BOARD01954

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

.

Agenda Iteip. 18 - California QSA
July 28-29, ~003 Board Meeting
Page2of41

demands. ~urthermore, the basin states noted that the QSA is now subject to four off-ramps before .
the seventY-fifth year, not two. The 2003 QSA provides that the QSA will terminate in the event of
1) non-con;sensual termination of the 1998 IID/SDCW A Transfer Agreement; 2) expiration of the
Bureau"s Ij:tadvertent Overrun and Payback Program; 3) non-satisfaction of the Environmental
Mitigationl Conditions Subsequent; and 4) a Transfer Stoppage. The 2003 QSA lists over fifteen
conditionstPrecedent that must be satisfied before oct. ober 30, 2003. The difficulty of completing all
these matt rs casts doubt on the viability of the 2003 QSA. Also, Paragraph 9.1 (1) of the 2003
QSA, refe s to a concept of decree accounting averaging that was previously rejected by the Basin
States. . .

Updates

1. U.S. ~ureau of Reclamation Review of lID Water Use under Title 43. Part 417 of the Code of
~l Reflulations

On Marchi 18, 2003 U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Whelan issued a preliminary injunction that
barred theIU.S. Department of Interior (Interior) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) from
cutting Im)'s water order by about 300,000 acre-feet and ordered Interior and Reclamation to initiate
a Part 41 ~ analysis for determination ofIID's beneficial use of Colorado River water. That analysis
has been qompleted by Reclamation and in a letter to IID dated July 2, 2003 Reclamation estimated
that lID's I Colorado River water requirements for irrigation and potable uses for 2003 were
2,824, lOa acre-feet at hnperia1 Dam. This represents a reduction in lID's water order of 275,900
acre-feet. I In addition, Reclamation provided 10 specific recommendations related to water
conservation measures and operating practices in the diversion, delivery and use of Colorado River
, water witl;tin IID. In accordance with the regulations, this determination becomes final in 30-days
unless no submits objections to Reclamation in writing. IfIID submits written objections,
Reclamation has an opportunity to modify its determination. If IID is still dissatisfied, they may
appeal duiectly to the Secretary of Interior and ultimately seek a final review in court. In any event,
Judge elan must also lift the injunction. In the interim, Reclamation will continue to deliver
water to under the current schedule in compliance with the court order and until the 417
. onig declared final...

.

2.

- --.-.--->-.., _.------_....------------------ --... ------- -- -- - -- -- -

or the Governors 0 Colorado River Basin States to Cali ornia

On July i, 2003 representatives for Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming
sent the a,ttached letter to California Governor Gray,Davis indicating continued support for the ISG's
is depen5ent upon the development and implementation of a QSA and appurtenant agreements
among C~lifornia water agencies. The letter requested California commit to a defmed, enforceable
program ~o reduce its dependence on Colorado River water that includes quantification of
agricultutal priorities in California and certainty that California can live within its compact
apportior)ment at the end of the interim period. It encourages the California legislature to authorize
funds an~ enact the enabling legislation necessary to implement the California Plan and the QSA.
Finally, the letter offers a small group of representatives from the other basin states to work directly
with California water agencies to resolve issues of importance to the other basin states with the ..
current raft documents.

i Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning