BOARD01613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . , , ,/ Agenda Item 28 May 23-25, 2005 Board Meeting Page 2 of3 Colorado River Management Workgroup, the commonly used name for the group of individuals that Reclamation consults with during the development of the AOP each year, as the forum that should assist Reclamation in the development of shortage criteria. Furthermore, such group should be convened by the end of May 2005 to discuss at a minimum the development of shortage criteria and the conjunctive management of Lakes Powell and Mead. Conjunctive management was never a concept that the Basin States ever agreed on and should not be discussed absent the inclusion of the excessive uses in the Lower Basin and a determination of any annual deficiencies to deliveries to Mexico. Development of Lower Basin Shortal!e Criteria The Seven Colorado River Basin States have been meeting during the last several months and also established a technical work group. Discussions in the technical work group among other things discussed the development of, "Lower Basin Shortage Guidelines." The technical workgroup also reviewed many of the different options that the Lower Basin was considering to save water and become more efficient in their water use. The workgroup discussed the definition of "extraordinary drought" as used in the Mexican Treaty. The workgroup also identified three key triggers (powell Storage, Powell Release and Mead Storage) and began evaluating at what lake levels and point in time to trigger them. Once the triggers are determined, the discussion then needs to shift to what happens (i.e. how large are the shortages, how long are they in place, etc.). The Lower Basin also provided some draft guidelines, which are attached hereto. Of particular concern in the draft guidelines is the reliance on the continued release of8.23 MAP from the Upper Basin each year and the apparent lack of any consideration of reductions in Lower Basin uses that would cause them to stay within the Lower Basins compact apportionment. While the Upper Basin does not need to be fully engaged in the development of Lower Basin shortage criteria themselves, it does need to be fully engaged in the determination of the assumptions upon which those criteria are based and developed (i.e.,the use of 8.23 MAF from the Upper Basin and excess uses in the Lower Basin to the extent those uses increase the amount and frequency of deficiencies to the Mexican Treaty deliveries). Staff believes that positions on these issues need to be consistent with the positions that we took durin~ the mid-year review of the AOP. Lastly, the Secretary of Interior has indicated that by June 15t of this year a federal register notice will be issued for the development of shortage criteria and Interior expects that such criteria will be completed by December 2007. Development ofthe 2006 AOP The U. S Bureau of Reclamation will start to develop the 2006 AOP during this coming June as well. The 2006 AOP will require a mid-year review as the Secretary described in the decision conceming the mid-year review of the 2005 AOP. The Upper Basin should continue to take the same positions that it did during the mid-year review of the 2005 AOP, which are the same that it has always taken. Depending on how much runoff there actually is in 2005, that will probably go a long ways towards determining how vigorously we pursue those positions. Deliveries to Mexico There will be no shortages to Mexican Treaty deliveries this year and despite the exceeding large amounts of precipitation in the Lower Basin this year, over deliveries to Mexico to date have been Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning