WSP09205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" 00182;:, Federal Register / Vol. 64. No, 210/ Monday. November \, 1999/ Rules and Regulations 58995 Director) shall have the authority to develop. negotiate. and execute a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement on behalf of the Secretary. Comment:1he rule should use precisE' terminology that cannot be interpreted in ways that are contrar}' to existing law. The rule should contain a narrative that stateS the actions contemplated under this rule are deemed within the authority of the Secretary under the Law of the River and that the rule does not change or expand the Secretary's authorities. This narrative should emphasize the intent of the rule is to provide for more efficient use of unused apportionment and surpluses wilhin the "Law of the River." Response: We revised this rule in several places to clarify the intent. In addition, we agree with the suggestion from several State agencies and clarified the rule to state that it does not change or expand the Secretary's authority under the Law of the River. T'nh ru\c only formalizes thE' existing authority of the Secretary to develop, negotiate. and execute Storage and Interstate Release Agreements and does not expand or creale Ihis authoritY. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule that was published on December 31, 1997, this ruie will increase the efficiency. flexibility, and certainty in Colorado River management. Comments Concernjng & 4 J 4.2- Definitions Commem: As addressed above in the discussion of general issues, the most frequently mentioned comment was regarding the definition for the term "authorized entity." Response: As discussed previously under general issues. we have changed the definition of "atHhorized entity" to consist of two parts. with different definitions for Consuming States and Storing States. Please refer to that discussion. As a result of receiving differing comments on the definition of authorized entity and several other technical matters. we reopened the comment period for a 3D-day period. We requested interested parties to proyjde comments on three specific questions. We received 10 letters from 1] respondents during the reopened comment period. The respondents included three State agencies, three water districts. one water authority, one water users a:ssociation. and three environmental organizations. We reviewed and analyzed all comments and revised the rule ba'5ed on thes.e comments. Please refer to thar discussion. Comment: Modify the nJle 10 include the definitions for "Colorado River Basin" and "Colorado River System" as defined and used in the Colorado River Compact. Response: We have adopted these suggestions from a State agency and induded these definitions in this rule. Comment: Modify the definition of "Consuming State'" to clarify that this means the State where ICUA is or will be used. Response: Thjs suggestion from several entitles. including Stare agencies, was adopted lO clarify the actual way the proposed water transactions will work. Comment: The narrative in the preamble for the proposed rule incorrectly attrjbuted the definition of "consumptive use" to the Colorado River Compact of November 24. 1922. Response: We agree with several State agencies, a water authority, and a water distrIct that the definition was incorrectly attributed to the Compact. As the respondents explained. thE' term "consumptive use" is defined by Articles I(A) and lie) of the Decree, Comment: Modify the definition of "Interstate Storage Agreement" (now termed a "Storage and Interstate Release Agreement") to delete reference to "redemption of storage credits" and make other changes consistent with the incorporation of changes to other definHions. Response: We agree with the suggestions from several entitie~, including State agencies. that the definition should emphasize that the Storage and Interstate Release Agreement provides terms for offstream storage of Colorado River water by a storing entity. the subsequent development of ICUA by the Storing State consistent with the laws of the Storing State. a request by the storing entity to the Secretary to release ICUA (0 the consuming emity, and the n~lease of ICUA by the Secretary to the consuming entity. Comment: The defjnition for "Interstate Storage Agreement" (now termed a "Storage and Interstate Release Agreement") in the proposed rule states that the agreement may include other entities determined to be appropriate to the perform,mce and enforcement of the agreement without indicating who those entities might be or who makes the determination that their inclusion is appropriate. Response: This rule has been revised to clarify that the decision to include other entities will be determined by the consuming and storing entities and the Secretary during the negotiation of a Storage and lnterstatc Re!ease Agreement. Comment: Delete the term "storage credit" from the proposed rule as it lacks clarity. Response: We have adopted this change. suggested by several entities, including State agencies, a water authority. and a water district. Comment: Modify the definitJon of "Storing State" to clarify that water stored otTstream under an Interstate Storage Agreement (now termed a "Storage and Interstate Release Agreement'") will be used in the Storing State in place of water within [he Storing State's apportionment that the Storing State otherwise would have diverted from the mainstream. Response: We have modified the definition of Interstate Storage Agreement and renamed ir "Storage and Interstate Releilse Agreement" in this rule. The modified definition reflects that water stored offstream under a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement win be used in the Storing State. Comment: Delete the definition of "unused apportionment" and in its place. insert definitions for "tlnused basic apportionment" and "unused surplus apportionment." The iment of the suggestion is to clarify that. with the determination of a water supply condition by the Secretary, a State is receiving either a nonnal. surplus, or shortage apportionment. Also, revise the dennilion \0 c.\arify that to be unused, the water otherwise would not have been diverted and that water conserved or saved through an agreement between two entitlement holders is eligible for storage. Response: The Department did not adopt these changes that were suggested by a water district. The AOP determines whether a State is receh:ing a normal. surplus. or shortage apportionment. and that decision is unaffected by this rule. Also, only water that is not used by entitlement holders in the applicable Stale's priority system for purposes other than storage for use in interstate transactions is eligible for storage for use in interstate transactions under this rule. Comment: Delete the term "unused entitlement" from the proposed rule. Response: We have adopted this change, suggested by several entities, including State agencies and a water district. . Comments Concerning 3414.3-Storage and Interstate Release Agreements and Redemption of Storage Credits Comment: As discussed earlier under Purpose, there should be a statement that the actions contemplated under this nIle arc within the Secretary's authority