BOARD00281

• Board Meeting Date: 9/21/1998
• Description: Colorado River Basin Issues - Upper Colorado River Commissioner's Report - Increasing Colorado's Stored Water
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

GlENWOOD SPR:INGS OF'FICF;
J>\IIES 5, LOCtl><EAO
P,O, BClX357 ,
~715GRAND"'VENUE ~
00 SPRtNGS. eo &1~57
MOan.e:(lil70)S,a.3e10 ;
FAX (910) $4~921 .
EMAlL:jlcdVlNdOtlhrs.CQITI

, ''--'" .................,-........- ................, "..,,' IU A;;;~7/~...."

BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & STRICKLAND, P.C.

AlTORNEYSATLAW
TWENTY-sECOND Fl.OOR
410 SEVENTEENTH SlREET
DENvEIt COLORAOO ao2D2...3t
(303) SJ4.6005
FAA (303) 62!-1956

ZOe

WASHINGTON Or=FICE
801 P!NNSnVAHlA A'v'ENUi:, N.W.
SUITE 000
wASHII'iGTOH. D.C. ZOOO4
('202)"301-B:377
FIJt. (~02) ~-7884

MEMORANDUM

TO:

! Members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board
~

FROM:

James S. LoChhead~
September 14, 19'----.)

DATE:

RE:

Status of Colorado River/Califomia Issues

.

As I advised you previously, the Metropolitan Water District of South em California (MWD) and
the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCW A) have announced an agreement in principle to
move conser{.ed water from the Imperial Valley through the Colorado River Aqueduct to San
Diego. This ~as one of the "lynchpin issues" upon which the California 4.4 Plan was contingent.
Under the agfeement, SDCWA will be able to move up to 200,000 acre feet of water per year
through the qolorado River Aqueduct. The Agreement will have an initial teon of 30 years.

i
The agreemeht is contingent on several conditions. First, it contemplated thatCalifornia voters
pass a statewide $1.7 billion water bond issue, of which $235 million will be used to "facilitate"
the MWD/SDCW A agreement. This measure did not get through the California legislature.
However, th~ legislature separately appropriated the necessary money. This was sold as a
statewide Obligation on the argument that the state as a whole would benefit from the MWD
achieving gr~ter certainty for its diversions from the Colorado River, in not having to be cut
back when California is required to reduce its use of water to 4.4 maf/yr.

Second, the q!J3Iltification of the agricultural priorities between IID and Coachella and settlement
of San Luis Riey Tribal claims - one of the other Iynchpin issues -must be resolved. The
Department of the Interior and these agencies are in intensive negotiations to reach agreement.

Finally, and most imponant for Colorado, the deal is contingent on the following (this is a quote
from a summary of the agreement prepared by MWD):

The promulgation and application by the Secretary of the Interior (the "Secretary") of
surplu!; criteria, including river re-operations, that are sufficient, together with those other
water supplies that are under the control ofMWD, to assure that the Colorado River
Aqueduct ("CRA") is full at least through 2015; and

.