OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER VI 105 Principles 2 and 10 were combined. Principle 2 was expanded to include Principle 10 which dealt with possible earlier termination of the principles and criteria, and provision made for consultation with both Upper and Lower Basin interests before termination for reasons other than attainment of either Lake Powell storage reaching elevation 3700 or May 31, 1987. Principle 8 was shortened without changing the principle. Principle 9 was revised to recognize the possibility that there might be some generation of secondary energy at Hoover Powerplant during the filling period. Principle 11 became Principle 10. The revised Principles and Criteria described in the Commissioner's memorandum of June 13, 1961, additional Regulation No. 1, and an explanation of "Proposed Procedures for Computing Deficiencies in Firm Power Generation at Hoover," were transmitted to all interested parties in both Upper and Lower Basins. On December 22, 1961, the Commissioner of Reclamation reported to the Secretary of the Interior that a review of the comments thereon provided no reason to make fundamental changes in the general principles and operating criteria proposed by the Commissioner on June 13, 1961. However, the memorandum of December 22, 1961, stated Reclamation's awareness that no set of general principles and operating criteria could possibly fully satisfy all the diverse interests affected. It reiterated that Reclamation had proceeded on the basis of securing a practical approach to the problems of filling, rather than a legalistic approach, based on a reasonable exercise of Secretarial discretion. It then discussed the comments and suggestions received in response to the June 13, 1961, memorandum. Principle 1. A question was raised as to whether acquiescence by a Hoover power allottee in the exercise by the Secretary of "reasonable discretion" in the operation of the Federal projects involved would invoke a legal liability on that power allottee in respect to power which it has contracted to supply from its share of Hoover power. Reclamation's answer was that contractual relationship between a Hoover power allottee and its customers are outside the realm of Secretarial responsibilities and hence the question was not pertinent to the general principles and criteria. Principle 2. The suggestion was adopted that the filling criteria should not end automatically when Lake Powell reaches elevation 3700 unless Lake Mead is at or above elevation 1146. Another suggestion was also adopted that the Secretary give prior notice before terminating the filling criteria previous to the attaining of elevation 3700 at Lake Powell. A minimum of 1 year's notice was felt reasonable; i.e., the time required by the Hoover power allottees to make necessary arrangements to accommodate any effects on their operations a change in filling criteria might entail. It was considered premature to attempt to prescribe postfilling operating rules with the filling criteria but the need was recognized for formulating them as far as possible in advance of the termination of the filling period. The previous conclusion was affirmed that the application of the filling criteria begin on the date when Lake Powell is first capable of storing water since the effect of storage in any other of the Storage Project reservoirs upon Lower Basin riverflows would be nominal. Principle 3. Reclamation declined to define in terms of legality and limitation phrases such as "net river losses," "regulatory wastes," and "diversion requirements of mainstream projects." Principle 4. Reclamation declined to insert "or losses" after "uses," since it would presumably cover evaporation from Lake Mead. To do so would confuse the issue by introducing the aspect of replacing river losses (as distinguished from reservoir losses) for no apparent reason. Principle 5. This was the heart of the solution to formulation of acceptable filling criteria and invoked the most perplexing problems. Reclamation rejected both the Upper Basin contention that it is under no obligation to make allowances for Hoover power deficiencies and the Lower Basin position that allowances for deficiencies in diminution of both energy and capacity at Hoover should be provided without reimbursement. It adhered to its previous solution as middle ground, based on an impartial appraisal of the issues and a product of judgment as to what constitutes a practical procedure. Reclamation agreed as worthy of exploration an Upper Basin proposal that the Colorado River Development Fund be used either to make necessary replacement energy purchases or to reimburse the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund on a current basis. (A variation of this was later adopted in Section 502 of the Colorado Basin Project Act.) |