Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Agenda Item 14e <br />January 23-24, 2002 Board Meeting <br />Page 5 of7 <br /> <br />< <br /> <br />The answer to this question thus turns on the amount of Upper Basin supply the states wish to <br />assume for purposes of calculating apportionment, and how we wish to define the "average use" <br />provision, It is worth noting that Reclamation's current hydrologic determination is based in part <br />on an interpretation of the Mexican Treaty delivery obligation with which Colorado has never <br />agreed, In any case, it appears that Reclamation would need to revise and increase its current <br />hydrologic determination in order to issue contracts that would result in consumptive uses that <br />are in excess of those allowed under the current hydrologic determination. The Board has been <br />supplied with two previous resolutions of the Upper Colorado River Commission dealing with <br />Reclamation's hydrologic determination, <br /> <br />One alternative to assure that a state does not exceed its apportionment under <br />Reclamation's hydrologic determination is to implement a "Depletion Limit Gnarantee." <br />Under a "Depletion Limit Guarantee" the Navajo Nation would agree to operate their <br />projects (Navajo-Gallup, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Hogback-Cuedi and Fruitland) <br />collectively in a manner that would not cause New Mexico to exceed its apportionment <br />under the current hydrologic determination. However, other users could not exceed their <br />allocations under a baseline that would be established as part of the "Depletion Limit <br />Guarantee. " <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />4, To date, the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP) has been able to <br />serve as the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative for all projects needing Section 7 consultation <br />pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. However, model studies done in conjunction with the <br />SJRIP Hydrology Committee indicate that there is very little developable water remaining for <br />new uses in the San Juan River Basin if the Service's current flow recommendations are satisfied, <br />What should Colorado's position be with respect to significant new water development projects <br />in neighboring states that rely on unused apportionment in another state? Should our general <br />position be any different than that which six basin states have imposed on California? <br /> <br />The "Flow Recommendations for the San Juan River" report dated May 1999 sets forth <br />the depletion baseline in Table 7.3 under which the flow recommendations were developed. <br />Table 7.3 shows that New Mexico is consuming an average of 458,968 AF\YR (excludes <br />CRSP evaporation and ALP) but Colorado on average only consumes 185,039 AF\YR <br />under the same conditions. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Water users in southwestern Colorado are very concerned that, although New Mexico is <br />entitled to the consumptive use of 11.25% of Colorado River flows under the Upper <br />Colorado River Compact, all that use is from the San Juan River Basin. Furthermore, <br />New Mexico and the Navajo Nation have or are seeking Section 7 consultations that would <br />use all remaining depletions allowable under the flow recommendations for the San Juan <br />River thus stymieing new water development in southwestern Colorado. The irrigation <br />component for the Animas-La Plata Project (ALP) had to be eliminated because the <br />Section 7 consultation for the Project found only 57,100 AF was developable under the <br />reasonable and prudent alternative (RP A) in order to protect endangered fish and their <br />habitat in the San Juan River. However, since the ALP revised Biological Opinion and <br />RPA were completed in 1991, a Biological Opinion allowing approximately 121,000 AF for <br />the balance of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project was permitted and another 37,375 AF <br />is being requested for the Navajo-Gallup Project. All these depletions would be from the <br />San Juan River and leave no allowable depletions for additional water development in the <br />