Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />on0123 <br /> <br />Rule. The probability of flood control releases is reduced on average by 0,83 percent over the <br />storage years with the Rule under the most likely storage scenario of storing 1.2 maf in Arizona <br />for the benefit of Nevada, The off stream storage ofthis 1,2 maf of water is projected to reduce <br />the average amount of flood control releases to Mexico by 23 kafi'yr from 1999-2015 (see BA, <br />Table IV-3), The U.S, has no authority (discretion) regarding the flow or use of flood control <br />releases once it reaches the international border and this water mayor may not reach the Gulf, <br />The small reduction in flood control releases does not represent a significant impact on minority <br />and low-income communities along the Mexican border or near the Gulf of California. <br /> <br />No Action Alternative <br /> <br />Adoption of the No Action Alternative would not change current conditions of water delivery to <br />Colorado River entitlement holders in the Lower Division States or the delivery of water to <br />Mexico pursuant to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty. However, it is possible that California and <br />Nevada could enter into a SIRA to provide for off stream storage, development, and release of <br />ICUA without the Rule. Reclamation would address this issue in an appropriate NEPA document <br />for such actions on a case-by-case basis, <br /> <br />E. Cumulative and Indirect Effects <br /> <br />Preferred Alternative <br /> <br />Under the Preferred Alternative, adoption of the Rule will pennit authorized entities in the States <br />of Arizona, California, or Nevada to store Colorado River water off the mainstream of the <br />Colorado River in one of the other two States, develop a quantity oflCUA and later divert ICUA <br />released by the Secretary for their future use, Reclamation is not able at this time to determine <br />what cumulative impacts may result from or what indirect impacts would be caused by the <br />execution of specific SIRA pursuant to the Rule. The immediate or future uses ofICUA may be <br />for the maintenance of existing agricultural, municipal and industrial water supplies; the <br />accommodation of growth; or may be growth inducing, <br /> <br />The question of potential impacts related to growth accommodation or inducement can be <br />addressed by the "but for" test by asking "but for off stream storage and the development and <br />release oflCUA between Lower Division States pursuant to the Rule, will growth continue to <br />take place in the areas that may use ICUA?" The answer for the MWD and SNWS service areas <br />is Yes! Alternate and/or supplemental water sources are available to each of the service areas and <br />must be considered as part of the cumulative and indirect impact analysis, Nevada SNWS is <br />implementing provisions to conserve water, increase intrastate storage, and acquire and develop <br />alternate sources of water outside of the Rule that will accommodate growth, In addition, <br />Federal, State, and County agencies in Clark County, Nevada have numerous planning and <br />compliance documents in place that address growth related impacts, California's interest in <br />storing Colorado Water off stream in Arizona is not known at this time so specific transactions <br />cannot be identified or evaluated, However, any off stream storage in Arizona for California will <br /> <br />29 <br />