11

• Board Meeting Date: 9/18/2007
• Description: WSP Section - Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Support
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

"
("1! ;.

~.

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman, Chairman
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici, Ranking Member Committee on Energy and Water
Development United States Senate
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: Support for the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act - S. 1171

Dear Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici:

The State of Colorado is writing to express its support for the enactment of
S.II7I, the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act. However, Colorado's
support is premised on the rejection of Arizona's suggested changes to Section 303 of the
Bill and several of its subparagraphs. The Arizona Department of Water Resources
proposed these changes in a letter dated April 5, 2007. These changes are contrary to
several key elements ofthe Law of the Colorado River and are accordingly, simply
unacceptable to Colorado as will be discussed further herein.

Colorado recognizes that the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project (NGWSP)
provision in the Act and in the Settlement will provide a dependable municipal water
supply to the Navajo Nation and other communities in northwestern New Mexico that is
greatly needed. Settlement of the Navajo Nation's federal reserved water right claims
within New Mexico's compact apportionment of Colorado River water is extremely
important to the protection of Colorado's compact apportionment of Colorado River
water and to the integrity of the Colorado River Compact and Upper Colorado River
Compacts in general. Protection of Colorado's equitable share of San Juan River water
and of the Law of the Colorado River is also important to Colorado.

Arizona has proposed that any depletion of water from the San Juan River in New
Mexico that results from the diversion of water by the NGWSP for uses within Arizona,
upon completion of a settlement agreement between the Navajo Nation and Arizona
(approximately 6,400 AF), should be accounted for as part of the 2.8 MAF of Colorado
River mainstem water apportioned to Arizona in Article II(B)(I) of the Supreme Court
Decree in Arizona v California. This proposal is unacceptable to Colorado for a number
of reasons. First, Arizona has been allocated 50,000 AF of water pursuant to the Upper
Colorado River Basin Compact for its use on Arizona lands in the Upper Colorado River
Basin. Just as New Mexico's use of water from the San Juan Basin is charged against its
Upper Colorado River Basin apportionment, even though some of it is used outside the
San Juan Basin, any Arizona use of water derived from sources, such as the San Juan
River, upstream of Lee Ferry, should be charged to Arizona's Upper Colorado River
Basin apportionment. Ari~ona currently only consumptively uses about 37,000 AF of its
Upper Colorado River Basin apportionment annually. Arizona's uses of water from the
NGWSP, therefore, could and should be satisfied from Arizona's 50,000 AF
apportionment of Upper Colorado River Basin water. Second, Arizona's position on this
issue is contrary to language in Section 303(d) of the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project
Act, which provides: "If [consumptive water uses] in Arizona. . . [are] served by water