Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />staff, committees, and subcommittees ::re contacted and utilized in advancing the legislation. <br />Toward this end, I attended a meeting of the Implementation Issues in Phoenix, Arizona, on <br />January 9, 2004. At the meeting we reviewed the draft Implementation Agreement for the <br />LCR MSCP, the draft legislation, and the draft cost-sharing proposal. All of these drafts require <br />significant work and rewriting prior to a more broad distribution to the full Steering Committee and <br />agency managers in the three states. <br /> <br />Lower Colorado Water SUPlllv Proiect (LCWSP) <br /> <br />The City of Needles (Needles) is continuing to execute subcontracts with Project <br />beneficiaries to receive Project water. As ofJanuary 1", subcontracts in the amount of 3,164 acre- <br />feet for current and future use have been forwarded to potential applicants for execution. The initial <br />2004 water order placed for Project water by the City of Needles for Project beneficiaries was 649 <br />acre-feet and BLM 517 acre-feet. <br /> <br />With regard to the concept of Advanced Delivery, two alternatives are now being considered <br />for the Project. The first alternative is basically an exchange and forbearance arrangement, while <br />the second alternative is selling water at near market prices. Discussions with potential customers <br />who would receive this water are being held to determine their interest in pursuing each of these <br />alternatives. Also, discussions are being held with Needles and Reclamation on the mechanics of <br />implementing these alternatives. <br /> <br />In order to implement either of these alternatives, Needles' original contract will have to be <br />amended to accommodate development of Phase 2 of the Project. This amendment is currently <br />being reviewed by Reclamation and CRB staff. <br /> <br />Blythe Energy Project Phase II <br /> <br />Last month we discussed the status of the Blythe Energy Project Phase II, and I informed the <br />Board that on November 18, 2003, the California Energy Commission (CEC) had released its <br />Blythe II Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA) for agency comments. The PSA contains the CEC <br />staff's draft environmental, engineering, and public health and safety evaluation of the Blythe <br />Energy Project Phase II. Comments were due by December 18, 2003. <br /> <br />The CRB staffhas completed its review of the PSA. I have included in the Board folder a <br />copy of the Board's response to the CEC's notice. Our letter did not endorse any of the <br />recommendations in the PSA, however, our letter reaffirmed the comments we provided to the CEC <br />on September 11, 2003, concerning the proposed use of water by BEP II. <br /> <br />Proposed Revision to Exhibit A of Exchange Agreement <br /> <br />At previous Board meetings, it has been reported that staff was working on developing <br />criteria for the water quality of the well field water that is acceptable to IID and CVWD. The <br />Board's stafIhas reached agreement with the technical staff ofIID and the CVWD on the proposed <br />criteria. The revised criteria has been incorporated into the proposed Exhibit A which is included <br /> <br />9 <br />