Laserfiche WebLink
<br />JUL-Ul-j~~~ It1U u,.q~ HII urrr.~ \"ULU~HUU ~jV~~ \"UII <br /> <br />rt1^.I'iu. OUIO.JlvfUO <br /> <br />r. Uq/Uq <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Johnson <br />June 30. 1999 <br />Page Three <br /> <br />(3) Alternatives to be Analyzed. <br /> <br />The seven Basin States, water and power concerns, Reclamation and other interested <br />parties have been discussing alternative strategies since the late 1980's. The Upper Division <br />States have indicated a willingness to discuss short-term liberal strategies to facilitate a <br />California plan with an expectation that ultimate long-term strategies would remain conservative <br />and be centered around an inflow hydrology equal to the 70th percentile of exceedance <br />("70R"). In October 1998, the six States conveyed to California and to Reclamation a set of <br />principles under which we were willing to proceed with any discussion of any different <br />operating guidance. Without repeating those principles. we incorporate them here by reference <br />and reiterate the critical importance of those principles. On December 4, 1998 a six Basin <br />States proposal was forwarded to California and the Department of the Interior suggesting a <br />multi-tier approach for interim criteria through 2015. To date. we halle received no response <br />to that proposal either from California or the Department of the Interior. When and if California <br />agrees to a 4.4 plan. our December 4, 1998 offer can be on the table. If California does not <br />agree to a 4.4 plan. the appropriate guidance would be to continue with the historic strategy <br />outlined in the January 1986 report referenced above. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />;Z':"~ -~ <br />wa~ok . <br />Exe~;~ g~~ctor <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />