Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0112200 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />how California intends to live within its annual apportiorunent of 4.4 maf. During the meeting, we <br />distributed copies of the Board's draft "Policy Principles" regarding California's Colorado River <br />Plan and invited their input on those draft principles. We also provided an overview of the issues <br />being addressed by each of the agencies within California and presented the elements of California's <br />Plan, as currently envisioned, which would enable California to continue to satisfy its Colorado <br />River water supply needs from within our annual Colorado River apportiorunent. During the <br />meeting we heard that: I) the states and Reclamation want to see quantification of the agricultural <br />agencies entitlements, 2) Reclamation indicated that it could not approve future water transfers <br />without quantification, because under current arrangements, transfers require approval from all of <br />the parties and that approval is unlikely, absent quantification, 3) the states want to see actual core <br />transfers occurring, where the use of Colorado River water, within California is moving from the <br />agricultural areas to the Coastal Plain, 4) the states want to see actual reductions in the use of water <br />within California when transfers occur, and 5) the states indicated that a credible plan must be <br />presented by California as a prerequisite to discussions on modifying the reservoir operating criteria <br />A copy of the draft "Policy Principles" is included in the Board folder. <br /> <br />In general the states encouraged California to have a plan as soon as possible. It was felt that <br />the Policy Principles provide a workable starting point, but they want to see a defined, enforceable <br />plan from California To further the dialogue among the states, at the conclusion of the meeting it <br />was agreed that the parties would get back together on June 5th for an update on California's <br />progress. <br /> <br />Last week, I was requested by MWD to address its Board of Directors on Tuesday, April 8th <br />and discuss the results of the seven Basin states meeting. Included in the Board folder is a copy of <br />my presentation. <br /> <br />Colorado River Enclllnllered Fish Snecies <br /> <br />The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP) Steering <br />Committee met on March 27th in Las Vegas, Nevada. Unfortunately, the Joint Participation <br />Agreement (JP A) has not been executed by the federal government. Both the state and federal <br />parties are continuing to work on developing acceptable language for the JP A. A revised version <br />of the agreement is expected to be received from the Department of the Interior by the end of this <br />week. <br /> <br />The draft Biological Opinion (BO) is expected to be released soon. The U.S. Fish and <br />Wildlife Service and Reclamation have agreed on the BO language. The document is currently in <br />Washington, D.C. for review. <br /> <br />The LCR MSCP Steering Conunittee received eleven responses to the Request For Proposal <br />(RFP) for Facilitator and five responses for Plan Development Contractor (pDC). four of the PDCs <br />and five of the Facilitator RFPs were selected for further interviews. Interviews were held on <br />April 14-15, 1997. The interview panel plans to make its recommendation to the Steering <br /> <br />5 <br />