Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Colorado River Advisory Council <br />January 26, 1999 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Of course, the other states were also not parties to the MOU negotiations. Although the <br />MOU might be characterized as an internal California issue, it does have direct ramifications on <br />another issue of critical importance to MWD -- the adoption by the Secretary of interim surplus <br />operating criteria for Colorado River operations that would give to MWD a greater assurance that <br />its Colorado River Aqueduct would be kept full, while the 4.4 Plan is being implemented. The <br />assumptions and agreements reached in the MOU negotiations will directly affect what the <br />ultimate interim criteria look like. <br /> <br />However, to date there has been no formal response by California to the interim operating <br />criteria proposal offered by the six states. In fact, because of the nD/MWD meltdown, <br />California specifically does not now have a position on the six state proposal, and we have no <br />indication when a California position will be developed. <br /> <br />Meeting Summary <br /> <br />At the January 26,1999, meeting, MWD and nD presented their respective positions on <br />the issues raised by the MOU. Negotiations on the MOV continue, and MWD has indicated its <br />commitment to stay at the table to work through these issues. <br /> <br />The other six states expressed several concerns: <br /> <br />~ We expressed frustration that the Secretary still has not adopted Lower Basin <br />banking regulations. These regulations are hung up on a dispute between Arizona <br />and Interior on the issue of whether a separate contract is required for the water <br />bank. <br /> <br />~ We expressed frustration that California agencies apparently cannot get their act <br />together to reach fundamental agreements necessary to implement the 4.4 Plan. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />We emphasized that we were not parties to the MOU negotiations, and cautioned <br />that any assumptions being made in those negotiations that affect the other states <br />might not be acceptable to us. We specifically pointed to several examples of <br />differences in the MOV and the interim operating criteria proposal made by the <br />six states, such as time frame and the fact that the 4.4 Plan is still only a "4.8 <br />Plan." Moreover, one of our fundamental principles for the interim surplus <br />criteria proposal is that the party benefitting from the criteria (California) bear the <br />risk of system shortages. We cautioned that we should be more closely in the <br />loop in these negotiations, and that we should not be expected to agree to changes <br />