0 I}{J&_[ffi(76&_ ~liD£®©© , • • r
. "I-JOCUMENTCONTROLPleas!R~r~T! . Co~O[;'ado Rr·ve.r+· ~,. .. - .
lJ
p I ' •- US Department of the Interior 1 Bureau of Reclamation UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Of THE INTERIOJt BUREAU Of RECLAMATION COLORADO RIVER BASIN. OC7.01EK- .lt74
• 5,b E3 5L 1?! E3• SCALE IN llULU
\ J·~·I' ;.' .•l ~ I ..... D w X~ .~· CAL
T/1oadare r Root•ttelt v • If L•Jc• HfOINIX.t ~ Poinlod\ Rack Dam ·- #-~
GULF OF CALIFORNIA I :·· ,.... "--·---.·-·· ·-·· .. ··--··--· : . 1 - - I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~.... . ) .. :~·.... ,- I Map of Colorado River Basin SECTION I: Overview of 1983
I - Summary of 1983 Operations I . - Tables/Figures: 1. Flow Below Hoover Dam Site I 2. Colorado River Reservoirs Storage Capacity
~-... 3. Colorado River System = Jan. 1 Flood Control Max.
I 4. 1983 Lake Powell Inflow Forecast I 5. Colorado River Runoff Forecasts and Flood Control Storage - 1983 6. Lake Powell (Inflow/Outflow) J 1. Lake Powell Storage So Lake Mead (Inflow/Outflow)
J 9. Lake Mead Storage I. 10. Lake Mead Flood Control Operations - 1983 11. Colorado River Dams - Current Reservoir Levels - August 1983 I 12. Colorado River 1983 Flows ..... -... , 13. Storage Evacuation at Various Outflow Rates .. I. 14. Operation Authorizations
• l SECTION II: Alternative Operation Scenarios ,. - Alternative Operation Scenarios ~ 1983 I I { Tables/Figures: I ..-'-
\ • Hoover Dam Releases Under Alternative Operation Scenarios I1.~ I ..,.r:-•:;-; r t! ;,, • .A ~~ D TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 2 0 SECTION III: The Law of the River 0 History of Colorado River Operations · - References: 0 1. Colorado River Compact 2. Project Authortzation Summary 0 3. Public Law 90-537, Section 602 [] 4. Colorado River Reservoirs Coordinated Long-Range Operation 5. Field Working Agreement for Flood Control Operation of Hoover Dam D 6. Summary of Colorado River Forecasting Service Operations
SECTION IV: Press Release Chronology/Newspaper Clippings/Photos - Chronology of Bureau of Reclamation Press Releases 0
Selected Newspaper Cli~pings
- Photographs 0
SECTION.V: Emergency and Information Contacts [J - ~ergency Services Directory 0 - Bureau of Reclamation Information Contacts n lw i II II I
0 0 •"m··~ :: . 'l. ~. . . l ·0 c
i. > ,.~ ' f""'' i ,-' C: ~·I "
:I.
1 SECTION I: Overview of 1983
IIi ,.
I
I ~ . 1:-\ SUMMARY OF 1983 RIVER OPERATIONS .... .: .. Below is a summary of this year's operations. m fl January 1
• t ' t~"I The April-July inflow forecast to Lake Powell was 7.8 ~illion-acre-feet
~) 112 percent of the 1963-1977 average of 6.95 MAF. The snowpack in
the upper Colorado River was 120 percent of normal, the upper Green River
was 142 percent of normal, and the San Juan River was 127 percent.
Basinwide precipitation from October through December was generally near
normal. I The flood control criteria required releases from Lake Mead of I 19.000 cubic feet per second (cfs) during Janup~y. Actual releases averaged 19,100 cfs during this period. I
February 1
The April-Jttly forecast decreased to 7.1 MAF, 102 percent of average.
January precipitation was less than 50 percent of normal in the headwaters,
I but some aTeas of eastern Utah had 150 percent of normal precipitation. I The mountain snowpack did not increase as expected during this usually heavy deposition period: the upper Colorado River basin snowpack was
89 percent, the Upper Green was 81 percent; and the San Juan River basin
was 120 percent of normal.
I 1 Water was released from Lake Mead during February only to meet the needs of
downstream users, with an. average flow of 6,590 ~cfs.
March 1
The inflow forecast for Apri1.-Ju.ly continued to decline to 6.7 MAF, or
. 96 percent of average. February precipitation was generally near normal,
but ranged from 80 percent in the upper Green River basin to 150 percent in
the vicinity of Lake Powell. The total snowpack changed only slightly:
the Upper Colorado - 88 percent; the Upper Green - 80 percent; and the
San Juan - 114 percent of normal.
Since runoff was now forecast to be near normal, and 7.4 MAF was available
for flood control storage, no flood control releases were required during
Marchc Scheduled releases averaging 1~,300 cfs were made in March from
' Lake Mead to meet downstream user needs.
~y late March we began to reevaluate our operating plan. The power
companies and the Mexican officials were complaining that the high January
releases should have been smoothed out over the January-March period. In
addition, the PIK Farm Program, (a program to reduce the planted acreage of
certain crops), was being formulated and·it appeared that irrigation
requirements would be reduced 10-20 percent for the year. Wet cool weather
:f..n late March caused the forecast to rise to 114 percent on April 1. At
\~.his point, it was apparent that there would be water in storage in excess
of downstream needs throughout the year, and that flood control regulations \_)."~"·~''·
2 . . It
i i ! I~ 1- • ·~ ..., would require space building releases in the fall. After consultation with ', ., .- I the Basin States, power companies, COE, and IBWC-(and without complete agreement), Reclamation decided to dncrease releasas to about 19,000 cfs in I April. While this was in excess of flood control requirements, it would provide additional flood control, improve power generation, and create IL_ little or no risk to conservation storage.
. I ' April 1 I
On April 1, the forecast increased to 7.9 MAF (114 percent of normal),
I reflecting a high precipitation in March. March precipitation ranged from . 140 percent of normal in the headwater areas to nearly 200 ~ercent ~n lower - reaches. The mountain snowpack increased with the above·average . I"" precipitation: the Upper Colorado - 114 p~rcent; the Upper Green - I 83 percent; and the San Juan - 127 percent of normal. I The flood control criteria required a 12,900 cfs release. Under the revised operating plan, Lake mead releases averaged 17,800 cfs during
I April.
r I ' May 1 I . On May 1, the forecast increased slightly to 8~1 MAF or 117 percent of '' I; .I '[ n norn~l~ Apl:'i~ p:p:!~ipitation was above normal, ranging from 140 percent in l'•' ~)\ -] u l [ some headwater areas to near normal elsewhere. Seasonal precipitation I . .!: I I! . ;;· .... through April was generally near normal but, since the month of April was ,,. I '-/.J
I. 3 cool and wet, not much of the sno~~ack melted, and thus the May 1 snowpack
was greater than normal. The basin snowpack in the Upper Colorado was
143 percent, the Upper Green was 94 pe~~ent, and the San Juan was
152 percent of normal. The flood control criteria required an average
release of 14,600 cfs. Actual releases averaged 19,800 cfs.
On May 15, another analysis was made based on precipitation that occurred
during the first half of each month. This resulted in the forecast being
increased to 8.3 MAF (120 percent of normal). Based on that forecast, the
flood control criteria required a·16,200 cfs release, though actual
releases averaged 19,800 cfs.
June 1
On June 1, the observed precipitation for May was approximately 200 percent:
of av.erage. Runoff near the end of May. increased dramatically as a result
of a rapid change to above-normal temperatures (approximately 6 degrees F
above normal) following almost 2 months of below-normal temperatures (10 to
12 degrees F below normal)o The preliminary June 1 Lake Powell inflow
forecast inc+eased to 8.8 MAF or 127 percent above normal. Snow data on
the first of June is generally limited and not utilized in adjusting
forecasts due to the lack of historical record on which to base comparison.
Normally most of the snowpack is gone by June 1 and 011ly a few measurements
are taken on a regular basis. The final June 1 forecast for inflow to
Lake Powell was. 9.1 MAF (131 percent of normal). Based on that forecast; ! :I . ! .. flood control releases o£ 19,000 cfs were required. However, actual \ ...... ,..# releases were 28,000 cfs under the revised operat~ng plan.
4 I . !~?"'!) •• ..... \ The continued·warm weather resulted in greater runoff from the snowpack \~·~'· 'J than was expected, since less water was· lost to ~vaporation and infiltration
I than under normal melt conditions. Early June precipitation in the Upper I Basin added to the runoff, and the forecast was reevaluated and raised to 11.3 MAF on June 14, 163 percent of normal. Further analysis of snowpack, . I precipitation, and streamflow data resulted in forecasts of 13.3 MAF I (190 percent on June 20), and· 14.6 MAF· (210 percent) on June 28.. The last revision was due primarily to heavy showers·and thunderstorms on June 25-26 I that resulted in a peak inflow to Lake Powell of 116,000 cfs on June 28.
I ~ese large increeses in the forecast cculd.have required increases in I Lake Mead flood control releases up to 65,000 cfs. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers agreed to try to limit releases to I about 40,000 cfs. On June 28, releases at Hoover Dam were about 40,000 cfs, releases at Davis Dam were about 40,000 cfs, and at Parker Dam
I releases were held at 38,000 cfs. I ... I I The main factor that enabled us to keep Lake Mead releases at the J i I 40-45,000 cfs level was the use of surcharge storage at Lake Powell and 1 I I Lake Mead. The addition of flashboards to_~~e top of the spillway gates at J I Lake Powell provided extra surcharge storage space. That was done to limit
flows th~ough the two spillways, which were being seriously damaged because "!; I 'I jl of high flows eroding sections of the concrete lining. The .extra surcharge j
i l I storage allowed smaller releases from Lake Powell, thus reducing peak I inflow into Lake Mead. -· .
-',...-~:,{;'.. I I'
I 5
c .- -·-··. -- ···:;u·- -· ------·~:--·-"'---.. ----·--··------~------. -;~---. .::17.-:;:·"i_~... -
-· " - Water began to flow over the Hoover Dam spillway gates on July 3. In·
anticipation of possible maximum spillway flQws of 45,000 cfs from
Hoover Dam, releases from Davis Dam were gradua.lly increased to 44,000 cfs
(July 3). Downstream observations indicated little if any increase in
river levels from tho$e releases; apparently because the sustained high
flows had scoured the channel and increased its capacity. The larger
releases from Davis Dam created some storage space :f.n Lake Mohave, thereby
permitting the reregulation of Lake Mead releases. Thus relatively large
power generating releases were made during the week in combination with
smaller flows on the weekends. Releases ranging from 40,000 to 44,000 cfs
from Lake Mohave wer~ maintained from early July through mid-August.
Lake Powell crested on July 14 at an elevat·ion of 3,708.34 feet. Lake Mead
reached a maximum elevation of 1,225.83 feet orJ.. July 24 (storing
26.86 MA:F). At that elevation, spillway flo'iT was about 28,300 cfs. By
July 31, Lake Mead had receded to elevation 1.,225.44 feet. Currently, the lake is at an elevation of approximately. 1,221 feet (just below the spillway gates). Flows, however, averaged about 40,000 to 42,000 cfs ..
Parker Dam releases remained at·about 38,000 cfs du~ing the.month of July, .. but gradually increased to about 40,000 cfs by early August. The increased r flows through the turbin~s W~l"g the result of tailwater reductions due to downstream scouring effects. Downstream river levels actually dropped
during this gradual increase.
'f
-n•-,•w•••··~ ~.· ~...... ,; l~ .,,.£ . !:#l! rj!!!!!!llll..· ~' '"' ! t ~q,..;.
FLOW BELOW HOOVER DAM SITE
Thcusands of CFS 100 .....-! .....-! Q) "0 ~ 90 Cl! 0 'l) ...... ~ ~.. QJ \li .!'1! ~ ':'0 80 qj ..4 ..4 ~ ~ •r-1 ·r-1 tiJ 70 \1) ~ ~ ·r-1 1 •r-1 btl I~ I~ j..o 60 (1) IQ) Ol) !tiD m •m ~ I ).I :;, 50 to .w J.W tl) lm I ., " .L1'1 ("") jC""l \0 40 JO'> 0'\ I~ rl l..o )..I IQJ ;U '~ ...... 30 I ""•
20
10
0 1900 ' 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 Calendar Years
*:vie an Mont hl ''J F loHs :......
