BOARD01417

• Board Meeting Date: 5/24/1999
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Upper Colorado River Commissioner's Report - Historic and Continuing Interest of the Upper Basin in Preserving Secure Interstate Allocations
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

o

e

e

e

In late 1995, Arizona explained its position with respect to the discussions..' It explained that it
viewed any proposals against two basic criteria: Would it increase the risk of shortage to the CAP? and
Would the proposal in any way threaten Arizona's entitlement to consumptively use 2.8 maf/yr from the
mainstream? Against this criteria, Arizona announced it was willing to discuss a number of proposals,
but was unwilling to discuss the banking of water in Lake Mead (a proposal of much interest to Met), or
party-to-party transfers of water not authorized by the states involved.

In 1996, the Southern Nevada Water Authority created some relief for itself by reversing its
previous policy that required a permanent water supply to be in place to support the issuance of taps, and
that allowed developers to hoard taps. The new policy allowed for the issuance of taps over Nevada's
basic apportionment, and prevented hoarding of unused taps.

The Arizona Water Bank and Increasing Tensions (and Increasing Water Use) in California
- In response to the ongoing discussions and positions of California and Nevada, Arizona went on the
offensive, by implementing the plan for water banking that it had earlier proposed. The Arizona
legislature enacted a groundwater banking law that created a state-run water banking authority. The
Authority diverted water under the CAP for storage directly or indirectly in groundwater aquifers in
Arizona. The Authority could then sell and recover the water. Additionally, the Authority was able to
allow access to the stored water to authorized entities in California or Nevada. Diversions through the
CAP increased dramatically, to close to Arizona's full 2.8 maf/yr entitlement.

Meanwhile, in California interagency disagreements broke out as water use in the Imperial
Valley increased. lID did not renew its water conservation agreement the Met. lID entered into a letter
of intent with the San Diego County Water Authority (which as the largest but most junior member of
Met was trying to establish a degree of water independence), under which water conserved in lID and
paid for by SDCW A would be transferred either through Met's Colorado River Aqueduct or through a
new aqueduct to be constructed from the Colorado River. Met objected to the agreement, arguing that
SDCW A had no right independent of Met to "wheel" water through the Aqueduct.

Coachella Valley Water District, which holds an unquantified right to Colorado River water
junior to lID but senior to Met, also joined the fray. Coachella was faced with its own problems, in the
form of groundwater overdraft. Coachella argued that any water saved by conservation in the lID should
go to it, not to users within Met. Only after Coachella's needs were satisfied should water be allowed to
go to a junior user.

The combination of increasing water use in lID and diversions by Arizona to bank water pushed
total Lower Basin mainstream water use to about 8 million acre feet in 1996. The clear prospect was that
this use would continue. However, system reservoirs were full enough, and runoff was large enough,
that the Secretary was justified in declaring surpluses in 1996, 1997 and 1998. If a normal year were
justified, the Secretary would have been forced to reduce Met's diversions, to return total California
water use to 4.4 maf and total Lower Basin use to 7.5 maf.

The Six State Alliance - In November 1996, representatives of the si" states other than
California met with California water agency representatives. After the meeting, the six state
representatives summarized their position in a letter to the California representatives, in a letter that

.'Colorado River Issues, The Arizona Perspective, paper to the Seven Colorado River Basin States,
November 7, 1995.