Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. The Tribe inquired whether it could sell effluent as non-Colorado River water. <br /> <br />. Can the Tribe get a return flow credit for any water it returns to the mainstream? <br /> <br />Basin Statesffribes Discussion <br /> <br />Last month I discussed with the Board, Reclamation's proposed interim approach for <br />improving the salinity and consistency of water deliveries to Mexico at the Southerly International <br />Boundary as proposed in its letter dated December 31, 1998. In considering Reclamation's proposal, <br />the Board determined that the problem was not well defined and that further information was needed <br />in order to make an informed decision. Following the Board meeting, I requested a sixty-day <br />extension of the comment period, which would begin upon receipt of the additional information and <br />salinity data requested by the Imperial Irrigation District. For your information, included in the <br />Board folder are copies of my January 15, 1999, letter to Reclamation as well as comment letters <br />submitted to Reclamation from the MWD, Arizona Department of Water Resources and the <br />Wyoming State Engineer's Office, commenting on Reclamation's proposal. <br /> <br />On January 6, 1999, technical representatives from the other six Basin states met with the <br />technical representatives as well as agency managers from California to have an in depth discussion <br />of the other Basin states "Proposal for Interim Lake Mead Reservoir Operation Criteria Related to <br />Surplus, Normal and Shortage Year Declarations." During the meeting, the other six Basin states <br />representatives indicated that the states' proposal is a package deal. The objective of their proposal <br />is to protect municipal and industrial (M&I) water use within California and to satisfy the unmet <br />M&I demands in California, through establishment of tiered surplus criteria and trigger elevations <br />in Lake Mead. It was not the intent of the other Basin states to maximize the use of available <br />Colorado River water, to provide M&I and agricultural entities additional flexibility in meeting their <br />water demands, or to provide additional water to agricultural entities. The other Basin states are <br />supportive of a tiered approach for making surplus water available to meet unmet M&l water needs <br />during an interim period which ends by 2015. But, they are not supportive ofa five-year look-ahead <br />approach for defining the surplus criteria or technical approaches that are based on exceedence <br />probabilities and formulas. <br /> <br />Currently, the other states view all of the benefits from the surplus guidelines flowing to <br />California, whereas, the additional water use places an increased risk on the other states in terms of <br />shortages and causes lower reservoir conditions. California, according to the other six states, needs <br />to rnitigate this increased risk. Furthermore, the other states want the interim surplus guidelines to <br />terminate by 2015. Furthermore, California's Phase II activities are to be initiated during Phase L <br />The objective is for California to be at its basic apportionment of 4.4 mafby 2015. It was indicated <br />that during the interim period Arizona would forego its right to divert 46 percent of the surplus to <br />allow California and Nevada M&I demands to be met. However, under the "70R" tier of the <br />proposed surplus criteria, Arizona may want to receive the first block of surplus water, since M&I <br />water demands in California and Nevada would be met through other tiers of the strategy. A copy <br />of the six Basin states' proposed interim surplus guidelines was included in the December Board <br />folder, <br /> <br />4 <br />