Laserfiche WebLink
<br />HP LASERJET 3330 <br /> <br />1'" 3. <br /> <br />Jul OS 2003 1:13PM <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Nevada's Proposal for Modification <br />of <br />Interim Surplus Guidelines <br /> <br />Rationale for Ne"l'ada's Proposal <br /> <br />This proposal is made jointly by the Colorado River Commission of Nevada <br />(meN) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNW A). The Interim Surplus <br />Guidelines (ISG) were intended to benefit both Californial and Nevada. Both the Record <br />of Decision (ROD) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the ISO <br />acknowledged that (i) "Nevada was expected to reach its apportionment in 2000,..2 (ii) an <br />"increased level of predictability with respect to the P.I'ospe~tive existence and quantity of <br />surplus water would assist in planning and operations by all entities that recei ve. surplus <br />Colorado River water,',3 (ili) it is necessary to "balance[ ] all existing needs for these <br />precious water supplies,,,4 and (iv) surplus mechanisms "need to remain in place for the <br />entire period of the interim guidelines.,,5 <br /> <br />The failure of the southern California water agencies to execute the Quantified <br />Settlement Agreement (QSA) and its related documents by December 31,2002 caused <br />the automatic suspension of surplus determinations under the ISO, and the prospect for a <br />California agreement in the nellr future is uncertain. As a consequence, the intended <br />benefits of the ISG for Nevada are unlikely to be available. <br /> <br />This circumstance was not anticipated when the ISO were adopted.6 More <br />important, its implications for southern Nevada - the Nation's fastest-gro~'ing urban <br />center - are serious. The region's growth has continued to exceed all projections. <br /> <br />'One pw:pose was "to assist California in movingtow,ard its allocated share of Colorado River water," 66 <br />Fed. Reg. at 7774 (col. 2, top). <br /> <br />, FEIS, p. 1-3. This was based on Nevada's projected demands plus 50,000 afy for groundwater recharge. <br />Demands without groundwater rooharge were not expeeled to exceed Nevada's allocation until 2007. <br /> <br />> Fed, Reg. at 7774 (col. 2, top). <br />· Fed, Reg. at 7775 (cot. 3, bottom). <br />· Fed. Reg. at 7775 (col. 3, bottom). <br /> <br />· Nevada, the other basin states, and Interior were firmly and repealedly assured by all the California <br />agencies that tbe QSA and its related agreements would be executed. most likely by the end of 2001 and <br />certainly by the end of 2002. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />I <br />