BOARD00445

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

May 6, 2003
.J!IT. Ronald Gastelum
~age 2 of2

increased risk of shortage caused by MWD's water use above California's normal apportionment of 4.4 million
acre-feet.

Because MWD is the primary beneficiary of the QSA and the resulting surpluses under the ISG, it would seem
that the California Legislature will require unequivocal positive support from MWD before it approves large
appropriations and changes to law. Without the appropriations and change in law, there will be no 2003 QSA
and the reinstatement of surpluses under the ISG will be delayed siguificantly.

Arizona continues to support the efforts of the State of California to implement a plan for the management of its
Colorado River water rights. We believe the 2003 QSA and its related agreements are the quickest and surest
way to achieve the goal of a reliable and adequate water supply to MWD and its customers. To that end, the
Arizona legislature has agreed to renew our ISG Agreement with California so that interim surpluses can be
reinstated for MWD's benefit, but only ifthere is a QSA.

However, I find that we must pause our considerations and conunents on the proposed 2003 QSA while we
consider your statements. I ask that you clarify your position. What are the intentions ofMWD with regards to
executing the QSA? If, as stated in your testimony, MWD may not benefit from the 2003 QSA and ISG, what
actions will MWD take as the junior right holder to meet the limitations of the California normal apportionment
. of 4.4 million acre-feet?

My colleagues from the other five Colorado River basin States will be meeting soon to complete our review of
the California Plan and 2003 QSA. Your response to my questions will substantively affect the results of our
review.

Sincerely;

Herb Guenther
Director

Cc: Mr. Thomas Hannigan, Director
California Department of Water Resources,

.