BOARD02414

• Board Meeting Date: 9/25/2000
• Description: Directors' Reports
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

e

e

e

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 718
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
TOD: 13031866.3543
fax: [phone]

September 11. 2000

DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES

Ms. Jayne Harkins
Attention BC00-4600
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
P.O. Box 61470
Boulder City, Nevada 89006-1470

Bill Owens
Governor

Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director

Dear Ms. Harkins:

On behalf of the State of Colorado, I am writing to comment on the Bureau of
Reclamation's July 2000, "Colorado River btterim Surplus Criteria Draft Environmental Impact
Statement" (DEIS). The Colorado Department of Natural Resources includes the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, the agency charged with promoting the protection, conservation and
development of Colorado's water resources in order to secure the greatest utilization of those
resources for the benefit of present and future generations. It is our mission to ensure that
Colorado's water is protected for use of future generations, and that its compact obligations are
enforced under the Law of the River.

Colorado supports the effort to develop workable interim surplus criteria for the lower
Colorado River that will assist Califomia in reducing its use of Colorado River water to its allotted
4.4 million acre-feet ("mar'). The complexity of the operations of the lower Colorado River, and
the Law of the River, always make clear and concise descriptions of the background and a proposed
action a challenge. In general, the DEIS fairly describes the purpose and need for the criteria and
the affected environment, and analyzes an appropriate range of ahematives. It would be more clear
if that section of the document specifically referred to the 4.4 Plan as the primary reason for the
discussion of interim surplus criteria. In addition, there are a few significant areas in the discussions
where the Law of the River and river operations have not been accurately stated:

. Use of the 75R strategy to describe the no action alternative - The 70R Strategy, not the
75R, has been the Colorado River reservoir operating strategy since the mid 1980's with only
one exception. While the 75R strategy has been reviewed on occasion as part of the annual
operating plan development, it has never been the standard and should not have been used to
describe the no action alternative.
. Section 1.4.2 Glen Canyon Dam Operations - The discussion of Glen Canyon operations is
not precisely accurate. The Colorado River Compact requires that the Upper Division States
not deplete the flow at Lee Ferry below an aggregate of 75 maffor any period oflO consecutive
years (plus Yz of the Mexican Treaty delivery deficiency, ifany). The 8.23 mafper year
minimum objective release identified in the Long Rang Operating Criteria should not be
confused with compact requirements, and this section and any others should be revised to
accurately reflect what the compact requires.
. Section 3.16.6 Preliminary Summary of Effects to Special-Status Species and Habitat in
Mexico - We strongly disagree with the inclusion of this information, as it is beyond the scope
ofNEP A and ESA consultation requirements. The allocation and delivery of Colorado River

Board of land Commissioners. Division 01 Minerals & Geology/Geological Survey
Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. Colorado State Parks. Soil Conservation Board
Water Conservation Board. Division oj Water Resources. Division oi Wildlife