 1940 Bouldet Can-
<br />yon Project Adjustment Act, to the HOCl'Vef
<br />power allottees-about 65 percent to
<br />California agencies and about 17 YJ peltm.t
<br />eacl110 Arizona and Nevada. The California
<br />allottees ate the Metropolitao Water Disuict
<br />ofSouthem c.Jifumia, Los Aogeles Depatt,
<br />men' of Water and Powet, Southern Cali,
<br />fomia Edison Company, and the Cities of
<br />Pasadena, Glendale and Illubank,
<br />The process of teallocation of Hoovet
<br />powet began in the spriog of 1979 with the
<br />announeement by !he Western An:. Power
<br />Administtation (Western> of !he develop-
<br />ment of a plan fur teallocating !he output of
<br />!he powet plant upon !he expitation of the
<br />existing contracts. This announcement
<br />began a series of public meetings wbetein
<br />many opposing pcoitiollS were pn<sented by
<br />the cxistin~ ~r allottecs, and other
<br />power agenaes. m an attempt to g2in access
<br />to this resource. I was the spokesman for the
<br />California allottees at some of !he carIy
<br />public meetings, The most significant of !he
<br />proposals ate listed below,
<br />1. The States of Nevada and Arizona
<br />contended that the Hoc:>ver ~
<br />should be teallocated based upon
<br />one-thinl 10 each of the States of
<br />Nevada, Arizona and California.
<br />
<br />2. The California allOttee5 contended
<br />that the tight of tenewal dauses in
<br />their existing ronlI2CtS in the Boulder
<br />Canyon Project Att gave !hem an ab-
<br />solute right to renew their contracts
<br />rot a period of lO yeaa,
<br />
<br />;, The Southern California cities of
<br />Anaheim, Azusa, Bonning, Colton
<br />and 1liveBide; wbieh Itm: tbeIt owo
<br />rnunicipally-owtted e1ecuic power
<br />systems but no allocation of Hoovet
<br />JlO9iU; oontended that they should be
<br />entitled to Hoovet _ in aa:onI-
<br />ana: with the Boulder Canyon Project
<br />An,
<br />
<br />4, The StaleS of Arizona and c.Jifumia
<br />desired 10 provide fur the impooition
<br />of a sun:halge on Hoovet powet taleS
<br />fur the putpose of funding the (en,
<br />ual Arizona Project and !he Colorado
<br />River Basin Salinily Control Project,
<br />authoriz<d by Public Uws 9O-l; 7 and
<br />9;';20 tespettiveIy,
<br />
<br />), Western did not completely agtee
<br />with the above contentions and
<br />daimed a Iatge measun: of disctetion
<br />.in allocating the Hoover ~. in
<br />the selection of powet puteh.seJs and
<br />in offeriog roo""", for less than lO
<br />yeaa dwation,
<br />
<br />On Aug, 24, 1982, Wcstcm published
<br />in the FeMn1l R#gisler its propulCCl powet
<br />matketing ait<ria and thn:e days later the
<br />State ofNevadafiledsuit in !he U,S, Disttitt
<br />Coon in Nevada ag.Unst the United SlateS
<br />and !he CaIifomia allottees ovet!he aitetia.
<br />On Sept. 9. 1982, the Stale of Arizona join,
<br />ed Nevada" a plaintiff in the suit, the ob-
<br />jective of which was ro seek a judicial cleter-
<br />mioalion of these states' rights 10 Hoovet
<br />power upon expiration of the existing
<br />oontratts.
<br />InJlUlUal}' 198;. !he Cities of Anaheim,
<br />Azusa, Buming, Colton and Riverside
<br />sought to intervene, asscrring claims to
<br />allotments ofHoovet powet, Their intem:n-
<br />lion was allowed by !he coutt in April 1983,
<br />
<br />Following a period of extended negotia-
<br />tions between the Metropolitan Water
<br />District and the States of NCYada and
<br />Arizona, g<neral 'iteCD=t was teached on
<br />a ftamewo.k under which !he dispute rould
<br />
<br />Prcsidcnl's'totcs.
<br />
<br />...C01Jli".flJ /rom p(lgelwo
<br />tetitement plans, but has agteed 10 delay
<br />them,
<br />
<br />.. .. 1il- tl- .
<br />In !he last ;".,e, 1 disc=ed departing
<br />!cadets of thn:e of !he six CaIifomia Col-
<br />orado River agencies, Let me take this op-
<br />
<br />-,..
<br />
<br />be teSOlved, Thisagteementwassubstantial,
<br />Iy teflected in Sena1t: Bill 268 and also in
<br />Western's final matkeriog ait<ria which
<br />wen: published in the FeMn1l R#gisler on
<br />May 9, 198;, When S, 268 was paso:d by
<br />the Senate in August 198;, !he earlier agte<-
<br />ment between Metropolitao and !he twO
<br />states bad not yet been fully acttpted by all
<br />potties involved in !he Hoovet litigation,
<br />and !he Senate Bill included only Ihose
<br />items on which thc:te was no cootrovCISy at
<br />the time.
<br />
<br />. FUMer disCussions have taken place
<br />SInce that date among interested parties.
<br />H,R. 4275 contains the principal
<br />eleme,Df3 of S. 268 together with changes
<br />resulting from agreements reached in
<br />these discussions after S, 268 bad passed
<br />the Senate, The majQc features afTicle II
<br />ofH,R, 4271 ate:
<br />
<br />1. It authoritts a program for upnuing
<br />the generating capacity of Hoover
<br />P<>ver Plant, facilities for improving
<br />V1S1tor safety at the dam and an in.
<br />creast' in the appropriations ceiling 10
<br />~pJement I:hc: progr.uns. The upIat~
<br />JOg progtam could be finant<d by ap-
<br />propriated funds, ot adY:UlCCS from
<br />purchases of capacity from the
<br />uputing program, or both, o.ts
<br />would be tepaid by pwcbases of
<br />Hoovet powet tbrough melded tateS
<br />fur all Hoovet energy and tapocily,
<br />2, It authorizes a new highway bridge to
<br />anyU,S, Highway 9; ocrosstheCol-
<br />Otado River, instead of on the lOp of
<br />Hoovet Dam, 10 telicve naffic ronges-
<br />tion and inctease sakty, Howeve<, the
<br />bridge would not become an clement
<br />of the authorized project.
<br />
<br />;, The cost basis fur Hoovet powet utes
<br />would be continued, with some mod.
<br />mtions 10 teflett ItgUIarions enacted
<br />by Congtess since the 1940 Boulder
<br />Canyon Project Adj_ An, The
<br />
<br /><<Jlllimud 011 PiIf' jaw. . .
<br />
<br />. .
<br />
<br />ponuoily ro welcome thn:e new g<netaI
<br />~, now on the job, Carl Boronby
<br />has taI= the teins at MetropoIitao Water
<br />Disttitt, I.aay MkbaeIs leads San Diego
<br />Coonly Water Authotily and QuICk Sbteoo
<br />bods Imperial lItigation Disnitt, Their pr0-
<br />files appeat eIsewbete in this issue,
<br />
|