Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o::r <br />c <br />~ <br />N <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />0' <br />J\l <br />~, <br /> <br />i ( I <br />Q <br />~~\) <br />(', " ">-. <br /> <br />7 , <br /> <br />+++++++8I" <br /> <br />~~f" ;~if,l'1' <br /> <br />~~t'!'?;""'''''''~' ~~ <br />",\/1,-"-., ,.,..- <br />::-*\1:<"" '~"'" ' - ,-' " <br /> <br />The CAWCD continued to protest to the Us. Secretary of the Interior regarding the prac- <br />tice of allowing California to use Arizona's unused share of Colorado River water. Our conten- <br />tion is that storage volumes on the river do not suggest that the excess amounts used by Cali- <br />fornia will be lost to spills before being allocated as normal entitlements. In spite of our pro- <br />tests, the Secretary's decision will enable California to use approximately 800,000 acre-feet in <br />excess of its basic allotment of 4.4 million acre-feet in water year 1992, <br /> <br />In September 1990, the CAWCD board of directors voted to oppose federallegislatio!l,.to <br />settle water claims of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. The legislation would have permitted the <br />Secretary of the Interior to reallocate to the tribe "excess water" arising from a settlement with <br />the Ak Chin Indian community in 1984. Unused water from the 1984 agreement was projected <br />by federal and state governments as part of the CAP general supply. The San Carlos Apache <br />Tribe Settlement Act had not been approved as of June 30,1991. <br /> <br />The board alsoppposed a proposed regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency <br />(EP A) requiring installation of emissions control equipment at the Nav~o Generating Station <br />(NGS) at Page, Arizona. The NGS is 2~} percent owned by tt!' U.~Bur~a1l2f RedaI~a~i<Jn <br />and is the basic source of electricity for CAP pumping. CAWCD's objections were presented to <br />tFleEP A at a public hearing March 18, 1991, and in formal written comments. A final rule had <br />not been entered by EP A by the end of the fiscal year. The EP A contended the cost of the <br />emissions control equipment would not significantly impact CAP water users. <br /> <br />An application was made to the Arizona Department of Water Resources (DWR) for per- <br />mits to conduct a two-year in-lieu water recharge demonstration project with the Maricopa- <br />Stanfield and Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage Districts. The goal of the project is to <br />encourage CAP water use. The districts would receive CAP water with some or all of the price <br />paid by CAWCD. Recharge credits would be issued to the CAWCD enabling it to utilize those <br />credits to recover stored CAP water from the groundwater supplies. <br /> <br />In June, the board assessed an ad valorem tax of four cents per $100 of assessed valuation <br />for 1991 in Maricopa and Pima counties to fund state water recharge demonstration projects. <br />The projects, using CAP water, were authorized by the Arizona Legislature in 1990. Money <br />raised must be spent in the county where it was collected. The DWR has the responsibility of <br />approving recharge sites, water withdrawals, and disbursing funds. The CAWCD board is <br />authorized to levy the tax for five years, <br />