Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />04/03/98 <br /> <br />10:42 <br /> <br />U303 866 4474 0604 S ~CB <br /> <br />1aJ005 <br /> <br />Page 68494. Section m. Pumose of this Rule. 1st column. 1st l'artiaI Dara~Dh: <br />The proposed rule as currently written would not allow a "storing state" to USe surplus <br />apportionment for interstate water storage agreement purposes. We believe it is <br />acceptable to allow the "storing state" to use its surplus apportionment for intemate <br />water storage agreement PllIpOSes. In the public meeting held On March 27. 1998 in <br />Ontario, Califumia. Reclamation stated tbat it had always been its intent to include the <br />use of surplus apportionment by the storing state. However, includiog it does seem to <br />raise several issues such as who would have first priority to such waters after the <br />storing state, It appeared [0 us that the proposed rule does not need to address these <br />side issues as the proposed rule simply provides the general framework. However. <br />these issues willlikcly need to be addn:ssed in any interstate water storage agreement. <br /> <br />PSl!:e 68494. Section m. Puroose of this Rule. I st column 1st nartial oaragumh: <br />The nanative notes that the proposed rule is "permissive in nature and inlcoded to <br />ellCOllIllge and facilitate these volllIllary w~r lrdJlSactioos." The narrative should <br />emphasize here that the actions contempIated by the proposed rule are deemed to be <br />within the current authority of the Secretary of Interior. the Boulder Canyon Project <br />Act and the decree in Arizona v. CtzlifoT1/i(J, and that the proposed rule does not change <br />or expand those aUlhorities or any of the body of the "Law of the ColoIlldo River." <br /> <br />Page 68494. Section ill. Purnose oftbis Rule. 1st column. Last narlI2r.mh: <br />This paragraph acknowledges that there may be opponunities and beucfirs for Indian <br />Tn'bes under the propo.~ rule. As. such, it is Colorado's understanding tballhis role <br />is limited specifically to the use of mainstem Co10nldo River water in Lower Colotado <br />River Basin and as such does not extend any opportunities or benefits to Indian Tribes <br />in the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />PllRe 68494. Sectionm.l'uq:lose of this Rule. 3rd column. Last oanurranh: <br />This paragraph lists relevant factors that lhe Secretary of Interior will consider when <br />approving an interstate water stoIllge agreement. Those considerations should include <br />no impact to the water supplies currently available to the Upper Basin (e.g. operations <br />under the rule should not increase eqllali7"tion releases from Lake Powell). The Upper <br />Basin must not lose any yie1d.or take any increased risks because of increased <br />equalization that might occur as a result of interstate water storage agrcer.nents. <br /> <br />PaRe 68495. Section V. Section bv section analvsis oftbe Puroosed Rule. Section 414.1 <br />Puroose. in the 2nd C(llnmn 1st nartial nanll!CllDh: <br />We suggest including the following, "This rule does nOt change the apportionments <br />made to the individual states under the 'Law of the Co10tado Rivet'. , The tule provides <br />only for the efficient use of UIIllsed apportiomnent and surplus in the Lower Division <br />States in a manner that provides a meaomre of added certainty for water users under the <br /> <br />Page 3 of7 <br />