WSPC12548 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB- 2-98 MON 1 1 : 44 UPPER CO~ORADO RIVER COMM .~ -: P_01 " 001373 UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION RECEIVE': FE B 0 2 1~~ colorack? W~M eooservallon guaa.. 355 South 400 East. Salt Lake City. Utah 84111 · 801-531-11 SO · FAX 801 -531-9705 MEMORANDUM BY FAX PDat~ I o.~ ~ Fe. Notl R7f73 d.I~ ~ To . . O"'......d:: L, \j F(txl TO: Upper Colorado River Commissioners FROM: Assistant to the Executive Director/General Counsel 'rom .,.. &. Ki ~OJ\.~ , PIIano' (COOl) 5'31- \ \~() - DATE: February 2, 1998 SUBJECT: Comments on the Bureau of Reclamation's Draft Regulations on Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water. I have reviewed the Bureau of Reclamation's Federal Register notices and draft programmatic environmental assessment on proposed rules that would implement "Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water and Interstate Redemption of Storage Credits in the Lower Division States." Comments on these documents must be received by Reclamation on or before March 2, 1998. About five years ago, the Upper Division States took the position that the water supply problems in the Lower Division States were just that, a Lower Division States problem. The Upper Division States said that the problems should be solved by the Lower Division States with no "help" from the Upper Division States. This strategy worked until about two years ago, when negotiations among the Lower Division States seriously broke down, and the Upper Division States were drawn back into the discussions. Now all seven Basin States are struggling to find solutions to the Lower Division States' water needs. Based on this historical background, the Commission needs to decide whether to comment on Reclamation's proposed rulemaking, which would in essence authorize Arizona's groundwater banking proposal and perhaps other similar interstate arrangements. Wayne and I believe that the Commission could take one of the following actions: (1) The Commission could not submit any comments on Reclamation's proposed rules. ~ relying on the old "it's a Lower Division States problem. let them solve it" rationale. v (2.) The proposed rule as outlined in the December 3', 1997 Federal Register at pages 68492-68500contains a fundamental error regarding the "Law' of the River. to Specifically, the notice attributes a definition to the Colorado River Compact that is actually found in the Supreme Court's decree in Arizona v. California. ("Under the Compact, 'consumptive use' means diversions of water from the mainstream of the Colorado River, including water drawn from the mainstream by underground pumping, less return flow to the river," 62 FR 68493.) The Commission could write a letter of comment that first asks Reclamation to correct this legal error and then contains a sort of "campaign speech" explaining the background of the ~~ .'