WSP07806 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. u - -"1- \ , 1 , (3) Other water projects would lose their water supply. The analysis above proves that this is not true. Not only would the obligations to the lower basin be easier to fulfill by maintaining the water level at its present elevation, but at least 300,000 acre-feet per year additional water would be available for upper basin projects. (~) FUture water projects could not be built. Since more water would be avail- able to the state of Colorado if the level in Lake POHell were kept at 3600 feet, the feasibility of future projects would be enhanced, not restricted. As additional up- stream storage capacity is developed, it will become more and more advisable to store water in these new reservoirs, where evaporation (and probably seepage) losses would be less. Thus we can expect to see the future level of Lake Powell reduced further and further below its present elevation, in order to optimize use of available water. (5) The various Colorado River agreements would lose their meaning. It is some- what difficult to perceive what the authors of the resolution had in mind when they in- cluded this argument, since the maintaining of a water level which would provide optimum benefits for the upper basin states would in no way conflict with interstate agreements. (6) Lake Powell would hnve to be drained most years. It has been demon~trated above that the upper basin states can actually meet their compact obligations more easily by maintaining a lower water level. (7) No storage space would be available to regulate the river. Langbein's analysis shows that the 13,000,000 acre-feet of storage volume above the 3600-foot level contributes a negligible amount to the system's regulation capability. (8) Adequate firm power could not be generated, etc. The Glen Canyon power plants contribute only a small amount to the power network they are connected to, and the loss in power capacity could be made up by increased productinn from Hoover Dam, and at a lower cost. Power shortages would be no more likely to occur because of this. As far as the billion-dollar investment loss to the federal government is concerned, this loss has already occurred, brought'about by the construction of a reservoir which was too big for the river it was supposed to control, and nothing we can do now can help retrieve that investment. (9) The national power reserve would be reduced. to the national power reserve unless water is available power production capability of Glen Canyon Dam has been No hydropower unit contributes to operate it. The potentia: overestimated. (10) Reduced power generation funds would destroy the future of proposed projects. Future development in the west is far more dependent on water resources than on power or the revenue derived therefrom. Any project which reduces these limited water sup- plies will severely restrict development. (11) The Lake would almost have to be emptied in anticipation of a flood. This is probably the first mention of Lake Powell as a flood control reservoir. A flood re- quiring the emptying of the reservoir has never occurred in recorded histo~'; even if such a flood did occur, a lower water level would provide far better flood control than a high one. Flood control reservoirs are always maintained at only a fraction of their capacity for this reason. It is conceivable, although highly improbable during the anticipated 100-year life of the reservoir. that a series of extremely wet years could result in some' water pass~ ing by both of the large reservoirs and into the sea. However, the amount of water lost in this manner would be small in comparison with the day-to-day evaporation losses which would result from maintaining the reservoir at a high level. ------1