Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. ~"'J <br /> <br />002!lT7 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Seclion 5(B) of the Interim Surplus Guidelines ''the interim surplus detenninations <br />under Sections 2(B)(1) and 2(B)(2) of these guidelines will be suspended and will <br />instead be based upon the 70R Strategy, for either the remainder of the period <br />identified in Section 4(A) or until such time as California completes all required <br />actions and complies with the reductions in water use reflected in Section5(C) of <br />these Guidelines, whichever occurs first." Such a detennination would result in the <br />Nonnal condition governing the operation of Lake Mead for calendar year 2003 in <br />accordance with Article III(3)(a) of the Operating Criteria, Article lI(B)(I) of the <br />Decree and Sections 2(8)(3), 5(B) and 7, of the Interim Surplus Guidelines. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Water ADDortioned but Unused: Any Lower Division State may be allowed to utilize <br />water apportioned to, but unused by, another Lower Division State in accordance <br />with Article II(B)(6) of the Decree and Article XI, Section I (B) of the Interim <br />Surplus Guidelines. <br /> <br />1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty Deliverv: A volume of 1.5 maf of water will be <br />allowed to be scheduled for delivery to Mexico during calendar year 2003 in <br />accordance with Article 15 of the I 944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty and Minute No. <br />242 ofthe International Boundary and Water Commission. <br /> <br />The Board recently received a copy of a letter dated August 23, 2002, from the Arizona <br />Department of Water Resources to Reclamation regarding comments associated with the 2003 <br />Annual Operating Plan and the Interim Surplus Guidelines Federal Register notice of June 19, 2002 <br />(67 FR 41733-41735). Arizona's comments outlined two points of concern, including the following: <br />(I) The general interpretation of the Interim Surplus Guidelines Section 5, should the California <br />agencies not execute the QSA by December 31, 2002; and (2) the consideration of impacts on the <br />other Lower Division States if the Guidelines are suspended. <br /> <br />Toward the first concern, Arizona maintains that ifthe Interim Surplus Guidelines (ISG) are <br />suspended, the Secretary must then detennine that surplus conditions are based upon the 70R <br />Strategy, pursuant to Article IV of the ISG Record of Decision. Arizona also believes that with the <br />current water supply conditions within the Colorado River Basin, that the surplus criterion will not <br />control. With the suspension of the ISG and a nonnal water supply condition, the State of California <br />would be required to reduce its use of Colorado River water to its basic apportionment of 4.4. <br />million acre-feet. <br /> <br />With respect to Arizona's second general concern, Arizona recognizes that there may be <br />some impacts to users in Arizona and Nevada should the ISG be suspended. Arizona believes that <br />it can continue to meet all demand even without the surplus conditions afforded by the ISG. Arizona <br />also proffered that ifit did not utilize all of its 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water, some <br />additional supplies could be made available to Nevada through reapportionment pursuant to Article <br />II.B.6 of the Decree in Arizona vs. California, the ISG, and the agreement between Nevada and the <br />Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. <br /> <br />3 <br />