| OCR Text |
Show 104 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS streamflows (see Senator Bennett's letter to Secretary Udall dated March 6, 1961; see analysis thereof in Assistant Commissioner Bennett's memorandum to the Commissioner of Reclamation dated April 3, 1961; see letter from Governor Clyde of Utah, to Commissioner of Reclamation Dominy dated April 20, 1962; see letter from Senator Allott of Colorado to Secretary of the Interior Udall, dated April 25, 1961; and see letter from Senator Moss of Utah to the President dated May 1, 1961). The Upper Basin felt that the use of their fund carried with it a responsibility on the Upper Basin for energy deficiencies at Hoover which the Upper Basin denied, and that the use of the fund might adversely affect availability of power revenues to aid in repayment of the costs of the Upper Basin participating projects (see extract of Minutes of Colorado Water Conservation Board dated January 11, 1961). Wyoming Senator Hickey's letter to the Secretary, dated August 17, 1962, questioned the authority to use the Upper Basin Fund as did Senator Moss's letter of July 11, 1961, to Secretary Udall which also suggested establishment of a Lower Colorado River Basin Fund so as to pool power revenues from Lower Basin powerplants in order to meet deficiency payments. In a letter of July 21, 1960, to the Commissioner of Reclamation, the Upper Colorado River Commission stated its position that there is nothing in the Compact, or in any interpretation thereof, which requires the Upper Basin to compensate, in any manner whatsoever, Lower Basin power users for water legally withheld in the Upper Basin. Although the Commission felt that the general principles were more favorable to the Upper Basin than were the "Hydrologic Bases" (see Upper Colorado River Commision's Report of July 20, 1960), it nevertheless noted that water uses downstream from Hoover Dam and basic firm energy gneration at Hoover Dam are to be made whole at the expense of Upper Basin resources development; that construction of reservoirs, storage of water, and consumptive use of water in the Upper Basin were anticipated and were reasons for negotiating the Compact; and that Hoover Dam should be operated at an efficiency of 83 percent rather than the lower efficiency adopted for the convenience of the Lower Basin in order to use Hoover generators for peaking purposes. In response, Reclamation disclaimed any intent to declare or infer any responsibility on the Upper Basin for deficiency in energy generation at Hoover and stated that the use of that fund for this purpose is based solely upon, and exercise of, Departmental responsibility in operating a project under its jurisdiction; and that the purchase of replacement energy by the Storage Project is comparable to an operating cost and is similar to the purchase of "firming energy" in years of low runoff. As to the second concern which, said Reclamation, is understandable in the event of less than average flows, provision was made in Principle 5 for reimbursement to the Upper Basin Fund by the Hoover power allottees for whatever monies are used from the fund for that purpose, but not for nonfirm or other energy from the Storage Project powerplants. Notification of the Department's intent to secure reimbursement was to be accomplished through an additional Departmental regulation for generation and sale of power pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act which was to be an attachment to the general principles and criteria. The regulation would state that the rates to be charged for electric energy after 1987 would include a component to assure revenues in the fund to accomplish reimbursement. In Reclamation's opinion, any further action would require legislation. It was also determined that interest would not be included in the reimbursement to the Upper Basin Fund. Further, Reclamation emphasized its intention to make minimum use of dollars, but maximum use of energy from Federal powerplants for required replacement, and not to use firm energy from Storage Project power-plants if such energy could otherwise be sold at firm power rates. Reclamation also rejected a proposal that Lake Mead not be drawn down below elevation 1146 (17 maf available surface storage) at least during the time Lake Powell is filling to dead storage level. It felt no undue risk is run when elevation 1123 (14.5 maf) is made the minimum drawndown point; that the objective of gaining minimum power head at Glen Canyon (elevation 3490) in the earliest practicable time would otherwise be defeated; and that provision was already made in Principle 7 for not drawing Lake Mead below the rated head at Hoover Powerplant (elevation 1123). Other revisions included were: The official name "Lake Powell" was used in lieu of "Glen Canyon Reservoir." In Principle 1, it was indicated that the principles and criteria might be affected by possible future acts of Congress. |
