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 />r <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />000343 <br /> <br />Response: Surplus is divided among the Lower Division States under the Decree. <br />Surplus apportioned to the State of California under the Decree, and thus available for use <br />consistent with the priority system applicable to California, is not subject to storage under this <br />final rule by authorized entities in Nevada or Arizona unless entitlement holders in California <br />choose not to exercise their rights to use surplus water. <br /> <br />Potential ImDacts on the UDDer Division States <br /> <br />Comment: The rule should not be allowed to impact the water supplies available to the <br />Upper Basin and the Upper Basin should not lose any yield or take increased risks because of <br />increased equalization that might occur as a result of interstate water storage agreements, <br /> <br />Response: The Department agrees with this comment from a State agency and notes that <br />this final rule will not be used to justifY more liberalized surplus determinations that will allow an <br />increase in equalization releases from Lake Powell. Section 4l4,3(b) of this final rule was <br />modified to include potential impacts on the Upper Division States among the factors that the <br />Secretary will consider in considering, participating in, and administering a Storage and Interstate <br />Release Agreement. <br /> <br />Comment: The rule should be modified to include a statement that the rule does not <br />change or expand the authorities under the Law of the River or the apportionments made to the <br />individual States under the Law of the River. The rule should also state that its intent is to <br />provide for efficient use of unused apportionment and surpluses but that each State should keep <br />its consumptive use of Colorado River water within the apportionments made to it under the Law <br />of the River. <br /> <br />Response: The Department agrees with this comment from a State agency that this final <br />rule does not change or expand existing authorities under the Law of the River or change the <br />apportionments for use of water within the individual States. The final rule was modified in ~ <br />414.1 Purpose to state this. The Department also agrees that each Lower Division State must <br />operate within the limits of the apportionment of Colorado River water made for use within that <br />State but does not believe it is necessary to include this statement in the rule. <br /> <br />Concerns over Deliveries to Mexico <br /> <br />Comment: The DPEA states that a minor reduction will occur in the quantity of surplus <br />water available for delivery to Mexico over the long term without explaining what a minor <br />reduction is or what studies have been done to quantify this. <br /> <br />Response: The quantity of water available for delivery to Mexico is expected to decrease <br />by an average of23 thousand acre-feet (kaf)/year from 1999-2015 when storage is occurring with <br />the rule. This is about a one percent decrease annually in the total quantity of water projected to <br />reach Mexico (2.487 million acre-feet (mat) without this final rule and 2.464 mafwith this fina1 <br /> <br />11 <br />