Laserfiche WebLink
January 23 -24, 2007 Board Meeting <br />Agenda Item 17 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />groundwater and ocean water, importations, use of storage in existing flood control i <br />reservoirs such as Painted Rock, and improved methods of conjunctive use including <br />water banking. <br />Weather Modification is being examined in a completely separate effort because <br />it involves both the Upper and Lower Basins. The concept is that the Lower Basin States, <br />under certain conditions, can help fund weather modification efforts in each of the Upper <br />Basin States. Last year, on an interim basis only, Lower Basin funding was provided <br />directly to a weather modification permit holder or its sponsor in accord with terms of the <br />existing permits. Existing permits in Colorado are being or have been amended to <br />exclude direct contributions to permit holders or sponsors from out of state sources. The <br />states are developing a long -term weather modification program whereby future funding <br />of weather modification from out of state sources is still possible, except, in Colorado, <br />such out of state funding must now come to the CWCB for distribution to permit holders <br />as deemed appropriate. The required legislation putting this process in place for <br />Colorado was passed by the General Assembly in 2006. The states will implement the <br />long -term program via contracts that will provide certain protections against adverse <br />impacts to an Upper Basin state while assuring, to the extent possible, a reasonable <br />likelihood that such effort will provide benefit to the Colorado River system on whole <br />Current Issues <br />1. In trying to finalize the 7 -State agreement for signature, the states are discussing . <br />a) terms under which the agreement could be modified, b) development of new <br />water supplies and system improvements, and c) when, how and by what amount <br />Mexico will be shorted in a manner that is consistent with the Mexican Treaty. <br />a. The Agreement, as it stands, becomes effective upon the signature of any two <br />states. The Agreement will remain in place as long as the "Record of <br />Decision" in the current EIS process and the "Interim Surplus Guidelines <br />(ISG) remain in place but shall terminate on December 31, 2025. In asking <br />for termination on a date certain, the Upper Basin wanted to be absolutely <br />certain that the Agreement can only be extended or modified by the <br />unanimous consent of all the parties. Compared to the Lower Basin, the <br />Upper Basin is getting significantly less benefit and if for any reason things do <br />not work as anticipated the states want to make sure the agreement and <br />operations there under cease in full. <br />b. The states seek to define as much as possible what actions may be undertaken <br />for the benefit of the state paying for the improvement and what <br />improvements or augmentation actions should be considered as creating <br />"system water" that is available to and benefiting all states. For example, <br />weather modification would be an action that should benefit all the states, <br />because the location and amount of the benefit is next to impossible to <br />quantify. <br />c. With respect to the Mexican Treaty, the issue is one wherein the Lower Basin, <br />particularly Arizona, wants to lock in a fixed shortage percentage (16,67 %) • <br />for Mexico whenever the Lower Basin is taking a shortage. The Lower Basin <br />