Laserfiche WebLink
<br />uu.;~(ti <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Since the January Board meeting, the Agency Managers have met on January 13 and <br />29, 1999. Although the Imperial Irrigation District (lID) did not attend the January 291h meeting, <br />progress has been achieved in understanding and narrowing the proposed alternatives for reservoir <br />operations, as well as, understanding the impacts associated with each alternative. I believe that we, <br />are closer to reaching agreement on proposed reservoir operations to be recommended to the Board' <br />for inclusion in its 4.4 Plan. Included in the Board folder is a letter from the President of the <br />Imperial Irrigation District explaining why its representatives would not be attending the January 291h <br />meeting. Currently, two base cases and three alternatives are being studied. Each of the base cases <br />and alternatives are being compared with the proposal for interim reservoir operations presented by <br />the other six Colorado River Basin states. <br /> <br />On January 26, 1999, representatives from the seven Colorado River Basin states met in <br />Phoenix, Arizona. During the meeting representatives from MWD made presentations on resource <br />management and policy issues regarding MWD's available waterresources and representatives from <br />lID and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) made ajoint presentation on their Memorandum <br />of Understanding on quantification of the water within the third priority of California' s Seven Party <br />Agreement. Concern was expressed by the other Basin states that the ongoing discussions do not <br />seem to be bringing the California agencies closer together, that there does not appear to be a <br />commitment by California to get to its 4.4 mafbasic apportionment in the near term, and that the <br />ongoing discussions among the agricultural agencies are not consistent with the program outlined <br />in the December draft of the 4.4 Plan to keep the Colorado River Aqueduct full. Also during the <br />meeting Reclamation discussed the development of surplus guidelines for operation of Lake Mead. <br />Reclamation indicated that it would like to have agreement among the Basin states on the proposed <br />interim surplus guidelines by May of this year. Furthermore, Reclamation and the Department of <br />the Interior are currently relying upon the Basin states to develop and bring the proposed surplus <br />guidelines to them for consideration. In that regard, both Reclamation and the other Basin states <br />expressed concern that California has not responded to the six Basin states on their proposal for <br />interim operation of Lake Mead. The proposal was distributed in December and to date no response <br />has been received. Reclamation representatives indicated that without a unified response from <br />California the only proposal regarding surplus and shortage guidelines is the one from the six Basin <br />states. <br /> <br />The Agency Managers have another meeting scheduled for February 17, 1999, to further <br />develop their proposal regarding reservoir operations which will be brought to the Board for its <br />consideration. It is envisioned that the recommendation to the Board would include a recommended <br />base case as well as an interim operating strategy, <br /> <br />Also included in the Board folder, as an informational item, is a notice from the State Water <br />Resources Control Board (SWRCB) announcing that it has extended the comment period to April I , <br />1999, regarding the IID/SDCW A application for change in use and change in diversion location, and, <br />2) a copy ofMWD's Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Cadiz <br />Goundwater Storage and Dry-Year Supply Program. <br /> <br />5 <br />