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 />OOJ3iJS <br /> <br />Public Comments on Definition of Authorized Entity and Several Other Technical Matters <br />and Responses. <br /> <br />As a result of receiving differing comments on the definition of authorized entity and <br />several other technical matters, the Department reopened the comment period on September 21, <br />1998 (63 FR 50183) for a 30,day period ending October 21, 1998. The Department requested <br />interested parties to provide comments on three specific questions: <br /> <br />Question 1: Should the definition of "authorized entity" be revised to clarify that an <br />authorized entity, including a water bank, must hold an entitlement to Colorado River water in <br />order to ensure consistency with the Law of the River, including specifically ~ 5 of the BCP A as <br />interpreted by the Decree? <br /> <br />Question 2: Should an approved Interstate Storage Agreement (now termed a Storage <br />and Interstate Release Agreement) and a contract under ~ 5 of the BCP A be combined into one <br />document, thus making the parties entitlement holders upon execution of the agreement? <br /> <br />Question 3: If not combined, should the Interstate Storage Agreement (now termed a <br />Storage and Interstate Release Agreement) and any separate ~ 5 contract (or amendments to an <br />existing contract) be processed and approved simultaneously to eliminate duplication of any <br />administrative and compliance procedures? <br /> <br />The Department received 10 letters from 11 respondents during the reopened comment <br />period. The respondents included three State agencies, three water districts, one water authority, <br />one water users association, and three environmental organizations. We reviewed and analyzed <br />all comments and revised the final rule based on these comments. Four respondents, including <br />one water users association and three environmental organizations, did not address the issues on <br />which comments were solicited during the reopened comment period. One water users <br />association resubmitted its comments from the original comment period. Three environmental <br />organizations reiterated the same environmental concerns addressed in their respective responses <br />in the original comment period. Two respondents jointly submitted a report that addresses <br />potential effects of water flows from the United States on the riparian and marine ecosystems of <br />the Colorado River delta in Mexico. <br /> <br />The remaining seven respondents provided comments on issues pertinent to the reopened <br />comment period, although one State agency and one water district also resubmitted their <br />respective comments from the original comment period. <br /> <br />The following is a discussion of the comments received on the issues pertinent to the <br />reopened comment period and our responses. <br /> <br />36 <br />