Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br /> <br /><I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.., <br /> <br />the Powell releases. It would be good if we could account for one half of this water in the <br />April Review of the AOP as credits or potential credits to Lake Powell. Ifwe cannot take <br />the full credit by immediate reduced release from Powel because the Mexican obligation <br />is an annual obligation as well as a monthly obligation, then at least we should have an <br />algorithm in the AOP that allows a check of the delivery obligation status each month for <br />May, June, July, August and September with appropriate adjustments in Powell release <br />as an iterative process. Trib water that flows into main stem reservoirs may be a much <br />bigger problem in getting agreement with the Lower Basin than dealing just with water <br />that they cannot use that is flowing to Mexico. To date, the Gila still has not made it to <br />the Colorado River at Yuma. <br /> <br />Workl!.roup Observatious <br />The group reviewed the observations of both the Lower Basin and Upper Basin. <br />This was a fairly tense process and lead to a better understanding of what everyone saw <br />in the model runs. Arizona will attempt to reduce them to a few simple points for <br />presentation to the principles. I'm not certain how fairly this will be accomplished. I <br />have attached the observations that Don Ostler and I prepared which were objected to on <br />almost every point that we added largely on the basis that the model did not investigate <br />that matter. Jim Lochhead suggested that these same observations be made using a <br />different more severe period of record. <br />If we want some of these observations presented, we will have to decide if we prepare a <br />short minority report or come up with some other way to make sure the concepts are <br />brought up to the Lower Basin Principals. Don O. volunteered to work with Tom Carr <br />on an observation drafting committee, however, we expect the draft of observations will <br />again be reviewed by the full drought work group. <br /> <br />Conservation Activities <br />. Bill Swan wants to see Underwood's letter put into a Bill format and introduced <br />into Congress <br />. Need a good breakout ofCREDA's numbers for the UB fund, what is need now <br />. CAP has been talking to Senator Kyle <br />. Everyone is aware that dollars are very tight with the war and tsunami relief and <br />everyone full realizes that support of this could cost them in other areas of <br />Reclamations budget <br />. Underwood will bring a draft letter for signature consideration to the January 31, <br />meeting <br />. Anticipate a Congressional hearing on the drought in the next 3-months <br />. It appeared to me that the item of most importance to California from this meeting <br />was in winning support and lobbyingfrom the Basin states to support funding of <br />the lower basin regulatory efficiency/storage projects (ie.fundingfor storage at <br />"Drop 2, repair Senator Wash, operate the Yuma desalter etc..) There really isn't <br />much in here to benefit the Upper Basin. The Upper Basin needs to decide ifwe <br />are willing to support them on these projects before we reach agreement on any <br />of the things that are important to us. We may want to condition our support (and <br />non opposition) of Congressional funding based upon getting agreement on some <br />of our drought mitigation/recovery issues. The difficulty is that the budget <br />