Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />quantification of California' s agricultural entitlement culminated in the execution of a Memorandum <br />of Understanding (MOV) among the 110, CVWD, and the Department of the Interior (001). That <br />MOU establishes a new approach to quantifying the Districts' water rights. While the full tenns of <br />the MOU are the subject of continuing negotiations, the proposed quantification is as follows: <br /> <br />. 110 would have a base annual entitlement for 3.1 MAF of Priority 3 water, less any <br />water conserved and transferred to third parties. <br /> <br />. CVWD would have a base annual entitlement of330,000 AF of Priority 3 water. <br /> <br />. CVWD would use an additional 138,000 AF of Colorado River water from (I) its 1989 <br />agreement with MWD (50,000 AF), (2) future lining of the All-American and Coachella <br />Canals (20,000 AF), and (3) future unidentified water conservation and transfer <br />agreements with 110 (68,000 AF). <br /> <br />. When PVID and the Yuma Project Reservation Division use less than 420,000 AF. 110 <br />and CVWD would share 90% and 10% respectively of the additional quantity of Priority <br />3 water available. <br /> <br />. When PVID and the Yuma Project Reservation Division use more than 420,000 AF, 110 <br />and CVWD would share 90% and 10% respectively of the reduction in quantity of <br />Priority 3 water available. <br /> <br />. 110 and CVWD would share 90% and 10% respectively any water available under <br />Priority 6. <br /> <br />A copy of the signed MOU and related news releases have been included in the Board folder for your <br />infonnation. it is envisioned that a six-month "fmalization period" will be utilized to complete <br />additional fact-fmding, to complete negotiations on open items, and to convert the MOU into <br />comprehensive settlement documents. <br /> <br />Also during the Colorado River Water Users Association meeting, Secretary Babbitt stated <br />that he was prepared to put into effect surplus guidelines and he encouraged the Basin states to work <br />together to negotiate such guidelines. He further stated that he has requested Reclamation to develop <br />these proposed surplus guidelines using an open public process which coincides with the six-month <br />"finalization period" established in the IID/CVWD/DOI Memorandum of Understanding. If the <br />Basin states are unable to agree on surplus guidelines at the end of the six-month time period, he will <br />issue surplus guidelines taking into consideration the views that have been expressed during the <br />public process. <br /> <br />On January 6, 1999, technical representatives from the other six Basin states met wi th the <br />technical representatives as well as agency managers from California to have an in depth discussion <br />of their "Proposal for Interim Lake Mead Reservoir Operation Criteria Related to Surplus, Nonnal <br />and Shortage Year Declarations." During the meeting, the other six Basin state representatives <br />indicated that the states' proposal is a package deal. The objective of their proposal is to protect <br /> <br />4 <br />