BOARD00445

• Board Meeting Date: 5/19/2003
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Issues - California QSA
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

,

l

.

.

.

Agenda Item 25 - California QSA
May 19-20, 2003 Board Meeting
Page 5 of5

6. The Proposed Secretarial Implementation Agreement still appears to contain provisions that
potentially limit the authority ofthe Secretary under the Boulder Canyon Project Act and
section 5 water delivery contracts thereunder, and the Secretary's ability to meet her
obligations under the Decree in Arizona v, California,

7. Paragraph 4.11 of the 2003 QSA refers to the forbearance agreements between MWD and the
state of Arizona and Southern Nevada Water Authority, which expired on December 31,
2002, In order for the California Plan to be effective, these agreements must be put back into
place, In Arizona's case this entails ratification by the Arizona legislature.

Colorado River Board of California Update:
On April 9, 2003 the Board, by formal motion, expressed support for the implementation the March
2003 QSA, including actions by the State legislature to appropriate $200 million from Proposition
50 bond proceeds, or other funds, to support implementation of the QSA and to pass legislation
reinstating provisions of SB482 which will facilitate execution of the QSA by addressing Fully
Protected Species and Salton Sea issues. We would also note that there are at least 2 Assembly Bills
and 6 Senate Bills in California that address various issues associated with implementation of the
QSA.

MWD Testimonv:
On April 29, 2003 Ron Gastehun, CEO for MWD, testified before the California Senate Agriculture
and Water Resources Committee in consideration of allocating funds from Proposition 50 to help
pay estimated costs of the proposed lID transfer of Colorado River water to San Diego. His
testimony, which is attached, indicates that MWD can manage its water resources whether or not the
QSA is executed and ISG reinstated, His testimony while indicating that MWD would stay engaged
in development of a QSA was less than supportive for the QSA. Subsequently, the MWD Board has
expressed displeasure with the March 2003 QSA and asked it's staff to investigate six specific
concerns, including using $200 million of Proposition 50 funds, their culpability for any part of the
Salton Sea improvement plan, and options other agencies have to renege on the contract

State Reactions:
On May 6, 2003 the Arizona Department of Water Resources requested that MWD clarify its
position on the QSA and asking what other actions MWD would take as the junior water right holder
to live within California's normal apportionment of 4,4 MAP. A copy of that letter is attached.
Also, the Southern Nevada Water Authority has public expressed displeasure with MWD's position,

Future Actions:
The Upper Basin is currently considering a joint response for consideration at a six -state meeting on
May 27, 2003. The goal is provide a six-state response to Interior in early to mid-June.

Attachments

Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream. and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning