My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09205
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09205
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:51:57 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:31:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.400
Description
Colorado River Basin Briefing Documents-History-Correspondence
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
11/1/1999
Author
DOI-BOR
Title
Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water - Development and Release of Intentionally Created Unused Apportionment in the Lower Division States - Final Rule - 43 CFR Part 414
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001820 <br /> <br />Federal Reglsler/Vol. 64. No, 210/Monday, November I. 1999/Rules and Regulations <br /> <br />58993 <br /> <br />Colorado River water in underground <br />aquifers means less water is. available <br />for environmental purposes, such as lhe <br />riparian and aquatic ecosystems of [he <br />river, including the river and delra <br />region in Mexico. <br />Response: Offstfeam storage of <br />Colorado River water under 510rage and <br />Interstate Release Agreements should <br />nOt have a measurable effect on riparian <br />and/or aquatic ecosysfems or the river or <br />the delta region of Mexico. During the <br />neXl few years. re\eases from Hoover <br />Dam are expected 10 continue to be <br />about 10 maflyear for downslream use <br />in rhe United Stares and Mexico. In <br />addition. flood control releases are <br />projected to average 788 kaflyear during <br />the period 1999-2015. Offstrearn storage <br />could decrease naod control releases <br />reaching Mexico by an average of 23 <br />kaflyear. <br />At present. Reclamation has no <br />aL1thority or discretion over the type of <br />use Or location of use of Colorado River <br />water once it reaches Mexico. The <br />Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 and the <br />Opinion and Decree control and limit <br />Reclamation's releases from ~i.oover <br />Dam to amounts that meet the <br />condilions within each. Water delivered <br />to meet Treaty requiremenls is djverled <br />at Morelos Dam where Mexican law <br />governs how it is put to use. 1n rimes of <br />flood control operations, Colorado River <br />water entering MexJco in excess of <br />treaty requiremems is under Mexico's <br />jurisdiction. Once Oows reach the <br />Republic of Mexico, any uses for <br />environmental purposes would have to <br />be authorized by Mexico. <br />It is possible that implemenlation of <br />this rule milY create additional <br />llexibility to potentially make water <br />i.lvailable for fish and wildlife purposes <br />as p~f{ of the ongoing Lower CoJorado <br />River Mulri-Specics Conservation <br />Program (MSCP). Under this concept. <br />water stored offstr~am one yeM could <br />potentially be used to meet fish and <br />wildlife purposes in a later year. <br />Comment: The level of envir on menial <br />compliance proposed by Recl<,mation is <br />inadequate and Reclamation ~hould <br />complete a fun environmental impact <br />statement (EIS) on the proposed rule as <br />well as the cmire operation of the <br />Colorado River. <br />Response: The programmatic <br />environmental assessment (PEA) was <br />prepared to Identify ~nd clarify issues. <br />describe the level of environmental <br />impacl'; associated with implementation <br />of the proposed rule, and to dctermine <br />whether to prepare a Finding of No <br />Significant lmpact (FONSI) or to prepare <br />an Environmental Impact Statement <br />(EIS). Compliance for each Storage and <br />Interstate Release Agreement wi1l <br /> <br />reference and fier off from the PEA for <br />this rule. Based on [he analysis in the <br />PEA. consultation and coordination <br />wHh the Fish and Wildlife Service, and <br />public input and comments, we have <br />concluded that implementation of the <br />proposed rule will not have a slgniflcam <br />effect on the human environment. As a <br />result, a FONSI has been prepared to <br />complete NEPA compUance for the rule. <br />As explained previously, this rule <br />develops a framework that the Secretary <br />will utilize in reviewing and evaluating <br />whether to execute a speciflc <br />transaction for offstream storage of <br />Colorado River water under a Storage <br />and Interstate Release Agreement. This <br />rule does nor increase nor abrogate the <br />existing authority of the Secretary. <br />When [he storing and consuming <br />entities enter into negotiations with the <br />Secretary for the development of a <br />Storage and Interstate Release <br />Agreement, the