My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02180
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02180
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:13:10 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:12:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/22/2003
Description
WSP Section - Colorado River Issues
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Agenda Item 13 <br />January 22-23,2003 Board Meeting <br />Page 4 of 5 <br /> <br />March or April of this year. It has also been rumored that environmental groups are giving a high <br />priority to filing a lawsuit concerning the Criteria. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />California Quantification Settlement Agreement and Related Activities: Although California <br />failed to reach agreement on the QSA by the December 31, 2002 deadline, they continue to work <br />towards a QSA agreement. In Las Vegas the California agencies asked the states to support re- <br />instituting the Interim Surplus Criteria as soon as a QSA can be completed. This situation is <br />changing constantly and we will discuss this matter with you further at the Board meeting. The four <br />issue areas that must be addressed before a QSA agreement is possible are: (1) Environmental issues, <br />particularly those surrounding the Salton Sea, (2) The San Diego County Water Authority must <br />obtain the ability to wheel the conserved water through the Colorado River Aqueduct, (3) the QSA <br />must receive the necessary approvals including approval from the State Water Resources Control <br />Board and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and (4) IID must have conditional subscriptions of <br />interested landowners in place to collectively conserve 130,000 AF of water. The agreernent also <br />caps lID's yearly allotment at 3.1 MAF. Attached is the graph, which helps us monitor California <br />agricultural water uses. Also, included are recent news articles providing various perspectives on the <br />failure to achieve the QSA. <br /> <br />December 1 Forecast of 2002 Year-End Colorado River <br />Water Use by the California Agricultural Agencies <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> 5 <br />- 4 <br />Q) <br />'* <br />Q) 3 <br />~ <br />" <br />'" <br />.... <br />0 <br />U> 2 <br />c: <br />g <br />:E 1 <br /> 0 <br /> J F M A M J J A 5 0 N 0 J <br /> First of Month <br /> <br /> <br />--3.850 MAF <br />2003 Target = 3.74 MAF <br />....... 2006 Target = 3.~4 M_AF <br />- . - . - 2009 Target = 3.53 MAF <br />- - - - 2012 Target = 3.47 MAF <br />. Year-End Forecast <br />. Use This Year <br /> <br />Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: Over Colorado's objections, the Adaptive . <br />Management Workgroup, recommended an experimental flow test similar to the 1996 Beach\Habitat <br />Building Flow in which releases from Glen Canyon Dam were made in excess of power plant <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.