Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Scopillg SUllllllary Report <br /> <br />Reclamatioll's Respollse: The lOP is a condition precedent to the execution of the QSA <br />and, therefore, must necessarily proceed on a more expedited timetable. Rulemaking <br />can be a lengthy process. Reclamation believes pursuing rulemaking at this juncture <br />would jeopardize timely execution of the QSA and implementation of the California <br />Plan, and would increase the potential for disruptive litigation and/or disputes. <br />Reclamation does not believe enforcement will be an issue; however, implementing the <br />lOP would not preclude the ability of Reclamation to pursue rulemaking in the future, <br />should it be deemed necessary or desirable. <br /> <br />2. Commellt: Allowing forgiveness of payback of inadvertent overruns when there are <br />flood releases or when surplus water is available cannot be allowed because forgiveness <br />of an overrun does not constitute a surplus use, and because non-payment of an <br />inadvertent overrun would be a violation of the 1964 U.s. Supreme Court Decree in <br />Arizolla v, Califomia, <br /> <br />Reclamatioll's Respollse: 1.[1 general, once flood control releases are required from Lake <br />Mead, previous uses of water are considered to have no effect on future supplies. The- <br />Colorado River Reservoir Storage system was constructed recognizing that the system is <br />over appropriated. As there is more demand than annual supply, reservoir storage <br />equal to about four times the annual runoff was constructed within the system to <br />maximize utilization of the limited water supply. The storage system was constructed to <br />capture flood flows, protect against flood damages, and provide long term assured <br />water supplies. Once full reservoir conditions occur, the maximum assured water <br />supply is realized and there is no basis for insisting that past use be repaid as it cannot <br />be argued that the past use would impacr future use. - <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />3. Commellt: Alternatives to the proposed policy should be considered, including the <br />following: Eliminating the forgiveness of payment aspect; expanding the forgiveness of <br />payment aspect to apply to periods of 70R strategy surplus conditions; reducing the <br />maximum cumulative overrun amount; shortening the payback period; deferment of <br />payback when water cannot be stored; requiring immediate payback; establishing <br />penalties for overruns; developing incentives to minimize overruns; allowing voluntary <br />payback starting the year prior to initiation of mandatory payback; prohibiting use of <br />non-system water to pay back overruns that would introduce non-system water into the <br />Colorado River system; and, requiring diverters that report annually to report on a <br />monthly basis. <br /> <br />Reclamatioll's Respollse: In developing the draft policy and in preparation of the draft <br />EIS, many of these concepts have been considered and investigated. Reclamation's <br />position regarding these concepts is as follows: <br /> <br />(a) Eliminatillg the forgivelless of paymellt aspect: As noted in response to the lOP General <br />Issues Comment 2 above, Reclamation does not believe there is a requirement that <br />past use be repaid once full reservoir conditions occur. However, given the potential <br />for differing environmental effects, and based upon the number of commenters <br />advocating this provision, this concept will be developed into an alternative and will <br />be carried forward and fully evaluated in the draft EIS. <br /> <br />lA, lOP alld Related Federal Actiolls ElS <br /> <br />11 <br />