Laserfiche WebLink
<br />04/03/98 10:45 <br /> <br />ft303 866 4474 . CWCB <br />OlHH65 <br /> <br />Again, the fourth item can be removed. Lastly, we recognize that it might be useful to <br />break: this definition into "authorized storing entitics" and "authorized consuming <br />entities. " <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />PSl1e 68498. PrOJlosed Rule. Part 414.2. 3rd column Intentionally created IInll~ <br />apIlOm(\nmenl: . <br />We believe a better definition would be. "means unused apportionment that is created <br />solely as a result of a Storing State using water previously stored pursuant to an <br />Imerstate Water Storage Agreement in place of Welter within its apportionment that the <br />Storing State would have otherwise diverted from the mainstem. for the purpose of <br />mlllcing Colorado River water available for a Consuming State pursuant to Article <br />II(B)(6) of the Decree and in accordance with an Interstate Water Storage Agreement. " <br /> <br />Pal!e 68498 and 68499. Prooosed RnIe. Pan 414.2. 3rd column. Interstate stora{!e <br />lll!rCement: <br />It is unclear what the language, "and may include other entities that are determined to . <br />be appropriate to the perfonnance and enforcement of the agreement under federal law <br />and the respective laws oithe Storing State and COIIliuming State" means. Who makes <br />the determination of appropriate entities and does that need to be spelled out in tbe rule? <br />Can it all be inclndedin a specific interstate water storage agreement? It would be <br />useful to have an example in the section by section analysis. <br /> <br /> <br />Palle 68499. Prollosed RnIe. Part 414.2. 1st column. Added Definitiops: <br />It would be appropriate to include the definitions for "Colorado River Basin" and <br />"Colorado River System" as defined and used in the Colorado River Compact. We <br />believe these definitions are important in undc:rstanding how the proposed rule filS into <br />the ovet:all picture on the Colorado River. It would also be helpful to have some <br />discussion of this in the "Background'. di(;C\Jssion of the rule. <br /> <br />Pal!C 68499. Prooosed Rule..Part 414.3. 2nd column. subparam1ph (a)(2): <br />It would be appropriate to allow the use of the Storing State's SUIplus apportiontnent <br />here as well so long as the caveats we suggested for inclusion under the "PuIpose" are <br />ineOlpOrated. Colorado's concern remains that implementation of interstate water <br />storage agreements must not adversely impact the water supply available to the Upper <br />Basin. So long as that is !he case, we support allowing significant flexibility in <br />interstaJe wara- storage agreements. <br /> <br />P3l!e 68500. ProDOsed RnIe. Part 414.5. 2nd column. new subllara2Tl\Ph: <br />A new subparagraph addressing Colorado River salinity should be added. It would <br />read as follows: "The proposed rule and the evaluation of impacts were based on the <br />Colorado River Salinity Standards currently in place. Fll{lhennore. the existing <br />Colorado River Salinity Control Program provides the means to offset any increase in <br />. , <br /> <br />Page 60f7 <br /> <br />~008 <br /> <br />