WSP09205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, 00" 8?n (I _' 59002 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No, 2l0/Monday, November 1. 1999/Rules and Regulations Response: We have reevaluated (he sec[ion of the DPEA on environmental justice and has included additional analysis. Based on this additional analysis., we do not flnd that this rule will have an effect on minority or low- income communities. As discussed in previous responses, this rule is nor intended as a mechanism to compensate rribes. Because Mexico is a sovereign nation. we have no control over how Colorado River water is used once it reaches Ihe international border. Thus while we have determined that there may be minimal effects of this rule on flood control deliveries to the international border, we cannot determine the potemial effects that any potential reduction in (he deliveries of Oood control water may have within the Republic of Mexico. 'Effects on Ground Water Storage Comment: Some respondents, ~nc.\uding Indian tribes. comlnented that the rule would result in a net loss in ground water over time to "indirect storage" and that thjs is a significant indirec.t effect of the rule but the DPEA shows. no analysis of this effect. Response: We do not agree that actions under this rule will result in a loss of ground wate!" to indirect storage. The method by whiC.h Colorado River water is stored by indirect storage allows water (0 rem;:ljn in the ground in lieu of being pumped. When Arizona is the Storing State. rhe developmem of leUA is limited to only 95 percent of the water previously stored under a Storage and Interstale Release A.greerne:nl. Therefore, the ground water will gain by 5 percent of the water that would tlave been pumped anyway if it were left in the ground through in lieu storage actions. Further, although Arizona law currently does not allow the development of ICVA by any means other than pumping water that was stored under a Storage and Inlerstate Rele<'lse Agreement. this rule allows additional flexibility. If Arizona changes its laws or policy in the future to allow other means of developing lCUA, it is possible that the alternative means could help preserve Arizona's ground water. Finally, as stated previl-"us}y. this rule allows Colorado River entitlement holders in (he Storing State the option [0 use the water previously stored under a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement or other means consistent with Storing State law to develop lCUA. Comment: Reclamation ShOlild clarify how the rule fits within the regulatory framework for ground water protection in each State. as well as the federal role in ground water protection. The preamble 10 (he proposed rule contains a statement that. "Water quality will be monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. ." It is not clear to what extent Reclamation expects the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be involved in offstream storage authorized under the rule. Response: We do not anticipate a need for EPA to evaluate data collected tflroUgh any offSlream storage of Colorado River water. The purpose of the statement VIaS \0 declare that the Department, and more specifically Reclamation. does not have the responsibility to regulate ground wt.1ler quality. GeneTi.'11 Comments Comment: There were a number of editorial comments on the DPEA that suggested clarification or additional explanation on various points. Response: We have reviewed and considered the comments and has adopted many of the suggestions inlO the text of Ihe FPEA. In addition, the previously mentioned informal consultations between Reclamation and FWS resulred in Reclamation's incorporation of numerous suggestions made by FWS into the BA and FPEA, Public Comments on Definition or Aurhorized EnrilY and Several Orher Technical Matters and Responses As a result of receiving differing comments on the definition of authorized entity and several other technical matters, the Department reopened the comment period on September 21, t 998 (63 FR 50 t 83) for a 3D-day period ending October 21, 1998. We asked interested parties to prDvide comments on three speCific ques(ions: Question 1: Should [he definition of "'authorized entity" be revised tD !=Iarify that an authorized entity, including a water bank. must hold an entitlement to Colorado River water in order to ensure consistency with the Law of the River, including specifically Section 5 of the SePA as interpreted by the Decree? Quesrion 2: Should an approve,d Interstate SlOrage Agreement (110",< tenned a Storage Clnd Inter:statc Rele,!se Agreement) and a contract under Section 5 of the SCPA be combined into one document. thus making the parties entitlement holders upon execution of the agreement? Question 3: If not combined, should the Interstate Storage Agreement lnov..' termed a Swrage and Interstate Release Agreement) and allY separate Section 5 comract (or amendments to an existing conuact) be processed and npproved simultaneously to eliminate duplication of any administrative and compliance procedures? The Department received 10 letters from 11 respondents dLlring the reopened comment period. The respondents Included three State agencies. three water districts, one water authority, one water users association, and three envlronmcnwl organizations We reviewed and analyzed all pertinent commerHs and revised the rule based on these comments. Four respondents. including one water users association and three environment81 organizations. did not address. the issues on which comments were solicited during the reopened comment period. One water users association resubmitted its comments from the original comment period. Three environmental organizations reiterated the same environmental concernS addressed in their respective respDnses in the original comment period. Two respondents jointly submitted a report that addresses potentia\ elTects of water flows from the United States on the riparian .md mai-ine ecosystems of the Colorado River delta in Mexico. . The remaining seven respondents provided comments on issues pertinent to the reopened comment period, al!hough one State agency and one water district also resubmitted their respective comments from the original comment period. The folJowing is a discussion of the comments received on the issues pertinent to rhe reopened comment period and our responses. Comments on Question 1 Comment: One State agency and two water districts cite the SCPA and the Decree to support their view that an authorized entity must have a contract with (he Secretary. Two State agencies, one water district. <Jnd one water authority commented that an authonzed entity need nor be an entitlement holder to store water and make it availahle to a Consuming State under an Interslate Storage Agreement (now termed a . 'Storage and Inlerstate Rekase Agreement"). The latter group recognizes that the BCPA and the Decree require all diversions of Colorado River water from the mainstream to be based on an entitlement. However. these respondents believe there is no st,lIurory requirement for the authorized entHy to have a direct contract with the Secretary in order to fulfill its responsibilities to slore its own State's unused apportionmenf. Under their reasoning. the authorized entity can arrange for storage and ensure the avaHabiHty of unused apportionment in the future