OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX VI VI 13 8 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT believe the wording now used adequately covers this matter. (See my memorandum of January 18, 1900.) To insert the words "or losses" would, in our opinion, confuse the issue by introducing the aspect of replacing river losses (as distinguished from reservoir losses) for no apparent reason. We have inserted the word "and/" after the words "Lake Powell" as suggested. VrihclpU ft.-This principle, dealing as it docs with partial allowance for diminution of Hoover energy during the filling period and subsequent partial reimbursement of the Upper Colorado River Basin fund, both contains the heart of the solution to formulation of acceptable filling criteria and invokes the most perplexing problems. The recent comments on this principle cover a wide range of previously held positions varying from that of the upper basin States that they are under no obligation to make allowance for Hoover power deficiencies to that of the, lower basin States that allowance for deficiencies in diminution of bolh energy and capacity at Hoover should be provided without reimbursement. Neither extreme, in our opinion, is practical or serves the purposes sought. Principle 5 as set forth in the revised general principles and filling criteria recommended in my memorandum of June 13, 1961, represents the selection of a middle-ground solution based on an impartial appraisal of all of the issues involved. In essence, it is a product of judgment as to what constitutes a practical procedure. Such judgment must be made, however, and we sincere!}' hope accepted, .if the related issues are to be kept clear of court actions or other long-drawn-out procedures, which, we believe, would work to the advantage of neither the upper nor lowrer basin interests nor to the overall development of the water resources of the Colorado River Basin. We still believe that principle 5, as proposed and explained in my June 13, 1961, memorandum, is the most practical approach available. Other points relating to principle 5 were raised that warrant discussion. The upper basin interests reiterated their proposal that the Colorado River development fund be used either to make necessary r?placement energy purchases or to reimburse the Upper Colorado River Basin fund on a current basis. We believe that this proposal has merit and should be further explored. If there is found to be general support for this among the various basin interests, I would recommend that the Department sponsor such legislation as may be required. The upper basin interests point out that principle 5 provides a guarantee of energy to the Hoover power allottees but only an intent to reimburse the Upper Colorado-River Basin fund. As pointed out in my memorandum of June 13, 1961, this is as far as the Secretary can go at this time without additional legislation. The lower basin interests suggest that evaporation from storage project reservoirs should be taken into account in determining diminution in Hoover energy. This was discussed in my memorandum of June 13, 1961, and the reasons for our position stated therein have not changed. It was suggested that Hoover replacement energy should be delivered at times as well as at points acceptable to both the Secretary and the Hoover power allottees. As stated in my memorandum of Juno 13, 1961, if the allowance is made by delivering energy, it will be delivered in a monthly pattern designed to fit those months when |