WSP05136 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

04/03/1998 16:33 O1HH 'il 818-543-4685 COlORADO RIVER BOARD PAGE 06 I I I I I I I I I I United States Bureau of~lamation Mr. Dale Ensminger April 3,1998 Page S AnalysisIUnfunded Mandate<' Reform Act Analysis states "Until the initiation of offiltream storage, Arizona unused apportiomnent was available to the other two Lower Division states witham the payment of tent." and "To be consistent with the 1964 Decree. the A WBA will store water for a minimumofone year to avoid the direct marketing of Colorado River water." Whether the marketing is perceived as direct or not, the action and the end resuh are, in filet, the same. The Colorado River Board ofCalifurnia recognizes that Arizona and Nevada are currently willing to engage in serious discussion5 toward the development of multiple-year smplus and shortage criteria. That would meet, for an interim period, at least part of the deroand for surplus water in CaIifurnia. 1bis would allow for more llC:C\Ite plnnning and more efficient use of water in the United States. However, Califurnia CIU1IIOt be certain that once this Proposed Rule is promulgated, Arizona and Nevada will continue to hold this view. They have indicated that these discussions must be preceded by, and based upon, California's comu..ib4cnt to enter into a defined, enforceable prognun to reduce its dependence on Colorado Riverwater over its basic apportionment, in a WclY that a-.oids undue risk of shortage to the other Basin states. As such, Califurnia's draft 4.4 Plan ealls for California to reduce its demand for Colorado River water through firm water transfel'll, non-firm water transfi:rs, and enhanced water supply programs. One of the eDhanced water supply programs is "Califurnia Agencies' Use of Arizona's Water B8Dk. " If the final Rule were to allow a storing state to direct its Colorado River apportionment for the ultimate beaefil of a coDSUJDiog state, a provision should be added to allow equal access to entities in both consUUJing states. For example, to mitigate for the potential loss of water to either California or Nevada in the future UIIder circumstances which the Secretary of the Interior CIU1IIOt foresee. the proposed rule should be revised to permit both California and Nevada agencies equal access to the Arizona Water Bank. WIth such a provision, SO percent of the water available for storage would be available for subseqUCll1 use in Nevada, and 50 percent of the water available for storage would be available for subsequem use in California. provided that an entity in each state agreed to pay the c:osts associated with the traosaction. Any available water which a California agency was not interested in storing or using would then be available to a Nevada agency for storage in the Arizona Water Bank. Likewise, any available water which a Nevada agency was not interested in storing or using would then be available to a California agency fur storage in the Arizona Water Bank. The Colorado River Board ofCalifurnia concurs with the Proposed Rule's language, which does not pennit a storing state to store its surplus apportionment for the subsequent benefit of a consuming state. Furthennore, l^',auitliog a storing state to store its surplus apportionment is not part of the Pre&rred Alternative based on a review of pages 12 and 13 of the Bureau ofRecIamation's DPEA. and allowing this would change the scope of the Prerem:d Alternative sufficiently to wammt a re- circulation of the DPEA. In order to Iileilitate the implementation of the final Rule, this issue should be addressed by ~meOOment at a future date.