My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00166 (3)
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00166 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:46:12 PM
Creation date
7/6/2007 10:55:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/22/2007
Description
OWCDP Section - Colorado Foundation for Water Education FY08 Program Scope of Work
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />b-- - II <br /> <br />January 23-24, 2007 Board Meeting <br />Agenda Item 17 <br />Page 4 of6 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />period. This provision will need careful review prior to any <br />extension of these operations. <br />d. The interim criteria provide for reductions during the <br />creation of ICS, of 5% and 3%, to help sustain the Colorado River <br />System. The annual 3% reduction on stored ICS (except for years <br />of shortage) approximates the annual evaporation of water from <br />Lake Mead. <br />Reservoir Operations after 2026: <br />I. It is critical to Colorado that the interim Agreement/Guidelines <br />terminate in 2026 and be renegotiated as model studies indicate that <br />conditions could develop that are very unfavorable to the Upper Basin. <br />a. The operations must return to 1970 Long-Range Operating <br />Criteria and cannot default to the Agreement/Guidelines after <br />2026. <br />California's Obligation to Meet ISG Requirements: <br />1. Assures California will operate within its Compact Allocation. <br />Consultation before Litigation: <br />1. Colorado considered this provision key to Upper Basin Agreement <br />given that it still has water remaining for development under the Compacts <br />and wishes to avoid litigation that may adversely affect those development <br />opportunities. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Issues Implicated by the A2reement/Guidelines and Set Aside in the A2reements <br /> <br />Accounting of Lower Basin Tributary Uses as Against the Compact <br />Apportionments and Mexican Treaty Delivery Obligations <br />I. Regardless of what conditions trigger Mexico shortage, the Upper <br />Basin preserved the tributary issue as it relates to whether there is a <br />deficiency in Colorado River System water to supply the Mexican Treaty <br />for which the Upper Basin has some obligation. <br /> <br />Issues Not Addressed bv the A2reement/Guidelines <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />When and how uses in the Upper Division could be curtailed <br />1. Colorado preserved its position that Upper Division curtailment will <br />not occur until there is a Lower Basin accounting and reduction of <br />tributary uses. <br />Mexico shortage sharing with the Upper Division <br />1. Colorado preserved its position that conditions other than those on the <br />lower Colorado River mainstem may also serve as a trigger for the Mexico <br />shortage sharing provision of the 1944 Treaty. <br />2. There is no express provision identifying conditions in the Upper Basin <br />as a trigger for Mexico shortage sharing. <br />3. It is unknown whether the U.S. Department of State and/or Mexico will <br />accept a variety of triggers for Mexico shortage sharing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.