My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05136
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05136
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:07 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:52:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.400
Description
Colorado River Basin Briefing Documents-History-Correspondence
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
10/1/1999
Author
DOI-BOR
Title
Programmatic Environmental Assessment-Rulemaking-Offstream Storage Colorado River Water - Development-Release Intentionally Created Unused Apportionment - Lower Division States - Appendix H-Section II
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />00048 ~_ <br /> <br />Nevada Comments on <br />Proposed OlTstream Storage Rule <br />April 3, 1998 <br /> <br />Within these limits, the specification of acceptable measures for the creation of unused <br />apportionment can readily be contained in the Interstate Storage Agreeme.nt that governs a <br />particular transaction and that is subject to approval of the Secretary. <br /> <br />2. Verification <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />A significant issue raised by California at the March 27, 1998, public meeting was the <br />matter of verification. Clearly, intentionally created unused apportionment must be verifiable. <br />The appropriate method of verification, however, may well vary according to the transaction and <br />the mechanism employed to create the unused apportionment. For example, Arizona law <br />presently makes the pumping of stored water the exclusive mechanism. We suggest an addition <br />to the rule that would require the Interstate Storage Agreement "to specify a procedure for <br />verification of the intentional creation of unused apportionment appropriate to the manner by <br />which it is created". . <br /> <br />F. Clarification of role of Secretary <br /> <br />At one juncture only, in the part of the preamble entitled "Purpose of this Rule" (62 <br />Federal Register 68493), reference is made to the Secretary "approving and administering <br />interstate agreements" (emphasis added). The Secretary, by taking the four actions identified <br />above, will be "facilitating". Use of the term "administering" could be misconstrued to mean <br />general authority over implementation of what dominantly is a business transaction between state- <br />related entities. . <br /> <br />G. The proposed rule is ambiguous or imprecise in a few other respects. <br /> <br />If the final rule truly is to facilitate the complex commercial transactions that interstate <br />off stream banking will involve, it is important that the rule be clear and unambiguous in all <br />respects. Several elements of the proposed rule, however, appear ambiguous and imprecise. The <br />major elements that present this problem are discussed below and our suggestions for specific <br />language changes are contained in our version of the rule, attached. <br /> <br />1. The Concept of "Storage Credit" is not consistently used in the <br />proposed rule. <br /> <br />We understand the Arizona Water Banking Authority is commenting on the po.ssible <br />confusion between the concept of "storage credits" for purposes of the proposed rule and the <br />concept of "storage credits" under the Arizona banking legislation. We endorse Arizona's <br />suggestion that the final rule use a term other than "storage credits," <br /> <br />6 . <br /> <br />.:210155.4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.