Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />Agenda Item 20f <br />November 22-23 Board Meeting <br />Page 3 of5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />first IS-years ofthe 4.4 plan ifthe criteria are adopted. California can simply rely on <br />drawdowns to Lakes Mead and to Lake Powell through equalization to meet their needs. <br />However, keep in mind that 602(a) storage will prevent equalization when dry conditions <br />get to severe. However, if Lake Mead is drawn way down equalization will impact how <br />fast both reservoirs are able to recover. <br /> <br />The 6-State elevation 1125 trigger was predicated on the risk of reaching minimum <br />power pool (1083 ft) within 5-years after 2015 assuming a five-year average inflow of <br />67% of normal and California cutting back to 4.4 maf. Given the California Districts <br />interim criteria, at elevation 1098 there is only about 1.25 maf of storage above minimum <br />power pool. Therefore, you would now need about 85 % of average runoff to keep Lake <br />Mead from dropping below minimum power pool. This places an unfair amount of risk <br />on the other six states water and power users. Therefore, the 6-states need to strongly <br />affirm their commitment to the criteria we proposed in December 1998. Attached is a <br />graph from a CRSSEZ model run that helps illustrate this condition under dry year <br />conditions. <br /> <br />Staff Conclusions <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Califomia should be commended for getting this far and strongly encouraged to continue <br />its efforts. However, the states should continue to press the matter and reinforce the <br />principles outlined in its October 20, 1998 and December 4, 1998 letters. Colorado <br />should continue to raise concerns that: <br />. The plan needs to deal directly with present perfected rights, including Indian <br />water rights and priorities 1,2, and 3b. <br />· A quantification strategy with conservation measures to get down to 4.8 maf is an <br />excellent step in the right direction. However, work on Phase II of the 4.4 plan <br />needs to begin immediately and a reasonable time line for implementation of the <br />full 4.4 plan identified. . <br />. The 4.8 plan is heavily reliant on a surplus strategy. That strategy proposed <br />places much to heavy a risk on the other six basin states. Colorado should not <br />accept the surplus criteria proposed by California in the settlement principles. <br />Furthermore, any changes are for an interim period of no more than IS-years and <br />must include shortage criteria also. It is not in the interest of Colorado or the <br />other six states to pursue changes in the Long Range Operating Criteria via the 5- <br />year review process proposed by Califomia absent firm and enforceable <br />commitments to reach 4.4 maf. <br />. Califomia should continue to press forward with the agreements and approvals <br />needed to implement the 4.8 plan and identify the time frame and milestones <br />against which progress to implement that plan can be measured. <br /> <br />Attachmentsa <br />. <br />