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 />OtHl3:.it <br /> <br />will use in the future when the consuming entity calls for ICUA However, there is no way to <br />predict the future and unanticipated changes in the rate of population growth or the occurrence of <br />droughts or surplus conditions will affect how much water can be stored or when ICUA will be <br />needed. The parties to a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement would not agree to subject <br />any water already in storage to new terms and conditions under new rules. A consuming entity <br />that invests significant sums of money into funding water storage in a Storing State is not likely to <br />agree to subject itself to limited term storage or revised terms and conditions for the right to <br />receive ICUA under an already signed Storage and Interstate Release Agreement. The storage <br />and retrieval period between Arizona and Nevada is projected to run from years 1999 to 2030 and <br />may run longer ifboth California and Nevada enter into Storage and Interstate Release <br />Agreements with Arizona. Under Arizona law no more than a total of 100 kaf of water stored in <br />Arizona may be retrieved by California and Nevada in any given year. If Nevada is limited to <br />retrieving a maximum of 50 kaf ofICUA from Arizona because California is also retrieving <br />ICUA, the water stored under a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement could be retrieved at <br />this rate beyond the year 2030. <br /> <br />Economic wDacts of the Rule <br /> <br />Comment: Some respondents commented that the proposed rule may impact the southern <br />California water rates ifless water that is apportioned to but unused by Arizona and Nevada is <br />made available to California. <br /> <br />Response: Please refer to the previous discussion of potential economic impacts of the <br />rule on southern California water rates that is included in the discussion of economic impacts of <br />this final rule under Public Comments on Proposed Rule and Responses on General Issues. <br /> <br />Comment: The DPEA provides little information regarding potential environmental <br />justice concerns regarding minority and low-income communities, such as Indian Tribes, <br />communities along the Mexican border, and communities near the Gulf of California. <br /> <br />Response: The Department has reevaluated the section of the DPEA on environmental <br />justice and has included additional analysis. Based on this additional analysis, the Department <br />does not find that this final rule will have an effect on minority or low-income communities. As <br />discussed in previous responses, this final rule is not intended as a mechanism to compensate <br />Tribes. <br /> <br />Because Mexico is a sovereign nation, the Department has no control over how Colorado <br />River water is used once it reaches the international border. Thus while the Department has <br />determined that there may be minimal effects of this final rule on flood control deliveries to the <br />international border, we cannot determine the potential effects that any potential reduction in the <br />deliveries of flood control water may have within the Republic of Mexico. <br /> <br />34 <br />