Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Johnson <br />June 29,1999 <br />Page 2 of3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />be considered. The primary reason for Upper Basin States to support the adoption of new <br />surplus criteria at this time is to encourage and support California in its efforts to reduce <br />its annual consumptive uses to the 4.4 million acre-feet allowed under the "Law of the <br />River." Therefore, Colorado is opposed to any such changes in the 1970 Long-Range <br />Operating Criteria until California has reduced its use of Colorado River water to the 4.4 <br />million acre-feet allocated to it. Furthermore, any interim criteria must be limited to a <br />period of no more than 15 years, reviewable on an annual basis, and tied to the progress <br />made by California in reducing its use of Colorado River water to the allotted 4.4 million <br />acre-feet. <br /> <br />This approach would be consistent with Reclarnation's commitment to assure that <br />California successfully reduces its overuse. Absent a verifiable plan from California and <br />good faith efforts to fully implement that plan, we see no benefit that would warrant our <br />support for new surplus criteria. Without implementation of a 4.4 plan in California, the <br />70R1 strategy, identified in your public meeting materials and used to identify surplus <br />conditions during the development of the annual operating plan for the past 13 years, <br />should remain in place. <br /> <br />On October 20, 1998 the states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and <br />Wyoming provided California with proposed principles for negotiation of interim surplus <br />criteria for Colorado River reservoir operations (copy attached). On Decernber 4, 1998 <br />these principles were translated into a joint paper from those five states and the state of . <br />Utah concerning interim reservoir operating criteria for Lake Mead (copy attached). <br />Colorado continues to support the principles and proposal 'embodied in these letters and <br />urges that any new surplus criteria developed by Reclarnation should confomi to the <br />principles endorsed by the six states. <br /> <br />As you review the December 4, 1998 letter, please give special attention to policy <br />considerations 6 and 9. Policy consideration 6 states that the irnpacts of any interim <br />criteria on the Upper Basin must be minimized by measures such as the establishment of <br />interim 602(a) storage criteria or other mutually acceptable measures. Colorado's wants <br />this concern to be addressed by defining 602(a) storage such that any risk of shortage <br />during the time in which the interim criteria are in effect remains with Califomia and is <br />not transferred to the other states. The states' proposed interim criteria, generally <br />referred to as the "multi-level approach" in your public hearings, would not allow surplus <br />declarations from Lake Mead unless the live storage therein was greater than 13.569 <br />million acre-feet. Therefore, the 602(a) storage floor in Lake Powell should as a <br />minimum be defmed at this same level and automatically increased as development or <br />other relevant factors warrant as provided for in Article III (3) of the 1970 Long-Range <br />Operating Criteria. <br /> <br />Policy consideration number 9 of the December 4,1998 letter seeks to limit off- <br />strearn banking of any surplus to only those years when a reservoir spill is considered <br />imminent. This is important to Colorado as it relates to the equalization of storage <br />between Lakes Powell and Mead. Storage in Lake Powell must be protected to assure <br />that the Upper Basin has the shortage protection it requires. Lastly, the relationship . <br /> <br />" <br />