Laserfiche WebLink
<br />u\rtl..jj <br /> <br />In order to provide comments on the proposed Rule, representatives of the Colorado River <br />Board agencies began meeting following publication of the proposed Rule in the Federal Register. <br />Also, a Board workshop was held following the March Board meeting to discuss the comments that <br />would be sent to Reclamation and the relationship of the proposed Rule to the Board's 4.4 Plan and <br />its negotiations regarding that Plan. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Following Reclamation's March 27" public meeting, representatives from California met to <br />further discuss the Board's comments on the proposed Rule and to discuss what needed to be <br />covered during the meeting the following day with representatives from the Colorado River Basin <br />states. On March 28, 1998, a meeting was held with representatives from the other Colorado River <br />Basin states to discuss and share our comments on the proposed Rule. During the meeting, the <br />discussion focused on the following areas: I) desirability to have a preamble to the proposed Rule <br />as well as to narrow the focus of the proposed Rule to specifically address the opportunity provided <br />for the storage of water in the Arizona Water Bank, 2) the desirability to have different definitions <br />for "authorized entity" in a storing state and a consuming state, 3) the need to ensure that the <br />proposed Rule defines "storable water" in such a manner to allow saved and conserved water <br />developed as part of California's 4.4 Plan to be stored offstream, 4) the concerns associated with the <br />ability of a storing state being allowed to direct its entire apportionment for the ultimate benefit of <br />another state and a specific entity in another state as well as the possibility for states to share in the <br />storage of water when a state is directing its water for the benefit of another state, 5) the need for <br />verification and provisions on dispute resolution to be part of the proposed Rule, and 6) the <br />desirability for the interested parties to be able to see another draft of the Rule before it is published <br />as a final Rule. <br /> <br />On April 3"'. the Board's comments were transmitted to Reclamation for its consideration. <br />Included in the Board folder is a copy of the Board's comments as well as copies of the comments <br />sent to Reclamation from CVWD, L.A. Department of Water and Power, 110, and the SDCW A. In <br />total Reclamation received comments from 46 entities. I have included in the Board folder a listing <br />of the 46 people or organizations that submitted comments.' I have also brought 3l0ng for each Board <br />member and Agency Manager a bound copy of the comments for their reference. <br /> <br />Colorado River Endafill.ered Fish Soecies <br /> <br />The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP) Steering <br />Committee met on March 26,1998, which was followed by a meeting of the Workgroup that <br />afternoon. I was re-elected Chairman and Mr. George Caan, Executive Director of the Colorado <br />River Commission of Nevada was re-elected Vice-Chairman of the Steering Committee. <br /> <br />The Steering Committee heard a presentation on the National Environmental Policy Act <br />(NEPA) by Mr. Don Peterson, a NEPA specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In his <br />remarks, Mr. Peterson indicated that the "Baseline" for the NEP A process starts with the present and <br />does not go into the past. He also indicated that there is no requirement under NEP A to expand the <br />scope of the project to Mexico, but there is a requirement to look at impacts and share that <br />infonnation with Mexico. <br /> <br />5 <br />