BOARD01954

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

,

Agenda Item 18 - California QSA
July 28-29, 2003 Board Meeting
Page 3 of4

. Staff would note that this letter and the direction contained were discussed with water users in the
State of Colorado via the Colorado River Policy Advisory Council and the actions to date concurred
with.

3. u.s. House Committee on Resources. Subcommittee on Water and Power Field HearinJ!s

On July 1, 2003, u.s. Representative Ken Calvert and the Subcommittee on Water and Power held
its third oversight field hearing in El Cajon, Califomia. The stated focus was California's
quantification of their Colorado River water uses. Representatives from Arizona and Utah,
Reclamation, various resource agencies and parties to the QSA testified. Prom the testimony
provided, it appears that the parties are still not close to resolving the outstanding issues, however,
they continue to meet and exchange proposals in hopes of reaching agreements.

.

Of particular interest during the hearing was the testimony of Mr. Lloyd Allen, President ofthe
Board of Directors of the Inlperia1 Irrigation District Mr. Allen stated:
"Finally, I would like to mention the unfortunate tension that we are experiencing at this eleventh
hour within the basin states. While most of the states have expressed support, and even exceedingly
strong support in some cases, for the need to place emphasis on the completion of the QSA while
slowing down or stopping the 417 proceeding, our neighbors in Colorado have expressed somewhat
contrary views. I think it is exceedingly important to recognize the unique position of the State of
Colorado at this point in time: Colorado provides on average about 70% of the water in the
Colorado River; nevertheless, Colorado has a smaller apportionment than the State of California;
Colorado has been impacted significantly by the recent drought while those of us below the giant
reservoirs have had the blessing of carry-over storage; and Colorado is in the process of exploring
the ways and means to jitlly utilize its Colorado River apportionment.

The reasons that impact on a basin state's position in any given situation can be complex and
sometimes parochial. Nevertheless, in recent years we have seen a new paradigm of cooperation
among the basin states, and an effort to coordinate to the degree possible for the common good. In
this situation we urge this subcommittee to reach out to Colorado in an effort to fully understand its
cQM:erl1um..d...1~addr~s.UhQM..!XlIUlerns...JQjhe degree possiblf!~ JJD jirml)Lhe1i=tl1fJt.1hfrQ5A is
in the best interest of the QSA parties, the State of California, and the six other basin states
including Colorado. It would be exceedingly helpful to have Colorado lend its support to the
successjitl completion of th is process. "

4. Nevada's Proposal to Supplement Its Water Supplies from the Colorado River

.

When the ISG's were adopted, all three Lower Division States expected to derive benefits. Nevada,
being at or very close to full utilization of its 300,000 acre-foot apportionment, was as anxious as
Califomia to reap those benefits and has become exceedingly frustrated by California's continued
delay in executing the QSA. As a result, on July 9,2003 representatives of the Colorado River
Commission of Nevada (CRCN) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNW A) met with
Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley and presented him with the attached proposal to modify the ISG's.
The proposal would provide Nevada with an additional 60,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado River
water as a bridge source through 2016, when additional in-state water resources are to have been
development. They purport that the proposal was formulated in response to Assistant Secretary

Flocd Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning