BOARD01954

• Board Meeting Date: 7/28/2003
• Description: CF Section - California Quantification Settlement Agreement and Nevada Proposal
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Jul OS 2003 1:13PM
.

HP LASERJET 3330

,
, "

.

Consequently, while the PElS projected that Nevada would not exceed its 300,000 afy
basic apportionment unti12007, it actually did so in 2002.7

Long-term, southern Nevada's alternate in-state water-supp1y options, while few
in number, will be adequate to meet long term needs. These options include development
of water from the Virgin and Muddy Rivers and groundwater from eastern and central
Nevada. Even though the SNW A is diligently pursuing these alternative sources, their
development is over a decade away under the be~t of circumstances. Consequently
southern Nevada must rely on Colorado River water as a key part of the bridge to the
development of alternate water supplies. '

Nevada's limited alteratlve supply portfolio stands in stark contrast to that of
southern California, which actually has a wide variety of alternate water sources available
for development in the near future.s MWD "can, with appropriate planning and
in vestment, provide sufficient water supplies for at least 20 years, assuming nonnal dry
and wet year historical cyclical conditions-with or without the QSA."g Thus, although
southern California has a wide variety of alternate water sources available to it for
development in the near future, 10 Nevada requires a bridge to its alternative sources. This
proposal for surplus Colorado River water for the interim period of the ISG (through
2016) will provide the key part of that bridge.

, Summary of Nevada's Proposal

'Nevada proposes that the Secretary modify the Interim Surplus Guidelines (ISG)
for Nevada both with respect to when surplus co.'.nditions exist and the amount available
annually without modifying the total amount tha,t was to be' available to Nevada over the
f 14-year period, as discussed in more detail below.

7 See FEIS, Volume 1, p. 3.4-13 (projected annual depletions included SO kaf for recharge).

· See Iteport on Metropolitan's Water Supplies at 13-14 (March 25, 2003). For example. MWD (which
would have received iIle vast majority of surplus under tl1io ISO) recently announced that loss af 35% of its
~ "-olor!,~,,-~!v_1l! '!'!1>l!\ies was ua YID .eDQ!lILllllittllI,.bJIr..iI,.is..not=.~:'.. Written-~tement-.of~. - .,
Jefl'ery Klghtlln:!lI't, 'GenCl'al~Counsel aild 1Jelmi Man, Vic;e President 'of WatCl' Transfer., before the
California Assembl, Water, Parks and Wildlife Commlt~e at 3 (January 14. 2003). Rather, the "2003
cutb.ck in [MWD's] Colorado River supplies presented Ii major operatibna\ challenge. Tnls was not due to
any l...k of water in .the system, but rather from the differ~nt water quality characteri!ltlcs of State Water
Project and Colorada River supplies." Written Statement 'af Ronald R. Oastelum, President and CEO.
Metropalitan Water District of Southern Califarnia, before the California Senate Agriculture and Water
Resowces Commillee at 3 (April 29, 2003).

9 Frequently Asked Questions. from the webslt.e af Metro'politan Water District of Sauthern California,
found at http://www.mwd.dst.ca.us/mwdb20/pags/newsJfaq.htmI(viewed 7/3103).

1".4

.

.

I' MWD's rationale is that "reductions in Colorado River deliveries can be .offset with the use of more than
2.2 million acre. feet ofWaler slored in reservoirs and exiSting banking programs in the Central Valley and
Soutnern California; options to purchase up ta 2S0,OOO aere-feet cf additional Iranafe, water from sellers in
Sacramento, San roaquin and San BernSldlno valleys; enhanced conservation pro$"ams:. and tbe '
development of ad dltiana I local resaurees, Including recycling, brackish desalination, and seawater
desalination." Report on Metropolitan's Waler Supplies, pp.13.14. .

2

I' I