My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01753
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01753
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:06:37 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:01:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/22/2003
Description
CF Section - Colorado River Basin - Update on 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.
/
11
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Agenda Itell) 15 <br />July 23-24, 2002 Board Meeting <br />Page 6 of! 0 <br /> <br />are in excess of those allowed under the current hydrologic determination, The Board has been <br />supplied with two previous resolutions of the Upper Colorado River Commission dealing with <br />Reclamation's hydrologic determination. <br /> <br />One alternative to assure that a state does not exceed its apportionment under Reclamation's <br />hydrologic determination is to implement a "Depletion Limit Guarantee." Under a "Depletion <br />Limit Guarantee" the Navajo Nation would agree to operate their projects (Navajo-Gallup, <br />Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Hogback-Cuedi and Fruitland) collectively in a manner that <br />would not cause New Mexico to exceed its apportionment under the current hydrologic <br />determination. In addition, other users could not exceed their allocations under a baseline that <br />would be established as part of the "Depletion Limit Guarantee." <br /> <br />4. To date, the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRlP) has been able to <br />serve as the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative for all projects needing Section 7 consultation <br />pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. However, model studies done in conjunction with the <br />SJRlP Hydrology Committee indicate that there is very little water remaining for new <br />development in the San Juan River Basin if the Service's current flow recommendations are to be <br />satisfied. What should Colorado's position be with respect to significant new water development <br />projects in neighboring states that rely on unused apportionment in another state? Should our <br />general position be any different than that which six basin states have imposed on California? <br /> <br />The "Flow Recommendations for the San Juan River" report dated May 1999 sets forth <br />the depletion baseline in Table 7.3 under which the flow recommendations were developed. <br />Table 7.3 shows that New Mexico is consuming an average of 458,968 AF\YR (excludes <br />CRSP evaporation and ALP) but Colorado on average only consumes 185,039 AF\YR <br />under the same conditions. Water users in southwestern Colorado are very concerned <br />that, although New Mexico is entitled to the consumptive use of 11.25% of Colorado River <br />flows under the Upper Colorado River Compact, all that use is from the San Juan River <br />Basin. Furthermore, New Mexico and the Navajo's have or are seeking Section 7 <br />consultations that would use all remaining depletions allowable under the flow <br />recommendations for the San Juan River, thus stymieing new water development in <br />southwestern Colorado. The irrigation component for the Animas-La Plata Project (ALP) <br />had to be eliminated because the Section 7 consultation for the Project found only 57,100 <br />AF WaS developable under the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) in order to <br />protect endangered fish and their habitat in the San Juan River. However, since the ALP <br />revised Biological Opinion and RPA were completed in 1991, a Biological Opinion allowing <br />approximately 121,000 AF for the balance of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project was <br />permitted and up to 37,375 AF may be requested for the Navajo-Gallup Project. All these <br />depletions would be from the San Juan River and leave no allowable depletions for <br />additional water development in the basin. Outside of ALP, which also benefits New <br />Mexico, Colorado has been allowed to proceed with less than 10,000 AF of new <br />development. Thus, Colorado needs to develop an equitable position with respect to <br />significant new water development projects in neighboring states which development relies <br />on either the use of unused apportionment in another state or precludes further <br />development in a portion of Colorado. Colorado's position should also consider how the <br />basin states have dealt with overuse of compact apportionment by California. <br />Staff sees a clear need for New Mexico, Utah and Arizona to bring closure to a water rights <br />settlement with the Navajo Nation. Such a settlement should be accomplished within the "Law <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.