Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />to release for consumptive use in either California or Arizona. Nevada has anticipated the need <br />to redeem storage credits from the Arizona Demonstration Underground Storage Project for <br />future use beginning the year 2007. Although Nevada stores some of its unused Colorado River <br />water off stream in the State for future use, such storage is principally to meet summer peaking <br />needs when demand has met or exceeded the capacity of the diversion and delivery system, <br />Studies are continuing on ground water recharge, but it is unknown ifnew recharge facilities are <br />planned. <br /> <br />The California entities are working on a plan to allow California to stay within its 4.4 mar annual <br />apportionment when such a limitation becomes necessary, It is possible that such a plan may <br />provide some alternative for off stream storage, However, at this time it is not known what the <br />specific contents of the plan may be. Under this alternative, California entities will continue to <br />divert California's annual apportionment through existing diversion and delivery facilities along <br />the Colorado River. Nevada's diminishing unused apportionment will continue to be subject to <br />release for consumptive use in either California or Arizona, Entities may construct off stream <br />storage facilities for their own uses within the State, Without the rule, neither Nevada nor <br />California entities would be able to participate in the interstate component of the AWBA Act and <br />enter into interstate agreements with Arizona, However, without the rule, it is possible that <br />off stream storage credits could be developed between California and Nevada, <br /> <br />2, Agencv Preferred Alternative-Proposed Action <br /> <br />The proposed action is the agency preferred a1temative, <br /> <br />C. Altematives Eliminated <br /> <br />1. Revision of the Arizona Groundwater Act Alternative: <br /> <br />Arizona could revise its law to remove the requirement for a Federal rule. This alternative was <br />considered but eliminated from further analysis because it does not meet the requirements of the <br />purpose and need for the action, <br /> <br />2. Onstream Storage Altemative <br /> <br />Lower Colorado River entities could bank water onstream in Lake Mead, This alternative was <br />considered but at this time eliminated as a reasonable alternative and not further analyzed for the <br />following reasons, Water would be banked in Lake Mead as "top water" or water that is the first <br />to spill when flood control releases are anticipated, Water banked onstream must be the first to <br />spill to avoid third party impacts. One entity had stored onstream a quantity of conserved water <br />accumulated from 1992-1994, The financial investment for the water was $26.4 million, All of <br />this water was later spilled and lost for use in the United States in the winter of 1996-1997, due <br />to flood control releases. Currently, with high Lake Mead elevations, it is unlikely that onstream <br />banking will occur for several years, Further, onstream storage is subject to water losses through <br />evaporation. <br /> <br />LC Region DEAll <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />12/97 <br />