BOARD01293

• Board Meeting Date: 5/24/1999
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Upper Colorado River Commissioner's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

APR-16-1999 15:30

r:e. DEPT WATER RES

6324172415 P. ffi/04

We Recommend that tIJe Procen be Delayed fiO DaYl
Although operating guidelines may need to be developed, the proposed process will be greatly
facilitated if the cummt negotiations within California regarding the de\7elopmcut of a plan to
reduce its annual water deID.alld to 4.4 millian acre-feet (at) are successful. We understand that
the California agencies are meeting, and that there is reason to believe that they may came to
agr=t on a ~4.4 Plan" as early as June. As you know, it is the demand for water in sollthem
CaIifumia that has caused water use to ~cccd the Lower Basin's basic apportionment of 7.S maf.
If California agrees to implement a timely lIlld systematic proyam to reduce ill; water use, the
remaining six states are prepared to discuss the adoption of interim criteria for surplus
declarations to meet California's current excess d"",,,,,i-J

e

Because the water contractors in California are tnaking progress toward ~rm on a K4.4
Plan", ADWR recomroends that the Bureau delay the initiation of any proposed public process
for 60 days. A delay of 60 days would not adversely affect the Secretary's ability to manage the
Colorado River. Asnuning that the proposed process would proceed with no delays. it would be
expected that at least 24 moDtbs would be needed to complete the process. This means that the
SCCI"llta1y would have to make decisions abOUt the Colorado River supply conditions without
guidelines for at least this period. of time. AIl agreement by California to xeduce its demand to
4.4 million acre-feet would result in interim surplus guidelines within amuch shorter period of
time. On the other hand, if no agreement is reached, there will not be an UIlI'elISlIJIable delay in
the process for developing SIlIplus criteria.

The Process Cannot Separate Surplus Criteria from SlIortBge Criteria
Another important reason fur the requ.iremem of consultation among the seven states in
~ 602 is the fllct that all sta1lls are not equally affected by the operating critc:ria. Arizona does not
want the process to be so rnshed that important considerations related to the impact of surplus
declsrations on the occum:nce of shoJ:tagc$ are ignored. For example, all of the Bureau' s a
operational studies show that SIlIplus criteria directly impact the probability and duration of .,
shortages on the Colorado River. Therefore. smplas criteria C8DIIOt be deteaniDed in isolation.
Although California needs sw:pius declarations to meet water demands in excess of their
apportiolll11CllUl, the lDwCl" priority users in Nevada and Arizona, Indian and non-Indian
contractors alike, will be the ones adversely affected. The proposed process must include the
evaluation of shortage criteria or risk an inadequate and incom:ct evaluation of surplus
guidelines, We think that there is time to consider this issue given current teSC'IVOir contents and
hydrologic conditions in the Colorado River system.

We RmIlJl1l1eJld the Use of Secretarial G1IideUnes Only to Establish The54l Criteria
The proposed notice suggests a variety of ways in which 1he new smplus and shortage oriteria
may be memorialized. We believe that the best method is fur 1he Sea eta. Y to adop11ll,;n"lin".
for use in preparing the AOP, Guidelines will provide the needed. tlexibility to sdapt to rapidly
changing situations. We do not believe that using rules or changes to the Long-Range Operating
Criteria are appropriate for establishing smplus, shortage or normal water supply criteria. Rules
will result in criteria which will not be conducive to adapting to r.hllT1gmg water supply and
demand conditions especially if the rules are too rigid. If rules arc too vague, they will be subject
to challenge and perhaps litigation wbich mltY delay crltical opetlllionaI decisions. Even a

z

e

APR-16-1999 16:16

6024172415

P.03