Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001217 <br /> <br />"Law of the Colorado River" and not to change or broaden that body of law, If this is <br />not the case, we want immediate notification, <br /> <br />Colorado is concerned that certain language in the proposed rule may be interpreted or <br />viewed in ways that are contrary to existing law, Therefore, we offer the following <br />suggestions to clarify the proposed rule and make it more precise, First, the proposed <br />rule should provide that no more than the 7,5 maf apportioned to the Lower Division <br />States from the mainstem Colorado is allowed in any year under "normal" hydrologic <br />conditions, The proposed rule should clearly provide that it is limited to the use of <br />mainstem Colorado River water in the Lower Basin, The Lower Division States shall <br />not develop a long-term dependence on the "unused apportionment" and "surplus" <br />supplies that are currently available and which may be utilized under this rule. Lastly, <br />the rule should specifically state that operations under the proposed rule will not <br />adversely impact water supplies currently available to the Upper Basin, Within these <br />general guidelines, we offer the following specific comments, <br /> <br />Page 68493. Section II. Background. 1st column. 1st oaragraph: <br />The narrative incorrectly states, "The compact defined the Colorado River Basin and <br />divided the seven states into two basins, an upper and a lower," The Compact did not <br />divide the states but rather the basin into two subbasins, an upper and a lower, The <br />compact did go on to specify which states are "upper division states" and which are <br />"lower division states," <br /> <br />Page 68493. Section II. Background. 1st column. 1st oarae:raph: <br />The narrative incorrectly states, "Under the compact, 'consumptive use' means <br />diversions of water from the mainstem of the Colorado River, including water drawn <br />from the mainstem by underground pumping, less return flow to the river," The <br />Compact does not define consumptive use, The definition above refers to consumptive <br />use as defined in the Arizona v. California decree, The exact language used in Article <br />L(A) of the Arizona v. California decree should be substituted and used throughout the <br />proposed rule when referring to a definition of consumptive use, <br /> <br />Page 68493. Section III. Purpose of this Rule. 3rd column. 1st oarae:raoh: <br />This paragraph describes "authorized entities" allowed to enter into interstate water <br />storage agreements and what they are allowed to do pursuant to applicable laws of the <br />Lower Division states, We believe it important to acknowledge here that the <br />apportionments of Colorado River water are specifically made to the individual states. <br />Therefore, it is important for the states to specifically designate the "authorized <br />entities" entitled to enter into interstate storage agreements in some fashion, Without <br />specific authorizations, we are concerned that it will be difficult for any state or the <br />Secretary to assure that water usage remains within a state's apportionment during any <br />given year, Also, we see no need for item (4), as it seems covered by the first three. <br /> <br />Page 2 of 7 <br />