Board Meeting 09/13/1984

• Board Meeting Date: 9/13/1984
• Description: Agenda, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

motion'made by Mr. Lochhead and seconded by Mr. Vandemoer,
directed the Attorney General to withdraw from the,case.
Motion adopted unanimously.

.

Aqenda Item 14 - Staff Reports on Pendinq Matters
a. Colorado River Reservoir Operations - APpendix:H

In his report on this item, Mr. McDonald reviewed the Lower
Colorado River Floodway legislation. congressmen from Nevada
and Arizona have introduced legislation which would reestablish
a Lower Colorado River Floodway of 40,000 cubic feet'per second
(cfs) inside the levee system. This floodway has been
encroached upon by development in recent years; and, as a
result of.%he 1983 floods, considerable damage occurred within
the levees.' Thus, the seven Basin States have joined' together,
in supporting legislation to reestablish a 40,000 cfs floodway
from Hoover Dam to Mexico. This legislation is being worked on
by,the Lower Basin ' interests most concerned and who have
suggested some revised language., The staff has been asked to
comment on this revised language along'with the other Upper
Basin states. Thus, -this issue will be before the Board again
at the November meeting ~or a.forma~ response to the proposed
legislation. ' .

There'is also a bill, S 29l8, sponsored by Senator'
Deconcini of Arizona, which- would study this flooding, problem .
without forcing any 'concrete actions; ,This bill is
unacceptable to the Upper.Basin states and probably the Lower
states as well.

, ,

, I

The memo provided' to Board'members1concerning specific
Colorado River reservoir operations':is sufficient, update on
this issue. The heart of the 'operations ,issue"of late is to
prevent vacant space on January 1, 1985 and 1986 in excess of
the 5.35 million acre-feet (maf) required by.the Hoover Flood
Control Regulations absent a showing, of, unique,'conditions. ,As
indicated in the attached seven-state position, the states
found that the runoff conditions in 1984 and the numerous
repairs needed created a unique condition in which it may be,
prudent to have in excess of 5.35 maf vacant space, but such
vacant space should not exceed 6. o "maf . The seven..,states'
statement also strongly supports reestablishing the 40,OOO'cfs
floodway.

At the September 10, 1984, meeting, Reclamation indicated'
that they would not have a January'l, 1985, vacant space target
in excess of 6.0 maf as recommended ,by the states; It is
unclear, however, whether this response by Reclamation
indicates' concurrence with the seven-state position or merely
reflects a set of runoff conditions which will not allow any
more available space without creating further flooding
problems. Reclamation is, however. giving serious .

-8-