My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Item 17: Water Supply Protection - Colorado River 7-State Agreement Approval
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
Agenda Item 17: Water Supply Protection - Colorado River 7-State Agreement Approval
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2010 11:34:26 AM
Creation date
7/21/2010 2:32:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Seven Basin States Agreement
State
CO
AZ
CA
NM
NV
UT
WY
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/11/2007
Author
Rod Kuharich, Randy Seaholm, Ted Kowalski, CWCB
Title
Agenda Item 17: Water Supply Protection - Colorado River 7-State Agreement Approval
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
" , t <br />January 23 -24, 2007 Board Meeting <br />Agenda Item 17 <br />Page 6 of 6 <br />would move forward with plans to develop water on the Virgin and Muddy <br />River, which would precipitate the lawsuit over tributary uses under the <br />Compact. <br />• The revised plan of operation for lakes Powell and Mead under low reservoir <br />conditions will lessen the possibility of curtailments in the Upper Basin, but it <br />will not remove the risk totally. The terms of the Agreement, if selected by <br />USBR as the preferred alternative, will result in the protection of power <br />operations at Glen Canyon as long as possible under extreme drought <br />circumstances. While the added protection over present day operations is not <br />considerably greater because the risk of curtailments and dropping below <br />minimum power plant operating levels is already very low with or without the <br />deal, there is still some small advantage for the Upper Basin if the States <br />proposal is selected. The States proposal, if adopted, will allow annual <br />releases from Lake Powell to go as low as 7.48 MAF under certain <br />circumstances, potentially for extended periods if appropriate. Consistent <br />with the law, the Upper Basin gets further acknowledgment that releases from <br />Lake Powell can be less than 8.23 MAF which the current Long Range <br />Operating Criteria presently call for. <br />• The conjunctive use of Powell and Mead will tend, under surplus and average <br />conditions, to send more water to Mead and forestall the necessity for and <br />severity of shortage in the L.B. <br />• The Lower Basin would achieve a framework for implementing system <br />efficiencies and developing augmentation supplies, rather than focus solely on <br />unused apportionment in the Upper Basin. <br />• Finally, the Agreement specifically states that the Agreement shall expire on <br />December 31, 2025. Therefore, all the states get to avoid litigation through at <br />least that date. This allows everyone to proceed with development, but <br />certainly with a much higher degree of awareness. <br />Recommendation <br />Authorize Colorado's representatives to sign the 7 -State agreement, a copy of <br />which is attached hereto. The appropriate time for signing will likely be in February <br />when the draft DEIS is released. However, comments on the DEIS will not be due until <br />approximately May 1 so there is a possibility that the execution of this document would <br />be delayed until that time. In the latter case, we would anticipate that the signed <br />agreement would be submitted together with an agreed upon set of comments from the 7- <br />Basin States on the DEIS. <br />One caution, there still may be a few areas for negotiation before the states <br />present to Interior their "preferred alternative" and comments to the DEIS. It is still <br />possible that we might have a seven states agreement, but disagreement as to what form <br />the preferred alternative for river management might take. <br />Attachments • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.