Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Allen Matkins Leek Gamble & Mallory LLP <br />attorneys at law . <br /> <br />Interested Persons <br />May 29, 2003 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />CRA <br /> <br />TOTAL: <br /> <br />Capacity 1.25 MAP <br />550 KAF <br /><30> KAF <br />86 KAF <br />200 KAF <br />100 KAF <br />68 KAF <br />26 KAF <br />1.0 KAF <br /> <br />MWD Priority 4 <br />Reserved Indian and Miscellaneous PPR obligation <br />1988 1ID/MWD Transfer <br />lID/SDCW A Transfer <br />MWD/PVID Transfer <br />AAC <br />CC <br /> <br />Remaining Available Capacity <br /> <br />250 KAF <br /> <br />Thus, coastal urban Southern California could move 250 KAFY of desalted water through the <br />CRA in addition to MWD's Priority 5 water, the 1998 IIDIMWD transfer water and all the QSA <br />dependent transfer water. <br /> <br />The QSA and ECSA Language Does not Preclude Salton Sea Restoration or a <br />Desalination Proiect. <br /> <br />The term of the QSA and ECSA do not prohibit or preclude a restoration project built <br />around a smaller Salton Sea or a desalination project. The environmental mitigation and <br />Habitation Conservation Plan identified in the ECSA are reliant on two premises: no salinity <br />impact to the Salton Sea for 15 years (accomplished by a bucket for bucket supply of mitigation <br />water for any transfer caused reduction in inflow during the first 15. years); and then mitigation <br />for the reduction in size of the Salton Sea from transfer caused reduced inflows. The reduced <br />stabilized size resulting from the lID/SDCW A and IID/CVWD transfers of 303 KAF per year <br />after stabilization is not inconsistent with a restoration effort preserving a Salton Sea at about <br />half its current area. In fact, if the transfer is no longer responsible for some of the species <br />displacement and shoreline exposure environmental impacts because the restoration project <br />would produce or solve them anyway, some of the QSA environmental mitigation budget may <br />not be needed and could be utilized instead to mitigate the restoration impacts. The relevant <br />ECSA provisions include section 4.1(4) "Continuation of Expenditures" - which requires all the <br />environmental mitigation funds to be spent on Environmental Mitigation Costs as needed until <br />those funds are exhausted. An appropriate determination by the Resource Agencies that because <br />of the restoration project, some of the QSA mitigation is no longer required, would allow the <br />ECSA Partners to agree that some of the QSA mitigation funds are no longer needed and such <br />funds could be redirected to the restoration project. <br /> <br />579601.01lS0 <br />I4161-OO2I5-29-03/dlG'jah <br />