WSP08929 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . is 3.844 maf. This estimate is based on the collective use through May 1999 by the Palo Verde lnigation District (PVID), the Yuma Project Reservation Division (YPRD), the Imperial Irrigation District (110), and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Figure I, found at the end of this report. depicts the historic end-of-year agricultural use for the year. Colorado River Ooerations The Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) have initiated the process for development of the 2000 Annual Operating Plan for the Colorado River Reservoir System (2000 AOP). The initial meeting of the Colorado River Management Work Group was held on May II, 1999. At that meeting Reclamation discussed its recommended draft 2000 AOP. It was Reclamation's recommendation that the 2000 AOP contain the same detenninations as the 1999 AOP, that is: Hoover Dam would be operated under a surplus condition; any Lower Division state would be allowed to use water apportioned to. but unused, by the other Lower Division states; Mexico be allowed to schedule the delivery of 1.7 maf, a surplus declaration; and since storage in the Upper Basin reservoirs is above the 602(a) storage requirement, the equalization of storage in Lakes Powell and Mead and the avoidance of spills will govern releases at Glen Canyon Dam, During the May 11th meeting Reclamation requested comments on its initial recommended detenninations to be included in the 2000 AOP. Included in the Board handout is a copy of a June 4th letter that I transmitted to Reclamation supporting a surplus detennination for the releases from Hoover Dam, Also included in the Board handout is a copy of a June 4th letter to Reclamation from Robert S. Lynch which discusses the possible implications of incorrectly identifying impacts of the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act on the AOP. The next meeting of the Colorado River Management Work Group is scheduled for June 23, 1999 in Las Vegas, Nevada. At that meeting there will be further discussion of the recommended 2000 AOP. The final consultation meeting is scheduled for August 10, 1999. Last month, I had included in the Board folder a copy of a letter, dated March 9th, from Mr. James H. Berry, of Rancho Santa Fe, California, to Reclamation questioning Reclamation's interpretation of the "Law of the River" with regard to allocating water to San Diego, Mr. Berry had written to Reclamation in November 1998 inquiring about this issue. Reclamation responded to that letter on March 4'"; and in his March 91h response, Mr, Berry suggested that Reclamation was not correctly interpreting the "Law of the River" and that there is plenty of Colorado River water available to satisfy San Diego's needs, if only the Secretary would release the Upper Basin's apportioned, but unused, water to San Diego, Reclamation's May l81h response addresses these two issues that were raised by Mr. Berry. Mr, Berry suggested that the long-tenn flow rate ofihe River was 16.0 million acre-feet per year and thus there was excess water available to be allocated to San Diego, Reclamation provided statistical infonnation from the 1906-1998 period supporting only 15,0 million acre..feet per year at Lees Ferry. Second, Reclamation reiterated that the Secretary of the Interior does not have the discretion to change the apportionment of Colorado River water among the Colorado River Basin states, On May 21, 1999, the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission published in the Federal Regis/er a Notice of Intent to prepare on Environmental 2