WSP12533 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0015')8 946 ECOLOGY lAW QUARTERLY [Vol. 28:903 ~.~ the California model criteria.273 Babbitt had repeatedly stated that he wanted to solve the Colorado River "puzzle" before the end of his term as Secretary;274 if he failed to give in to California, he risked blowing apart the fragile California accord. These pressure tactics worked. At the December 1999 Colorado River Water Users Association (CRWUA) meeting, Babbitt praised the efforts of the Califomia water interests in reaching the QSA,275 Retreating significantly from the hard line he had taken during the California negotiations, Babbitt instead urged the other Colorado River Basin states, in the words of The Los Angeles Times, to "cut California some slack, "276and cooperate with BOR in its development and implementation of new surplus criteria that would meet CaJiforrtia's needs. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A), BO R prepared an Environmental Impact Statement assessing the environmental impact of a new set of Colorado River Surplus Criteria. The draft Environmental Impact Statement (DE[S) issued in July 2000 evaluated the various alternatives for new Colorado River Surplus Criteria,277 which included two competing alternatives submitted by the Basin I i) r: t t- 273. See Key Terms ()f Quantification Settlement, supra note 263, ~ IV(B). 274. See Press ReLease. Department of the Interior, Babbitt Calls 1999 "Year of AccompJishmentW on C()lorado River, Outlines Efforts Necessary for Continued Progress T()ward More Efficient Use (Dec. 17, 1999), available at http://www.eparka.com/news(I.B/SO/RD/1LBSORDM9/indeX.html. 275. See Perry, supra. note 254, at A28. 276. Seeid. 277. These induded: 1he ~Fl()()d C()ntrol" altemative. the required "baseline" or "no-action' altemative, the 'Six States" alternative, the "California" alternative, and the "Shortage Pr()tecti()n" alternative. See DEIS, supra note 180, at 2-5 - 2-15. At one extreme, the Flood Control alternative would only have released surplus to prevent floods, thus keeping l'esenroir storage at a maximum (and Lower Basin water use at a minimum). See id at 2-7 - 2-8. At the other extreme. the Shortage Protection alternative w()uld have all()wed substantial reservoir drawdowns to maximize surplus flows. thus maintaining storage ()nly t() the extent necessary to minimally protect (at 809& certainty) agaiJ1st sAortages and preserve minimum efficiency power production at the mainstream dams. See id. at 2-13 - 2-15. The "California" altemative mirrored the criteria in the Quanti1ication Agreement, id at 2-3, except that the minimum reservoil' levels at Lake Mead were raised 10 feet, which would have satisfied the Quantification Agreement condition mandating the adoption of criteria that are "substantially identical~ to those proposed. Finally, the "Six States" alternative kept reservoil' levels higher at Lake Mead (30 feet higher than the California Alternative levels). id. at 2- 10 and only allowed surplus for municipal and industrial purposes. See /d. at Attachment D: Surp[llS Criteria Proposal by Six States. Both the California and Six: States al-rematives utilized substantial reservoir drawdowns to guarantee surplus flows in most years. Predictably. the California plan allowed reservoirs to be drawn down lower and allowed surplus water to be dedicated for any purpose - including agricultUIal use. See id. at Attachment E: Swplus Criteria Proposal by Calijornia.