WSP12533 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001591 2002] THE lAST GREEN lAGOON 947 States - one submitted by California that mirrored the criteria proposed in the gSA and allowed broad use of surplus flows, and another proposed by the other six Basin states that placed far more significant limitations on the use of surplus flows.278 The latter alternative was driven in no small part by a fear on the part of the other Basin states that despite the promises in the gSA and the Draft EIS, California would fail to ratchet down its use, and MWD would be able to continue to leverage additional surplus from the Secretary to prevent an urban supply crisis.279 The negotiations that ensued between the Basin states eventually led to a deal between two of the Basin's greatest rivals, Arizona and MWD. Under the terms of the deal, Arizona and California entered into a binding contract280 that limits MWD's ability to request Colorado River water from the Secretary to the scheduled, "step down" program envisioned in the 4.4 Plan regardless of any actions taken by the Secretary. Moreover, MWD is required to provide Arizona With a 1 maf "insurance policy," under which MWD has agreed, in the event of a shortage, to forego its use in favor of Arizona up to a total of 1 maf over the 15 year period. . In exchange, Arizona agreed to forego the use of its 46% share of Lower Basin surpluS water under shortage conditions.281 With this deal in place, the Basin states successfully negotiated a compromise alternative that was submitted and published during the public comment period to the Draft EIS.282 Called the "Seven States" alternative ,283 this compromise alternative was renamed the "Basin States Alternative" by BOR, and was ultimately selected - in slightly modified form - as the preferred alternative. 284 The Basin States alternative accomplishes three discrete but interrelated goals: first, it allocates the unused basic apportionment of the Lower Basin; second, it identifies water that can be considered "surplus;" and third, it delivers these waters in accordance with a priority 278. Id 279. See Michael J. Pearce, Implementation of the Seven Basin States' Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines for the State ofAnzona. ENRLS UPDATE (Arizona Bar Association, Environment and Natural Resources Law Section), Jan. 2002, at 13-17. 280. Interim Surplus Guidelines Agreement Between the State of Arizona and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, May. 23, 2001, available at http://www.adwr.state.az.us/publications/files/Surplus%20Guidelines. pdf. 281. See id. 282. Pearce, supra note 276, at 16. 283. See Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria, 65 Fed. Reg. 48,531 (Dep't Interior, Aug. 8,2000). 284. FINAL EIS, supra note 71. at 2-10.