| OCR Text |
Show VII 10 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS to "current calendar year" was not adopted because the existing language comports with the exact language of Section 602(b) of P.L. 90-537. In the last sentence of Subarticle 1(2) the reference to "projected plans of operation" has been revised to "projected plan" as suggested by both Divisions. Upper Division proposals in Subarticle 1(2) were adopted that the reerence to "water quality" as one of the uses of the reservoirs to which appropriate consideration shall be given be revised to "water quality control" and the phrase that the projected plan of operation "shall be revised as necessary" was changed to "may be revised". Also, the phrase in the last sentence of Subarticle 1(2) that the "Governors of the Colorado River Basin States advised of any changes. . ." was changed to "Governors of the Colorado River Basin States shall be advised of any changes. . ." so that it now reads: "The projected plan of operation may be revised to reflect the current hydrologic conditions, and the Congress and the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States shall be advised of any changes by June of each year." The Upper Basin proposal that a reference to "the primary objectives of Section 602(a) of P.L. 90-537" be inserted in the first sentence of Subarticle 1(2) has been rejected because it would then be incumbent to explain what are considered "primary objectives" as opposed to "secondary objectives" and it is unnecessary to become involved in these concepts at this time. An Upper Division proposal was rejected that "designated representatives" of the Governors be included in the parties to be advised of changes in the projected plan of operation because this is not a statutory requirement with regard to the plan of operation although it is a requirement of Section 602(b) that there be consultation regarding modification of the criteria. In the first sentence of Subarticle 11(1), designated "Operation of Upper Basin Reservoirs", a Lower Division proposal was adopted in order to be consistent with the language of Section 602(a) of P.L. 90-537 and, in accordance therewith, the reference to the Secretary's determination of the quantity of water considered necessary as of September 30 to be in storage "after consideration of and compliance with the provisions" of Section 602(a) was revised to delete the above-quoted portion and to substitute therefor "as required by". In Subarticle 11(1) (d), one of the factors to be considered in the Secretary's determination of the quantity of 602(a) storage of Lower Division proposal would have provided: "Estimated future depletions in the Upper Basin, [including] assuming recurrence of critical periods of water supply;. . ." However, this was rejected although a change was made by inserting "the effects of between "including" and "recurrence" so that Subarticle 11(1) (d) now reads: "Estimated future depletions in the Upper Basin, including the effects of recurrence of critical periods of water supply;. . ." In Subarticle 11(1) (e) which included a reference to the "Report of the Committee on Probabilities and Test Studies" as another of the factors to be considered by the Secretary in determining the quantity of Section 602(a) storage, the Upper Division proposed to limit the effect of the report "to the extent it is applicable to the 98.4+% rule curve developed therein". This was rejected because such a reference is unnecessarily restrictive and because the entire report and not only a portion thereof should be considered at this time. The Upper Division also advocated the immediate application of the 98.4+% rule curve to determine the amount of storage needed in the Upper Basin reservoirs to meet the requirements of Section 602(a) of P.L. 90-537. Test operation studies referred to in Subarticle 11(1) (e) of the Operating Criteria show that factors other than a rule curve will, for many years, govern the storage of water in the Upper Basin reservoirs. Hence, a rule curve is not now included in the Operating Criteria. Experience gained under the Operating Criteria will assist in formulating an appropriate rule curve. Also, an Upper Division proposal to substitute |
