WSP13002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e 03-21-20~2 11:21 FIIOIf-COlORADO WATER COISERVATION BOARD 301Im,.,. T-804 P - 001/084 F-500 Mr. Robrtt Johnson March 21. 2002 Page 2 of3 -2- experience or unforeseen circumstance which justifies modificalion of the "Opa1lting Criteria" at this time. At the time oftbe adoption of the "Openting Criteria," the Stale of Colorado made objection 10 cenain provisions of the "Operating Criteria." Specifically. the Slate of Coloradt. joined the Upper Colorado River Commission ad the Upper Division Srares in proteSting the minimum release objective of 8.23 m.a.r. of water per year fiom Llke Powell and in nor waiving objections to other partS of me "Operating Criteria. II The CWCB continues to object to ~ miniInwn release objective of 8.23 m.a..fJyear and to other aspc:cts of the "'OperaIing Criteria... However, we ue DOt aware ot Itny ac:mal operaring experiences or unforeseen circ:umsumces that would justify modification of the "CJPet8tin8 Criteria" at this time. There are several reasons for this as discussed below: 1. Section 602(b) of the CRBPA provides that the "Operating Criteria" were proposed and are to be modified in order to achieve the purposes specified in subsection 602(a) of that &:to Those purposes ~ "to comply with and c:ury om the: pJOvi9ions of d-.c ColOl'ado River Compact. the Upper Colorado River Bm Compact. and the Mexican Water Trdaty". ]n addition. Article lI(S) of the "Operaliog Criteria" provides thar the "Operating CriteriaH shall nol prejudice the position of either the upper or lower- basin interests with I-espect to required aliveries at Lee Ferry pursuant to the Colorado River Compact". 'Therefore. incspectiV'e of the minimum release objective specified in the "Operating Criteria." the amount of watel' released fio1n Lake Phwell is ultimately controlled by the Colorado Rive.- Compact. me Upper Colorado River Basin COiDpact, aDd die Mexican Water Treaty. As a remIt, an amount less than the minimum release objective may be released from lake Powell, if the States of the Upper Division arc in compliance wilb Article nl(d) of the Colorado River Compact. in order to avoid impairment or potenlial impairmcot of the beneficial consumptive use of water in any Upper Division State.. 2. The SWes of the Upper Division have not yet developed their fiIll entitlements to me waters ofilie Colorado River System. 3. '!be primary purpose ofScction 602 of the CRBPA is to a9SUre!boat d1e StaleS ofw Upper Division may develop their full entidementS to the water of die Colorado River System. and that consumptive uses in the Upper Division will not ~t1tfer because of the failure to store sufficient water to make deliveries pursuant 10 the Mexican Water TreatY and tbc ColoradO River Compact. There bas not yet been an impairment of consumptive ~ in any Upper Division Slate as a result of operation~ pursuant to the existing "Operating Criteria." 4. The "Opera1ing Criteria" in fact have been flexible C!IlOUP 16 alk.w for adjustmell8 fonowing the floods of me 1980's. They have been flexible enough to allow for the development of the interim operating criteria to aid California in reducing its use of Colorado R.iver water to 4.4 million aCle-feet per year. Lastly, d1ey have been flexible enough to allow for the testing of an experimental flow from Glen Canyon Dam in 1996 to see if conditions for c:ndangerccl fish could be imprOved and sediment conserved in the Orand Canyon. However. the important thing to remember is that all these were accomplished within the limitations provided by the Calotado River Compacr, the Upper Colorado River Compact and the Mexican Water Treaty. The "Operating Criteria- can not be used to modify these basic documents as some would !&\lggest. Therefore. while the ewcs and the State of Colorado do not waive their objection to any FIood~. WarerPtojKtl'!.ullliDaud F~. SanIR ad Lab l'rauakIa W.1ft' sspply ~ .COlISftVaIioa I'\UIIiII&