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 Water Conservation Board
Colorado Riyer Issues
September 14, 1998
Page 3 I

;
that will help California implement the 4.4 Plan. As soon as a redrafted 4.4 Plan is made
available to Us, we will be in a position to make a proposal to California and the DepaI1Inent of
the Interior. ,We suggest we begin this process in November, or earlier if requested by California.

3. In order to begin that process, we think it would be of benefit to review some basic
principles artd issues that should form the basis for our discussions.

4. We start with the remarks the Secretary made to the Colorado River Water User's
Association last December. He stated:
i

.

He will not adopt su:rplus criteria until firm cornminnents are in place in
California to implement the lust phase of the 4.4 Plan. inclUding the execution of
binding contracts, agreed-on arrangements for transportation, and resolution of the
quantification and beneficial use issues.
Any interim criteria will be effective only for a specified period of years, after
which they will expire on their own terms.
Any interim criteria will be reviewed before they are renewed, to assure California
continues to make progress to implement the Plan.

.

.

5. In adcUtion, there are principles and issues we believe are important as a starting point:

.

No water user in the Basin, including MWD. can be asSured of a firm supply for
any specified period. We have consistently suited that we will agree to discuss
interim criteria, that does not put unreasonable risk on the other states. Any
guarantee of a supply to MWD will create unreasonable risk. Moreover, the
i Department of the Interior does not have the aJlthority to adopt any criteria that
: would assure MWD of a full supply.
; Any criteria should include triggers which will implement different surplus or
: shortage criteria at specified target elevations of storage in the Colorado River
; system. The criteria should also include benchmarks, reporting mechanisms, and
, reviews, by which California will demonstrate measurable and defined progress in
i meeting the goals of the Plan. If sufficient progress is not being made, the interim
: criteria should automatically and by its own terms terminate, and we will revert
back to existing criteria.
We need to discuss the time-frame of the interim criteria suggested in the
: MWD/SDCW A agreement.
, We should discuss the fact that Phase I of the Plan does not achieve reduction in
. use to 4.4 mat: We need to discuss how the next phase will be developed and

.

.

.