WSP02666

• File Number: 8220.106
• Description: Animas-La Plata
• State: CO
• Basin: San Juan/Dolores
• Water Division: 7
• Date: 1/1/2000
• Author: Water Education Foun
• Title: Colorado River Project - River Report
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

"It's not in California's interest

to have the system go ta hell,"
- Dennis Underwood,
Metroploitan Water District of
Southern California

the six states sat down and developed a
proposal that would allow the state of
California, particularly Metropolitan, to
dip into the reservoir reserves," said
Patricia Mulroy, general manager of the
Southern Nevada Water Authority,
Another major issue at hand is what
the surplus water will be used for. The
six basin states acknowledged in their
proposal that they have no problem with
the surplus supplying M&I purposes in
California. But the
California proposal
suggests that some
of the surplus water
could be used for
agriculture, a point
the six Basin states
remain opposed to
but something that
Interior says shouldn't be an issue.
"The issue for the ocher basin states is
risk reduction and water security," said
David J, Hayes, Deputy Secrerary of rhe
Interior, at December's Colorado River
Water Users Association meeting in Las
Vegas. "The way to engage that issue is
through a discussion of the numbers and
criteria in the surplus guidelines, not to
look into California and attempt to
prioritize their internal uses,"
Determining the interim surplus
criteria is finding the fine line of how to
anticipate and make releases. "If it
appears that the river system is full and
that demands are not such that it would
draw down the reservoirs too far, you
can do anticipatory releases to reduce
the magnitude of flood comrol releases,"
said Dennis Underwood, executive
assistant on Colorado River matters for
Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California. "This does (WO things: it
prevents damage and it allows for better
use of that water instead of having it go
through the system unused.
"It's not in California's interest to
have the system go ro hell," he added,
The parries involved in the December
Las Vegas meeting agreed on at least one
thing about the interim surplus criteria:
[here is an interest in working together.
Babbitt has indicated he wants to

resolve the issue before the end of his

term.
"Arizona and Nevada will benefit
from these surplus criteria just as
California could," said Tom Levy,
general manager for Coachella Valley
Water District, referring to Nevada's
interest in banking surplus water in
Arizona.
"We're going back and having a look
at our [California's] proposal with the
intention of
coming back to
the basin states to
show rhe differ-
ences between the
two proposals and
to see in what
areas there may be
some accommoda-
tion on California's parr." Levy said
issues include lake levels, how any
disruptions on the system stemming
from the interim surplus criteria will be
mitigated by California and where the
surplus flows can be stored (the Arizona
Water Bank being one possibility),
Bur until California completes its
4,4 Plan, most participants say that talk
is cheap,
"The Upper Basin refuses to negoti-
ate any guidelines for surplus criteria
until California adopts a published 4.4
plan," said Greg Walcher, executive
director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources. "We want to ensure
that the risk is borne by the Lower
Basin," he said,
Jerry Zimmerman, executive director
of the Colorado River Board of Califor-
nia, says he expects the board to adopt a
framework for rhe 4.4 plan by rhe end of
February 2000. .

FEATURE ARTICLE

Continued/I'om page 9

As envisioned, the revised project no
longer pumped warer from the Animas
River to the La Plata River and deple-
tions from the Animas, as determined by
L:SFWS, remained limired ro 57,100
acre-feer annually ~ about 12 percent of

the Animas River's average annual flow.
With the irrigation component gone,
the Colorado Ute Tribes were to receive
about cwo-thirds of the project's water
with the remainder going to M&I uses
in urban areas around the San Juan
Basin in Colorado and New Mexico.
The project made it to Congress in
1998 bur was verbally opposed by rhe
Clinton administration and was shot down.
<<Despire removal of the agricultural
component, with the large capacity
reservoir allowed in ALP Lite, there was
clearly irrigation in mind," said SCOtt
McElroy, tribal attorney for the South-
ern Utes. "The administration felt that
irrigation ultimately couldn't meet
environmental compliance and therefore
didn't support it,"

Conclusion
Even with the redesign of ALP
rhrough Ulrra Lite and now, H,R, 3112,
rhe future of ALP remains foggy,
especially as those in Washington say
pushing rhe bill rhrough Capirol Hill
will be a fighr,
"Getting the legislation passed is
going to be difficulr," said Josh Penty, a
spokesman for Rep. Mcinnis. "There
are some concerns on the Senate side
that the legislation we've introduced has
scaled back the project too much."
Sen, Ben Nighrhorse Campbell (R-
CO) has publicly said he will oppose
H,R, 3112 and campaign for rhe
original, full-sized project - complete
with 270,000 acre-feet reservoir and
agricultural components - when a new
administration is elected into the White
House, Consequently, the proposal faces
anorher hurdle withour a parry currently
willing to introduce legislation in the
Senate,
The question also remains as to
whether or not taxpayer and environ-
mental groups will file suit against the
Bureau over what they see as a projecr
without a purpose or whether the
Colorado Ute tribes will file suit to
reopen litigation against rhe farmers and
stare of Colorado for water rights that
have not been met. .

\Xr!~TER 2000 . R1VER REPORT. COLORADO RIVER PROJECT. 11