Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Agenda Item 26 - Gallup-Navajo Project <br />May 19-20, 2003 Board Meeting <br />Page 10 of 10 <br /> <br />approximately 121,000 AF for the balance of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project was . <br />permitted and np to 37,375 AF may be reqnested .for the Navajo-Gallnp Project. All these <br />depletions wonld be from the San Jnan River and leave no allowable depletions for <br />additional water development in the basin. Outside of ALP, which also benefits New <br />Mexico, Colorado has been allowed to proceed with less than. 10,000 AF of new <br />development. Thus, Colorado needs to develop an equitable position with respect to <br />significant new water development projects in neighboring states which development relies <br />. on either the use of unused apportionment in another state or precludes further <br />development in a portion of Colorado. Colorado's position should also consider how the <br />basin states have dealt with overuse of compact apportionment by California. <br />Staff sees a clear need for New Mexico, Utah and'Arizona to bring closure to a water rights <br />settlement with the Navajo Nation. Such a settlement should be accomplished within the "Law <br />of the River." Such a settlement with the Navajo Nation should not be treated differently than <br />those with other Tribes. New Mexico should not be treated any different than California when <br />asked to live within their compact apportionment. <br /> <br />Observations <br /> <br />As staff reviews the Navajo-Gallup Project, there is a clear need for additional water supplies on <br />Project lands. The Navajo-Gallup Project is certainly one of the more feasible options, and the <br />Navajos and New Mexico clearly want to resolve the issues and proceed with the Project. We need <br />to continue to talk with the Navajo Nation and New Mexico about solutions that would allow a <br />Navajo water rights settlement to occur and provide additional water to areas clearly in need of it. . <br /> <br />Staff circulated the September 14, 2001, memorandum to the Upper Colorado River Commission <br />and other Upper Basin States for review and comment. We have received verbal comments from <br />New Mexico, which are reflected in this memorandum, and a written response from Utah that was <br />previously provided to the Board. These responses were not unexpected given the water needs in <br />certain portions of these states. However, the responses' do indicate a clear need to work through the <br />Upper Colorado River Commission to arrive at a position that can equitably protect and benefit each <br />state. <br />At the November Board meeting, staff was directed to seek comments on the proposed policy from <br />the Colorado River Policy Advisory Council and interested parties in the San Juan Basin. <br />Additionally, the Upper Colorado River Commission discussed this matter at their December 2001 <br />meeting in Las Vegas and the Colorado River Basin States discussed the matter on January 16, 2002. <br />We were advised in January by interests in the San Juan Basin and most of the Colorado River <br />Policy Advisory Council to defer adoption of a policy at that time and coordinate and orally <br />communicate our concerns through our Upper Colorado River Commissioner and the Governor's <br />representatives on Colorado River matters. We have now accomplished that coordination and <br />would ask the Board to support the proposed resolntion. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Staff recommends that the Board support Colorado's representatives in adoption of the . <br />attached resolution. <br /> <br />c:\mydocs\agendaGallupN av72002.bdm.doc <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br /> <br />. , <br /> <br />