Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7. The interim criteria should address use of water during shortage and surplus <br />conditions by the states of Arizona and Nevada, in order to optimize operations agreed to e <br />by those states under the Arizona Water Bank. <br /> <br />8. The interim criteria may need to address the issue of off-stream storage, whether <br />during surplus or flood control release conditions, and whether such storage should be <br />accounted under the equalization and 602(a) storage requirements of the Operating <br />Criteria. <br /> <br />9. The Secretary of the Interior should implement measures to curtail all illegal <br />uses of mainstream Colorado River water in the Lower Basin by _' <br /> <br />The IIDICoachella Peace Accord - In December 1998, the six states issued a detailed proposal <br />for interim surplus criteria that would meet the articulated principles. As of the writing of this paper, <br />California has not responded to the six state principles or to the proposed operating criteria. <br /> <br />Also in December 1998, Secretary Babbitt made his annual speech to the Colorado River Water <br />Users Association. He spoke on four basic subject areas: a newly negotiated quantification agreement <br />with IID and CVWD; the development of interim surplus criteria; the Lower Basin water banking <br />regulation; and the Salton Sea. <br /> <br />First, Secretary Babbitt outlined the terms of the Interior/IID/CVWD agreement. This MOU <br />established the basis for more detailed negotiations over the next six months. Some of the key provisions <br />of the agreement were as follows: <br /> <br />. IID's entitlement under Priority 3 will be capped at 3.1 maf/yr, from which will be <br />deducted conserved water transferred under the 1988 MWD agreement and the <br />IID/SDCW A agreement. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. CVWD will have a base entitlement of 330,000 aflyr under Priority 3, plus another <br />50,000 aflyr under a 1989 agreement that otherwise would have been available to MWD, <br />plus the right to another 138,000 af/yr of conserved water when that 1989 agreement is <br />terminated. <br /> <br />. The Palo Verde Irrigation District and Yuma Project rights under Priorities I and 2 are <br />quantified by acreage, not by amount of water. To the extent diversions under those <br />priorities exceed the recent average of 420,000 af/yr and cause total diversions under the <br />first three priorities to exceed 3.85 maf, lID and CVWD will absorb that excess on a <br />9011 0 basis. <br /> <br />. lID and CVWD entered into a "peace agreement," by which they will agree not to <br />challenge each other's water practices, i.e. assert that they are wasting, or not beneficially <br />using, water. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The agreement recognizes that MWD is not a party. It obligates the parties to the six <br />month period not only to finalize an agreement, but to develop surplus operating criteria <br />for the Colorado River Reservoirs. lID and CVWD will also want a "peace agreement" <br />with MWD, by which MWD will agree to allow conserved water to be transferred from <br />lID to CVWD and not challenge lID's or CVWD's use of water. CCWD also wants <br /> <br />e <br />