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

Over the next year, despite some progress, resolution of the internal California issues remained
elusive. The 4.4 Plan did get a bit more specific. For example, a revised plan released in November
1997 established a goal of reaching 4.7 maf/yr by the year 2010 or 2015, with an unspecified second
phase. In May 1998, in frustration over the lack of progress in California, the six states sent a joint letter
to Secretary Babbitt expressing their concern that the Secretary implement the law of the River by
reducing California water use to 4.4 maf in the first year in which a surplus was declared.70

In August 1998, SDCW A and Met reached agreement over the wheeling issue, with the help of
an infusion of $235 million by the California legislature for canal lining in lID. However, the California
agencies remained stuck on quantification, and surplus criteria was on hold pending resolution of the
other issues. In fact, the SDCW AlMet agreement was specifically contingent on:

The promulgation and application by the Secretary of the Interior (the "Secretary") of surplus
criteria, including river re-operations, that are sufficient, together with those other water supplies
that are under the control ofMWD, to assure that the Colorado River Aqueduct ("CRA") is full
at least through 2015; and

The establishment and completion of a process, acceptable to the Secretary and the State of
California, in which the Colorado River Board and the California public agencies that hold
contracts with the Secretary for delivery of Colorado River water would participate, which
quantifies or otherwise resolves Colorado River agricultural water entitlements in a manner that
will assure that water conserved from reasonable and beneficial uses can be transferred from an
agricultural to an urban agency.

The Six States Proposal for Interim Surplus Criteria - Out of concern that Met was taking
advantage of their willingness to discuss interim surplus criteria, and a desire to move the process
forward, the six states prepared and forwarded to California their "Background and Principles for
Negotiation - Special Interim Criteria for Releases of Water from Lake Mead During Implementation
of the California 4.4 Plan." The document articulated principles under which the states would negotiate
interim surplus criteria, which included the following:

7I'The letter, dated May 27,1998, states in part: "The state of California has taken aggressive steps to
facilitate discussions, but the California 4.4 Plan has not progressed beyond the concept stage. Southern California
agencies have been unable to bridge internal disagreements over details in the implementation of the proposed Plan.
In the meantime, as each year goes by, we all face the risk of inevitable drought conditions, which will necessitate
the drawdown of system reservoirs. In short, we are concerned that the California agencies are squandering the
opportunity and the flexibility the system is currently providing to reduce their excessive reliance on the Colorado
River.

Our states will continue to cooperate in and support the development of the California 4.4 Plan. However, we also
have the obligation to minimize the risk of shortage and protect for our citizens the right to use water, now and in
the future, under the Law of the River. Our states continue to rely, among other things, on the limitations imposed
on California under the Self-Limitation Act of 1929.

Absent a California Plan, our states will insist on the enforcement of normal or shortage conditions on the river
when conditions warrant. Our states also may insist on appropriate limitations on surplus declarations that support
the operational integrity of system reservoirs and the appropriate beneficial use of water."

,

<

e

e

e