My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11307
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11307
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:16:54 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:52:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.10.A
Description
Colorado River Basin Legislation/Law - Interstate Water Transfers
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
12/1/1997
Author
USDOI/BOR
Title
Draft: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule Making for Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water and Interstate Redemption of Storage Credits in the Lower Division States
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<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 />Off stream storage credits will be redeemed through forbearance of use in the storing State. The <br />storing entity may create unused apportionment by arranging for a willing third party to forbear <br />from its ordinary use of Colorado River water, However, it is more likely that the storing entity <br />would pump the groundwater previously stored to satisfY its needs and create unused <br />apportionment by reducing its Colorado River water order by an offsetting amount, After all of <br />the stored groundwater is removed, the aquifer would be at the same level as it would have been <br />in the absence of the off stream storage program. In Arizona, because of the requirement to leave <br />5% of the stored water in the ground, the water level in the aquifer would be slightly higher than <br />it would have been without the program. <br /> <br />The obligation to deliver 1.5 maf of Colorado River water to Mexico is set forth in the "Treaty <br />Between the United States and Mexico," signed February 3, 1944 and effective November 1945 <br />(1944 Mexican Water Treaty) and Minute No, 242 of the Intemational Boundary and Water <br />Commission, Implementation of the Preferred A1temative will not impact the 1.5 mafMexican <br />treaty obligation. Mexico is also entitled to an additional 200,000 af of Colorado River water <br />during any year in which Colorado River water is available in excess of the quantity necessary to <br />supply the requirements in the United States and the guaranteed 1.5 maf annual quantity to <br />Mexico. The Preferred Alternative, which would allow surplus water to be stored off stream, <br />could result in a minor reduction in the quantity of surplus water available for delivery to Mexico <br />in the long term, <br /> <br />No Action Alternative <br /> <br />Under the No Action Alternative, without the proposed rule, the Secretary would continue to <br />deliver annual apportionments to the Lower Division States and Mexico, Nevada's declining <br />unused apportionment would be available for use in California and Arizona in a normal year, <br />Without the proposed rule it is possible that off stream storage credits could be developed <br />between California and Nevada for interstate redemption purposes, Reclamation would complete <br />the appropriate level ofNEP A analysis for such actions on a case-by-case basis. <br /> <br />C, Biological Environment <br /> <br />1, Wildlife and Threatened and Endanl1ered Species <br /> <br />Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires a consultation process to ensure <br />that Federal actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or <br />result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Reclamation has prepared <br />numerous NEP A documents and entered into many section 7 consultations under the ESA with <br />the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for actions pertaining to the CAP in Arizona, the SNWS, <br />and the Lower Colorado River mainstem affecting the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada <br />that address potential effects to wildlife and threatened and endangered species (Appendix A), <br />These NEP A and ESA consultation documents are directly related to the analysis of potential <br />impacts on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat from the proposed rule <br /> <br />LC Region DEAl I <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />12/97 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.