Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . <br /> <br />Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Figure I, found at the end of this report, depicts the historic <br />end-of-year agricultural use for the year. <br /> <br />Colorado River Ooerations <br /> <br />2000 Annual Operating Plan <br /> <br />Last month I reported that the 2000 Annual Operating Plan for the Colorado River System had been <br />transmitted to the Commissioner of Reclamation for processing through the Department of the Interior. <br />To date, the document has not been transmitted to the governors of the Basin states. <br /> <br />Space Building Releases from Lake Mead <br /> <br />Since September, I have been reporting that Reclamation had begun making space building <br />releases, above downstream requirements, from Hoover Dam in order to have approximately 6.0 maf of <br />vacate space available in the reservoir system to avoid possible large flood control releases starting in <br />January 2000. Included in the Board folder is a news release from Reclamation announcing that since <br />precipitation in the Upper Colorado Basin is presently below average, as of December 4th releases from <br />Hoover, Davis, and Parker Dams will be reduced to only meet downstream requirements. Reclamation <br />projects that 6.1 maf of vacant space in the system reservoirs will be available on January 1,2000, but that <br />flood control releases will still be required in January 2000. <br /> <br />,l"fisce/laneous Present Perfected Rights <br /> <br />Incl uded in the Board folder, as an informational item, is a copy of a letter from Reclamation to a <br />Mr. Donald Dickman, regarding the procedure for assigning 180 acre-feet of water annually with a Present <br />Perfected Right date of 1928 to a buyer of the land. Since the water will be used on the land associated <br />with the original right, there appears to be no controversy involved in the transaction. <br /> <br />Basin States/Tribes Discussion <br /> <br />On November 17'", representatives of the Basin states met in Ontario, California, at which time <br />California's representatives briefed them on the progress that has been made in developing its 4.4 Plan. <br />Emphasis was placed on the recently negotiated "Key Terms ......." and its contents. <br /> <br />The comments made by representatives from the other Basin states during the meeting were <br />followed-up by a letter dated December 6, 1999, to Tom Hannigan and me. In that letter the Basin states <br />representatives indicated that they found the meeting helpful and informative. However, they expressed <br />a number of serious concerns. Those concerns related to: I) the absence of a 4.4 Plan and a commitment <br />by California to enter into a defined, enforceable program to reduce its dependence on Colorado River <br />water above its basic entitlement, 2) the number of "conditions precedent" contained in the quantification <br />Agreement, 3) the absence of a plan that shows how MWD will have a full Colorado River Aqueduct <br />within California's 4.4 maf basic apportionment, 4) the ability for California agricultural agencies to <br />receive surplus water under level I surplus conditions and the ability to store water in groundwater basins <br />under level 2 surplus conditions, and 5) the risk that is seemingly still being placed upon the other Basin <br />2 <br />