Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />mainstem. The Upper Basin's position has been that to the <br />extent Lower Basin tributary use exceeds one million acre <br />feet (today total Lower Basin tributary use is something <br />over two million acre feet) then the Upper Basin's <br />obligation to deliver half of the 1.5 million acre foot <br />Mexican Treaty obligation is reduced. Resolution of this <br />issue may be necessary before any wheeling concepts or <br />further development of the Virgin River is pursued. <br /> <br />3. Resolution of salinity issues on the Colorado River in <br />compliance with Minute 242 ultimately has water quantity <br />implications. Continued funding for, and reasonable and <br />responsible implementation of, salinity control measures is <br />critical to meeting our international water quality <br />obligations in a manner that allows for full development and <br />use of water in the United States. <br /> <br />4. The upper Basin has traditionally resisted the <br />implementation of specific criteria for the declaration of <br />shortages and/or surplus conditions in the Lower Basin, <br />except in the context of the resolution of other issues <br />under' discussion. This is because California has requested <br />surplus conditions so as to enable it to continue to take <br />more than its 4.4 million acre feot basic apportionment. <br />Simply stated, more surplus declarations affect the Upper <br />Basin by accelerating the drawdown of system reservoirs. <br />Although the Upper Basin is ultimately protected by the <br />provisions of Section 602 of the COlorado River Basin <br />Project Act, Arizona and Nevada are also opposed to surplus <br />declarations which would have the affect of allowing <br />California to continue to utilize more than its basic <br />apportionment. All six other basin states have urged <br />California to embark on programs to reduce its dependance on <br />water in excess of its basic apportionment, except on and <br />, intermittent, and true surplus, basis. <br /> <br />These four examples demonstrate the important need to factor in <br />Upper Basin affects when considering changes in how the Colorado <br />River is managed to address issues emerging in the Lower Basin. <br />Now, I want to highlight some of the most pressing issues I see <br />facing the Lower Basin that will affec~ the Upper Basin: <br /> <br />1. Construction of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) has <br />been completed and water deliveries have commenced. CAP'will <br />facilitate Arizona'S attainment of full consumptive water <br />use of its 2.8 million acre-foot annual basic apportionment <br />under the Boulder Canyon project Act from the COlorado <br />mainstem. However, demand for this full amount is not <br />expected to materialize for many years. <br /> <br />2. Nevada is expected to exceed its basic apportionment of <br />0.3 million acre feet per year by as soon as 2017. Nevada <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />00U404 <br />