WSP09205

• 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

"

OO'iSl~

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 2JO/Monday, November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations

58992

Response: Under this rule. {he
offstream storage of Colorado River
water and the Secretary's release of
(CUA lllay innuence the riming of
power generation at the Hoover. Parker.
and Davis powerp\anls. Reclamation
conducted an analysis to evaluate the
potential impacts of this rule on Hoover
and Parker-Davis power customers. The
analysis reflects that under this rule the
quantity of energy foregone in anyone
year between 1998 and 2017 will result
in a loss of less than 0.5 percent.
Between 1998 and 20 l7. the quantity of
Colorado River water released from
mainstream reservoirs will be
equivalent to the quantity that otherwise
would have been released without the
irnptement..i.tion of this rule.
Section 6 of the BCPA notes "That the
dam and reservoir provided for by
section I hereof shall be used: Firsl. for
river regulation, improvement of
navJgation, and flood conlrol; second,
for irrigation and domestic uses and
satisfacUon of present perfected rights
in pursuance of Article VIIJ of said
Colorado River compa.ct; and third, for
power." The Secrerary manages and
operates Ihese reservoirs for multiple,
often conflicting purposes, through
powers vest~d by Congress. The
principal source of the Secretary's
power is the contract power under
Section 5 of the BCPA to aJlocaw and
distribute mainstream water within the
boundaries est3.bH5hed by that Act. Each
year. the Secretary develops and adopts
an Annual Operating Plan (AD?) for the
Colorado River reservoirs. During the
ADP process, the Secretary consults
with the Basin Slates and other
interested parties. induding the power
users. The Secretary is mindful of the
Federal contracts with power users for
supply of electric service from ..
hydroelectric powerplants on the
Colorado River and wilt seek to
minimize changes in power production
that result from the Secretary's activities
regarding river operations. However,
because of Section 6 of the BePA, power
users are ajunior priority for use of
Colorado River water.

Concerns ofCali(omia EnrWes

Comment: Several California entilies
expressed concern thal the rule should
acknowledge and be consistent wilh the
comprehensive plan being developed by
California water agencies to reduce
California's future use of Colorado River
water (California 4.4 Plan).
Response: 'The Department places
great emphasis on the necessity for the
implementation of a California 4.4 Plan.
We do not. however, believe that this
ru~e needs tC' address the California 4.4
Plan. This rule is intended to be of

general application and to apply equally
to each of the three Lower Division
States.
Comme1lt: Some respondents asked
for assurance that the rule will provide
for storage of conserved water, such as
water that is anticipated to result from
water conservation in the lmperlal
Irrigation District OlD) that is proposed
to be transferred to the San Diego
County Wo'er Authority (SDCWA),
Response: The proposed transfer of
water from IID to SDCW A is an
intrastate transaction that is not covered
by the rule. For conserved water to be
stored by an authorized emlty for
purposes of an interstate water
transaction under this rule, it must first
be offered LO aH entitlement 'nohlers in
the State in which it was conserved.
Comment: In years when surplus
water is needed to keep MeHopol han
Water District's Colorado River
Aqueduct full. a conflict wi!! arise
among entitie.s who claim surplu!> water
if the Secretary does not make a
sufficient level of surplus water
available w satisfy both Metropolitan
Water District's demand and diversions
for ofTstream storage under Interstate
Storage Agreements (now termed
"Storage aIld Interstate Release
Agreements").
Response: Surplus is divided among
{he Lower Division Stafes under the
Decree. Surplus apportioned to the State
of California under the Decree, and thus
available for use consistem wJth the
priority system applicable (0 California,
is not subject [0 storage under this rule
by authorized entities in Nevada or
Arizona unless entitlement holders in
California choose not to exercise their
rights to use surplus water.

Potential impacts on the Upper Division
Slates

Comment: The rule should not be
aHowed to impact the water supplies
available to the Upper Basin and the
Upper Basin should not lose any yield
or take increased risks because of
increased equalization that might occur
as a result of tmersta~e W3\er storage
agreements.
Response: We agree with this
comment from a Slate agency and note1i
tflat this rule wilt not be u5ed to justify.
more liberalized surplus derenninatiollS
that will allow an incre;,lse in"
equaUzation releases from Lake Powell.
Section 414.3(b) of this rule was
modified to inc\ude potenlial impacts
on the Upper Division States among the
factors that the Secretary will consider
in considering. participating in, and
administering a StQrage and Interstate
Release Agreement.

Comment: The rule should be
modified to include a statement that the
rule does not change or expand the
authorities under the law of the River
or the apportionments made to the
individual States under the Law of the
River. The rule should al'io state that its
intent is (0 provide for efficient use of
unused apponionrnent and surpluses
bur that each State should keep its
consumptive use of Colorado River
water within the apporrionments made
to it under the Law of the River.
Response: We agree with this
comment from a Stale agency tllat this
rule does not change or expand exislin$
authorities under the law of the River
or change the apportionments for use.qf
water within the individual State~. We
modified ~ 414.1 Purpose to state this.
We also agree that each Lower Division
State must operate within the limits of
the apportionment of Colorado River
water made for use within that Slate but
do not belteve it is necessary to include
[his statement in the rule.

Concerns o~'er Deliveries lO Mexico

Comment: The DPEA states that a
minor reduction wi!l occur in tile
quantity of surplus water available for
delivery w Mexico over the long term
without explaining what a minor
reduction is or what studies have been
done to quantify this.
Response: The quanrity of water
available for ddivery to Mexi.Co,\) \5
expected to decrease by an avefi1ge of 23
thousand acre-feet (kaf)/year from 1999-
2015 when storage is occurring with the
rule. This is about a one percent
decrease annually in the total quantity
of water projected to reach Mexico
(2.487 million acre-feet (maO without
this rule and 2.464 mafwith thi... rule).
In addition, this decrease would affect
flood control releases only during this
same time and would have only a very
minimal effect on projec(ed surplus
flow in years beyond 2015.
These projections are based 0(1
analysis completed by Reclamation
using the Colorado River Simulation
Model. which is used to project long.
term conditions relating (0 water supply
on the Colorado River from Lake Mead
(0 Mexico. The analysis used historical
virgin runoff data from 1906-1995 and
water use. or demand schedules that
have been provided by the Colorado
River BJsin States for the sinllJlated
future period 1999-2015. In addition
(he model includes requirements in the
long-range operating criteria for the
Colorado River.

Environmental Concerns

Comment: Efficiency im~'iO~eJnents
in river management and the storage of