Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..t. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Shortae:e Criteria <br />The Lower Basin, as I understand the proposal, suggested the following for <br />consideration: <br /> <br />When Lake Powell reaches a certain trigger elevation, releases would be reduced to 7.48 <br />MAF or less potentially until Lake Mead reaches (or gets very near) elevation 1050 or <br />Lake Powell drops below minimum power pool (use exact elevation with no reference to <br />power). If Mead reaches 1050, releases from Powell would be increased in efforts to stay <br />above 1050, even ifthat met going above 8.23 MAF (1 would suggest that if we go above <br />8.23 MAF the VB should be paid back). Once reservoir levels begin to rise, there would <br />be an "equalization trigger" (at some level less than the current 602(a) storage level) that <br />would remain in play until the LB is paid back. There was discussion of certain release <br />rates as high as 9.5 MAF in lieu of the equalization guideline (I would suggest that we <br />avoid that criteria for sure). <br /> <br />It was interesting to note that this was similar to a concept that the VB had discussed but <br />abandon in favor of trying to resolve the Mexican treaty issue. Don Ostler and I <br />volunteered along with 7 or 8 from the LB to be part of an advisory team to Reclamation <br />to further develop and discuss this concept to present to principles at the end of January. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Jayne Harkins said that they could accommodate a one time adjustment in Powell <br />releases for the remainder of the water year without going through NEP A or changing <br />the LROC. However a longer term agreement for conjunctive use probably will require <br />going through NEP A (not something we can do for April). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Januarv 31 - February 1 Potential Ae:enda Topics <br />. System Status Report <br />. Letters to USBR from UCRC, MWD and Arizona concerning accounting of <br />recent high tributary inflows. (we have MWD's need Arizona's) <br />. Workgroup Discussions <br />o Antecedent conditions to modeling <br />o Observations from Model runs <br />o Diversions from Lake Mead (Lower Basin Uses) <br />o Mexican Treaty Discussions <br />. Consideration of Dennis Underwood draft letter concerning funding <br />. Consideration of potential Federal FY 06-07 funding requests <br />. Consideration ofletter concerning the Mexican Treaty Shortage Process <br />. April AOP Review <br />. February Meeting Dates <br />Note: The Lower Basin interest in discussing our letter which I signed and sent to Bob <br />Johnson regarding high tributary flows in the LB is to tell us that they are taken back that <br />we suddenly went outside the process with the letter (that is we did not consult with <br />them). I think we need to be prepared to make it clear that our letter was sent urgently to <br />formally make sure that the Bureau was accounting for and applying these flows to meet <br />the Mexican treaty obligation. We were not aware of whether the Bureau was doing this <br />