BOARD00519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ." l- Agenda Item 26 - Gallup-Navajo Project May 19-20, 2003 Board Meeting Page 9 of 10 Articles III(b)(3) and IV of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact expressly state that Upper Basin states may use more than their apportionments ifthat use does not deprive another state of the use of its apportionment. Article III(b )(3)(iii), however, disclaims any intent to "countenance average uses by any signatory state in excess of its apportionment." The answer to this question thus turns on the amount of Upper Basin supply the states wish to assume for purposes of calculating apportionment, and how we wish to define the "average use" provision. It is worth noting that Reclamation's current hydrologic determination is based in part on an interpretation of the Mexican Treaty delivery obligation with which Colorado has never agreed. In any case, it appears that Reclamation would need to revise and increase its current hydrologic determination in order to issue contracts that would result in consumptive uses that are in excess of those allowed under the current hydrologic determination. The Board has been supplied with two previous resolutions of the Upper Colorado River Commission dealing with Reclamation's hydrologic determination. One alternative to assure that a state does not exceed its apportionment under Reclamation's hydrologic determination is to implement a "Depletion Limit Guarantee." Under a "Depletion Limit Guarantee" the Navajo Nation would agree to operate their projects (Navajo-Gallup, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Hogback-Cuedi and Fruitland) collectively in a manner that would not cause New Mexico to exceed its apportionment under the current hydrologic determination. In addition, other users could not exceed their allocations under a baseline that would be established as part of the "Depletion Limit Guarantee." 4. To date, the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP) has been able to serve as the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative for all projects needing Section 7 consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. However, model studies done in conjunction with the SJRIP Hydrology Committee indicate that there is very little water remaining for new development in the San Juan River Basin if the Service's current flow recommendations are to be satisfied. What should Colorado's position be with respect to significant new water development projects in neighboring states that rely on unused apportionment in another state? Should our general position be any different than that which six basin states have imposed on California? The "Flow Recommendations for the San Juan River" report dated May 1999 sets forth the depletion baseline in Table 7.3 under which the flow recommendations were developed. Table 7.3 shows that New Mexico is consuming an average of 458,968 AF\YR (excludes CRSP evaporation and ALP) but Colorado on average only consumes 185,039 AF\YR under the same conditions. Water users in southwestern Colorado are very concerned that, although New Mexico is entitled to the consumptive use of 11.25% of Colorado River flows under the Upper Colorado River Compact, all that use is from the San Juan River Basin. Furthermore, New Mexico and the Navajo's have or are seeking Section 7 consultations that would use all remaining depletions allowable under the flow recommendations for the San Juan River, thus stymieing new water development in southwestern Colorado. The irrigation component for the Animas-La Plata Project (ALP) had to be eliminated because the Section 7 consultation for the Project found only 57,100 AF was developable under the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) in order to protect endangered fish and their habitat in the San Juan River. However, since the ALP revised Biological Opinion and RPA were completed in 1991, a Biological Opinion allowing Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finandng. Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning