Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Agenda Item 18 - California QSA <br />July 28-29, 2003 Board Meeting <br />Page 4 of 4 <br /> <br />Raley's express request. Nevada will be seeking meetings with the states to discuss the proposal in . <br />the near future. <br /> <br />Nevada acknowledges that in the long-term, southern Nevada's alternate in-state water supply <br />options, while few in number, will be adequate to meet long-term needs. Those options include <br />development of water from the Virgin and Muddy Rivers and groundwater in eastern and central <br />Nevada. Even though the SNW A is pursuing these alternative sources, their development is over a <br />decade away under the best of circumstances. Consequently, southern Nevada must rely on <br />Colorado River water during the interim. Nevada proposes that the Secretary modify the ISG's for <br />Nevada both with respect to when surplus conditions' exist and the amount available annually <br />without modifying the total amount projected to have been available to Nevada through 2016. The <br />60,000 acre-feet would be available annually for domestic purposes and without further restrictions <br />on use. In years in which a "Quantified Surplus" or "Flood Control Surplus" were declared under <br />the ISG's, Nevada would receive additional water in,accordance with the ISG's. Given that the <br />amount of water supplied in aggregate is no greater than expected if the ISG's were in-place each <br />and every year though 2016, it is argued that then~ are no increased risks to the other basin states and <br />that no additional environmental compliance is necessary. As a result, Nevada is hopeful that they <br />could receive some additional water during the last few months of2003. <br /> <br />Staffin reviewing this proposal notes the conspicuous absence of any discussion about Nevada's use <br />of the Arizona Water Bank and how that opportunity is or is not being utilized. This is certainly one <br />question that Nevada will need to address. . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Conclusions and Recommendations <br /> <br />Completion of the 417 analysis is certainly an important and useful step in the quantification <br />process, although it will likely slow the QSA process as UD looks at that issue very closely. <br />Reaching agreement on the six-state letter to Califomia certainly helps keep the pressure on <br />California to complete a defmitive and enforceable QSA. The Congressional field hearings and <br />Nevada's proposal to modify the ISG's place added pressure on California to complete the QSA. <br />How matters proceed from here is not clear....... but we will neeA!9 react !o Nevag~!PJ91'()s_al ir1 the <br />near future. . <br /> <br />Staffhas no recommendations at this time, but woul\llike to discuss these issues further with the <br />Board. <br /> <br />Attachments <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning ll1]d Financing' Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Plarmlng <br />