Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />UPPER COLORADO <br />RIVER COMMISSION <br /> <br />r.WCB <br />5 199\ <br /> <br />DEe <br /> <br />355 South Fourth East Street" Salt Lake City," Utah 84111 "801-S~1-1l50.. FAX 801-531-9705 <br /> <br />~~ <br />b~~l~r~~ <br /> <br />""., Colo,.do ".., C"';";oo.,' ~~iI"~~ <br /> <br />7h.7lJ~ / <br />~~ <br /> <br />(1 <br /> <br />Engineering Committee Members <br /> <br />Executive Director <br /> <br />December 3, 1991 <br /> <br />DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION IN OUR COLORADO <br />WORK GROUP MEETINGS TO DEFINE "SURPLUS" CONDITIONS <br />FOR COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT <br /> <br />Attached is a draft proposal that has been prepared by Clint that we believe <br />directly addresses how to define "surplus" river conditions that can be <br />quantified and placed on CRSS long-term runs. It won "t make California happy <br />initially because it shows little chance of surplus deliveries in the next <br />five years. We believe its ~. if adopted, is that it will bring Califor- <br />nia to the realization that the near term (5-10 years) water supply for MET <br />will most likely ~ come from surplus declarations. <br /> <br />Once they realize this, we believe they will ,become more sincere in their <br />willingness to negotiate for system water until they can manage their Colorado <br />River demands to 4.4 maf. If you concur, we propose to: <br /> <br />(1) Informally brief Arizona and Nevada next week in <br />Las Vegas~. (I believe they will support such a process.) <br /> <br />(2) Providing Arizona and Nevada appear willing, introduce the <br />concept at our Colorado River Work Group meeting on December <br />13, 1991. <br /> <br />Please review and give us some reactions. Depending on the audience, we could <br />discuss briefly at our Legal & Engineering Committee Meeting on December 11, <br />1991. If California is in attendance, I would prefer we do not discuss! <br />I would like to secure Arizona's and Nevada's support before California (MWD) <br />gets the package. <br /> <br />WEC:pj <br /> <br />Attachment <br /> <br /> <br />f,4( <br /> <br />J1"'~ <br />