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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />fitO'(J347 <br /> <br />not significant) because the economic impact upon the regional and United States economy in any <br />one year does not exceed the threshold; i.e., it is never greater than or equal to $100 million. <br />However, even though the rule does not have a significant annual economic effect on the <br />economy, it is still considered a significant rule because it raises novel legal or policy issues. See <br />pages 3S,42 and 44-46 of the Benefit-Cost Analysis to see the findings that led to the <br />detennination of no significant economic impact. <br /> <br />Comment: The Executive Summary of the Benefit-Cost Analysis refers to two water <br />supply models, "A70" and "PSO." To better understand the potential effects of both A70 and PSO <br />criteria, state the water supply benefits resulting from the PSO criteria and indicate the incremental <br />quantity of additional surplus water made available under PSO. <br /> <br />Response: The benefit,cost analysis shows that the benefits of AWBA's banking program <br />are smaller under PSO (a more liberal surplus criteria that will tend to increase the risk of <br />shortages) than A70 (a more conservative surplus criteria that will tend to reduce the risk of <br />shortages). Under PSO surplus criteria, it is more likely that all valid water demands within the <br />Lower Division States will be met from instream flows. Therefore, demand for ICUA by a <br />Consuming State is lower than under A70. Total net economic benefits for the study period <br />(199S-2017) at the regional level are shown at the bottom of page 2 of the executive summary for <br />the Benefit-Cost Analysis. Because surplus conditions are likely to continue for several years, the <br />Department did not further analyze that alternative in the Biological Assessment (BA) that <br />Reclamation prepared for the proposed rule. <br /> <br />Comment: There were a number of editorial comments on the Benefit-Cost Analysis and <br />the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. <br /> <br />Response: The Department has reviewed and considered the comments submitted by a <br />water district and has adopted many of the suggestions into the text of the final Benefit-Cost <br />Analysis and the final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. <br /> <br />Comment: Some Tribes commented that allowing States to use "unused Tribal water" and <br />imposing limitations on the Tribes' ability to use their reserved water potentially interfere with the <br />Tribes' protected property rights, <br /> <br />Response: The Department does not agree with this statement. All Colorado River water <br />available to the Lower Division States is apportioned for use in the individual States. Any water <br />within a State's apportionment that is unused by Tribes or non-Indian entitlement holders is <br />available to junior entitlement holders in that State under the Secretary's priority system for the <br />Colorado River. Only water that is not used by entitlement holders is eligible to be used for an <br />interstate transaction under this rule. Thus, there is no interference with Tribal property rights. <br /> <br />Comment: One Tribe asserted that the Tribes' lack of opportunity to participate in <br />interstate transactions on the same basis as the States under the rule constitutes a violation of Title <br /> <br />15 <br />