Colorado River Reservoirs Storage Capacity
. Total Reservoir Capacity 61.60 MAF
Flood Control Space 5.35 MAF
' ~ t ns·.ti~
I I
Conservation Storage Average Annual Flow 56.25 MAF at Lee's Ferry 14.8 MAF ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,....,.-,.~ ~-· [11-- [JII.II r-, r- '1\iiiiiiii. IJ!!!!!!IIII;' r-z·i ~f., ...!' t [j""~] ill ' a.,~:'t. 4,._.,_ .. ~ \o.~ ~; U., :.. ~ ~ '.!!!!!!!lllllli ~ ~· ~ :· , ,, •" I ; ~ J.': i • • ·:1 ·.. .~ / l-; ·""~-~ ~~;;,.7,-
"'
Colorado River System MAF 70~------~
60 Jan. 1 Flood Control Max. 'Q\--..--.~~... ._.._.,~.._.~ ...... ,_...... ~,...... ,_..~ ..,_, ...... ~.._. --..--.~ ...... ~.-.. ,....~ ._...... ~ 50 t 'I 40
\0 30 ' Actual Storage
20
10
OL------~------~------L------~------~ 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
,, 0 ,. .. , ~ , "":"""·, J.. ' ~ .. :_c! ·, .: • ·J 't··~... _..'",~ii,lJ "~ .:;,.;V
1983 Lake Powell Inflow Forecast
April-July lnfiow Percent of (Million Acre-Feet) Average 'Flow f I f. 1 January 7.8 112
~ 0 1 February 7.1 102 96 .. 1 March 6.7 1 April 7.9 114 1 May 8:1 117 15 May 8.3 120 1 June 9.1 13:1 14 June 11.3 163 18 June 13.3 190 28 June 14.6 210
...., C' \'
I 0 ~~" ·~--- -,., --:-::::::··-:::;--;"~::;, ~~~·--.-~·~~--.-""">~. "::wL-~ ..... -- ~ ...... ,\...:.....__:."):i~w.:Jfl~.::._-;,_;;~---~·.._ .... -~ ..... ''"!' ·-··---·-~~~~-
~ 7.1~,,. l"iiiiiiii l .~. ~i .~ !.. :: :· . l ",<- !f ( j fiiiiiiii:~·-" rur-; \; . <]-! f! i. , ~ i : \ . t ii_~, !> : ... b,--~--- . ~ I; ~ ~ ~ Jl!!!!!!ll. jiZ:iii 5uz· 0'"7 < J ll {' ·J till nlll fiiii iitrr >(; •. ., ~- ... : . f.· . ""'~-..i " • < .. ···~- ~-....--
ij
Colorado River Runoff Forecasts and Flood MAF Control Storage 14· 1983 0
12 f?ZI April-July Runoff Forecast
10 Available Flood Control _J f 'J Storage in System ~
,. J. 8
~A-~Av:,~age Runoff J-'...., ------6
4
2
Jan Feb Mar I Apr May ~I Jun Jul 1983
II . --.{:'c.·, ·j .l ,_ ...,...... ,,it_ uu l'flildii!IJI:'q. ....,, ...,.,... _____ .... ! .,,.• 1 -"'"··-·- ·. ' ·a . . « . ~ _m,...... ea;us~ .· . ~"'·";.'i· ~ .. J ...... UQJ2J'1. fl!!h. !?# - . . . . 0.""'""-- -. au;a e.:__.. -· ..... - . .. ···~l'h,,.,.AiM~""'' . .· .. ..•.· . ' ~ .. " ·~ ' . - I I Lake Powell Il l ! ) 6 i 1 I I' -+-' 5 I Q) Q) LL I 1:::::::1:] lnf~ow ,_()) (.) 4 D Outflow <( c 0
::?! 3 c ~ 0 ~2 I!! ..c: +Jc llj;t_ 0 ~ 1
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut Aug 1982 1983 ,.._, ~ ' ' l ,..: ~~ ... ~-~ ~J . ···' ~ ~~ ~ ~~'· I"'j!jil • iJ...• :fiB tli!B 3!111 J!!ll 3!11 ~1!!11 w liili' .~ ¥;iiil' illiil,__.., #' \, . '} I''{ . · .'1 ...... _.;, t"-~!~~
"'
Lake Powell Storage ,. ' .. :\ MAF 27 ..... Max. Design Res. Elev. 3711' T Max. Elev. 3708.34' Q) Q) ~ I LL i I i I 26~ ~ Surcharge tJ • ·x• , ¥ikM:} 0 ...... I <( .~.:. f :;::::: c: ;···:· 0 :::~::, I ..... II :·:·: I I l Top of Spillway Gates Elev. 3700' ---L-- l ·~·:, i 25~: l .~ Ji c: I . J ~ .?;::;::::~: . Q) ...... w 24l-. ~'- 1...... 0 (j) ). . II L:: 23~ t:::::: ~::~:_:::~:
~ ... · :::::: I ~· ~ -~ I 22 :::~::: I ::::: ::~:~
•·•···•···•·····•·•·•·•·...... -.... u:..····· ..... ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.··················.:tJ...... u - Nov I Dec Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun I Jul I Aug 1982 1983
v . ·,J11111'11:21Ji§iiitb•. . I • • ··-···-·-c·.li?ffi:~~. , .. ,~'·"''~~"J!!'1iil!?. UM-#lf\Cl¥iiliJ· . Y lfMW•'' . •• Q .. :li¥14l!IA24~- H. (/1~' •WZ!J'4!;"'•·1E .. ·'··· ., ww~l"'!'-v ...,..,,.,.,. 4lt.NtllitJ•CN G ~. ~,.-~""'"-.:.~ 0 ---· ~· ··- -~ . . --.. l..'-..,..------' "'-:--"-::-·- • ---...... ,..···-- ~--·-:::.-c:::--:.-- :_ __ -~.::;:::::-~· ~~o.~....::::..:..x_.-:.:~-~'-k~---~-~~----'~.:....~._:_ ~ ~k __ .:~ ....:.:.:;~ -~..:..:~'...,;"~;·~~fJiiif .. i'ti ~-;. · Mwi.i-.-:~weJ. ('"':.· ...... :··..,.v !;·,,· 't' \... ,·' 'J ·~~;~~~~-:,j ~ ......
Lake Mead
+J Q) 4 Q) LL I Q) '- (.} rEm Inflow I <( 3 I c D Outflow 0 - ·-- 1-' ·- ~ ~ 2 ·7· ·-c 5 0 LL- >. 1 ..c- +J c 0 ~ l:; Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr . May Jun· Jul Aug 1982 1983
I I -- '=nmm~ ,_ .... r ' . ~---_-. "!iiiiiiiiif._ r'liiiiiiiil '"' .. iil ~~ /"--....1 ~ ~-~"- ... >-· - J •- .. . '1..~ r-'t~ ~.~ t~C_I! ~ ~ ' ~~ .. -.i.:llll!ll' ~J JIB 'fliil. E1i1 ;';~ ~ ~j .. ... \•;:j/
Lake Mead Storage MAF 28
Max. Design Res. Elev. 1229' f j Max. Elev. 1225.83' 27 Surcharge Il ~~~-~j ... Top of Spillway Gates Elev. 1221.4" _L 26 I II
[' j ! 25 1~ l 24
23
22
Nov t Dec Jan I Feb I Mar Apr I May Jun I Jul I Aug 1982. 1983 ( . .
Lake Mead Flood Control Operations 1983
1983
Jan
Feb D Minimum Required Release tor Flood Control
Mar ~ Actual Monthly Release
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
10,000 20,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Cubic Feet Per Second
16
' ~-- ~ " .J t'. /'o. - ~ . ~ lll··- ,...... ,..__ ~ n- ~ ~ ~- Jl1i!il!lllii - ; : l ~ ,;_; ,j ... .. L~ ~ J~ .....•.tiiii!!!l!!lll ~ -. - ZiT i8 ll If ...iiniiif ififl ~· -\~,·...,~·:~; tt~ ~ ~~ ~ :Jill " ..__ 1'- ( •' \ ' : J ~-- ·.<) ' ., ""'-i•'" ':·.J:!i>'
Colorado River Dams • 3715 Current Reservoir Levels • 3711 August 1983
t1232 ~-- * 3700 e1229 I I * 1221.4
...... • 655 "' Glen Canyon ~ • * 647 •• 455 Hoover * 450 Davis • Top of Dam • Max. Design Pool Parker * Top of Spillway Gates in Closed Position
"'-
/ ii e:-:.·.,~ f···q·\,.-r.~ r:J.;J \~
Inflow: Colorado River 1983 Flows Max • 120.000 CFS Current·
Release: Lake ~ Max • 92,000 CFS Powell~ Current- I I
1--l 00 Release: Lake Max - 45.000 CFS Mead Curren! ·
..
Release: Lake Max • 44.000 CFS Current· :,:, Mohave
Rel~ase: Lake Max - 40.000 CFS Havasu Current ·
,... r· ~ -~~ \~
,.I l t ' ! TI~ 1.1
flr' . ' ''. .;;!;· .'~ \~.-~;,:!
11..; l ~ J STORAGE EVACUATION AT VARIOUS OUTFLOW RATES : ~ 1j :
·~i ' The following table shows the time required to evacuate ·~!! .. 7 MAF of storage for various outflow rates.
. 1' ... Outflow Discharge Time ' . ft3s Days 1ll .. 10,000 352 20,000 176 117 . ~~ 30,000 J 40,000 88 50,000 70
- Hence, long lead times are needed to operate the system to provide for flood control. ; -~'- •. ' I ·~
1rJ
I, !: ·~ Ji . 'F ;: 'j : lt 1 ·~ It•, L J~, r; l' i: r ;i\' ,t_,
·.. ·.·:~ Ji [: :~t,, '·1 ;, I ~· I >'
r.,,J 19
-.~~ .. .._...... ,-f ·- ,_...... ,_,__--::---... ---;'\:'f.... :'i:. '\-:--'~,.,.::::,:.-~--·
- '". ------~ --.--.,~~1~~"',':~N::w. - ~
('}; c <1-..J'
OPERATION AUTHORIZATIONS 0
.· nUS~ -·- From Field Working Agreement ••• Regarding !lood Control Operation of Hoover Dam 0 (d) (1) All inflow forecasts used in carrying out the pro ~J:lsions of the regulations in this section shall be prepar~d by the Colorado River Forecasting Service 0
From Boulder Canyon Project Act ~l-, Sec. (Sa) The United States ••• shall observe and be subject to and controlled by said Colorado River Compact in the n construction, management, and operation of said reservoir, u canals, and other works ••• 0 From Public Law 90-537 rl Sec.·602(a) •• oThe Secretary shall propose criteria for the coordinated long-range operation of the.reservoirs ••• (b) The u criteria ••• shall be submitted to the Governors of the Seven Colorado River Basin States for their review and comment ••• The SeGretai:y shull adopt appropriate criteria ••• The 0 Secretary may thereafter modify this criteria ••• but only after correspondence with the Governors ••• rl Iw I r·; w ·,~: II LJ
r-~ l i' L.J 0 0 0 0 '1
·~\ \ . .._: .I .I ., .I SECTION II: Alternative Operation Scenarios .I 'I 'I 'I I Jj
Ji! ..
~~t f,
~
·~
- ...' {""J
~
I# - ~ l
~~I . i ..... ~ ••...l ALTERNATIVE OPERATION SCENARIOS IN 1983 ;.:.: .. ' Fl
'l rl In order to determine wh~ther this year's high sustained flows could have been prevented or significantly reduced, several operating scenarios were
compiled, using alternative assumptions. These scenarios include: making
larger releases earlier ~n 1983, as.well as having the actual 14.6 million
acre-feet forecast available at earlier dates. Table 2 shows the actual
average monthly flows from Hoover Dam for the period November 1982 through I December 1983. The monthly flows shown beyond September 1983 are projected amounts needed to meet the January I, 1984, minimum flood control storage ' Lfl requirements. These actual flows are compared to three alternative
hypothetical operations~
Alternative 1 assumes that we continued o~~ January 1983 flood control
release of 19,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) in February and March and
then had a "perfect" forecast of 14.6 million acre-feet on April 1. Whil;;
a flow of 19,000 cfs can be maintained without causing flooding downstreant
within the United States and without bypassing powerplants, and the April 1
runoff forecast had historically been very close to the actual runoff that ,. occurred, these are not realistic assumptions, in that there is not sufficient data on April 1 to predict a runoff that would deviate so far I, from normal. As shown in the table, Alternative 1 would have resulted in a I. peak flow of 40,000 cfs in April and 35,000 cfs in ~ay. l Alternative 2 assumes that the reservoir system bad 7.5 million acre-feet of :(·J_.. flood control storage space on January 1, and that the.April 1 forecast was I.., again 14.6 million acre-feet. As shown in the table, the extra flood
L 21 r''0J '-· .. ;~~·· control space available negates .the need for large releases in January
under the flood control regulations. The extra storage space is partially
lost during January and February, and when the "perfect" forecast is
received on April 1, we again have to go to 40,000 cfs releases. Under
this alternative releases would also have to be increased late in 1983 to
again achieve 7.5 million acre-feet of storage by January 1, 1984.
Alternative 3 is much less realistic than the previous two alternatives in
that it assumes a "perfect" 14.6 million acre-feet forecast on January 1.
A large portion of the snowfall accumulation period occurs after January 1,
and a forecast of 210 percent of normal runoff based on January 1
conditions is considered very unlikely. As shown in the table, such a
scenario "!'Ould have required releases of 35,000 cfs in January and February
and 28,000 cfs in March and April.
Operation under any of these three alternatives would have resulted in
flows nearly as high as those that actually·occurred, the only difference
being that the peak flows would have occurred earlier in the year. Flood
damages under these three scenarios would not have been significantly less
than that actually experienced. The only way that maximum flows could not
have been held to the flood control target release flow of 28,000 cfs wou~·~
have been to start making :releases of 28,000 cfs back in December, 1982.
Such an operating plan is not only unrealistic but not allowable with the
present operating criteria. Flows of 28,000 cfs from Hoover Dam would
cause flooding below Parker Dam and would also result in powerplant bypass , ,
at Parker, and we '·1ould be operating without any runoff forecasts on which
to base such large releases.
22
"[· - Also to be considered should be a Glen Canyon operation assuming surcharge
''J•.. had not been utilized~ Using the historical inflow at Glen Canyon Dam but ·' with releases in such a manner ~ to put Glen Canyon in surcharge, would
have resulted in storage levels at l~ake Mead approaching 1, 229 feet and
downstream releases in exeess of 65,000 cfs.
I These th~oretical alternative operations lead us to conclude that the 1983 runoff was such an unusually large event that no realistic changes in
I reservoir operations or improvements in runoff forecasts could have I prevented the high flow levels and subsequent flood damages that occurred along the Colorado River in 1983. J· ' - I
Jf ll ~~ I_ ~~ ,' . :~ '<.:? 1"'' I_. 23 - ...... "·~ !:__. '\; ~ l t" ...,· ., ~ ..,.:,• ;::.;."":':-.~ ·~ i \:x:ir,; .. -' i I
BOOVER DAM J~LEASES UNDER ALTERNATIVE OPERATION SCENARIOS Ii ! t Relea1ea ·in Cubic Feet Per Second , 1982 1983 I JAH APR MAY OCT HOV NOV DEC I FEB MAR JUH JUL AUG SIP DEC Actual and Projected Releasea 6,400 7,500 19,100 6,600 10,300 17,800 19.800 31.700 41.900 ·41.300 39.100 39.100 27.200 21.900
! ··"'-"--~ Alternative 1 {early releauea) I 6,400 7,500 19,000 19,000 19,000 40,000 35,000 32,680 2!,900 33.500 28.300 25.90P 23.400 21.900 ' I I i I I Alternative 2 t (7.5 MAF I atorage) I 6,400 7,500 ~ 7,100 10,200 19.000 40.000 35.000 35.000 23.400 38.700 37.200 34a300 31~600 29,600 ;:: J I I - I I Alternative 3 I I (perfect I forecaatr I on Jan. 1) I 6,.400 1,soo I Js,ooo 3s,ooo 2s,ooo 2s,ooo 23,Joo 23,5oo 15,3oo 33,1oo 28,4oo 25,9oo 23,soo 23.9oo I .,, I
'i 1
I --~-,~-·-J ··----~
[ ___ l r--.... p .C) (. ,,j L __."j [_-:=J .c:::J r= J CJ t=l IC:) El (C] C1 te:l I CJ r:::::J tr::l Rl -.:::.:;·:-··-··
~-:-....._ ~-- _,\, . ;~ D l
h.. '/ ,,--· I I I ·. I SECTION III: The Law of the River I 'I( li .ll
~~ li •
11' '
JJ
11t: " j
Jl~ J 1.0('~l> I
.
