Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />The preliminary November 1,2000, estimate of 2000 end-of-year California agricultural <br />consumptive use of Colorado River water under the first three priorities and the sixth priority of the <br />1931 California Seven Party Agreement is 4.015 maf. This estimate is based on the collective use <br />through October 2000 by the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), the Yuma Project Reservation <br />Division (YPRD), the Imperial Irrigation District (lID), and the Coachella Valley Water District <br />(CVWD). Figure 1, found at the end of this report, depicts the historic projected end-of-year <br />agricultural use for the year. <br /> <br />Colorado River Ooerations <br /> <br />Annual Operating Plan <br /> <br />The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has not yet finalized a recommended plan for <br />operation of the Colorado River reservoirs in 2001. The outstanding issue is the operation of Lake <br />Mead and whether it will be operated under a nonnal, surplus, or limited surplus condition. A <br />Colorado River Management Work Group meeting was held on November 6th to discuss the draft <br />2001 Annual Operating Plan for the Colorado River System Reservoirs (2001 AOP). Prior to the <br />meeting, on October 24'", Reclamation, via letter, asked every water contractor on the River to <br />"...carefully evaluate your current and projected water needs and implement water conservation <br />measures where feasible." Also, prior to the meeting, each ofthe stakeholders was invited to submit <br />proposed language for the operation of Lake Mead during 200 I. The representatives of the <br />Governors of the Colorado River Basin States submitted language proposing a limited surplus <br />condition while six environmental groups submitted language proposing a nornlal condition with <br />a mid-year re-evaluation. A Colorado River Commission of Nevada representative requested that <br />Nevada's need for surplus water for groundwater recharge be met in 2001. <br /> <br />During the November 6th meeting of the Colorado River Management Work Group, <br />Reclamation requested the participants to list the pros and cons of each viewpoint and to identify the <br />resulting impacts that such a detennination would have on various interests. There was no consensus <br />reached during the meeting. Reclamation is going to consider the infonnation obtained during and <br />prior to the meeting, and evaluate other relevant factors prior to re-releasing the draft of the proposed <br />2001 AOP by November 17,2000. Reclamation's draft ofthe 2001 AOP will be considered at the <br />final consultation meeting with the Basin states' representatives scheduled to be held on <br />December I, 2000. <br /> <br />Mexican Border Issues <br /> <br />On November 13,2000, Commissioner Bernal of the U.S. International Boundary and Water <br />Commission (IBWC) hosted a meeting in Yuma, Arizona, in order to be briefed by California and <br />Reclamation on the status of lining the All-American Canal, interim surplus guidelines, and other <br />related issues. This was a premeeting to the November 14th IBWC meeting, which was a joint <br />meeting of the U.S. and Mexican Sections of the IBWC. At the November 14th meeting, United <br />States representatives from IBWC, Reclamation, USFWS, lID and the Colorado River Board, as <br />well as, representatives from federal, state and local governments in Mexico were in attendance. <br /> <br />2 <br />