WSP09205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ 00182E . Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 210/Monday, November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations 59001 California. thereby reducing the quantily of water that othe["'INise would he available for environmental restoration in the delta. Response: Flood control releases are projected to average 788 kaflyear during the period 1999-2015. Offstream storage could decrease flood cOrltrol releases reaching Mexico by an average of 23 kaflyear during this time. The probabJlity of occurrence. of flood control releases could decrease by 0.83 percent. These decreases faU within the range of flood control projections previously consulted on in the 1996 Biological Assessment of Operations. Maintenance. and Sensitive Species of the Lower Colorado River. Please refer to the predous discussion of adequacy of the environmental assessment under the Environmental Concerns section of the Public Comments on Proposed Rule and Responses to Generallssucs. Efficiency Improvements Comment: Efficiency improvements in river management and the storage of Colorado River water 'm underground aquifers mean less water is available for environmental purposes. such as the riparian and aquatic ecosystems of the river. including the river and delta region in Mexico. Response: Please refer to the previous discussion of efficiency improvements under Public Comments on Proposed Rule and Responses on General Issues. Storage Alternatives Comment: It is not clear what storage options are available under the rule. or how the rule would apply if there are changes in Arizona's laws or if California or Ne"'ada enact conflicting laws. Response: We have modified this rule in response to comments from several State agencies, a water district. and a water authority. This rule now provides in 9 4\4.3(a)[2) and 94]4,6(a)(3), respecti....ely, for the storage of basic or surplus ilpportionment of the Storing State, not olherwise put to use by entitlement holders within the Storing Stelle. or storage of the unused basic or surplus apportionment of the Consuming State. If unused apportionment from the Consuming State is to be stored under a Storage and Inrerstate Release Agreement, the rule provides that the Secretary will make that water avaJlable to the storing entity in accordance with the terms of a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement and will not make that water available to other entitlement hulders. The rule has been drafted to apply uniformly \0 all three Lo........er Division States and the Department will not speculate about potential changes In Arizona's laws or whether California or Nevada may enact conflicting laws. Comment: Banking in Lake Mead is illegal and it should not be Ilsted as an a\ternatlve to the rule. Respon...e: We do not agree with the comment from banking in Lake Mead is illegal. Moreover. under NEPA, Reclamacton is charged with the responsibility to analyze reasonable alternatives, and the Department believes that it has appropriately complied with NEPA in this regard. Comment: The DPEA misstates Arizona )aw with regard to the ability to creare ICUA during a shortage year. Response: We agree with the comment from a State agency that the statement in the DPEA that "Interstate recovery of storage credits in Arizona for California and Nevada will not be allowed in a shortage year" is not accurate. The FPEA has been revised to clarify that A WBA has discretion to decide whelher it is in Arizona's best intereSl" to enter into a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement that would require decreased diversions of mainstream water by Arizona dudng years when the Secretary has declared a shortage on the Colorado River. Consultations Comment: The requirement for consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is broader than described and consultation is required with the State wildlife agencies on an equal footing with FWS. Response: We do not agree with this comment from a State agency that Reclamation is required to consult with State wildUfe agencies. Reclamation's responsibility under the Fish and Wl1dlife Coordinalion Act is to coordinate with FWS who in tllrn is expected to interface and represent fish and wildlife concerns based on, among other things, coordination with State game and fish agencies. In addition. the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requirements will be met through both ESA C1nd NEPA consultations. The Fjsh and Wildlife Coordination Act requires Reclamation to consider fish and wildlife resource needs in operation and management of water projects. Sunset Clause Comment: The need for a permanent rule was questioned and it was suggested that the rule should have a termination date, such as the end of the time that storage is anticipated. It was suggested that a sunset date will allow the Department an opportunity to do a programmatic reevaluation of how the rule is being used. Response: We do not agree with the suggestion from a Federal agency ttlat there should be a sunset date. Under this rule, a consuming entity will be able to enter into Storage and Imef'Sta,e Release Agreements and pay for storage of water that the Storing State will use in the future when the consuming entity calls for ICUA. However. there is no way to accurately predict the future and unanticipated changes in the rate of population growth or the occurrence of droughts or surplus conditions will affect how much water can be stored or when ICUA wHl be needed. The parties [0 a Storage and interstate Release Agreement would not agree to sul:~.iect any water already in storage to new terms and conditions under new rules. A consuming entity that invests significant slims or money into funding water storage in a Storing State is not likely to agtee to subject itself to limited term storage or revised terms and conditions for the right to receive ICUi\ under an already signed Storage and \nterstate Release Agreement. The storage and retrieval period between Arizona and Nevada is projected to run from years 1999 to 2030 and may run longer if both California and Nevad,) enter into Storage and Interstate Release Agreements wHh Ariz.ona. Under Arlz.cma.law no more than a total of IOO kaf of water stored in Arizona may be retrieved by California and Nevada in any given year. If Nevada is limited to retrieving a maximum of 50 kaf of lCUA from Arizona because California is also retrievjng leUA. the water stored under a Storage and Interstare Release Agreement could be retrieved at this rate beyond the year 2030. Economic Impacts or rhe Rule Commenl: Some respondents commented that the proposed rule may impact the-southern California water rates if less waler that is apportioned to but unused by Arizona and Nevada is made available to California. Response: Ple~se refer to the previous discussion of potential economic impacts of the rule on southern California warer rates that is included in the discussion of economic impacts of this rule under Public Comments on Proposed Rule and Responses on General Issues. Comment: The DPEA provides little in(ormalion regarding potential environmental justice concerns regarding minority and low-income communities. such as Indian tribes. communities along the Mexican border. and communities near the Gulf of California.