WSP11852

• File Number: 8200.400
• Description: Colorado River Basin Briefing Documents-History-Correspondence
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 10/1/1999
• Author: DOI-BOR
• Title: Programmatic Environmental Assessment-Rulemaking-Offstream Storage Colorado River Water - Development-Release Intentionally Created Unused Apportionment - Lower Division States - Appendix H-Section I
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

0;)0346

obtaining alternative supplies for Southern California water users is not attributable to or the
result of the proposed rule. The rule may reduce the quantity of Colorado River water available
for diversion to Southern California that is apportioned for consumptive use in Arizona and/or
Nevada but not consumed in those States, making California expend funds sooner than planned to
obtain alternative water supplies.

Response: Absent the rule, each Lower Division State may store its unused basic
apportionment and surplus apportionment offstream for future intrastate use. Arizona is currently
taking all of the 2.8 mafbasic apportionment of Colorado River water available for use in
Arizona. Therefore, the only water that California may no longer be able to use is Nevada unused
basic apportionment. Nevada's consumptive use was 242.8 kafin 1997, resulting in 57.2 kaf of
unused apportionment. Projections show Nevada utilizing its full basic apportionment by 2007.
This final rule may impact southern California in that it enables Nevada to store its dec1ining
quantity of unused apportionment in Arizona for the short period it may be available. To the
extent surplus is available during this time, impacts on California are lessened. In the long run, the
final rule should have little net impact on the expenditure of funds by California water users to
obtain alternative water supplies.

The Department reiterates that California must reduce its reliance on the Colorado River
by conserving water or obtaining alternative water sources. California must continue moving
forward in its efforts to implement a California 4.4 Plan to live within the 4.4 maf of Colorado
River water apportioned for use in California. This final rule will add flexibility which may be of
help in implementing the California 4.4 Plan.

Comment: Some Tribes asserted that the rule allocates to the States water that is reserved
to the Tribes and has a disproportionate, significant, and detrimental economic impact on the
Tribes in the Lower Basin.

Response: The Department does not agree with this view. Under the rule, only water
within a State's apportionment that is not used by entitlement holders within that State may be
stored off stream for interstate purposes. Nothing in this final rule precludes any entitlement
holder, including a Tribe, from using its Colorado River water entitlement. The potential effects
of the proposed measures on the environment, the economy, and trust resources are among the
factors the Secretary will consider when evaluating the Storage and Interstate Release Agreement,
This review process will help ensure that Tribal rights will be protected under this regulation.

Comment: The Benefit-Cost Analysis shows that the overall impact of the proposed rule
is not significant. Please explain how this was detennined and what the threshold was or refer the
reader to a specific page of the Benefit-Cost Analysis for such infonnation.

Response: The threshold for whether a proposed rule is significant is defined in both the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and the Unfunded Mandates Refonn Act of
1995. The Benefit,Cost Analysis reflects that the proposed rule is not a major rule (impacts are

14