Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />Colorado River sys~em under full reservoir condi~ions. r~ <br />vas referred to as the long te~m analvsis Eor ~aking <br />o;:>eracing plan decisions, but wa"s no~ S;:>~C1LIC as co che <br />evaluations to be made inasmuch as it was no~ necessary to do <br />so at that time. The recommended evaluation process <br />described herein is to define the method for making the 5- <br />year evaluations. <br /> <br />Further ex;:>erience in annual operating plan decisions <br />will orovide for imorovements in orocedures used to maKe <br />decis'ions, especia-lly for transitioning from and to <br />redis~ribution of excess water releases and eventually ~o <br />shortage conditions. Historical hydrologic sequences studied <br />over 25- and 50-year study periods are important for viewing <br />long-~erm impacts of ,:>rograms; however., decisions regar.ding <br />operating plans generally should be based on analyses not <br />e:,ceeding a five-year ;:>eriod. The period of mos~ immediace <br />concern is prior to the time that the lower Basin s~a~es <br />annual consu!il;:>tive use equals 7.5 million acre-fee~ and the <br />total Basin consum?tive uses equal the =iver's long-term <br />average '"ater supply, both of which are likely ~o occur <br />sO:&letime after ~.r:izona is using its basic apportioilment of <br />2.8 million acre-fee~. rive-year incremen~s also correspond <br />to the period for considering a formal ceview of the <br />Operating Cri~eC'ia, and information developed in the annual <br />opeC'ating ?lan development pC'ocess would pC'ovide a basis for <br />~hether or not a formal review is 2'Oorooriat.e. The <br />continuous 'evaluatio:1s and analvses of is-s'ues'oerformed i:1 <br />the plan develo?Ci1ent ?roceSS wili, for t.he mos~"?a=::, negate <br />the need to conduct formal revie~s. <br /> <br />Recommended Evaluation Process for <br />Unusec Apportionment Decisions <br /> <br />;"S in trl-:: case: of the 2~-month ooe:ational s~udies Eo~ <br />excess water dete:re.i.~ations and ,"edistribution, e'lalua~ioils <br />for unused c~oo!:tionmer.t decisions '-'ould be made ~~de~ :nest: <br />probable an;;" ?cooable minimum water supply scenarios. <br />SimilaC'ly, d~cisions and commitments relative to unused <br />apportionments would a;:>;:>l;' only to the opeC'ating plan yea... <br />Roweve:, the o~e~ational s~udies ~ould ~xtend ovet a GO-month <br />(5-year) ?~riod to dete:mine the cime by whic!1 reservoir <br />storage recovery ....ould occur, and the occurrence and exten~ <br />of anv subsecuent reauired flood control releases. Such <br />de~eC'minations '''ould, -at a minimum, be made consideC'ing (1) <br />fully satisfying the Basin states Colorado ~iver wa~er needs <br />and (2) restrictions ~ha~ each state wOllle be limi~ed to no <br />moce than its basic a~nual a~ooc~ionment to reflect the full <br />C'ange of im?acts of possiole'''ater availability decisions. <br />To account Eor variances in the ouild-u? of Central ,\rizona <br />projecc deliveries, consideration would be given co ,\rizona <br /> <br />-~- <br />