.''""~ l - en~"'!-\~ M· I I:~ . \{:~.t.. I HISTORY OF COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS 1922 - Colorado River Compact
I - signed by all 7 basin states, ratified by 6 states by I 1929, Arizon ratified in 1944 - divided Basin into an Upper and Lower Basin at Lee I Ferry -allocated 7.5 maf per year to each Basin
I - agreed to split Mexico Treaty deficiencies I 1928 - Boulder Canyon Project Act authorized Hoover (at the time Bouder) Dam I - limited use of Colorado River water by California to 4e4 maf per year plus 50% of any surplus water av•ilabie
I 1940 - Boulde~ Canyon Project Adjustment Act I - changed the basis for setting rates for electric power generation charge~ II 1945 - Mexican Water Treaty : . •1 Provided for 1.5 maf of water delivered each year to ,, P1 Mexico, plus up to 200,000 acre-feet of suplus water
1948 - Upper Colorado River Basin Compact r I ' allocated Upper Basin~s 7.5 maf among the five basin 11 states . - showed need of storage capability in upper basin
I 1956 - Colorado River Storage Project Act I - authorized Glen Canyon and other upper basin dams 1962 - Filling Criteria for Lake Powell (Federal Register July ·--' 19, 1962) - rules to facilitate Lake Powell filling and to
I 24 ( '
compensate the lower basin power users for the
generating deficit caused by ~ater storage in Lake
P o w e 11 ( t e r m e d "H o o v e r D e f i c i e n c i e s n )
1964 - Supreme Court Decree in Arizona vs~ California
- allocated Lower Basin's 7.5 maf among the 3 states
(California 4.4 maf, Arizona 2.g maf, Nevada 0~3 maf,
50% of surplus to California and Arizona)
1968 - Lake Mead Flood Control Regulations
- amended to permit inclusion of storage in Upper Basin
reservoirs to meet flood control storage criteria
1968 - Colorado River Basin Project Act (Public Law 90-537)
- authorized CAP and additional upper basin projects
- section 602 gave Secretary directions for regulating
the storage between Lower and Upper Basins and required
formulation of coordinated operating criteria
1970 Coordinated Long-Range Operating Criteria (Federal
Register June 10, 1970)
provided rules governing the operation of the entire
system
- to some extent superseded 1962 Filling Criteria,
especially with the ba.lanced Mead -Powell storage
concept
1975 - Formal Review of Operating Criteria, required every 5
years, led to consid·eration of terminating the filling
criteria in 1976. Upper Basin interests favored
termination$ Lower Basin opposed it, Reclamation decided
that terminc,:;tion was not justified und.er the 1962 25
()
•. ..: :lh··--. ' • -1 ' '., -- ~ .;!~;;~ Filling Criteria and Public Law 90-537 :~ 1977-78 Much below normal runoff in 1977 reduced storage levels
and removed at least temporarily the possibility of
filling the system
1979 - Much abo~e normal runoff increases the likelyhood of
r e q u ire d f 1 o o d c o n t r o 1 r e 1 e a s e ·s f r om M e a d • Heavy
tributary flow belo\' Mead reduces the demand for releases ()
from Mead for downstream consumptive use, and results in
a power generation deficit. Reclamation modifies the
1979 operations plan to release an extra 700,000 acre-
feet from Mead to reduce threat of large damaging flood
control releases and generate additional power to reduce
the deficit. The Upper Colorado Basin Commission
indicates by resolution that they feel such modified
operations should lead to termination of the filling I criteria, and a meeting notice is published in the Federal Register. I 1980 - Lake Powell "filledu on June 22, 1980 and, therefore, the filling criteria was terminated. Lower Basin States "no
J I compelling reason" for forn1al review of Operating I Criteria; Upper Basin States - consensus was for no formal review. Meeting held on September 18, 1980, in
. -1:' __ .· Las Vegas to discuss with States and other Federal . ageni!ies whether a formal review l.S requir~d or
' . I: ,,_,. warranted. Decision: no formal review (December 10, 1980).
I 26 -~---.:. ___...... ::,~----·----0~ .. ~------.. --~---~--.------~-- ·--·--· "' ____ ,;:;:...,.. ~,::,~. t::.:-:..~ ,_::_:;_,:;:_,~ __,_..,.,_...,. ,<,;-~;\!!i!!W.I!!fd;i~
of_ .. , I \ . :. (": ...;;,~~. - ~' .;_. J j t . ' l' 'l...~' .. '<.,." 1;'i December 21, 1928 ~ December 21, 1928 /'';r COLORADO RIVER COMPACT . COLORADO RIVER COMPACT 443 \l~ 41-2 ;e. \ "r.X .ARTICLE I ARTICLE III 1.:f . ~~ The major purposes of this cor.o.pact are to provide for the equitable divisimt ( (a) There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River System in per and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to eiJ ~ petuity to the Upper Basin and to the Lower Basin, respectively, the exclusive tablish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water; to prom6~ ~ beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum, which interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversi.!S; anC:l!iS. ~ mall include all water necess~ry for the supply of any rights which may now secure the expeditious agricult>..Iral and industrial develop~ent of the Colo~· ~. CXlS• t • River Basin, the storage of its waters, and the protec~ion of Hfe and pto~· (b) In addition to the apportionment in paragraph (a), the Lower Basin is from floods. To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two B..... ~:~ hereby given the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use of such waters by and an apportionment of the use of part of the water of the Colorado RivetS • ·•.' one million a~re-feet per annwn. tern is made to each of them with the provision t,hat furt.her equitable apportio ~· (c) If, as a matter of international comity, the United States of America rlt' ~ shall hereafter recognize in the United States of Mexico any right to the use of ments may b e.: rnad e. ~· .. ~. !r '"'" t any waters of the Colorado River System, such waters shall be supplied first from ARTICLE II .'.? · ; the waters which are surplus over and above the aggregate of the quanti tie., As used in this Compact:- . f th C · :!~· :. specified in paragrnphs (a) and (b);· and if such surplus shall prove insufficient 01 (a) The term "Colorad? ~iver Syst:rrr means that po~tlon ° e . ~. •· . · >for this purpose, then, the burden of such deficiency shall be equally borne by 1 River and its tributaries w1thm the U~1ted States of Amenca.. ~f ••• ·~the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, and whenever necessary the States of the (b) The tenn "Coiorado River Basznt: mean; ~U of th~ ~rcu;~e are;~~. ' .: UP,per Division shall deliver at Lee Ferry water to supply one-half of the de Colorado River System and all other tern tory wtthm the mte fi~t~ 0 :'m~ ~: ficiency so recognized in addition to that provided in paragraph (d) . ica to which the waters of the Colorado Ri~~r._ S~~em shall be beneesc:r b;fo~ .!. (d) The States of the Upper Division will not cause the flow of the river at I I I (c) The term "States of the Upper D1v151on means the Stat -;.:J. .; Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any New Mexico Utah, and Wyoming. f :..•;! _.., ~-period of 10 consecutive years reckoned in co.ntinuing progressive series begin- (d) The tenn' "States of the ·Lower n·. lVlSIOn · · " means the States' o ~· . i::·~r "··l:ning with the 1st day of October n~t.succeeding th~ ratification, of this compact._ California and Nevada. • . . . c (e) The States of the Upper DlVlSlOn shall not Withhold water, and the States 0 r·ici!i0 :·. (e) The term "Lee Ferry" means a po!nt 1? the mam stream of the ·-~ {':!>£the Lower Division shall not require the delivery of water, which cannot rea~ River one mile below the mouth of the P2\naRlver. •.. ;;p_; :sonably be applied to domestic and agricultural uses. 0 (/) The te1m "Upper Basin" means those parts of the States ~ A~· { (/) Further equitable apportionment of the beneficial uses of the waters of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming within and from which ~ ·~e Colorado River System unaJ?p01·t~oned by paragraphs (a)! (b), and (c) turally drain into the Colorado River System above Lee Ferry, and.~ ·fP.. ~Ji.ay be made in the manner proVJded m paragraph (g) at any time after Octo n:rts .of said States located without the drainage area of the Colorado Riv~ ~ ~~r 1, 1963, if and when either basin shall have reached its total beneficial con- p h' 1 ow or shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters d1~ '!w'nptive u.se as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). tcm W lC 1 are n e'I'TV' frci:; • :J; (g) In the event of a d es1re• f or f urth er apportiOnment' as proV!'ded 'm para- from t h e system a b ove L ee F --" . f A ...;-Z_. .. • S . th h h • G . Th "Lo Basin, means those parts of the States o ~~ ...... "t!"J ... ph (f) any two s1gnatory tates, actmg roug t etr overnors, may g1ve (g) e tennd Nwer M • nd Utah within and from which wa~ .!J'oint notice of such desire to the Governors of the other signatory States and to ·r · Neva a ew ex1co a ~ . ~·· . • . C a l1 orma, . . ' h Colorado' River s stem helow Lee Ferry, and also.;~ .the President of the Umted States of Amenca, and at shall be the duty of the
naturally dram mto t e d • h th dy · ge area of the Coloradoit·ru'l'-: 1Governors of the signatory States and of the President of the United States of parts of said States locate ~~ ou~ eb ~nafi . 11 served by waters di T' • · erica forthwith to appoint representatives, whose duty it shall be to divide System which are now or sha 1 erea ter e ene Cia Y ... ~ ~d appOrtion equitably between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin the bene- '1 from the System below Lee.Ferry. • d h f f r househ~ ·ficial use of the unapportioned water of the Colorado River System as mentioned 1 1 0 (h) The term "~o~estlc .u~e" s?all m~ u e ~ e ~se ~ik:a ~r es but · · · .._ paragraph (f), subject to the legislative ratification of the signatory States and stock, municipal, mmmg, miJI~ng, mdustnal an ot er p rpos ' •. ·: ·1 ~e Congress of the United States of America. exclude the generation of electrical power. . . ~i .
> NoTE oF OPINioN • i~ • ARTICLE IV watersheds to other watersheds 1. Transbasin diversions wi·~~!}b · (a) Inasmuch as the Colorado River has ceased to be navigable for commcrrc •_;; -;, St·ltes. but not to Stnt: ,;,· 4d' N The Color-tdn River Compact aut~nr- ..:.. . • :c1 · )r MargolJ O~·inicm, ••--2 ·and the reservation of its waters for navigation would seriously limit the dev(·l- -....1 the noun • 1ivers= -- -t wat ···~ r i\p, __ .qoJ::J36_ ... t._ lt of - 1sin, · 1se o'" · 1ater ,. purr .. '".. of n .. · : ..... tion ·;"• ''be s ' c -of .the Colorado Rtver irom ult.l natu~-·
,• ...... December 21, 1928 21, 1928 COLORADO RIVER COMPACT COLORADO RIVER COMPACT
setvient to the us~ of such waters for domestic, ~,gricultural, and power purposes.· ARTICLE VIII If the Congress shall not consent to this paragraph, the other provisions of this · · compact shall nevertheless remain binding. Present perfected rights to the beneficial use of waters of the Colorado River ( b} Subject to ·the provisions of this compact, water of the Colorado are unimpaired by this ~ompact. Whem;ver storage capadty of 5,000,000 System may be impounded and used for the generation of electrical power, !lr?ll"-~ ....- shall have been prov1ded on the mam Colorado Rher within or for such impounding and use shall be subservient to the use and comwnption ~::~Yt~; benefit of the Low~r Basin, then cl~ms o! .such rights, if :.~my, by appropria- such water for agricultural and domestic purposes and shall not interfere wu.n•tJE:~r-, or users of waters m the Lower Basm agamst appropriators or users of water or prevent use for such dominant purposes. the Upper Basin shall attach to and be satisfied from water that; may be stored (c) The provisions of this article shall not apply to,or interfere with the ~·•o: in conflict with Article III. lation and control ·by any State within its boundaries of the appropriation, All ~er rights to beneficial use of waters of the Colorado !Uver System shall and distribution of water. satisfied solely from the water apportioned to that Basin in which they are ARTICLE V ARTICLE IX The Chief Official of each signatory State chargedl with the administration water rights, together with the Director of the United States Reclamation · No~ng in t~ co~~t shall be construed to limit or prevent any State from ice and the Director of the United States Geological Swvey, shall cooperate, ~ii~~!ltittlt~lg or mam~rung any act.ion or proceeding, legal or equitable, for the officio: . of any nght under thiS compact or the enforcement of any of its (a) To promote the systematic determination and cootdination of the factlili;Jl'I'OV'isucms. as to flow, appropriation, consumption and usc of water in the Colorado ARTICLE X Basin, and the interchange of available infQID13.tion in such matters. Th· (b) To secure the ascertainment and publication of the annual flow of . 15 compact may be terminated at any time by the unanimous agreement of Colorado River at Lee p,.rrv. sJgnatory Stat;es. In the event of such termination all rights established under --~ shall continue unimpaired. ' (c) To pedonn.such other duties as may be assigned by mutual coment the signatories from time to time. ARTICLE XI This compact s~all become binding and obligatory when it shall have been ap- .AltncLE VI -...... ~y the Leg~slatu;es of each of the signatory States and by the Congress of Should any claim or controversy arise between..a11y two or more of the . Umted States. ~otlce of approval by the legislatures shall be given by the tory States: (a) With respect to the waters of the Colorado River System"t)··--:., ..-;tiO,VP.J-nor of ea~h stgnatory St~te to the Governors of the other signatory States covered by the terms of this compact; (b) over the meaning or performance· to the President of the Uruted States, and the President of the United States any of the terms of this compact; (c) as to the allocation of the burdens· . requested to give notice to the Governors of the signatory States of approval to the performance of any article of this compact or the delivery of waters the Congress of the United States. herein provided; {d) as ~o the construction or operation of works within In witness whereof the Commissioners have signed this compact in a single Colorado River Basin to be situated in two or more States, or to be 'which shall be deposited in the archives of the Department of State of in one State for the benefit of another State; or (e) as to the diversion of United States of America and of which a duly certified copy shall be for· in one State for·the benefit of another State; the Governors of the States to the Governor of each of the signatory States. · upon the request of one of them, shall forthwith appoint conunissioners Done at the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, this Twenty-fourth day of No- power to consider and adjust such claim or controversy, subject to her, A.D. One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Two. by the Legislatures of the States so affected. W. S. NoRVIEL. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the adjustment of any such claim W. F. McCLURE. controversy by any present method or by direct future legislative action of DELPH E. CARPENTER. interested States. J. G. ScRUGHAM. STEPHEN B. DAVIS, Jr. ARTICLE "t. TTT R. E. CALDWELL. FR..\i-l'K c. E:\JERSON. Nothing in this compact shall be constmed as affecting the ot:Hr;atioru · PROJECT AUTHORIZATION SUMHARY
Boulder Canyon Project Act
Sec. 6 The dam and reservoir provided for by section 1 hereof shall be used: First, the river regulation, improv~ment of navigation, and flood control; second, for irr:igation and domestic uses and satisfaction of present perfected rights in pursuance of Article VI!! of said Colorado River Compact; and third, for power.
