My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01990
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP01990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:33:47 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:47:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.19
Description
Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
12/1/1996
Title
Information Publicly Available from the Bureau of Reclamation - Upper Colorado Regional Office - Proposals by Groups to Drain Lake Powell - Data on Impacts and Techinical Information
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />\'-1'11, <br /> <br />INFORMATION PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FROM THE <br />BUREAU OF RECLAMATION <br />UPPER COLORADO REGIONAL OFFICE <br />PROPOSALS BY GROUPS TO DRAIN LAKE POWELL <br />DATA ON POSSIBLE IMPACTS & TECHNICAL INFORMATION <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />Is such an action technically feasible? <br /> <br />The action is technically feasible. but would cost a signiticanl amount of money, <br />Reclamation has not studied how that could best be done, and does not intent to spend <br />funds to conduct such a study unless directed by Congress or the Secretary, In the <br />absence of authority to undertake such an action (following question), it would be <br />inappropriate to spend money on sllch a study, <br /> <br />The proposal would obviously require an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with <br />NEPA and consultation to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Impacts related to <br />the Clean Water Act and other legislation would also have to be studied, <br /> <br />Such a proposal would also require legislation to allow Lake Powell to be drained, either <br />for the Brower proposal to completely drain or for the Glen Canyon Institute to drain to <br />minimum power head, Current operation is in compliance with the Colorado River Basin <br />Project Act of 1968 (PL 90-537), Also, draining the reservoir would make it difficult to <br />comply with the Colorado River Project Act of 1956 (PL 87-485), <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />Can Lake Mead handle the storage which would be necessary if Lake Powell were <br />drained? <br /> <br />The long-term answer is no, Lake Mead probably cannot handle the consumptive uses of <br />the Colorado Basin, even for the scenario of present Upper Basin storage, The inability <br />to meet this need will especially be the case when the Upper Basin of the Colorado River <br />is at full development. per the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin Compact of 1948, <br /> <br />By the terms of the 1922 Compact. the Upper Basin States guaranteed delivery of75 maf <br />in any ten-year period, Drought periods during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's <br />recorded annual flows at Lee Ferry ofless than 7,5 mafwith a low of 4.4 mafin 1934, <br />Without the carry-over storage in Lake Powell available during such times, existin~ uses in <br />the Upper Basin might be curtailed in similar droughts, Without Lake Powell storage, <br />dependance on the Colorado River to sustain nlture growth and economic viability would <br />subject such growth to great risk of drought and economic hardship, Essentially, the four <br />Upper Basin States would be subject to a water call on the river by the Lower Basin <br />States, <br /> <br />General Information Concerning Glen Canyon Dam Values and Benefits <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.