BOARD00060 ‎(3)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 1/24/2007
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River 7-State Agreement Approval
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

January 23-24, 2007 Board Meeting
Agenda Item 17
Page 4 of6

groundwater and ocean water, importa,tions, use of storage in existing flood control
reservoirs such as Painted Rock, and improved methods of conjunctive use including
water banking.

Weather Modification is being examined in a completely separate effort because
it involves both the Upper and Lower Basins. The concept is that the Lower Basin States,
under certain conditions, can help fund weather modification efforts in each of the Upper
Basin States. Last year, on an interim basis only, Lower Basin funding was provided
directly to a weather modification permit holder or its sponsor in accord with terms ofthe
existing permits. Existing permits in Colorado are being or have been amended to
exclude direct contributions to permit holders or sponsors from out of state sources. The
states are developing a long-term weat4er modification program whereby future funding
of weather modification from out of state sources is still possible, except, in Colorado,
such out of state funding must now come to the CWCB for distribution to permit holders
as deemed appropriate. The required legislation putting this process in place for
Colorado was passed by the General Assembly in 2006. The states will implement the
long-term program via contracts that will provide certain protections against adverse
impacts to an Upper Basin state while assuring, to the extent possible, a reasonable
likelihood that such effort will provide benefit to the Colorado River system on whole

Current Issues

1.

In trying to finalize the 7-State agreement for signature, the states are discussing
a) terms under which the agreement could be modified, b) development of new
water supplies and system improvements, and c) when, how and by what amount
Mexico will be shorted in a manner that is consistent with the Mexican Treaty.
a. The Agreement, as it stands, becomes effective upon the signature of any two
states. The Agreement will remain in place as long as the "Record of
Decision" in the current EIS process and the "Interim Surplus Guidelines
(ISG) remain in place but shall terminate on December 31,2025. In asking
for termination on a date certain, the Upper Basin wanted to be absolutely
certain that the Agreement can only be extended or modified by the
unanimous consent of all the parties. Compared to the Lower Basin, the
Upper Basin is getting significantly less benefit and if for any reason things do
not work as anticipated the states want to make sure the agreement and
operations there under cease in full.
b. The states seek to define as much as possible what actions may be undertaken
for the benefit ofthe state paying for the improvement and what
improvements or augmentation actions should be considered as creating
"system water" that is available to and benefiting all states. For example,
weather modification would be an action that should benefit all the states,
because the location and amount of the benefit is next to impossible to
quantify.
c. With respect to the Mexican Treaty, the issue is one wherein the Lower Basin,
particularly Arizona, wants to lock in a fixed shortage percentage (16,67%)
for Mexico whenever the Lower Basin is taking a shortage. The Lower Basin

i~_;

.,

.

.

.