Parker-Davis Project
With funds advanced by the Metropolitan Water District, using authority of exi'%ting Reclamation law, the Secreta1ry of the Interior began construction of
Parker Dam to supply municipal water and hydroelectric power to Southern
California in 1934. Because of Arizona's objections to the project and resulting legal acti?ns, Parker Dam was specifically authorized by Congress in the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30, 1935 •.
Davis Dam was also buil~ by the Secretary of the Interior without specific authorization through the authority granted the Secretary by the Reclamation
Project Act of 1939.
The operations of the Parker Dam Power Project and Davis Dam Project were consolidated by Congressional action on·May 28, 1954.
Colorado River Storage Project Act (Glen Canyon~ Flaming Gorge, Aspinall Unit_l
Section ! ••• for the purposes, among others, of regulating the flow of the
Colorado River, storing water for beneficial. consumptive use, making it possible for the States of the Upper Basin to utilize, consistently with the provisions of the Colorado River Compact, the apportionments made to and among them in the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, respectively, providing for the reclamation of arid and semiarid land, for the control of floods, and for the generation of hydroelectric. p6wer ••• : I ' 29
', 'i \_ ---~ ------?,i)~'"-' ---~- .. '" ." ' . .1.) ( Septt~mber 30, 1968 -15- Pub .. Law 90-537 ·--··-----·---_,_82 S'rAT. 900 :-' .... till'1 • a 1 Iu "''c.lcr f,, (.omplv with aud earn· o:ll tlw pr.. , i:-;lun~ 1 tiTii';. ( 'o1onuiP HH'l'~ CoHtpn<:t,- the Uppez· Colomdc• l~iver Basin 4!J!:itn~. 1\' • .I ( 'f.llll[~:td .. :ll\d t lw M~x.tean 'Vn.ter Tr~..aty, t.he. Secretary shall (>ropose o3 Stat, Jl. J 9. t•rth•rta for the t'm>rclma.tcd long-range operu.tton of the re&>r\'Otrs C?n 59 Stat. 1? strud~·d ami ope.rat.ed under t.he authority of the Colorado Uiver Stor a~o,re Projt>Ct Act, Ute Houlder Canyon. Projret Act, and the Boulder 70 Stat. 105 • Canyon Project. Adjustment Act. To eff~t in part the purposes ex 43 us.; s2o. pres.<;e(l in this pnrngraph, t.he criteria. shall make provision for th~ 45 Stat. 1057. storage of w11ter in stornge units of t.he C'?londo River: stor~ge project 54 Stat. 174. and releases of water from Lake Powell m the followmg hste and (iii) to a.void anticipated spills from Lake Powell. . ' (b) Not later than Janua5; 1, 1970.s-th.e...cr:i.teria. proposed in accord Criteria, sub am·e with the foregoomg .su section (u) of this :;ecrion sha.ll he sub mittal for re mitted to thtLGovemQ!:§ of t.he seven Colorado River: Basin States and view and pcmnent. to such othei" parties and agencies as the SeeretarY mav deem appro priate for their review and comment. After receipt ·of cmnments Ol'l the Publioa.tion in proposed criieria, but not later than.• Tyly 1, J~70, the ~~~tary slyl!l Federal Register. adopt. ~pp;opri.ate Ct:'i.teda in ~ccordanee. wi~h th-is section and publish tne same m the Federal Register. Begmmng_ .~an nary 1,. !97~, and Repol"t to Con y~ar:b: th~r_eafter, the Secretary sh.all tnn~nut to the ('tongress and gress, etc. to tnt> Governors of th.e Colorado Rtver Basm States a report describ inJ,r the actual operation under the adopted criterin for the pre(.•edin#r I <•nmpnct water year and the projected operation for the current Vt>ar . . \s ll n.>$ult. of u.c.tual operating experience or unforeseen rircumsta"nces, tlw S<>r.retarv may thereafter modify the criteria to better achieve the purpos<>s spe(•ified in subfgction (u) of this section. hut onl.v after <'or I r(•$pPndt!nce with the Governors of the l'even \olnrndo River Rnsin :-ltatt:s and approprillte consultation with such State rept'l'::5t>ntatives us l':ll'lt novernor nmy desig'!late. !1·) ~('Ciion 7 of the Colorado River Storage- Project .\ct shnll l>t> :11frninistcred in accordance with tlu• fnrt>t.,l"f)ing- <'riterin. 30 I . ' ' 'i - I COLORADO RIVER RESERVOlRS COORDINATED LONG,·RANGE OPERATION Criteria for coordinated long-ranqe operation of Colorado River Rese. • voirs pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (Public Law 90-537}. Y These Operating Criteria are promulqa.ted in compliance with sectio!" 602 of Public Law 90-537. They are to control the coordinated long-range operation of th~ sto.raqe reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin constructed under the authority of the Colorado River Storage Project Act .(hereinafter ~·upper Basin Storage Reservoirs") and the Bould~r Canyon Project Act (Lak _: ·Mead). The Operating Criteria will be administered consistent with ap plicable Federal laws., the Mexican Water Treaty I interstate compacts, and decrees relating to the use of the \Vaters of the Colorado River. The Secretary of the Interior e (hereinafter tht~ '' Secr.etaryu) may rnodif~ the Opetating Criteria front·time to time in aceordance with section 602 (b) of Public Law 90-537. 1'he Seb.fetary \vill sponsor a formal review of the Operating Criteria ~lt least every 5 years, with participation by State repre sentatives a~ aach Governor may designate and such other parties and agencies. as the Secretary mq.y deem approp~i~te. I. ANNUAL REPORT (1·) qn January 1, 19 72, .and on january 1 of each year thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress and to the Governor£ of the Colo rado River Basin Stat~s a re~ort describing the actual operation under the adopted criteria for the preceding compact water year and the projected plan of operation for the current year. (2) Th~ plan of operation shall include such detailed rules and quanti ties as may be nece~sary and consistent with the criteria contained herein ' and shall refie¢t appropriate con.sideration of the .uses of the res~rvoirs for ~"ll purposes, including flo,~d control, river regulation, beneficial qon sumptive uses (f ·power production, water quality control, recreation, en hancement o£ fish and vlil.d!ife I and other environmental factors. The prl~jected plan of operation may be revised to reflect the current hydrologic conditions, and the: Congress and the Governors· of the Colorado River u.. Basin States shall be advi~"~d of an·y changes by June of each year. II41 OPERATION OF UPP~ BASIN RESERVOIRS (1) The ·annual plan of operation shall include a determination by the S~cretary of the quantity of water considered necessary as of September 3c1' of that year to be in storage as required by section 602 (a) of Pub~ic Law 31 • - - 90-537 (hereinafter "602(a) Storage .. ·). The quantity of 602(a) Storage shall be determined by the Secretary after consideration of all applicable laws and relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Historic streamflows: . 0 (b) The most critical period of record: (c) Probabilities of wat~r supply: (d) Estimated future depletions in the upper basin, including the effects of recurrence of critical periods of water. supP-lY; . (e) The "Report of the Committee on Prob~bilities and Test Studies ~o the Task Force on Operating Criteria for the Colorado River, " dated October 30 I 19 69 I and such additional studies a§ the Secretary deems necessary: (f) The necessity to assure that upper basin consumptive uses not be impaired because o.f failure to store sufficient water .to assure de liveries under section 602(a) (1). and (2) of Public Law 90-537. (2) If, in the plan of operation~ either: (a) The Upp~r Basin Storage Reser . ..;irs active storage forecast. for September 30 of the current year is less t.ban the quantity of 602 (a) " ' Storage determined by the Secretary under Article II {1) hereof I for that data: or . (b) The take Powell active storage forecast for that date is less than the Lake Mead active storage forecast for that date~ the objective shall be to maintain a minimum release of wat{ar from Lake Powell of S .. 2 3 mfllion acre-feet for that year. However, for the years ending September 301 1971 and 1972, tne rele,ase may be greater than 8.23 million acre-feet if necessary to deliver 75 million acre-feet at Lee Ferr:r for tae 10-year period endlng September 30, 19 72 .. (3) If, in the plan of operation, the Upf)er Basin St'?rage Reservoirs active str,rage forecast for September 3 0 of the current water year is greater , than the quantity of 602(a) Storage determination for that date, water shall be ;eleased annually from Lake Powe!l at a rate gr~ater than 8. 23 million acre-feet per year tq the extent necessary to accomplish any or all of the following objectives: (a) To the extent it can be reasonably applied in the States of the Lower Division to the uses specified 1n Article III(e) of the Colorado Riv Compact, but no such releases shall be made when the active storage in Lake Powell is less than the active storage in Lake Mead. 32 (.t 0 '• I' -· • ,.~~- .•. ·,""; (b) To maintain, as nearly as practicabl-9, active storage in Lake ~...... ••. .!!' ... ~ ..... "' Mead equal to the active storage in Lake Powell, and {c) To avoid anticipated spills from Lake Powell. (4) In the application of Article II (3) (b) herein, the annual release ·will be made to the extent that it can pe passed through Glen Canyon Powerplant when operated at the available capability of the powerplant. Any water thus reta,in-ad in Lake Powell to avoid bypass of water at· the Gle Canyon Ppwerplant will be released through the Glen Canyon Powerplant a~ soon as practicable to equalize the active storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, .. (S) Releases from Lake PO' L~E OPERATION' « MEAD m. . . C1F iliiWl (1) W'atet· released from Lake Powell, plus the tributary inflows betw·een Lake Powell and Lake Mead, shall be regulated in Lake Mead and either pumped from Lake Mead or ·released to the· Colorado River to meet require ments. as fellows: l: (a) Mexican Treaty obligations; . (b) Reasonable consumptive use requirements of mainstream use.cs i: the lower basin: (c) Net .iiver losses: (d-) Net reservoir losses; {e) Regulatory wastes. .' (2) Until such time as mainstream water is delivered by means of th Central Arizona' Project, the consumptive use requirements of Artie!~ III(l) t 1) of these Operatinq Criteria will be met. (3) After commencement of deli very of mainstream water by means of the Central Arizona Project, the consumptive use requirements of Article III(l) (b) of these Operating. Criteria will be met to the following ~xtent: (a) Norn1al .. The annual pumping and release from Lake Mead will be ,. ... sufficient to satisfy 7,500, 000 acre~ feet of annual consumptive use in accordance ~vith the decree in Arizona v. California, 376 U.s. 340 ( 196 ) . / <., ' 33 Ill (b) Surpl'!§_. The Secretary shall determine from time to time when· water in quantities greater than .. Normal" is available for either pump I~~' . J ',~ ";;.:..:r ing or release from Lake Mead pursuant to Article II (B) (2) of the decree in Arizona v. California after consideration of q.ll relevant factors 1 in m cludi.ng I but not limited to, the following: (i) Tpe requirements stated in Article III(l) of these Operating m Criteria: (ii) Requests for water by holders of water delivery contracts with the United States, and of other rights recognized in the decree I in Arizona v. California~ (iii) Actual and forecast quantities of active storage in Lake Mead I and the Upper Basin Storage Reservoirs; and . I (iv) Estimated net inflow to Lake Mead. (c) Shortage. The Secretar.1 shall determine from time to time when insufficient mainstream water is available to satisfy annual consump I tive use requirements of 7, 500 I 000 acre-feet after consideration of all relevant factors I including~ but not limited to, the following: I (i) The requirements stated in Article Ill( 1) of these Operating Crtteria: '" . I (ii) Actual· and forecast quantit~es · ~f active storage in Lake Mead: (iii) Estimate of net inflow to Lake Mead for the current year, IE {iv) Historic streamflows, including the most critical period c:.: record: I (v) Pri.orities set forth in Articl.e II(a) of the decree in Arizona v. California: and I (vi) The purposes· stated in Article I(l). of these Operating Criteria. The shortage provisions of Article II{ B) (3) ?f the d~cree in Arizona v. I California shall thereupon become effective and ·consumptive uses from the mainstream shc:dl be restricted to the extent determined by the Secretary t~..r I be required by section 30l(b) of Public Law 90-537. 'N. DEFINITIONS !I (1) In addition to the definitions in section 606 of Public Law 90-537, the following shall also apply: I (a) .. Spills~·" as used in Article II (3) (c) herein, means water released from Lake Powell which cannot be ut1hzed for Project purpo~es, including, i j) but not rimited to, the generation of power and energy. 34 I ...... , .. ,_."_ .., ...... ~ .... ---~ ------·-·--''"""'-·------:-:c....,I'"~ '~ ' ' ,~'.,:~:~I - (b) "SurplusR" as used in Article III(3){b) herein, is water which can be used to meet consumptive use demands in the three Lower Division States in excess of 7,500, 000 acre-feet annually. The term "surplus" as used in these Operating Criteria is not to be construed as applied to, being interpretive of, or in any manner having r~ference to the term u surplus" in the Colorado River Compact. (c) "Net inflow to Lake Mead," as used in Article III(3) (b) (iv) and (c (iii) herein, ·represents the annual inflow to Lake Mead in excess of loss ..... s from Lake Mead. (d) "Available capability, .. as used in Article !I(4) herein, means that portion of th~ total capacity of the powerplant that is physically avail able for generation. WALTER J0 HICKEL I Secretary of the Inte:i££ JUNE 4, 1970. This Document was filed June 9, 19 70 as F. R. Doc. 70-7138 and published in Vol. 35 I No. -112 I FEDERAL REGISTER I Wednesday, June 10, 1970. 