Colorado River Ecology and Dam Management Proceedings of a Symposium May 24-25, 1990 Santa Fe, New Mexico (1991) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
The Law and Politics of the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam
The Law and Politics of the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam
Pages 10-27
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 10... ...
OGGINS, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona INTRODUCTION The construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River have detrimentally affected downstream resource values. These impacts are particularly acute because they threaten the ecological integrity of Grand Canyon National Park.
|
From page 11... ...
Geopolitics balancing uneven rates of development among the upper and lower basin states has been both a motivation and an enduring force in the development of the law of the river. Within the river basin states, economic development has been a sustained but not exclusive interest; social purposes such as building an irrigation society have also been important.
|
From page 12... ...
DIVIDING THE WATERS: THE ORIGINS OF THE LAW OF THE RIVER The certainty of water rights in the West has traditionally been left to state laws and interstate negotiations. Water allocation powers were ceded to the states immediately after the Civil War, and the federal government has never exercised its full constitutional powers over western water.
|
From page 13... ...
In exchange for upper basin support of Boulder Canyon project legislation, representatives of the seven basin states agreed to apportion the beneficial consumptive use of the Colorado's waters on the basis of territory rather than prior appropriation, thus reducing the risk of water shortage to the upper basin caused by California's expanding water demands. Lee's Ferry, Arizona at the mouth of Glen Canyon, was arbitrarily selected as the boundary between the basins, and the delegates attempted to settle the conflict over the development of the river by dividing the Colorado equitably between the upper and lower basins.
|
From page 14... ...
In anticipation of the assertion of future claims by Mexico, the basin states provided that any amount granted to Mexico by treaty would be divided equally between the two basins. The lower basin also retained the right to use any water not immediately put to use in the upper basin through a provision which declares that the upper basin states cannot withhold the delivery of water "which can not reasonably be applied to domestic and agricultural uses" [Article III(e)
|
From page 15... ...
An understanding of the reasons that led to the construction of Boulder Dam and Glen Canyon Dam is essential to understand current conflicts, because the success of the basin states in securing single-purpose projects under the banner of multiple use opened the doors to the recognition of new interests and values. Boulder Dam was also important to the upper basin as well as the lower basin, not primarily because of the power it provided to operate and maintain the Boulder Canyon Project but because its hydropower revenues supported water development in the upper basin.
|
From page 16... ...
The Colorado River Storage Project Act, which included Glen Canyon Dam, was the culmination of distributive politics which subordinated efficiency to regional development. The accumulation of hydrologic evidence and the drought period from 1931 to 1940 had upset the sense of security in the upper basin that it would be able to fully develop its legal water rights under the Colorado River Compact.
|
From page 17... ...
The 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act specifically stated that all projects, including Glen Canyon Dam, should be operated at their most productive rate to produce the greatest practical amount of firm capacity and energy. Certainly a high level of energy receipts was functional for maximizing revenues to the basin development fund for the repayment of reclamation loans and the construction of new projects.
|
From page 18... ...
By a compact signed in 1948, the upper basin states divided their 7.5-maf share among themselves by a percentage allocation. In contrast, the lower basin states fought over the division of their allocation in Congress, in the courts, and even on the Colorado's banks.
|
From page 19... ...
For instance, at the same time that Congress authorized Glen Canyon Dam in the Colorado River Storage Project Act, another dam was defeated for environmental reasons. Echo Park Dam on the Green River threatened to back water into Dinosaur National Monument.
|
From page 20... ...
In 1968 the cheers that forty years before greeted the authorization of Boulder Dam now sounded in support of the defeat of the Grand Canyon dam projects. Thus, Echo Park touched off a decade-long debate about the merits of preserving wild and scenic rivers.
|
From page 21... ...
The Colorado River has contributed significantly to this evolution. The elimination of Echo Park Dam in the 1956 legislation and the two Grand Canyon dams in the 1968 statute is evidence that conservation groups could exercise veto power on water development that directly infringed upon core values of national parks and wilderness areas.
|
From page 22... ...
New Mexico, the Supreme Court severely restricted the conditions under which these rights can be claimed when it held that public land management agencies can claim only federal reserved rights necessary to fulfill a primary water-related public land reservation. Still, because Grand Canyon National Park was set aside to preserve the Colorado River, this standard could be the basis for the Department of the Interior to argue that the enabling legislation allows the National Park Service to assert a federal reserved water right to protect the ecological integrity of the Grand Canyon.
|
From page 23... ...
106~. Some lower basin leaders have argued that the dangers and costs of increased salinity are sufficiently serious to forestall development in upper basin states.
|
From page 24... ...
The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people [emphasis addedJ. Glen Canyon Dam is the linchpin of the management of the Colorado because it enables the upper basin states to store sufficient water to meet their 10-year delivery obligation to the lower basin states.
|
From page 25... ...
These criteria are subject to three statutory priorities that protect downstream 1922 compact rights and maximize the amount of carryover storage to meet the upper basin's delivery obligations. The Bureau of Reclamation's current operating criteria attempt to maintain Lake Powell at 3,490-acre feet the minimum level at which hydroelectric power can be generated and to hold Glen Canyon Dam releases to 8.23 million acre feet annually, except when the active storage forecast for Lake Mead is lower or when increased releases can either serve domestic and agricultural beneficial uses or prevent Lake Powell spills.
|
From page 26... ...
1986. "Contrary Views of the Law of the Colorado River: An Examination of Rivalnes Between the Upper and Lower Basin States." 32 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, 21-1.
|
From page 27... ...
Stepped W
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.