My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01504
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01504
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:02:30 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:56:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/19/2001
Description
WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Discussion on Proposed Policy Regarding the Navajo-Gallup Project in New Mexico
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />.. <br /> <br />Agenda Item 12e <br />November 19-20, 2001 Board Meeting <br />Page 2 of6 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />at build out, with Navajo-Gallup, would be approximately 695,000 AF (New Mexico is <br />reviewing their depletion values very closely and has stated that they can accomplish <br />Navajo-Gallup within their apportionme~t under the current hydrologic <br />determination of 6.0 MAF, current uses are! approximately 410,000 AF\YR) and <br />Arizona's in excess of 50,000 AF (current consu/llptive uses are approximately 46,000 <br />AF\YR). Thus, both states may need to rely on unused upper basin apportiomnent for <br />contracting purposes, or have a contract with another instate water user to cover any <br />shortages. Such contract could take the form of a "Depletion Limit Guarantee" <br />under which the Navajo Nation would agree,to collectively operate their projects <br />(Navajo-Gallup, Navajo Indian Irrigation PrQject, Hogback-Cuedi and Fruitland) <br />in a manner that would not cause New Mexi~o to exceed its apportionment under <br />the current hydrologic determination. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />This memorandum provides updated information on the policy questions posed by <br />the Navajo-Gallup Project that were outlined in our July 13th and September 14th <br />memorandum to the Board. The questions hav'e been restated for continuity and the <br />updated information is in bold print. These qvestions have been discussed with the <br />Attomey General's Office and our analysis to datb indicates the following. <br /> <br />1. The Colorado River Compact is explicit that the consumptive use of water _ <br />apportioned to the Upper Basin is for uses exclusively in the Upper Basin. Similarly, ., <br />the consumptive use of water apportioned to:the Lower Basin is for exclusive use in <br />the Lower Basin. The term "Upper Basin" as!defined in Article lIef): <br /> <br />"Means those parts of the states of Ari40na, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and <br />Wyoming within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River <br />System above Lee Ferry, and also all Darts of said states located without the <br />drainage area of the Colorado River Svstem which are now or shall hereafter be <br />beneticiallv served by waters divertedfrotn the system above Lee Ferry." <br /> <br />To illustrate, water from the Colorado ~ver Basin can be delivered to other <br />parts of a Colorado River Basin State. j Thus, transmountain diversions like <br />Colorado-Big Thompson, Fryingpan-Ar~ansas, and San Juan-Chama work. <br />The policy question is, can those states situated partially in both the Upper and Lower <br />Basins (Arizona, New Mexico and Utah) use Upper Colorado River Basin water in <br />the Lower Colorado River Basin? Staff is not aware of any projects of this type <br />actually in place. However, New Mexico has proposed Navajo-Gallup and Utah <br />has discussed a pipeline from Lake Powe.l to the St. George area in the Virgin <br />River Basin. The Virgin River flows direcrly into Lake Mead. <br /> <br />The answer to this question is based on closeireading of Articles II and Article III of <br />the Colorado River Compact and some long-standing positions. Article III(a) of the <br />Colorado River Compact states: <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.