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

.

.

.

Colorado W~ter Conservation Board
Colorado River Issues
September 14, 1998
Page 2

The establishment and completion of a process, acceptable to the Secretary and the State
ofCalifomia, in which the Colorado River Board and the California public agencies that
hold ~ontracts with the Secretary for delivery of Colorado River water would participate,
whic~ quantifies or otherwise resolves Colorado River agricultura1 water entitlements in a
mamier that will assure that water conserved from reasonable and beneficial uses can be
transferred from an agricultura1 to an urban agency.

Obviously, this language raises many issues and concerns. All along, an important component of
the negotiati!ms to reduce California's water use to 4.4 maUyr has been the concept of interim
surplus criteria that would allow California time to implement the 4.4 Plan. However, also part
of that concePt was the stipulation that undue risk not be put on the other stateS. Therefore, any
"guarantee" ~y the other states and the Department of the Interior that the Colorado River
Aqueduct beikept full through 2015 should be unacceptable.

On Septemb~r 21, I will be in San Diego for a meeting of the seven state representatives. I
anticipate rep,resentatives from the Department of the Interior and the six major Southern
California water agencies will be there also. I expect that the California agencies will report on
the status oflhe discussions in California, and we will begin to discuss how to proceed with
development; of interim surplus criteria for Colorado River operations. I have been asked by the
representativ~ of the states of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming to make the
following points on behalf of all six states:

1. The Mwo/SDCW A agreement, and the funding provided by the state of California, are
positive step~ in California's effort~implement the proposed 4.4 Plan. We understand the
CoachellalIIDlInterior discussions are ongoing, and recognize that agreement on quantification
of the third priority is another critical element necessary to implement the Plan.

2. The ~WD/SDCW A agreement references that it is specifically conditioned on, "The
promulgatio~ and application by the Secretary of the Interior (the "Secretary") of surplus 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 ("eRA") is full at least
through 201SL"

,
Since we weri: not involved in those negotiations, the states have a number of questions as to
exactly what is contemplated by this condition, lllld the condition raises a number of issues about
which we areiconcemed.

i
However, we:are prepared to immediately engage in discussions with California, its water
agencies and the Department of the Interior to fashion interim criteria over a defined time period