Secretary wiJ/ have the <br />specific details. needed to detennine the <br />potential impacts of the proposed action <br />and can then determine the appropriate <br />level of NEP A compliance required for <br />that action. <br />In addition. the Departmem believes. <br />the preparation of an EJS on the entire <br />operation of the Colorado River is not <br />required. Movement of water will be <br />through existing facilities on the <br />Colorado River and is within the current <br />and projected routine operations of the <br />lower Colorado River. Thus. it is not <br />necessary to complete a comprehensive <br />EIS on river operations. <br />Comment: Implementation of the rule <br />may potentially impact fish and wildlife <br />resources along the Colorado River <br />downstream from Lake Mead. <br />Re5ponse: The DPEA evaluated the <br />potential impact to fish and wildlife <br />resources for a proposed scenario in <br />which 1.2 mafwould be stored in <br />Arizona under a Storage and Interstate <br />Release Agreement to aJIow an <br />authorized entity in Nevada to meet its <br />future water needs. The effects of <br />placing Colorado River water in <br />offSl.ream storage were evaluated at two <br />incremental storage rates, 100 kaf/year <br />and 200 kaf/year with fUhJTE' <br />development of leUA and the <br />associated release of water from Lake <br />Mead limited to a maximum of 100 kaf. <br />in accordance with Arizona law, in any <br />year. <br />No significant impacts were identified <br />on fish ilnd wildlife resources as a result <br />of this analysis. Consultation with {he <br />Fish and Wildlife Service concluded <br />that fluctuatJons in water surface <br />elevations associaled wi th the most <br />likely case sfOrage and retrieval <br />scenarios <lre not likely to adversely <br /> <br />affect listed specjes or their designated <br />critical habitat. <br /> <br />Economic Impacts of the Rule <br /> <br />Comment: The lnitial Regu\atory <br />Flexibility Analysis states that the <br />future COS( burden of obtaining <br />al[ernative supplies fOf Southern <br />California water users is not attributable <br />to or the result of the proposed rule. The <br />ru Ie may reduce the quantity of <br />Colorado River water available for <br />diversion La SOLlthern California thai is <br />apportioned for consurnplive use in <br />Arizona and/or Nevada but not <br />consumed in those States, making <br />CaHforni<l expend funds sooner than <br />planned to obtain alternative waler <br />supplies. <br />Response: Absent the rule. each <br />Lower Division St<lte may store its <br />unused basic apportionment <.tnd <br />surplus apportionment offs(ream for <br />future intrastate use. Arizona is <br />cunemly raking all of the 2.8 mafbask. <br /><'pportionment of Colorado River water <br />available for use in Arizona. Therefore, <br />the only water Ihat California may no <br />\onger be able to use is Nevada unused <br />basic appordonment. Nevada's <br />consumptive use was 245.3 kaf in 1998, <br />resulting in 54.7 kaf of unused <br />apportionment. Projec.tions show <br />Nevada utilizing its full basic <br />apportionment by 2007. This J'ule may <br />impa.ct southern California in Ihat il <br />enables Nevada to store its dedining <br />Quamity of unused apportionment in <br />Arizona for the short period it may be <br />availa.ble. To the extent surplus is <br />available during this time, impacts on <br />California are lessened. In the long run, <br />the rule should have lirtle net impact on <br />the expenditure of funds by California <br />water users to obtain alternative Wtl\~r <br />supplies. <br />We reiterate that California Inu:<.l <br />reduce its reliance on the Colorado <br />River by conserving water I)r ahtaining <br />alternative water sources. California <br />must continue moving forward in its <br />efforts to implement a California 4.4 <br />Plan to live within the 4.4 mar of <br />Colorado Rtver water apportioned for <br />use in California and this rule will add <br />Dexibility that may be of help in <br />implementing the California 4.4 Plan. <br />Comment: Sume tribes asserred that <br />the rule allocates to the States water that <br />is reserved fa the tribes and has a <br />disproportionate, significant, and <br />detrimental economic impact cn the <br />tribes in the lower Basin. <br />Response: We do not agree with this <br />view. Under the rule, only water within <br />a State's appor[ionment that is not used <br />by rnritlement holders within that State <br />may be stored offstream for interstate <br />purposes. Nothjng in this rule precludes <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.