BOARD01272 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Agenda Item IS July 23-24, 2002 Board Meeting Page 6 oflO / are in excess of those allowed under the current hydrologic determination. The Board has been e 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 ~xceed 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 LiI:\1it Guarantee." 4. To date, the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP) has been able to serve as the Reasonable and Prudent Alternativejfor 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 ifthe S~rvice'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 unus~d 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 JullD 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 consuJl\ing 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 ~onsumptive 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 tile Navajo's have or are seeking Section 7 consultations that would use all remain,ing depletions allowable under the flow recommendations for the San Juan River,! thus stymying new water development in southwestern Colorado. The irrigation component for the Animas-La Plata Project (ALP) had to be eliminated because the Section 7 cpnsultation for the Project found only 57,100 AF was developable under the reasonable land prudent alternative (RPA) in order to protect endangered fish and their habitat in ~he San Juan River. However, since the ALP revised Biological Opinion and RPA were cOlupleted in 1991, a Biological Opinion allQwing approximately 121,000 AF for the balance iof the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project was permitted and up to 37,375 AF may be requ~sted for the Navajo-Gallup Project. All these depletions would be from the San Juan River and leave no allowable depletions for additional water development in the basin.' Outside of ALP, which also benefits New Mexico, Colorado has been allowed to proceed with less. than 10,000 AF of new development. Thus, Colorado needs to d~velop an equitable position with respect to significant new water development projects In neighboring states wltlch development relies on either the use of unused apportion~ent in another state or precludes further development in a portion of Colorado. Colorado's position should also consider how the _ basin states have dealt with overnse of compnct apportionment by California. .. Staff sees a clear need for New Mexico, Utah and Arizona to bring closure to a water rights settlement with the Navajo Nation. Such a se~lement should be accomplished within the "Law