BOARD01417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. allocation issues be resolved within the Lower Basin. Arizona responded with a variation of the water .- bank proposal. The Upper Basin was particularly adamant that the bank be limited to the Lower Basin in ,., its operation, so as not to precipitate Upper Basin to Lower Basin water transfers. Arizona proposed that a Lower Basin Commission might be appropriate, but suggested that, instead of a central water bank, the states allow for the creation of individual state water banks.'s In Arizona, the bank would be created by state legislation, and would have the authority to secure long term supplies through sources such as underground water storage credits, Colorado River water available through land fallowing, and interim contracts with the CA WCD for excess CAP water for groundwater storage, contract for their acquisition by other states and arrange for the storage of those supplies (including underground storage). The transfer of water from the bank to California or Nevada would be made through a "forbearance agreement" entered into under the provisions of Article 1I(B)(6) ofthe Decree in Arizona v. California, which allows the Secretary to deliver the unused entitlement of one Lower Division state in anyone year for use in another Lower Division state.66 Arizona recognized that the Secretary would have to promulgate regulations to implement transfers between the states under Article 1I(B)(6), as provided in interstate agreements between Arizona, the out-of-state user and the Secretary . In response to this seeming progress, the Lower Division states appointed a technical committee, which was charged with the responsibility to develop alternatives to more efficient management of the system in the Lower Basin. The committee discussed the operation of an interstate water bank, and surplus and shortage operating criteria, transfers of Tribal water, modeling, the establishment to a "Lower Basin Forum," facilitators, public involvement, and other issues. Throughout these discussions, Nevada continued to push the idea that 60,000 acre feet of water per year be allowed to "wheel" through Lake Mead for use in Nevada. Nevada's position was that this wheeling would be in lieu of a water e development project on the Virgin River. Arizona and California opposed the idea, however, on the basis that once water entered Lake Mead, it became subject to the allocation scheme under the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Also, Met pushed the idea of a water bank in Lake Mead. Arizona opposed this idea also. This disagreement effectively stalled the discussions for about a year. As the discussions broke down, Met and Nevada formed an alliance under the banner of a new proposal. Under this concept, Met would pay for lining of the All-American Canal, which diverts water to lID. Part of this water would be sold at a discounted rate to the San Luis Rey Indian Tribe in settlement of its reserved rights claims. Under agreement with Nevada, Nevada would fund a portion of the canal lining, and Met would forbear use of up to 30,000 af/yr to the benefit of Nevada. Both states would seek to bank water not needed in anyone year in Lake Mead for later release. "Arizona Water Bank Proposal, paper to the Seven Colorado River Basin States, July 14, 1994. 66Article II(B)(6) provides as follows: "If, in anyone year, water apportioned for consumptive use in a State will not be consumed in that State, whether for the reason that delivery contracts for the full amount of the State's apportionment are not in effect or that users cannot apply all of such water to beneficial uses, or for any other reason, nothing in this decree shall be construed as prolubiting the Secretary of the Interior from releasing such .- apportioned but unused water during such year for consumptive use in the other States. No rights to the recurrent ,., use of such water shall accrue by reason of the use thereof."