Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Agenda Item 23i <br />July 23.24, 2001 Board Meeting <br />Page 2 of2 . <br /> <br />excess of 50,000 AF. Thus, both states would need to rely on unused upper basin e <br />apportionment for contracting purposes, or have a contract with another instate water user <br />to cover any shortages. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />The Gallup-Navajo Project poses several policy questions for the State of <br />Colorado to consider. <br />I. 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. <br />Similarly, the consumptive use of water apportioned to the Lower Basin is for <br />exclusive use in the Lower Basin. The term "Upper Basin" is defined as those <br />parts of the states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming within <br />and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River System above Lee <br />Ferry, and also all parts of said states located without the drainage area of the <br />Colorado River System which are now or shall hereafter be beneficially served by <br />waters diverted from the system above Lee Ferry. The policy question is, can <br />those states situated partially in both the Upper and Lower Basins (Arizona, New <br />Mexico and Utah) use Upper Colorado River Basin water in the Lower Colorado <br />River Basin? <br />2. Can Arizona divert water from the Sail Juan River Basin in New Mexico for <br />delivery and use in either the Upper or Lower Basin portions of Arizona? If so, is <br />it charged to Arizona's Upper or Lower Basin apportionment? .. <br />3. Can either Arizona or New Mexico permit water diversions if such diversions - <br />would cause the state to exceed their compact apportionment under the current <br />hydrologic determination? <br />4. To date, the San Juan Recovery Implementation Program has been able to serve <br />as the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative for all projects needing Section 7 <br />consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. However, model studies <br />indicate that we are getting to the point of having very little water available for . <br />development in the San Juan and still meet the Service's flow recommendations. <br />What should Colorado's position in general be with respect to significant new <br />water development projects in neighboring states that would rely on unused <br />apportionment in another? <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />This is an informational item for discussion. Staff will be working on a policy <br />position for the Boards consideration at either the September or November Board <br />meeting. Staff would appreciate any comments from Board members on what the policy <br />should consider. <br /> <br />Attachments: <br />DRS <br /> <br />c:\mydocs\agenda23iGallupNav7200 l.bdm.doc <br /> <br />e <br />