1. See page 157 of this volun1e for Public Law 90-53 7. FIELD WORKING AGREEME:lT BETWEEN D~PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR FLOOD CONTROL OPERATION OF HOOVER DAM AND LAKE MEAD, COLORAOO RIVER, NEVADA - ARIZONA This field working agreement, made and entered into this ___ day 1982, between the Lower Colorado Region, of ------Bureau of Reclamation and the South Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, Colorado River, Clark County, Nevada and Mohave County, Arizona, was authorized as part of the Boulder I Canyon Project. Act (Public Law 70-642). The Boulder Canyon Project Act I ·states that Boulder Dam (Public Law 43 changed the name of the structure from Boulder Dam to Hoover Dam) and the reservoir that it creates shall be I used: first, for river regulation, imprC!vement of navigation, and flood· I control; second, for irrigation and domestic uses; and third, for power. WHEREAS, the Dapartment of the Interior, acting thrqugh the Bureau of I Recl~mation, represented by the appropriate Regional Director, hereina.fter I referred to as the Regional Director, has construe ted Hoover Dam and I~' II 36 ! ~~~~------~---~···-----·-··-~------····------·------. . . ~ - ¥ ' ~ ,. .. . :: . ~ ~ ·~· . : .. ~ ~ . ~ , ~. ~~ . Reservoir, and is responsible f'or the safety of the structure and I~or• normal operations or the Lower Colo1~ado River, or which said dam and reservoir are a part. WHEREAS, the Department of the Army, acting through the Corps c f Engineers, represented by its app~opriate District and Division Engineer:!, is responsible for the flood control operation o.f Hocve.,. Dam and Lake Mead in accordance with Section 7 of the 1944 Flood Control Act ( Sept,.;~on 7, Public La.w 78-534, 58 Stat. 890, 33 UoS.C. 709), which directs the Army to prescribe regulations for the use of storage allocated fm• flood control or navigation at all reservoirs constructed wholly or in part with Fedelal funds, and as promulgated in the Code of Feder-al Regulations, Title 33, Part 208.11, 13 October 1978s WHEREAS, there is a need for ·a working agreement to insure a ~cJear understanding of flood control regulations and information exch~irge required for the operation of Hot.1Ver Dam and Lake Mead. NOW, 'mEREFORE, it is mutually und~rstood and ·agreed by and bet ieen the parties hereto that this field working agreement shall oonsummat~ the provisions of the 1944 Flood Control Act for Hoover Dam and Lake Mead. In addition to the responsibilities of' the project owner and the Corp~ of Engineers spelled ot.lt in paragraph 208. 11 , 33 CFR, it is agreed that Hoover Dam and. Lake Mead will be operated in the interest of flood contt-ol in accordance with the followi.ng water control plan. 37 ! (a) In order to provide .storage space for control of floods, I·~I • •. 1 ..,_., ... J~;, releases from Lake Mead shall be scheduled so that available storage space I for flood control will not be less than that indicated in the following E table for the dates shown. Flood control storage space shall be the available storage space below elevation 1,229 feet. I. Available flood control Date storage soace I (acre-feet) I 1 August •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1,500,000 1 September ...... 2,270,000 I 1 Ckltober ••••.••••••••••••••••••••••• 3,040,000 I 1 November ••••••••••••••••••••••••••- 3,810,000 1 4 580 000 December •• ~··••••••••••••••••••••• ' ' I 1 Januar-y , •••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••••.., ~,350,000 I Pertinent information on pet~issible changes in available flood I control storage space L~ Lake Mead is given in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of thi~ paragraph. I ( 1) The available flood control storage space in Lake 1'-!ead during I the period 1 August· to 1 January· may be reduced to a m:inimum of 1,50~,000 acre-feet, provided the additional space prescribed under paragraph (a) 11 above is available in active storage space in upstream reservoirs. The · "?, I maximum storage ~pace in upstream reservoirs that can be creditad to the 1 September, 1 October, 1 November, 1 December, or 1 January storage space I~ requirement in Lr....ke Head is given in the following table: . I I 38 --- Reservoir Creditable storage space (Acre-feet) Lake Powell ••• v••••••••••••••••••••• 3,850,000 '\} Navajo ••••• ~··············•••••••••• 1,035,900 Flaming Gorge plus Fontenelle ••••••• 1,507,200 (2) Space building releases from Lake Mead during the period 1 August to 1 January shall not exceed 28,000 cubic feet per second. Space building releases are herein defined as releases for the purpose of attaining the available flood control storage space given in parag~aph (a) above. (3) If, however, available flood control storage space diminishes at any time to less than 1,500,000 acre~feet then the minimum nood control . releases are described in paragraph (b) be.low. (b) At any time during the year, if available stor·a.ge space in Lake Mead should become less· than 1 ,50Q.,OQO acre-fe~t, then minimum releases from Lake Mead for flood control shall be determined daily from table 1 (Minimum Flood Control releases from Hoover Dam throughout the year) using available flood control storage space in Lake Mead. Pertinent information on permissible Changes in the releases.as indicated in table 1 is given in subparagrapl:ls (1), (2), and (3) of this paragraph. 39 "r:,·, ( 1) · During 1 .A.ugust to 1 January minimum releases from Lake Mead as given in table 1 , if 40 ~ 000 cubic feet per second or le~s, shall not be reduced when once initiated until the storage space prescribed. in Ilrilf, .• , paragraph (a) above becomes available. During the remainder of the year, ' releases as given in table 1 if 40,000 cubic feet per second or less are Il maintained until 1 , 500,000 acre-feet of storage is available at Lake Mead. ~~·I' i j ' (2) Mi:gimum releases from Lake Mead as ~iven in table 1, if greater I ' than 40, 000 cubic feet per second, shall not be reduced, -wilen once I initiated, until Lake Mead water surface has receded to elevation 1 ,221 .4 (top of spillway gates raised position). During 1 August to 1 January, I releases may then be gradually reduced to 40,000 cubic feet per second and \' I shall bi! maintained at not less than that rate until the storage space prescribed in paragraph (a) above becomes available. DurirJg the remainder I of the year release~ may also be reduced to 40,000 cubic feet per secop.d upon reaching elevation 1 ,221 .4 in Lake Mead, and shall be maintained at not less than that rate until 1, 500,000 acre-feet of storage space i!: I available at Lake Mead. I (3) The releases required in table 1 are minimum releases. Based on foreca.'3ted inflow, releases when the Lake Meud water surface elevatlon is I between 1219.61 feet and 1229.00 may be high~~ during the early stages of II a flood so as t.o achie,le a ~reater reduction in ultimate peak outflow. (c) Releases from Lake Mead shall be restricted· to quantities that I will ·not cause a flow in excess of 40,000 cubic feet per second at the gaging st~tion, Colorado River below Davis Dam, insofar as possible. I 40 ,,-, However, with the reservoir water surface at the top of the flood control pool, a discharge of about 65,000 cubic feet per second will be· passing over the Hoover Dam spillways with the gates in the raised position. (d) For the period 1 January through 31 July, minimum releases from Lake Mead to attain the 1 August flood control space prescribed in paragraph (a) above shall be determined by. use of the Flood Control ,r Algorithm described in Exhibit 1 and Water Loss Equations ~or Lakes Mead ru. and Pow-ell described L"l Exhibit 2. Pertinent information on inflow forecasts and on permissible changes in the prescribed release::! is given ·e in subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) of this paragraph. ( 1) All inflow forecasts used in cru"rying out the provisions of e these regulations shall be prepared by the Colorado River Forecasting Service located in the f'Iational Weather Service River Forecast Center in s Salt Lake City, Utah and shall be for the flow of the Colorado River. into Lake Mead including the r..ano ff contribution f'rom the tributary drainage area between Lake Powell and Lake Mead. (2) Lake Mead inflGW forecasts as provided by the Colorado River j Forecast Service shall be determined from depleted flow. Depletion of natural (virgin) flow shall include tran~basin diversions, net water use (diversion minus return flow), and evaporation from reservoirs upstream of Lake Powell. Adjustments to the forecast provided by the Colorado River ' Forecast Service shall be made for effective storage space in upstream reservoirs as specified in subparagraph (3) of this paragraph. The 41 - ·o maximum forecast for any specified runo rr period i:J defined as the estimated inflow volume (acre-feet) that, on the average' will not be ~. exceeded 19 times out of 20 • (3) Effective storage space in Navajo~ Blue Mesa, and Flaming Gvrge r..j plus Fontenelle reservoirs is the lesser of the actual space available, or I the usable space available. The usable space is the difference between the mean forecasted inflow volume (acre-feet) for any speci~ied runoff E period and projected mean reservoir releases. In computing effective I storage space for Flaming Gorge plus Fontenelle, the actual space is the sum of the actual available space in both rese~oirs; while mean I forecasted inflow volume and projected mean reservoir release will be the I values at Flaming Gorge reservoir. .Effective storage space itl a reservoir(s) may be a negative value if p·rojected mean re·servoir releases I exceed the mean forecasted inflow volume • I (4) When minimum releases for the months of January thrQqgh July as I determined by the Flood Control Algorithm are less than 28,000 cubic feet per second, it will be permissible to release less than the indica ted I aiOOunts for a part of a toonth, provided the average releases for the entir-e month will equal the release given by the Algorithm, without flows ; I exceeding 28,000 cubic feet per second at the gaging station, Colorado • I River below Davis Dam. I (5) .The Flood Control. Algorithm described in Exhibit 1' accounts for storase space in Lakes Powe 11 and Mead. Whenever st.t~f'ic1ent runoff I occurs, L...~e Powell is expected to fill to capacity (water surface -~) I /... 2 - elevation 3700 .o feet) and Lake Mead ±s expected to fill to capacity (>.)·~ (water surface elevation 1219.61), and remain full until 1 August so as to preclude any increase in the flood control releases specified by the Flood Control Algorithm above 28,000 cubic feet per second a.t the gaging station, Colorado River below Davis Dam. (6) The objective or the Flood Control Algorithm is to specify releases such that Lake Mead will be no higher than water surface elevation 1219.61 feet (1 ~SOC ;croo acre-feet of available storage space below elevation 1229.0 feet) on 1 August. Subsequent revisions to the minimum releases specified by the Floo:i Control Algorithm may be made during July it justified by a forecast of' the remaining runoff and compari.son with empty reservoir spac~ available • . (e) During .the period 1 January through 31 July the larger re.lease specified by the Flood Control Algorithm versus table 1 shall be the required minimum ~lease. (f) At anytime of the year, Hoover Dam releases shall not result in a now rate greater than 28,000 cubic feet per second at the gaging station, Colorado River below Dav;is Dam unless required or authorized by these regulations. (.g) Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to require dangercusly· · rapi~ changes in magnitudes of r.:cleaaes ~ Releases will be made in a manner consistent with requirements for ~rotecting the dam, reservoir and appurtenances from major damages. 43 -·· ··- ········-···----~·---·----,.·--.·-=:1.' .. ·'',·,,~)t:·~·~. <~·-.~ ... · ~. ·:· ' ',) (h) Hoover Dam is but one of three major flood control reservoirs in the Lower Colorado River Basin. The Corps of Engineers opera te.s Alamo Dam on the Bill Williams River and Painted Rock Dam on the Gila River. In that nows on these tributary streams contribute to the ma.instem Colorado River, coordinated operation of all· three reservoirs is essential to achieving nood control objectives. Hence temporary deviations from the Hoover Dam releases prescribed in this regulation may b19 necessary after c consideration of the available .storage, pr•ojected inflows, and required releases from these tributary reservoirs. (1) The Bureau of Reclamation shall procure such current basic .hydrologic data, and make such current calculations of permissible I ..releases from Lake Mead as are required to accomplish th1e flood control objectives prescribed above. I ( j) The Bu."eau of Reclamation shall keep the Los Alngeles District I Engineer, · Corps of Engineers, Department of the ~rmy, in charge of the locality, currently advised of' reservoir relea~es, reservoir storage, and I such other operating data as the Distric:.t Engineer may request, and also of those basic· operating criteria that effect the schedule t:Jf operation. (k) The flood control regulations are subject to tempoljary mdification by the Los Angeles District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, if f'oum necessary in time of emergency. Requests for and action on such . mod itications may be made by the fastest means of communications available. The action tal.:en shall be confirmed in writing the same day to the office of the· Regional Director and shall include justification for the action. I 44 r~------··- ( l) 'l'he Regional Director may temporarily deviate from the flood. control regulations in the event an immediate short-term departure is f " ~eemed necessary for emergency reasons to protect the safety of Hoover Da111 and Lake Mead, or downstream dams, or the levee systems along the lower Colorado River. Such actions will be immediately reported by the fastest means of communication available. Actions shall be confirmed in writing the same day to the Los Angeles District Eng .i..~eer, Corps of Engineers, and shall include justification for the action. (m) The Bureau of Reclamation shall be responsible for providin&:< adequate r,emings to downstream intere.sts when changes i..TJ. release of ,0 stored flood~~ters are made. ( n) Rev is ions to the flood control operation for Hoover Dam and Lake Mead may be developed as necessary by the parties of this agreement. Each such revision shall be effectiYe on the date specified. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this memorandum of agreement to be executed as of the day and dat.e first 'above written .. Corps of Engineers· Bureau of Reclamati~ r ' BY: ______BY:~------~--- Brigadier General, USA Regional Director Division Engineer Lower Colorado Regie~ Scuth Pacific Division 45 (.. :.:!' I SUMMARY OF COLORADO RIVER FORECASTING SERVICE OPERATIONS BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, Lower Colorado Region, Boulder City, Nevada June 23, 1 983 (Note • • • • • .. • • • • • • Reservoir operations on the Colorado River system are based on forecasts of projected runoff into the reservoir system from April through July, the annual snowmelt runoff period. Forecast reports are issued from January through I August. This information paper provides background on the forecast procedures. ) ~-~ ,I 1J Streamflow forecasts used for managing the waters of the. Colorado River system are prepared by a joint committee called the Colorado River Forecasting Service. This ·,1.; 1 committee consists of representatives of the National Weather Service, Department of ! l . Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the Upper and Lower Colorado Region offices, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior; U.S. Geological ~·t ' Survey, Department of the Interior; Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army; l' Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture~ and Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energyo The National Weather Service is the le~d agency for the forecast service, and the forecasts are carried out at the m~s River Forecast Center in Salt Lake fl- City, Utah. ~ J The purpose of the CRFS is to pool the resources of the participating agencies to improve the streamflow forecasting effort for the Colorado River system, and produce I a single, consistent set of runoff forecasts to allow each agency to better accomplish its Colorado River management responsibilities. Prior to formation of the CRFS, each I agency was producing its own forecasts. The most advanced techniques available for river forecasting are used by the committee. These include the use of computers, hydrologic computer models, telemetric relay,of hydrometeorological data from remote stations, and use of remote sensing techniques such as·radar, satellites, and other sensors of hydrolQgic information. Reservoir regulation schedules and other information required for streamflow forecasting and river system management are also incorporated into the process. Forecasta of streamflow in the Colorado River system are prepared on a short- through long-range basis to help accomplish water management objectives. A computer information bank provides each of the participating agencies with the available streamflm.: forecasts and the hydrometeorlogical data on which the forecasts are based. Each participating agency also has access to current information on the status (inflow, I outflow, storage and water surface elevation) for all projects in~the Colorado River system, and the projects future reservoir status based on forecasted inflows and planned operation. Water quality dat9 are also available from the system. Yorecasts for .the Colorado River system a~e divided into long-range, medium-range, and short-range. Long-range forecasts are concerned with estimating volume of runoff as . ·.· ' far as practical in advance of a seasonal basis by estimating water stored in the 1 accumulated winter snowpack, accumulated winter precipitation, and other hydrologic factors that affect the volume of runo~f. Medium-range forecasts define runoff under known snowpack, streamflow, and reservoir conditions, and assumed meteorological· I conditions, for periods up to 30 days in advance, .to assess reservoir filling schedules ~·~,, and downstream peak discharge potentials. Short-range forecasts are concerned with •. ) determining the chronological distribution of runoff, for periods of up to 10 days l.n :_ advance, considering hydrometeorological elements and the effeGts of reservoir regulation. I 46 -·· ·····-·-·····~-=.] - n t1 Because of the multiple purposes the Colorado River reservoirs serve, streamflow forecasts are also prepared for the late smmner-early winter low· flow period. The type and frequency of these forecasts are 1argely determined by hydroelectric power production, consumptive water use, and minimum flow requirements. D Because most streamflow in the lower Colorado River is derived from releases made from. upstream dams, additional streamflow forecasts may be t"equired from timeD to time for t.he lower portion of the river~ These forecasts are largely based on ·. meteorological data, and are made in response to storm events which can generate high peak discharges of relatively short duration in the lower river. These ~ storms occur most frequently during July and Augusto· ~ The technical activities of the CRFS are administered by a Technical D Committee comprised -of one appointed member from each of the participating agenciel_; The committee meets semiannually, and as required. Each participating agency must review and approve policy and funding recommendations made by the committee, r1 and implementation of these recommendations is subject to unanimous approval of lJ the agencies. nu n l j u n u\ J F f I \ [ l.,..J uFl r'l I 1 ; w) I n I ' I ' w( n lu ! 0 iJ 47 0 0 ~-.,: _,. I I I"") \~ ... ~ r 1:' I 'lj SECTION IV: Press Release Chronology /Newspaper Clippings/Pho·tos ~~ lr a~ .. ll' I' 11 I' • 1.' II 1: •' r ,,, rJ f I J l(~ ~ " CHRONOLOGY OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PRESS RELEASES :l, •.l!. lJ a. Lower Colorado Region November 10, 1982 Reservoir Levels Rise in Colorado River System December 20, 1982 January To Bring Higher Than Normal Flows in Colorado River February 7, 1983 Colorado River Flows Reduced April 1, 1983 Colorado River Flows Again .Increased f·1ay 5, 1983 Press Advisory: Arizona Governor Babbitt will join Federal, State, and local officials May 10 in Yuma to discuss Colorado River issues. June 1, 1983 Colorado River Flows to Increase June 15, 1983 Increased Colorado River Flows to Cause Flooding June 23, 1983 Reclamation Announces Change in Hoover Dam Operations 11 (Background on procedures forecasting projected runoff included for editors) June 28, 1983 Colorado River Flood Control Releases to Increase June 30, 1983 Runoff Inflows to Lake Powell May Improve Lower Colorado Projections July 4, 1983 Little Immediate Change Expected in Colorado River li Operations : July 21~ 1983 Lake Mead Nears Pear. Elevation 1.. J b. Upper Colorado Region I Apri1 12, 1983 Fontenelle Dam Remedial Work Pl~nned t1ay 20, 1983 Reclamation to Monitor Fontenelle I June 1, 1983 Fontenelle Safe, Monitors Find , I June 1, 1983 Strawberry River Flooding June 2, 1983 Increased Flows at Glen Canyon June 3, 1983 Reclamation Reservoir Conditions in Utah CHRONOLOGY OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PRESS RELEASES (continued) Upper Colorado Region (continued) June 9, 1983 Glen. Canyon Flows Increase June 15, 1983 Glen Canyon Dam Releases Continue to Increase June 22, 1983 Increased Releases from Glen Canyon Dam June 28, 1983 Rainstorms in Western Colorado Up Releases at Aspinall Unit June 29, ~ 983 Glen Canyon Dam Release 92,000 cfs July 1, 1983 Reclamation Toll-Free Information Telephone July 1, 1983 Glen Canyon Releases Down, Repairs·to Begin July 15, 1983 Glen Canyon Dam Remains Safe July 15, 1983 Interior Calls for r~eetings with States and Congress on Colorado River Operations River Flow Advisories r~arch 1983 Apri 1 1983 May 1983 June 1983 July 1983 - 49 .,z;-··.. .. J,,::_:;:~.~:;::-;.::-"-~~~-~~-----~--~·-'""'"·-----. () .. . .. --·-···-··--·-·--·-···-···l·---i ... -... ·-··-·--·-'"···- - .. ---·---··· .. -.... --·--·.·----. -----·----·-·-·----·-·------··-·.. ---:--:·"-~~·~~" .. :~~:-;:;:~,<::J. '~~i_r>':··...... ~ - '(' Residents Ignore Flood Warnings on River ll By DAVID E.INSTEL~. Time1 Stllff Writer • .. ~ Preparation for the flooding of the three w~~k.s. until June 14. 1: Colo:ado River continued Sunday The river already ia l"lm11in& two 1 WWe had no idea this .-ould as residents aJong the Calliomia feet higher than norm.al The added happen," be Said. "Unless you get ..A..r.zona border sa:1dbagged tileir water is ~~to send it four f~t feedback from lhe Bureau of Recla homes a.~d bu..qnesses and crossed higher in some areas and up to cight mation, you don't know things are theiJ' fi..,ge:-s in hopes o! escaping feet in others. happening. We didn't know until major damage when the release of The Bureau o1 Recl.ama tion efrti • Jut Tuesday. Then they Aid we're ~·ater from three da..ms sends the mated potential dan1age at more &oing to have problems." river t.o its highest levels in .W than $1 million, and local officials States o£ emergency ba·,.e been [ ...... ~ .... ,/ -- -· JP....id it could go up to $5 million, decl.a.red in three Arizona c:ounties In Pa.!"ker. Ariz!, where the threat partly because the flooding will &nd in San Bernardino County in of flooding is greatest, La Pa.z occur at lhe onset of the tourist California. Thousand..'i of sandbags County sheriffs deputies went ~n. when thousands come to the were .made available, and the Na I door· to-door to advi.,.se residents river for reo-e.ation. ·Uonal Guard and REd Cross were near !.he river to evacuate, but the The armety over potential dam .al~ to poss:ible evacuations. ,.-a.~gs were ignored age i! mixed 'With anger that the GQ.ite a Wla.Ue' IJ .. A lor of people don't think the sovernment did not release more ,..ate: ~ill get as h.igh as they say," water from da.ma in the winter, ..A.riumc Gov. Bruce Babbitt.. who Shen!! Raybu;n Evans s.a1d. when the Coloudo was lower, thured the river Saturday, said some thereby preventing the c:urn!nt crl·. residents might have to l~ve their MorDicr Rele.ue lis. homes for up to a month. l'he Tht surge of water is expected t.o .. It'a d.is~J.ng." a.id L..'li! Wol . an.owmelt is going to be with us !o:r hit the Parker s+..rip shor1.ly after t!ie terman, o~-ner of the B &: B Tralle.r quite a while," be Mid. s\.o::!.:'t. of lhe relea...c:.e from Hoover, Park in Parker. She fean she ~Y · Some flooding was e.xpect.ed from I DaYlS and Parker cia~ at 8 a.m. lose 2 JWD.mer's worth of busi.nes.s i! Bl.illhead City, Ariz., just aout.h of today. the river washes out her boat dock.s. Davis Dam. to Yuma. Ari.t., Ma.r t.h e Fed by runoff from an enormous Mexican border. v.inter snov•pack in tire Rocky 'W Mk u hwpare' AC"l\:GS the river from Bullbead I Mount.ajns. the-reservoirs aJong. the "We just reel this C".Ould h.a v e been Ci·ty, in Laughli:l., Nev., several · Colorado have reached capacity, prevented," abe aaid...... they could eaMol ~~gged their restall. forcing the U.S. Bureau ofRecl~-na have Jta.rt.e.d l'f!leuing before. ln rani.&, which mt precariously near tion to order the release. The ~d. we had one week to prepare." the river. • I amo\U'lt o! water no ....i.ng out or the La P;u Cot:mty Supel"'Visor Don But John Braatz of the Bullhead !::::;:-.: ·:;:!! ~e increased !rom 2S,OC() ~nton agreed that "'ob,•iously City Fire Department l2.i d that i! eubic feet a se-cond to 40,CXXI over there's be~n 1 ~:r..i£U.ke in c:a.lcu.l.ition the w~1ter does not rise more t.h.an I . ' eeveraJ days, and offlcials say the 10m e place.'' He a.i d loc:al offic:i.a.ls preilicted, "'it won't affeet u.s much " ll} e.:rtra release coUld conU."lue for were not a.le.rted to lbf: iitu.abon ~t all. l\' e ahou1 d ~ ill righ L'" ll I \ 11 I ·, Wednesday, June%%, 1983 - . -.,.. . .· ..;. - -. . - ~..... asae :~l~~ THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC ., ~ The Flood Facts HE refu.~al by son1e western Arizonans to Yet, it cont!,.·,ed auch releues through T leave their hornei despite warnings of January t.o prot!!ct those in the noodplain. Colorado River uoodini; is not surprising. Some were not told by developere of the Residents ther£ hsve been ws.rned for yearn gamble they were taking, while other& knew. by t.he Bureau of Rerlernation l'ot to develop Releases were ~owed in February and property in areas unproter.ted hy dikes. J.~a.rch because snow forecasts underestimated the anticipated fell. . thev But ~ did anvv.-.a\'. . . U.S. officials say the combination of record \\f;.hen residents constructed home& and late snows - up to 131 percent ol normal bu;iner:.ses near the river, they •·ere then runoff on June 1 and an unprecedented 188 advised to build high enough off the ground, percent no~· - and a swift. shift 1.o warm or surround their d\l.·ellings with walli, so · weather caused the runoff problems.. pvt.c:r,tial floods ~·ould not .eriously affect the~•. The bure.au again increased rel~. but not enough to avoid flooding low an:as.. They didn't listen. Reclamation can't v.in. During release The mainstream dams of Hoover, Glen periods, it was accused of wasting water and Canyon, Da\tiF- and Parker were not built to power. Now it is blamed for fiooch. protect dwelling!- built in noodplaini. It also should be noted that Centna! Arizona They v.·ere designed to aer\'e millions of wants al1 dams on the Colorado River Ariz.onans and Californians with water 1nd mainstream to reach high capacity dming this powe:. t•stora_ge', year so more wa~r will be available To SU{;g~;t tht: Bure.su or Reclamation is for the Central Ariwna Project in 1985. DO'*' the culprit for the flooding is nonsense. \V esterners b&v~ buHt on f\ood.phdni for Reclamation beyan a;oove-normal water dec:adest whi1~ taxpayerii ~~ave unden~7it.ten re1eas.es at 19J'((1 c:ubic rtet per aecond from ~eir folly with disaster relief and even federal Hoover Dam last December because of heavy msurance. early winter snows in the upper and lower y; ashin~r1 no longer l..<;surnes wc.h large btiins. risks, ancl st.st.es such as California feel f!l1 le65 Roy Gear, assi£1..ant J'egional director of the obligation to thP.se gambler. bureau's Lower Colorado BBbin office, aays Human t\~Jffering and tragedy deserve help, the bureau received strong complaints from and those flooded £hould be u.sistecL power users, particularly Southern California Edison serving sron~a of cities, because the However, there is enough blame to go releases generated power in excess of demand. around, and irresponsible c:.harges help no one. \. ,. ~, -.:.~· • ~·----"""--""'~'"'"-"~ -·~---~-•-•~,.....