BOARD01504

• 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

, .

tit

tit

tit

Agenda Item 12e
November 19-20, 2001 Board Meeting
Page 5 of6

III(b )(3)(iii), however, disclaims any intent to "countenanc[ e] average uses by any
signatory state in excess of its apportionment."

This question thus tums on what Upper Basin supply we wish to assume for purposes
of calculating apportionment, and bow we wish to enforce the "average use"
provision. It is worth noting that Reclamation's current hydrologic determination is
based in part on interpretations of the Mexican Treaty delivery obligation with which
we have not agreed. In any case, it appears that Reclamation would need to revise
and increase the current hydrologic determination in order to issue contracts that
would result in consumptive uses that are in excess of those allowed under the current
hydrologic determination. Attached are two previous resolutions of the Upper
Colorado River Commission dealing with the Hydrologic Determination.

One alternative previously mentioned is the "Depletion Limit Guarantee" under
which the Navajo Nation would llgree to collectively operate their projects
(Navajo-Gallup, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Hogback-Cuedi and
Fruitland) in a manner that wOllld not cause New Mexico to exceed its
apportionment under the current hydrologic determination provided other users
do not exceed their allocations under an environmental baseline.

4. To date, the San Juan Recovery Implementation Program has been able to serve as
the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative for all projects needing Section 7
consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. However, model studies
indicate that we are getting to the poir1t of having very little water available both for
new development in the San Juan and for meeting the Service's flow
recommendations. What should Colorado's position in general be with respect to
significant new water development projects in neighboring states that would rely on
unused apportionment in another? Should our general position be any different than
that which six basin states have imposed on Califomia?

Staff sees a clear need for New Mexico, Utah and Arizona to bring closure to a water
rights settlement with the Navajo Nation. However, such settlement should be done
within the "Law of the River." We see no need to treat such a settlement with the
Navajo's any differently than with other Tribes and no need to treat New Mexico any
different than Califomia when asking them to live within their compact
apportionment.

Observations

As staff reviews this project, there is a clear need for additional water supplies on Project
lands. The Navajo-Gallup Project is certainly one of the more feasible options, and the
Navajos and New Mexico clearly want to see some resolution of these issues that would
allow a Project to proceed. We need to continue to talk with the Navajo Nation and New
Mexico about solutions that would allow an Indian water rights settlement to occur and
for areas clearly in need of additional water to receive such.