Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />by the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), the Yuma Project Reservation Division (YPRD), the <br />Imperial Irrigation District (lID), and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Figure I, found <br />at the end of this report, depicts the historic end-of-year agricultural use for the year. <br /> <br />Colorado River Ooerations <br /> <br />Included in the Board folder is a copy of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt's speech, <br />which he presented at the Annual Conference of the Colorado River Water Users Association in <br />Las Vegas, Nevada, on December 16, 1998. During his presentation, he remarked that 1998 was a <br />"...remarkable year, perhaps the most significant on the River in many decades, for we are now on <br />the threshold of resolving some of the most intractable and elusive issues..." <br /> <br />He acknowledged California's accomplishments in moving forward various elements of its <br />4.4 Plan with the execution of the IID/SDCW A water conservation and transfer agreement, the <br />transportation agreement between the SDCW A and MWD, and the appropriation by the California <br />legislature of $200 million for lining the remaining portions of the All-American and Coachella <br />Canals and $35 million for ground water conjunctive use programs for Colorado River water. <br /> <br />For the past few months, I have reported on the progress that Reclamation is making on <br />developing the Lower Colorado River Accounting System (LCRAS), a new accounting methodology <br />to replace its current practices for determining water use. The Board's staff along with <br />representatives from the Board's member agencies have been closely following its development and <br />on July 30, 1998, transmitted comments to Reclamation expressing its concerns with LCRAS. <br />Included in the Board folder is a copy of Reclamation's response, dated December 16, 1998, to the <br />Board's July 30, 1998 letter. The Board's staff will be conferring with member agencies <br />representatives to review Reclamation's response to determine if further comments are warranted. <br /> <br />In its response, Reclamation indicated that it has some of the same concerns as the states. <br />One of the most significant concerns that has been expressed by California, as well as Arizona and <br />Nevada, was the inconsistencies that exist between the California Irrigation Management <br />Information System (CIMIS) and the Arizona Meteorological Network(AZMET) climate data <br />stations. For example, in the LCRAS report for 1996, if AZMET data had been used for PVID's <br />calculated consumptive use, instead of CIMIS data, there would have been a difference of over <br />150,000 acre-feet of consumptive use, Representatives from CIMIS and AZMET have said that the <br />data from their respective climate data stations were never intended to provide historical data, but <br />are meant to be tools for providing real-time irrigation scheduling information to irrigators. <br />However, they agreed that such data could be used in a historical way and together they are currently <br />working to resolve the inconsistencies. Resolution of the inconsistencies is expected to take eighteen <br />months or more because more climate stations may have to be installed. <br /> <br />Another concern with LCRAS is the issue ofphreatophytes. Reclamation has suggested that <br />the distribution of phreatophyte use determined under LCRAS is a states' policy issue and not a <br />technical issue to be decided by technical representatives. Phreatophytes use a large amount of <br />water, and how consumptive use by phreatophytes is treated will make a big difference in <br />California's water use. <br /> <br />2 <br />