My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12642
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12642
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:17:07 PM
Creation date
8/6/2007 1:28:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.215
Description
Colorado River Basin Organizations-Entities - Colorado River Workgroup
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/3000
Author
James S Lochead
Title
Outline of the Law of the Colorado River - James S Lochhead - Date Unknown Briefing paper
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 />OOD836 <br /> <br />(4) Estimated net inflow to Mead <br />c. Shortage - Secretary to determine "from time to time" when <br />insufficient mainstream water is available to satisfy 7.5 maf, after <br />consideration of relevant factors, including: <br />(1) Requirements of Art. ill (1) of Criteria <br />(2) Storage in Mead <br />(3) Net inflow to Mead <br />(4) Historic streamflows <br />(5) Priorities in Art. IT (a) in Arizona v. California <br />(6) Purposes in Art, I (I) of Criteria <br /> <br />C. Normal, surplus and shortage issues <br />1. California position - surpluses can be declared that will make more water <br />available in the Lower Basin, without injury to the Upper Basin <br />2. Other states' positions <br />a. Water out of the system to California affects the drought protection <br />available to the other states. <br />b. Nevada wants more equitable shortage sharing <br />c. Arizona wants relief from California's priority to the first 4.4 maf <br />d. Upper Basin concerned that there is no shortage sharing between <br />the Upper and Lower Basins <br /> <br />III. SOME OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS <br /> <br />A. What is the obligation of the Upper Basin to contribute to the Mexican Treaty <br />delivery obligation? <br />B. Is the 8.23 maf"minimum objective" release at Lake Powell a true minimum, or <br />does the Compact control the amount ofthe release? <br />C. Does the Upper Basin have any obligation to deliver water if the Lower Basin is <br />not making "beneficial use" of the water available to it? <br />D. What is the obligation ofthe Upper Basin storage units (Curicanti, Flaming <br />Gorge, and Navajo) to contribute to the Upper Basin's Compact delivery <br />obligation? <br />E. Does the Compact allocation of consumptive use control, or does the Upper Basin <br />delivery obligation control? <br />F. When does the Treaty require that Mexico be shorted? <br />G. When should the Secretary declare a shortage in the Lower Basin, and how should <br />shortages be allocated and enforced? <br />H. Is there any obligation to share shortages between the Upper and Lower Basins? <br />I. How would a compact call be enforced in the Upper Basin? <br />J. How would a compact call be implemented and administered in Colorado? <br />K. What are the implications of continuing drawdown of the reservoir system, to <br />resources such as water supply, power generation, water quality, <br />recreation/economies, and the environment? <br />L. Can Colorado or the Upper Basin take steps to avoid or mitigate the impacts of a <br />compact call or reservoir drawdowns? <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.