~·>"'e-~ .._. ,,,,,._"_,NM-•'<•o •• ·~,,,__,,,W"'-'~~··• ~ • -~ ' -r·-·- ·1 () - The S~cramento Bee. 6-25-83 P~ge A.l, Front Page 0 Killer Flood In Colorado: for-instance. ·there .U so mudl late snow that the resort at Vail reopened tor Laps 'Valls Of sprinl skilDI for the first ttme In blstory. In UtaJl. Terry Hotzwortll. Salt Lake County noocs control dtrector, seDJed t:rauble 11 early as Grand Canyon·. January or February. Holrtrort.ll bepD drawtq water out of Uta.ll Lake to make room tor sprtq By Rfcbard E. Meyer nmotf. La Mid& Times. Snowmelt from the Wasatc:.ll MoWlta!Ds flooded Salt I.ake Oty- but the preparations prevellted LEFS ~RY. A.r1%. - Tbe ftnt d.l.saster. mi!jor Colorado River nooa ill Dear . . In January, the National Weather Semce. ly h!llt a century hammered the. predicted that nmoff would be 12 pereerJt aboVe Gnllld C&lyon Friday, wasb.tna out. normal dunna Aprtl ud May. A Bureau of Reda its rapids. destro)1ng its. beaches. snauon computer printout. obtained by The kill1t-lg animals a.c.d causing exten Tlmes. sbows that the meaA of au daily water sive propertY damage aJona tbe riv- · releases from Glea Canyon Dam du~ Juuary er'scour~ wu 1-4.688 cub!e feet per secoDd- about baU tlle River guides ud. Natioaat Pan . maximum possible throup power generators Sentc" rang~i'S ~d ta~ river, Ulmar wben Lake PoweU is tu1i. lbe computer readiJ1&1. dering ·ber:we~a lmmeD3e- c&Dyoo ... show that tbe bureau ma!Dt.a.il!ed 17 feet ot stor wails. was splasbing over ure top ot;. age space Ia I..a.ke Powell tb.roupout the mODUL. th;t! "batlltub rtng"- ll\e- htgb-watft"·· •. Ou June 1. tbe n~notf became too muc:b. • ·.f marl lett b)· noodtn8!n t'le pii!St. ::: The Bureau of Reelamatfoa opened Ule spill· 1j The destructloii. om tc)p of extea- . ways 011 Glen Cauyoa Dam ud tbe tlrst major stve pro.perty dfml8ge' d.o'!r'DStr'e8JD... no:x~ oa tbe Colorado in nearty half a ceDtury was is the- rew.l.t ot weath\!r surprises underway. and inadequate computer- proj@Coo Noaetbeless. the water gouged a caVity ill tlle tions. said Robert' N. Brosdbent. concrete UDing of an elbow secUoD of Ule S~»W· chief of Ule Bureau of R~a!natioa. ~ay. "We're probably gcing to tmve r.o 1 change- tile CClmputP.l" mode!s 11.,_. I lh~·· 1\ Broadb{W contend~\ tut ie.leu- lng more nter earu""er t;~tiaora-do River ~ ervotrs· tOJ make room tor sn~wm~tt probably WOuld hllV~ dOD8 UW~ iUOI.""'ft th.aD pclltpooe t.be. flood. • "We were uslq m aJtnt)Utet n~et baled on historical a'lerage.t..'" B~~\Cibeat said.. .. b"c Ul1l ., weauu~r wai very unl.&s'U....tU." On Friday, otncialt of tbtt Nlltioaal Pan SeJ'Io li vtce aud otbe!"3 wed woetbe1· Bureau cf RecJa. matfon offic:ialc ·~"ld bave avotdect tbe flood if they had made man! room e.uU~r to contain Ule runoff in reservoh"9 aJoq tile mer. There were these deve!GpmEDts: • The fioodinn wu blamed for tne deata of s inan and cl'llld 1i'llUl."5day near SaD Luis Rio Co!~ rado •. a t€'·~ in f!.be Mm!2D state of Sonom about 20 mH~3 soutlleast of Yu.m&. Ramon Ftguef'DII. 45, drownEd wber.a be plunge I page 5, 6-30-83 The Ari:ona Republic Phoenix, Ar1:onu JUL I' l Flood-ViCtim Solutions FFICIALS ahould encourage nood vict.ima they also would have to take etit multiple O along the Colorado River to move by Joana under the National Fiood Insurance using the 1979 Arizona law that authori.z.ee the emergency program, Small BWaiDeiS Ad~ililis· &tau Ul trade ita land with noodplain i:ation !oana and local flood inaurance. resident&. This money mus~ of coune, be repaid at Many, eapedally thoee living in trailers, intere.t ratea from 8 to 9 percent or more. might welcome the offer. Even if a family were to sell ita home, such Such land ia available in all thret f1ood· · loans remain to be paid. it:iclen countiea, Mohave, La Paz and Yuma. Hence, future building in Ooodpwns must County officiala, in particular, ht1ve been be restricted or controlled through zoning lax in dilcoura(ing buildin& in the Colorado me.uurea. Rivernood~ . The Federal Insurance Administration has Tbe endlee& cycle of paying out damages tD concluded that the "general public now bears nood victima muat be ended by doing more to too great a ahare of the burden" Cor policies prevent buildinc in floodplaina. t.hat aubsidiu flood victima in floodplains. One eumple of ~"'r decision·ma.king It ia unfair to taxpayers, particularly theBe involve~ tae e:ommunit)' of Holly Acrea, west who protected themselves with nood insur of Phoeni1, which wu ficoded by the Gila ance, t.o bail out fioodplain reeident.s who Ri~ for three straight yean ending in 1980. ~ught no aucb imuranc.e. No one wishei to add to the agony which Maricopa County supervilora approved the unfortunate victims of current flooding are .er &ubdiviaion over objection~ of it. engineer&. enduring. They should be helped. h8 The major difficulty or many fiood victims However, local and state government - ib they ha\'~ in\·estecl· heavily in noodplain .... with a special interest in groVri.h- must noVr' ad hon:~::! u~d buaineasea, and would take heavy perform the Jong-cwllrdu~ duty Ctf m:treir.ir.g ~Vl -·~. financia.lloues if thev.. were to tell. nocdplain devtlc pment 'tl.tt}J !'P'pt·r~'-;{ lt- rt To ruton tome semblance of habitation, atrict.ion&...... ne d lk ..,. ... 01 ·el of .tCt r ·---·~'"''\~\,tt,,: .... , •• ~"'"''- ... _ .....1 The Ari:ona Republic Phoenix, Ar1:on~ JUL Flood-ViCtim Solutions FFICIALS ahould encourage nood victims they allo would have to take out multiple O along the Colorado River t.o move by lo&na under the National Flood Inaurance using the 1979 Arizona law that authorize~ the emergency program. Small Buaineu Adminii· state ID tn.de ita land with floodplain t:ation loana and local nood inaurance. re-.~en t.a. Thia money must, or coU!'Ie, be repaid at Many. especially the~e living in trailersf intereat rata from 8 to 9 percent or more. might welcome the offer. Even if a family wert~ to lf!ll ita home, such Such land i& available in aU three nood. · loans remain to be paid. it:iden countie., Mohave. I.. Pu and Yuma. Hence, future building in noodplains must County officiala, in particular, have been be restricted or controlled through zoning la'l in diacouragi~ buildin& in the Colorado meuurea. River noodplain. . The Federal Insurance Administration has Tbe endleei cycle of paying out damages to concluded that the "general public now bears nood victim.s muat be ended by doing more to too great a abare of the burden" Cor policie& prevent building in noodplaini. that &ubsidiu flood victima in floodplains. One example of poor decision-making It ia unf'air to W:payers, particularly thoee involws t.he community of Holly Acre~, west who pro~ themselves with nood insur· of Phoeni~ which wu flooded by the Gila ance, to ball out noodplain reeident.s who . Ri~ ior three at:aight yean ending in 1980. ~ught no such insurance. No one wishes to add to the agony which Maricopa County supervilon appl"O\•ed the unfortunate victims of current flooding are .er iub lk 01 : ·el of lC( t, J _·.!. '. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION E NE\~S CLIPS VALLEY & FOOTHILLS NEWS SOMERTON, ARIZONA AND YUMA, ARIZONA ~·-~,. JUL i 1983 \~ ':.:'4 ...... "101~ Editorial I Officials, volunteers shine in I flood; zoning actions iustified IJ Whatever the problems in Yuma County given many hours of their time. Included in that government, the rise of flood waters has given. a should be members of the Yuma County Sheriffs chance for many of our officials t() shine. We Posse, who are helping .the sheriffs department, I~,, believe both those involved in immediately · and members of the Yuma County Search and •' flood-related work and those- responsible for Rescue 'who have h~lped with evacuations. I d limiting development 1n the flood plain - and Chapman has been unflappable, on the ball, ! thus the number of people directly affected by it keeping things going. As Supervisor Bob Ken i - deserve credit. nerly said, the county already has realized its l 11 ! County supervisors have commended, with $14,000 county contribution to emergency I i reason, the jobs done by Emergency Services services through his efforts. l l Director Jerry Chapman, Publi~ Works.Director Sheriff John Phipps and Public Works Director :! I Don Fortney, Sheriff John Phipps and their Don Fortney also have done yeoman jobs in I staffs. These men.have kept on top of the flooding helping protect people and property from the I situation and, working in cooperation with flood. Fortney seems no more reluctant to tackle \ I others, have been able to keep flood damage to a IJ minimum and :flood-related loss of life in Yuma the raging Colorado than he is to tackle th: I County· to zero. Arizona Department of Transportation. Anc, j every time we listen to our office scanner radio ~ That's an accomplishment worth bragging either Phipps or Undersheriff Maj. Ralph Ogden Ci' ( ~~ . is talking on it, from somewhere along the river. l Also to be commended are the Marines from l !viCAS that· have pitched in and helped in Also deserving recognition is County evacuations and sandbagging many areas - a Clerk/Manager Andy Torres, who has been on textbook example is the house at Hidden Cove hand to give official county authorization when I I '!'tailer Park -··· and the volunteers who have needed, juggling this time with the hours he has ·j i ' to sp~nd working on the county budget. a:'1.d never will. Well, now it has, and the wisdom I I All these officials have been working under of those decisions against al19wing development some handicaps, especially the apparent inabili - and the unwisdom of what development has ty of the U .. S. Bureau of Reclamation to been allowed - has been shown. determine with any' degree of consistency the Secretary of Interior James Watt was right ll amount of water to be coming down the river. It when he said anyone building in the Colorado seems to vary daily, which suggests the river is River flood plain knew, or should have known not as well .controlled as officials would have us the risks they were taking. Many in Yum~ I; believe. who J County wanted! to build in the flood plain We don't ltnow how well officials of other have acknowledged the risks, but what thev counties are handling the flood, but Yuma didn't point out was that when the floods d;J l County residents can rest assured our officials come, taxpayer money is what is used. to bail 'j are doing a good job staying on top of the them out. I situation. But that's happened to comparatively few folks The wisdom of some past actions by Yuma in Yuma County, most of them living in areas County officials has also been demonstrated by already built when county zoning was instituted I the flood. Many developers have been very upset in 1975. County officials can pat themselves on by the reluctance of planning and zoning officials the back for stopping further flood-plain devel- to recommend and supervisors to approve any opment. . construction in the flood plain. Perhaps the flood has at least accomplished lj this much: It's given hard-pressed county of The developers pooh-poohed the federal 100- ' .. ~ \ ficials, caught between a rock and a hard place year flood-plain maps, saying about various because of budgetary restraints, a rea.:;on to 1:-·· areas that the water never has gone that high congratulate themselves.-Mike Bush I Paul OAT'.EliNE: LAS VEGAS Q: Wbo h1- responsible for the massive flooding along the Co~orado River? A: Mother Nature. She doesn't love her children. Q: Who said that? . A: Jan''~ Watt. He's the U.S. interior secretary and knows about these things. · Q: Does he know enough to recogni~e that many knowledgeable critics blame this dis~~ter on faulty flood control procedures by the Bureau of Reclamation? A: Robert Broadbent is commissioner of that bureau! Q: Yeah, just call hitn Mother Nature. Outside of saying, "We didn't do jt," how does Secretary Watt feel about the people who have sui,!eroo through this allegedly needless tragedy? A: HE! s:ays ifs their own fault, they have only themselves to blame. . Q; How does he rationalize such .a concerned and loving statement? A: He said the p;eople had been warned the river could flood but they built inside t.he lev~es anyhow. Q: Do Watt or Broadbent accept the slightest respon!libility for the actious ·of their staffs that resulted ill th~ flooding? A: Watt said all procedures and systems worked smoothly. Q: What did Broadb'!nt say? A: He said what Wutt said. You can't tell about Mother Nature. Q: Did Broa(ibent disp~1te that his agency ignored pre-flood warnings by the U.S. Weather Bureau and other sources and delayed essential, immediate act~on? A: He didn't mention that . Q: Did he mention that bei~?re the floods poured across the land a dam supervisor asked pertl"lission. tc rele~se water: as soon as possible, but permission was demed? A: I didn't hear it from him. Q: Did Broadbent mention to inth~ates and high executives in the federal government that, "Thos£ guys out there let me down"? A~ Say, that would be a blockbuster if it came out at an investigative heaFin&t LAS VEGAS SUN, 7-6·:~83, page 9 I I Sheet l of . d- ··r·... ·.·""'"--·-·-·---·--··. ' ' ' ' . Q: Does this call for a congreaioapl JaeariD&? A: I'm for any type of investigative bearing that doesn't result iD a coverup. Q: Meaning? A: Meaning that this situation is loaded with political dynamite and it could explode in the face of the Republican administration as the country moves into a presidential election year. Q: The Democrats wou~.d make it a campaign issue? A: With all flags waving in the breeze and the bands playing "God Save America," and I don't mean "God Bless America." The heat~ you understand, must call directly on Watt and Broadbent. Q: Is a formal investigation justified? A: Without doubt! There are too many unanswered questions, too many accusations that reflect on the leadership of Broad bent's Bureau of Reclamation, charges and allegations that must be proved or disproved. Three states and a portion of Mexico have been ravag:ed, thousands of people have been affected, their ' homes swept. away, their lands buried in watery gravts.s and their t I J futures ruined. Q: It's too big a holocaust to be washed away, right? · A: Right! 'The people won't stand for that. Q: I· take it you absolve Mother Nature? I A: I don't believe Watt or Broadbent believed that anyhow. Q: Where have all oar leaders gone? I A: Into limbo, one and all. Except for Gov. Richard BryaJ,\, who apparently recalled on Monday, days late, that ~be people bad ele.'Cted him to protect their interests. I Q: Better late than sometime over the rainbow. Did you find it a strong statement? A: For starters. He said, and I quote from memory, "It's pretty clear a monumental 1nistake has been made along the systam of dams. Where one puts the blame, I'm not prepared to say." · Q: Are you prepared to say? . . ~ A: Of course! The blame rides entirely with Watt and Broadbent. When they accepted the commissions, they shouldered the responsibilities. They are c~ptains of the ship and the ship I went down. Q: Our other leaders? 'Where have tbey vanished? A: I repeat. Iaio Umbo, one and all. II ::~ ·~ :~~ L~ ' 1l LAS VEGAS St~i, 7-6-83, p9ge 9 I Sheet ~.. of r,.-,,-~-----::-~-- --- ...... Page. 1C - Re.no Ga.zette.-Jowr.nai., Tue.o. 8/1 I 83 BLM may have encouraged buildin~ ' ! in flood zon~,·.investigation shows PARKER, Ariz.