BOARD00519

• Board Meeting Date: 5/19/2003
• Description: WSP Section - Navajo Gallup Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

During deliberations at the Upper Colorado River Commission meeting on June 4, 2002 it
was brought to peoples attention that subsection 303(d) of Public Law 90-537, the Colorado
River Basin Project Act, that the Colorado River'Basin States and Congress had addressed
this issue once before in authorizing the Four Corners Power Plant. The relevant language
reads as follows:

.

. -

Agenda Item 26 - Gallup-Navajo Project
May 19-20, 2003 Board Meeting
Page 8 of 10

(d) If any thermal generating plant referred to in subsection (b) of this section is located in
Arizona, and if it is served by water diverted from the drainage area of the Colorado River
system above Lee Ferry, other provisions of existing law to the contrary notwithstanding, such
consumptive use of water shall be part of the fifty thousand acre-feet per annum apportioned
to the State of Arizona by Article III(a) of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact (63 Stat.
31).

Since this was accomplished with the consent' of all seven basin states and the project
subsequently authorized by Congress, we have crafted the proposed resolution along the
same lines. If this resolution is adopted by all seven states and Congress subsequently
authorizes Navajo-Gallup this would remove this controversy and allow the project to
move forward. Similarly, other projects such as the Lake George Pipeline in Utah could
move forward following a similar process in th~ future. The key is the consent of all seven
basin states.

2. Can Arizona divert water from the San Juan River Basin in New Mexico for delivery and use in .
either the Upper or Lower Basin portions of Arizona? If so, are the depletions from such
diversions charged to Arizona's Upper or Lower Basin apportionment?

The analysis provided in Item 1 above would cover any Arizona attempt to take its Upper Basin
apportionment for use in a portion of Arizona within the Lower Basin. If Arizona attempts to
take its Lower Basin apportionment for use in th~ Lower Basin, but through a diversion in the
Upper Basin, different questions arise. The latter approach received consideration, as some
believed the issue was resolvable via accountingisolutions. However, this approach must take
into consideration Article XIV of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact that would make
such use in Arizona a lesser priority. Such use in Arizona would also need to take into
consideration the San Juan River flow recommendations for endangered fish recovery and what
would happen to deliveries to Arizona if the flow recommendations were not being met. Also,
given that the one million acre-feet allowed for trIbutary uses under the Colorado River Compact
has been fully utilized, such use may be curtailed: in the event of shortages under the compact or
to the Mexican Treaty delivery.

Finally, in response to general marketing proposals, Colorado has taken the position that such
diversions might be possible if proper accounting methods can be determined. How such
deliveries, if made, would affect compliance with; (1) 602(a) of the Basin Project Act, (2) the
Operating Criteria for the Colorado River Reservoirs, and (3) the decree in Arizona v. California
must be considered.

3. Can either Arizona or New Mexico permit wateti diversions that would cause the state to exceed .
its compact apportionment under Reclamation's qurrent hydrologic determination?

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