| OCR Text |
Show VI 12 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS COLORADO RIVER 6T0RAGE PROJECT / and its customers lire outside the realm of secretarial responsibilities, and hence this question is not pertinent to the general principles and criteria. Principle 2.-It was suggested that the filling criteria should not end automatically when Lake Powell reaches elevation 3,700 unless at the same time Lake Mead is at or above elevation 1,14G. We believe tins suggestion has merit, and principle 2 had been revised accordingly. It was suggested also that the Secretary should give prior notice before terminating the filling criteria previous to the attaining of elevation 3,700 at Lake Powell. Periods of 2 and 5 years were proposed. We agree that in the event of such an action by the Secretary he might well give notice a reasonable time in advance. The measure of reasonableness here, we believe, is the time required by the Hoover power allottees to make such arrangements as might be necessary to accommodate any effects on their operations a change in filling criteria might entail. While this obviously would vary, dependent upon the nature of the revision in filling criteria contemplated, we believe that generally 1 year would suffice. We have thus revised principle 2 to provide a minimum of 1 year's notice. The Secretary could give such notice a longer period in advance if he felt the circumstances so justified. The point was made that the filling criteria are silent as to operating rules after the filling period. This, of course, is correct. The filling criteria could remain in effect from a minimum of 3 or 4 years up to as many as 24 years. Significant changes in power marketing and in the use of Colorado River water may well occur during the filling period which would influence postfilling operations. Further, the operating experience gained during the filling period is certain to provide valuable bases for developing postfilling operating rules. We believe it premature, therefore, to attempt to prescribe postfilling operating criteria at this time. We do believe, however, that this aspect of future river operation should be constantly kept in mind and that postfilling criteria be formulated as far in advance of the termination of the filling period as possible. The suggestion was advanced that the filling period and the application of the principles should begin on the date when any one of the Colorado River storage project reservoirs is first capable of storing water. The effect of storage in any of the storage project reservoirs other than Lake Powell on lower river flows would be very nominal. For this reason we prefer that the application of the filling criteria begin on the date when Lake Powell is first capable of storing water. Principle 3.-It was suggested that the terms "net river losses," "regulatory wastes," and "diversion requirements of mainstream projects" should be defined in terms of legality and limitation. We believe that these terms are commonly understood and, in line with our basic pattern of procedure as previously stated, we would be reluctant to attempt legal definition of these terms. A suggested clarifying editorial change was adopted as follows: After the word "either" insert the words "or both," and following the words "Lake Mead" substitute the word "and" for the word "or". Principle 4--The words "Hoover Dam" were suggested as substitutes for the words "Lake Mead" in the first sentence of principle 4. We believe, however, that the second sentence of principle 4 adequately covers diversions from Lake Mead. The proposal to insert the words "or losses" after the word "uses" was made presumably to cover evaporation from Lake Mead. We |
