WSPC03452 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001251 Again, the fourth item can be removed, Lastly, we recognize that it might be useful to break this definition into "authorized storing entities" and "authorized consuming entities. " Pa!!e 68498. Proposed Rule. Part 414,2. 3rd column. Intentionallv created unused apportionment: We believe a better definition would be, "means unused apportionment that is created solely as a result of a Storing State using water previously stored pursuant to an Interstate Water Storage Agreement in place of water within its apportionment that the Storing State would have otherwise diverted from the mainstem, for the purpose of making Colorado River water available for a Consuming State pursuant to Article II(B)(6) of the Decree and in accordance with an Interstate Water Storage Agreement." Pa!!e 68498 and 68499. Proposed Rule. Part 414,2. 3rd column. Interstate stora!!e a!!reement: It is unclear what the language, "and may include other entities that are determined to be appropriate to the performance and enforcement of the agreement under federal law and the respective laws of the Storing State and Consuming State" means, Who makes the determination of appropriate entities and does that need to be spelled out in the rule? Can it all be included in a specific interstate water storage agreement? It would be useful to have an example in the section by section analysis, Pa!!e 68499. Proposed Rule. Part 414,2. 1st column. Added Definitions: It would be appropriate to include the definitions for "Colorado River Basin" and "Colorado River System" as defmed and used in the Colorado River Compact. We believe these definitions are important in understanding how the proposed rule fits into the overall picture on the Colorado River. It would also be helpful to have some discussion of this in the "Background" discussion of the rule, Pa!!e 68499. Proposed Rule. Part 414,3. 2nd column. subpara!!raph (a)(2): It would be appropriate to allow the use of the Storing State's surplus apportionment here as well so long as the caveats we suggested for inclusion under the "Purpose" are incorporated, Colorado's concern remains that implementation of interstate water storage agreements must not adversely impact the water supply available to the Upper Basin, So long as that is the case, we support allowing significant flexibility in interstate water storage agreements, Pa!!e 68500. Proposed Rule. Part 414,5. 2nd column. new subpara!!raph: A new subparagraph addressing Colorado River salinity should be added, It would read as follows: "The proposed rule and the evaluation of impacts were based on the Colorado River Salinity Standards currently in place, Furthermore, the existing Colorado River Salinity Control Program provides the means to offset any increase in Page 6 of?