Laserfiche WebLink
<br />HCOLORAOO RIVER MANAGEMENT: NEVADA"S <br />FUTURE DEPENDS ON FLEXlBllITYH <br /> <br />Qmlinuedl1Om~ I <br /> <br />..,. (' <br />..J....."" oJ <br /> <br />Reclamation as a "surplus" year in 200 I. In accordance with <br />the "Interim surplus guidelines" adopted by the Secretary of <br />the Interior in January 200 I . even though those guidelines <br />had not been formally adopted by the time the surplus <br />determination "'as made. Indications are that river <br />management in 2002 witl similarly be based on a surplus <br />determination. f.sscntial to the continuance of annual surplus <br />dctenninations is California's accomplishment of its Colorado <br />Water Use Plan. The Secretary oltht~ Interior's Record of <br />Decision adopting the interim surplus guidelines stated an <br />expectation that California's Colorado River water users \\0'111 <br />execute the California Quantification Settlement Agreement <br />and its related documents by December .31. 200 I. The <br />Quantification Settlement is an integral part of performance <br />of the California Colorado Water Use Plan. Significant <br />environmental compliance is required to c1kctuate the <br />Settlement. as "'ell as other aspects 01 the Water Use l'lan. <br />Approximately .30 Independent Intergovernmental <br />agreements have been dc\'elopt~d to Impl('ment the plan. <br />The State of California and its Colorado River ",,:ater users <br />have made significant financial commitment to the <br />accomplishment 01 that environmental compliance. <br />Congressional appropriation of additional financial support <br />Is expected through the Colorado River Quantification <br />Settlement t'ac.ilitation Act. to be 3ponsored by Senator <br />feinstein. <br /> <br />Compliance with the Endangered 5pecit,s "rt ([5-\1 i... <br />another essential component 01 Colorado River management. <br />In the Upper Colorddo River &'sln. the Upper Colorado River <br />Endangered fish Recovery Program seeks to recover the <br />populations of the endangered razorback 311ckcr. bon)tail. <br />humpbac" chub and Colorado pikcminnow. Recovery <br />straLegies include conducing research. improving river <br />habitat, providing adequate stream nows. managing non. <br />native fish. and rai!:>ing endangered fish in hatcheries and <br />!:>tocklng. Participating organizations include the U.S. fish <br />and \\iildlife Service. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Western <br />Area Power Administration. States of Colorado. Utah and <br />Wyoming, the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense <br />fund. Colorado WaterCongrcs.s, Utah Water Users Assoclatkm. <br />\\'yoming Water Development Association and Colorado River <br />EnelY..v Distributors Association. 80% of the funding for the <br />Recovery Program comes from Congressional appropriation. <br /> <br />In the Lower Colorado River Basin. the LO\\'er Colorado <br />River !"lulli-Species Conservation Program 1/"15CPJ is a <br />cooperative program between the states of Arizona. <br />California. Nevada, the U.S. Department of the Interior. and <br />native America tribes. Its intention is to accommodate current <br />\vater diversions and po\\er development. while \\.orking <br />to\\.'ard habitat conservation, recover)' of endangered species <br />and the reduction of additional listings of endangered species. <br />Although the conservation program is projected to benefit <br />appro\lmately 100 species and Uleir aquatic. \\"Ctland, riparian <br />and upland habitats. the particular species addressed include <br />the southwestern \\'illow flycatcher. Yuma clapper rail. <br />razorback sucker and humpbac" chub. The Program is <br />intended to be Implemented over a 50-year period. once <br /> <br />planning is complete. Planning Is Intended to be complete <br />by 2002. 1'1SCr partlclp.1.nts have invested over $25 million <br />in development of the Program by 2002. In addition, waLer <br />users in Arizona and Nevada have funded approximately $ 7.5 <br />million of conservation activities and projects directly <br />benefiting the species and habitats along the lower Colowdo <br />River since 1994. The /"letropolitan Water District of Southern <br />California and San Diego County Water Authority have <br />committed another $6 million to fund habitat projecls as part <br />of their Quantification Settlement Agreement and Interim <br />Surplus Guidelines environmental compliance activities. <br /> <br />In the Limitrophe and Colorado River Delta reaches of <br />the Colorado River. environmental compliance is more <br />development a] and more complicated. The Mexican Treaty <br />of 1944 clearty establi..,hes the international apportionment <br />of the Colorado Rlwr. The 1944 Treaty directs the United <br />Slates to delll,'erla) guaranteed annual quantity 01 1.500.000 <br />acre-feet" of Colorado River at the U.5.//"1e.\lcan border. ]n <br />5urplu!:> year> the United S~'tes may elect to deliver an amount <br />not Lo exceed 1.700.000 acre-feet. As environmental issues <br />have arisen under the !"lexican Water Treaty. they have been <br />addressed by the International Boundary and Water <br />Commission ilB\\'C) and \\'hen appropriate resolved through <br />negotiation and the adoption of minutes. Emdronmental <br />issues related 10 endangered species in Ihe Colorado River <br />Della are currently the subject of binational discussions <br />pursuant 10 Ninute 306. adopted pursuant to the 1944 Treaty <br />in December 2000. <br /> <br />In a ca!:>ed enlitlf'd Defellders of Irifdllfe (l. Norton. U.S. <br />District Court for tht. District 01 Columbia. 100CV01544. <br />plaintiff environmentill groups raise the question whether the <br />United S~,tes.t'nvironmental st.,tute5 apply oulside the United <br />States, particularly whether ~ 7iall2) of the Endangered <br />Species Act (ESA), 16 V.S.c. 1536IaH2), requires the <br />Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation to consult with <br />the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service r(:g.,rding the effects of the <br />Burcalfs operation of the Colorado River in the United Stales <br />on endangered species in /"lexico. The United Slates. relying <br />on Interior Dep.-utment regulations, argues that ~ 702Ia)(2) <br />only requires consultation on discretionary actions, not <br />including operation of the Colorado River, Inasmuch as that <br />operation is required to meet contractual obligations <br />established pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project Act and <br />the Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California. Similar <br />factual connicts raising the same general question of thl"' <br />extraterritorial application of the Endangered Species Act <br />reached the U.S. Supreme COllrt a decade ago. but \I.'ere not <br />resol\ed. <br /> <br />The position of the Colorado River Basin States is that <br />international application of U.S. environmentalla\\' must OCcur <br />through formal pnxess involving the U.S. State Department. <br />as confirmed by ~ 8 of the Endangered Species Act and a <br />proper reader of 9 71alt2\ of the [SA in this instance. and <br />that nothing in e.\i5I1ng international environmentalla"' or <br /> <br />("ontt"'K'dOflp.IQe"~ <br />