- Not long after sunup;·· agencies, the Bureau of Land Manage Tom Peet went down to the river ctiecked . ment, in fact encouraged resort operators the pump on his water supp'Iy, then to build and upgrade recreation facilites strolled the length of his resort in the cool on federal property along the river. For qui~t des~rt dawn, During the· night, h~ nearly four years before the flooa, the noticed With apprehension, the ·river had ·Bureau of Land Management approved splashed over the top of.his retaining wall. detailed blueprints for hundreds of thou That was how it began. . sands of doHars worth of development in . It was early June. For three weeks. the the flood plain. . . nver r~se. Tom Peet fought it. With help from his guests, he cut down trees. He . The agency g~ve upernwt:; who invcstect tore out shrubs. He flattened mesquite. . m more dcvelr.pment ;,i longer timf• to He moved mobile homes. He spread ~ecuup th~~ir· money. Tho.H. was au eHn:tin.• sheets of green plastic. He filled 6,000 enticeme11t: Operator~ who huilt m.;n· sandbags. He used 1,400 cinder blocks to !donr{ the l'iW•r a r.Cl oper(~.t.or.., whl' d:d n~~·~re add 48 inches to his retaining wall. But it to ir.ipron• 1hLlH faPlitH:'S g•jt lon~~er was not enough. 1east·:oi. · When he had done everything he could, The· Bureau of Land .Munaqf~rnen 1 he walked to the edge of the rising fJood. · .lppro'.- ed large investn~ents deSJ'lt(.· ·.vnr::; Tom Peet, 46, sat on a sandbag and lng~ that reservoirs along ihe Colorado cried.. · W(~re fHhng up - und that thf ri'..•;r mit.;n\ Since the flood began, the Colorado overflow. The Bnreau of H.ech.~mat10n River has been exacting a heavy price •ssued tiw warnings. The first t:ame in from Peet and dozens of other busi- March l9'i"i at u ~;:ublic meeting in Parker 'rht• met!nng was held during J ~Jrought nessmen, residents and propEJr..ty owners Few l't!S11rt operators att(mded. · II v:as one in the Parker Strip - 111·2 mifes of shore- · of thl: worst droughts in tiw hi;.~ tot ;, ''i' 1hF line in Arizona and California a Iew west:· acknowledges Jtdian Hhmi•har1. ·1 minutes drive northeast of this dusty, dis Bureau of Reclamati.:.\ri spokc~mnn. ··::)o ut couraged town. Flooding on both sides of that time~ you know, 1t was<=< httif.~ diffkuH the river has ruined buildings, swept to get 'heir attention when \1/C' \'\1 .~re. ·tn lldH~ away beaches and destroyed the summer. abo:xt floods:'· · ·- tourist trade. Counting lost revenue, One resort op(lra tor \-Vho (Con-U.nued) ...,...... __ -, "' .. ,... -- BU4 {continue:.dl the protests.. were lodged with the Burt>~u ot Land Manu~~ment. 'The. pr~t·ests went ~nheede~,. There (are> nusrerous !?Stances, . I;lroadbent says with '1lismay. of .(these ·kiQds.4 of) ... encroachmep.t onto· the flood pJai~~!·.. _ .· Da~'!in ·snell, \vho he.ads the Yuma dis:-. kict of the Bureau of Land Management·, which has jurisdiction over t.he Parker Strip, acknowledge~ thz.t. 11is h.gency allowed resort operators to build in the flood plain, on both the Ar;zona ::<~'d California sides of the Colorado "l=tjve:. "A kt of times; we did not kno·w ex<~dlv "!..'here the flood p1ain was," Sneli guys. ''We tound out as a result of these lu"t fe\' weeks."· .he adds wr··tv.,'r • Snell says the Bureau of Land Man~ge I ment had been trying to persuade. resort operators, to move permanent structures away froni the river and replace them with "a temporary type of facility, such as a recreational vehicle site or eampgrc:mnds, ".to decrease the potential for flood dam agP. But Jim May, the BLM resour~ area manager for the Park!:r Strip, cites several 11 exceptions. Among them are· a new marina at one resort, a general store at another and a boat repair shop at a ttlil!(t · May agrees that the.Bureau of Land Man I agement not o.nly encouraged development but indeed required resort owners to "upgrade their facilities." However, both May and Snell rlcny that the agency'failed I · to warn resort owner,s., ahout flood danger . I I I I I .. / I . page 8, 8-18-83 I The Sacramento Union, A~gust 10, 1983._Page A9 ·- -& A~:AL . ... OPI-NION. # ~ YSIS '"' e •., Controlling the. Colorado ) ~ Myron Holburt For the reCord he thrust of most of the media coverage and v.______.... ______r-. I commentary on the lower Colorado Rive~ · I Ttl~g is that it is the fault o! the rivef'1: ·:The Union's opposite-editorial poge is managers, the u.S. Bureau of Reclamat.\0'9 carrying o twice-weekly column, "For the (USBR>. The available facts, briefly cover~;1n record," of comrnent by readers. 1 this ,,' 1I article, do not support this charge. .F:":.~ If you wish to contribute, plecse address i The Colorado Rivel" Basin is huge, ·cove#ng your column to "For the record," attention: about one-twelfth of contiguous Unt.ted States~ The editorial poge editor, The Sacramento river has extremely wide variations iJ;t' ·now, Union, 301 Capitol Mall, Sacramento 95812. during any year, from year to year ani:i from f For verification purposes, please include r>-eriods of mostly wet years to periods of mostly ~n -oddress and phone number where you dry years. Congress authorized construction of " major dams to provide the large reservoirs _...~0....;-;....n_be__ rea_c_h_ed_. ______needed to control the river. These reservoirs tl1e reservoirs. If the runoff forecasts indicate provide flood control and enable many millions of . ~t space may be needed to store runoff, water :people in seven states and Mexico to use water :.ntat would otherwise be used for future irrigation, for municipal, industrial, and irrigation purpo~ 'dpmestic, and. power use is released. and provide power and recreation. · ·: Based on the Jan. 1, 1983, tor~ast of the April- The USBR operates the reservoirs to meet July runoff, the USBR made releases from Lake water and power requirements in accordance Mead in excess of downsu·eam water require with the federal law and regiilations, a U.S. ments. 'l'he Feb. 1 and March 1 forecasts were Supreme Court decree, a treaty with Mexico, lower than January with the March 1 forecast interstate compacts, and contracts that specify indicating a slightly below average year. The how the river is to be operated. Flood control April 1 and May 1 forecasts were up and extra regulations at Hoover Dam, the key dam for the releases were made commencing in April. lower Colora~o River, are establis~ed by ~e U.S. The usual pattern of the snowpack in the high Corps of Eng111eers. These regulations reqwre the ..-mountains of the Colorado River Basin is for it to USBR to provide empty stor_age space throughout Peak in AprU, and then sharply decrease in ?flay the ye~ for !1ood control With the balance of the and June as snow melts. This year, storms swept reservotr ~pace used to conserve. water. The over the basin throughout May, together with space requ1red for flood control vaz:es depending unusually low temperatures, resulting in the upon the time of ~ear and the nver. forec~sts unprecedented situation of the snowpack moisture. made by the Nat1onal Weather Serv~ce River content apparently being higher on June 1 than on Forecast Center based largely on measurements May I. The Memorial Day weekend turned very o! the de9th of snow and its water content. hot causing the snow to melt rapidly and the heat The Corps of Engineers regUlations are de- wave continued in June. The volume of water signed to enable Hoover Dam to control floods by from the- melting snow was increased by an· storing flows in Lake Mead and increasing extensive rainstorm. in the latter part of June that releases as necessary out· not exceeding 40,000 caused. a new peak in the river flow above Lake cubic feet per second ( c!s) (about 18 million Powell. The net result is that the April-July runoff gallons per minute), insofar as possible .. This is expected to be the hig1iest in recorded history. figuTe was used in its 1955, 1968, and 1981 reports. The USBR increased its releases througheut In 1968 the Corps· found that ..... 40,000 cfs would this period but at no time did it exceed 40,000 cfs have caused minimal damage :.a the downstream in the lower river below Parker Dam. _The flood plain." However, in 1981, the Corps stated releases resulted in only a fraction of the cam age that a release of 40,000 cfs would cause extensive ·that would have occurred without the flood property damage because of the development L'l control provided by the reservoirs. the flood plain in the intervening years The USBR has beep criticized for not releasing The river's other principal reservoir is Lake water earlier in the season so that the reservoirs Powell, formed by Glen Canyon Dam, upstream could have captured the flood flows. In February from and about the same capacity as Lake Mead. or :Yiarch, with average or below average l1l!loff In the mid-19iOs, Lake Powell was approaching a being forecast, neither the t:SBR nor any<. .e else 'filled condition for the first time. The USBR could have predicted the high runoff of June and prepared a report that described the high river July. Investigation may reveal t~at the CSBR flows that could be expected when all of the operations or the ~ational Weather Service fore river's reservoirs filled. They also held public c~sts could be improved. However. based upon meetings in the communities along the Colorado the information the USBR had available to it. River in the late 1970s explaining their report and they operated i:i1 a responsible manner m dealing the forthcoming high flows. The communities with fast moving and unprecedented weather were again notified at pubUc meetings held in events. They are to be commended ra~her than conjunction with the 1981 review of the Corps criticized for their river control operations. regulations. It should be noted that flood control Myron B. Holburt is chief engineer of the is given the hi~est pr3oritv in the operations of Colorado River Board of California. · page ~, 8-10-83 ,,.,._,...,._,.,.~, ..,. .,.---~,,.,~,·-~···,-- .. ,. -- List of Photographs Glen Canyon Dam . Glen Canyon Left Spillway Damages Il Hoover Dam - Nevada Spillway DaYis Darn Bermuda Plantation, Needles California Parker Dam \~alters Camp Settlement Gilmore Camp Settlement 11 I I\ I I I I . II I I _f·~ .. _1;'...... ,~-,..·~o...,.·~·~-"···"7'T·-··-·-···· . • " , I, ' , .. ~w.~· -~--···- i . . ' I 11 ~r-'\ . I I ! ~' ~ ..... IJ ~~., ll u ~' ~ I; I I I t - __ j i!, ~ l .. · ;(••'. - llb.G ...... if ., ' ! I '"D.·"'iI i : -~. -~~ J -- .;.4 ...... = '"' \ ~ .. ' ...... ' l :, I ·. I SECTION V: Emergency and Information Contacts ;' I . I .. ·. l ( ··_:·; ·.I I.·-· ... ~ j. . Ji~C:,·- ..~ ' ••• ·- EMERGENCY SEitVICES DillECTORY lfne Location Tele;ebon.!. Office Rome I Bureau o;f ••c:lamation 1DJ C.ar loulder City. RV I (702) 293-8411 (702) 293-1700 Larry Dozier Boulder City. 'NV (702) 293-8414 (702) 293-1278 Aldn Briggs Boulder City, NV I (702) 293-8677 (702) 451-8059 Carl Mayrose- Boulder City. NV I (702) 293-8541 (702) 564-6537 Een Trompeter Yama, AZ (602) 726-2691 (602) 782-4184 rrs 764-6691 I Ts Boyer !mu, AZ (602) 726-2655 (602) 782-2967 ITS 768-6655 Bureau of Reclamation - Dams Hoover Da1n Ben Wilkinson, Project Manager (702) 293-8302 . {702) 293-3547 Keith Barrick (702) 293-8301 (702) 293-1977 Davis Dam !d llichardson, Emergency Coordinator (602) 754-3628 .Jim Schumacher,() Chief, Field Division (602) 754-3624 {602) 754-435 9 Parker Dam Ce~il Bart, Chief, Field Division (619) 663-3712 !aersency Coordinators ¥ Bob 'Brose (619) 663-3712 or Harlan Miller (619) 663-3712 ----lleEdles ~ Del Seely. laergency Coordinator (619) 326-2165 I .. . Stan Foster, Emergency Coordinator· (619) 922-3611 rl'. ~ I :r·.. ;.. ··-:-: .... .:Jt.~-. ---4--':"~·---,..-~~.., ..• --~,-~--·-·-·--·~------T·=--,------~------,.,-o:-::-;~~1 I ) 1,) ~elep~ ~. -:·~~ t • • ~ Location \-"-. ·, Office Home '~ ...... CALIFORNIA Colorado River Board cf California . Y•n.Valantine (213) 620-4480 State E~rgency Se~ices Office 24-hour emergency number (916) 427-4990 VUliam Medigovich. Director (916) 427-4201 After Hours Gardener Davis, Regional Manager (714) 987-0655 (213) 62G-5607 San Bemardi:·~o, Imperial, and tivers ide Cow:lties Riverside County Bot? Harrigan or (714) 787-2411 (714) 682-6670 Mr. Edwards San Bernardino Countv William Vetchel (714) 383-2644 (714) 793-7405 l!perial County Ben Avidez (619) 355-1164 (619) 352-3929 San Bernardino Countv Terry Jagerson, Sheriff (714) 882-1210 ' Sh~riff, Substation, Needles (619) 326-4515 Captain Rogers ti~rerside Countv ~Yeraide County Sheriff, Blythe ..Jia Love or Mike Levis (619) 922-6121 l!ptlrial County Fire Depart11ent Iandy Schelton, Dispatcher (619) 355-1191 or -1164 ~~·~\ ... ..,...... -;.• 2 Telephone .... Loeation Offiee Rome ~ltfoTnia Division of Forestry hedles (619) 326-2833 tfl Parker and Earp (S.n BerDardino Pire Depart.ent • 8 ~les south ..., ..,,.,.., .. of daa) •-24-hou~ phen~ (619) 1\~'!l__ ... '\nl\7 I -3058 -3059 TiJD Hiller, Sergeant (619) 663-3050 (619) 663-3813 George Pond, Assistant (619) 663-3057 (619) 665-9447 iMr- Corps of Engineers i . (213) 446-0538 al .,b Douglass Fl'S 798-3440 Iareau c£ Land Jofanagament Yuma Darwin Snell j Distri.ct Manager PTS 764-6612 (602) 782-0218 Gene Miller, Assistant District Manager (602) 782-1550 Havasu C1t'V ..Jia May, Area Manager (602) 855~8017 (602) 855-8457 lureau of Indian Affairs Yort Yuma - Quechan Tribe (619} s7z-ozi3 Colorado aiver !nd1an Trib~ (602) 669-9211 Port Mohave (619) 326-4591 Chemechuevi Indian Tribe ~619) 858-4531 Clark Countv Jill 0 'Reill, Couuty F.-ergenc:y (702) 361-1212 at1ef Cutler. Lauahlin Pire Depare.ent (702) 298-2340 3 I Telephone Location Office Bo.e <iZONA (, . ltate !aersency Services :lob 'lapl7 (602) 273-9880 (602) 935-4876 or llark Poob .(602) 273-9880 (602) 990-7084 After hour State E.ergency Services (602)'" 262-8209 Prank Ban:ios, Department of Water aesources, Flood Control Branch (602) 255-1566 (602) 266-963C ~rgency Operations Centers LaPaz County 1Parker) (602) 667-4710 (602) 667-2571 laet.kin Fire Department Don Denton Mohave County (Bullhead City) (602) 758-4119 3erry Bill or John Braatz -4110 Mohave Valley Fire Depar~ment (602) 768-9111 (602) 768-2660 Chief Jim Campbell Bullhead City Fire Department Chief Adams (602) 758-3971 Chief Wagner Lake Havasu City Fire Department Chief ~b Weber (602) 85~-4111 Yuma County E~rgency Services Jerry Chapman (602) 783-5960 , ' 4 .r~1~~~ ···. ..l ' ' } I 1?:) \ ,:. .'f '\:.,.,:._.,., I For Further Information Contact: I Lower Colorado Region: Julian Rhinehart (702) 293-8419. I Upper Colorado Region: Kathy Loveless (801) 524-5403 ~ Washington D.C. Office: c Cheryl Riedmiller (202) 343-4662 c c c [C ~ ,. tC .. fC ~ . ' .. ~ [I ,~t'J~·-~· . •. .., [1,;~ . fl * U.S; GOVERN~ENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983-783-086/78 -