Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0....,. -'-8 <br />Ul~.j <br /> <br />954 <br /> <br />ECOLOGY lAW QUARTERLY <br /> <br />[Vol. 28:903 <br /> <br />international border would necessarily have to guarantee a small <br />flow of water to preseIVe the existing environmental values in the <br />Delta.305 The coalition argued that until such a flow had been <br />guaranteed, no "surplus" actually existed.306 In fact, the proposal <br />suggested that if a "surplus" allocation caused a loss in <br />environmental values, it was an allocation not of "surplus," but <br />of water dedicated to environmental values, in violation of the <br />"no net loss" standard.307 In the words of the coalition: <br />No water shall be considered, surplus until the Secretary has <br />been assured, through a plan for releases of sufficient <br />instream flows, mitigation, reservoir management, and other <br />measures, that additional consumptive use would cause no <br />net loss of the environmental benefits that would result if the <br />potential "surplus" were left in the river.308 <br />The Pacific Institute alternative proposed a modified version <br />of the Six States alternative presented' in the Draft EIS.309 The <br />proposal differed from the Six States alternative in two ways. <br />First, it increased the amount Lake Mead could be c:1iawn <br />down,31O guaranteeing a flow of at least 32,000 acre-feet for the <br />Delta before any other uses in the Lower Basin were satisfied in <br />any year when a surplus was declared.311 Second, in heavier flow <br />years meeting specified release criteria, the Delta would receive a <br />minimum flow of 260,000 acre-feet before deliveries could be <br />made to other Lower Basin users.312 After the introduction of the <br />Basin States alternative, the Pacific Institute coalition submitted <br />a revised proposal based on the surplus values, reservoir levels, <br />and allocation schemes proposed iIi the Basin States <br />alternative.313 <br />Although no other alternatives met the Secretary's <br />commitment to the "no net loss" principle, BOR rejected the <br />Pacific Institute proposal in the Final EIS, claiming that <br />environmental impacts in the Delta were beyond the proper <br />scope of its consideration.314 BOR justified its response with two <br /> <br />305. rd <br />306. rd. <br />307. rd. <br />308. rd. at 3. <br />309. rd at 5-7. As discussed below, a comparison of the two reveals few <br />substantive differences aside from the allowance for Delta Flows. <br />310. See id. Presumably, this allowed flows to the Delta without significantly <br />affecting deliveries in the U.S. <br />311. rd. at 5. <br />312. rd. at 6. <br />313. See FINAL EIS, supra note 71, at Attachment G. <br />314. See id. at 3.16-1 - 3.16-4. <br />