BOARD01417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,- " 2. The other states would agree not to oppose Met receiving a full supply through the year 2010. e 3. In any event, California would reduce its use of water on a scheduled basis to 4.4 mafin the year 2010. 4. Met would compensate the other states through an escrow account for any use of water over and above that to which it would have been entitled in any year. 5. A water bank would be established, into which states could deposit water for sale or lease to other states. This would be water presently being consumed in the depositing state, what is referred to as "wet water." Reaction to the proposal by the other states over the next several months was largely negative. The states were not interested in the escrow account, and were concerned that the water banking concept would erode the security of their entitlements and was in violation of the Law of the River. Moreover, Arizona expressed concern about California's priority under the 1968 Act, and Nevada was continuing to need additional water above its basic entitlement. Therefore, the states agreed that the Lower Division states should meet among themselves to discuss river operations. The states discussed issues such as redefining "surplus," risk protection through groundwater storage, wheeling of tributary water, and interstate transfers and exchanges. Through these discussions, California and Arizona developed a pilot groundwater recharge program, by which Met would be allowed to store water in Arizona groundwater aquifers. Met also pursued a pilot land fallowing program with the Palo Verde Irrigation District. Under this program, Met paid farmers in the PVID to fallow portions of their fields for no more than two years. The water saved by the program was - allowed by the Bureau of Reclamation to be banked under defined terms in Lake Mead, for subsequent .. release for use by Met. Nevada's Aggressive Approach to Acquiring Water - During this period, southern Nevada embarked on an ambitious campaign to obtain water from any source. Pressured by its policy of not extending taps without a long-term supply of water, the holding and purchasing oftaps by developers and increasing political pressure to develop additional water supplies, Nevada interests considered exchanges of desalinized sea water, glacial water from Alaska, water from Mexico, leased water from the Upper Basin, transferred water from northern Nevada, "wheeled" Virgin River water, and Indian reserved rights leases. At one point, in 1994, the Colorado River Commission held a hearing at which anyone with water to sell was invited to make a proposal. One of the more controversial projects was a proposal to "lease" water from a reservoir to be built on Roan Creek by Chevron Shale Oil Company. The proposal died under the weight of opposition from the states, including Colorado. The Ten Colorado River Indian Tribes - In response to the state discussions concerning the California and Nevada issues, and in particular the California water bank proposal, ten Colorado River Indian Tribes" formed a Tribal Partnership to participate in the discussions. The Tribal Partnership presented to the states a proposed memorandum of understanding that contemplated the off reservation leasing of Tribal reserved water rights. Nevada expressed interest in the proposal, but the Upper Basin "The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, the Cocopah Indian Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Northern Ute Indian Tribe, the Quechan - Indian Tribe, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe. ..