WSP04075 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Scoping Summary Report (b) Expanding tlze repayment forgiveness to apply to periods of 70R strategtj sllrpllls conditions: Reclamation believes this option would pose a risk to third party water users. Although 70R strategy surplus conditions indicate the system is close to a flood control release and all demands are being satisfied, it is very plausible that system storage would not move beyond 70R strategy surplus and into flood control release. Rather, system storage would be drawn back down. Under that scenario, if the repayment were to be forgiven, the system storage loss caused by the unpaid over- runs could eventually cause water use impacts. (c) Reducing tlze maximllm cumulative inadvertent ovemlll amollnt: Reducing the maximum overrun account amount to five percent was considered and investigated. Analysis of historical irrigation use by "unquantified" agricultural users indicates that fluctuation in use is generally attributable to changes in rainfall. Setting the n:!'.ximum overrun at five percent would tend to increase the frequency of exceeding the maximum, as seasonal rainfall cannot be predicted. Since exceeding the maximum cumulative overrun amount would require all of the excess and the normal portion of the five percent to be paid back the following year, it would be difficult for water user entities to manage, and would also cause greater reductions in river flow. Reclamation's initial investigations indicate there would be no environmental advanta e i.e., smaller or less nt a backs) resultin from a ive percent maximum as opposed to a 10 percent cumulative overrun. (d) Shortelling tlze payback period, and/or requiring immediate payback: The current policy makes the length of time allowed for the payback commensurate with the storage available within the system. As storage gets drawn down and water supplies become more critical, the payback period shortens to one year. Should shortages be declared, pay backs become immediate. Colorado River water .contractors would be required to adjust orders within the year to assure that by the end of the year there is no overrun. In order to maintain a safe, reliable supply, most of the time it is expected water contractors would incur small (less than five percent) overruns. By establishing a minimum payback, small overruns would be paid back within one or two years. For larger overruns, the water contractor may have up to three years tn . make the arrangements for an orderly, and manageable payback. The early drafts of the policy considered allowing even longer payback periods (five years). This was thought to be too long, especially in future years when the likelihood of the system getting drawn down into a shortage condition exceeds 40 percent. In addition, the nature of the overrun is intended to be inadvertent. It was felt allowing a longer time to pay back the overrun could result in water contractors making it part of their normal operation, rather than a type of safety net that is available, but should be used only under exceptional conditions. Requiring that ~ water contractor pay a minimum of 20 percent of the maximum overrun amount (assuming the contractor owes that much) was an additional provision that. in effect. significantly shortened the payback perio~ (e) Establishing penalties for ovem",s: If conveyances losses, and ulUueasured predicting crop demands, irrigation use, return flows was an exact science, then 12 lA, lOP and Related Federal Actions EIS