|
<br />002430
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />J
<br />
<br />method as consistent, accurate, and understandable as possible, Some recent improvements to LCRAS
<br />have made it more reliable for calculation of consumptive use values, Reclamation had planned to hold
<br />a consultation meeting in March of2002 to provide information on the latest improvements to LCRAS and
<br />implementation of the LCRAS method; to discuss the Policy Guideline on Alternatives for Consumptive
<br />Use by Riparian Vegetation; and exchange ideas on these issues, The meeting has been canceled due to
<br />other priorities within Reclamation,
<br />
<br />As shown in the above table, the calculated crop and domestic uses for Arizona and Nevada and
<br />the total use in the Lower Division states, as reported in the LCRAS Report, are less than the values
<br />reported in the 2000 Decree Accounting Report assuming unmeasured return flow credits, However, the
<br />LCRAS consumptive use value is greater than the Decree accounting values for California. A review of
<br />the detailed results indicates that there is a significant difference between the LCRAS results and the
<br />Decree accounting for the All-American Canal, 3,465,305 AF and 3,260,618 AF, respectively. These two
<br />values should not have this much discrepancy, because both values are based upon the measured diversion
<br />at Imperial Dam. Therefore, it appears that an error might have occurred (possibly with the Decree
<br />Accounting), which needs to be evaluated,
<br />
<br />Ifphreatophyte consumptive use is added to the crop and domestic use, then the LCRAS values
<br />are higher than the reported use in both the Decree Accounting and CRB reports, Although the above
<br />values, as shown in CRB's Report, do not included unmeasured return flow credits, past studies by Board
<br />staffhave shown the need for such credits. An outstanding issue to be resolved with LCRAS, is how much
<br />of the phreatophyte use should be charged to each state and each diverter.
<br />
<br />2001 Colorado River Wafer Use
<br />
<br />Reclamation provides _a monthly forecast of the Colorado River mainstream water use by each
<br />diverter in the Lower Basin. In its January 11,2002, forecast that was sent to "All Lower Basin States and
<br />Other Interested Parties," Reclamation requested each water user to review the actual 200 I water use data
<br />for possible errors, as these data will provide the basis for the Article V Decree Accounting for calendar
<br />year 200 I. The January 11'h memorandum further stated that the 2001 Annual Operating Plan for the
<br />Colorado River System Reservoirs (200] AOP) contained a quantified surplus of 630,000 acre-feet and
<br />that a draft policy on how Reclamation plans to handle inadvertent overruns was published in the Federal
<br />Register (66 FR 4856), This draft policy and the final Article V Decree Accounting records will be used
<br />to determine if individual water users exceeded their Colorado River water entitlements, and if any did,
<br />the final records will be used in determining the required future water use reductions to offset any such
<br />inadvertent overruns that may have occurred. In reviewing Reclamation's records, the total water use in
<br />2001 from the mainstream in the Lower Basin was 8.147 maf or about 17,000 acre-feet above the
<br />quantified surplus contained in the 200] AOP,
<br />
<br />In a January 15,2002, letter addressed to Reclamation, Sid Wilson, the General Manager of the
<br />Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CA WCD), raised concerns regarding the use of water in
<br />200 I above that allowed under the 2001 AOP, In his letter, he states that it was CA WCD's understanding,
<br />that under the quantified surplus, if Arizona used less than 2,8 maf, such unused water would be stored in
<br />
<br />3
<br />
<br />'.
<br />
|