WSP06022

• File Number: 8200.800.10
• Description: Colorado River-Colorado River Basin-Colorado River Basin General Correspondence-Lower Basin\states
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 10/1/1991
• Author: WaterStrategist
• Title: Lower Basin Administrative Procedures for Compact Entitlements-Rules of the River BuRecs Proposed Regulations for the Lower Colorado
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

.

P~14

.

Rules of the River
. . . continued from pa~ /3
elements; (1) applicant relinquishes claims 011 return nows,
and (2) the bureau provides no credit for any generated

Conclusion

For bureau policy loward the lower Colorado River, past
may indeed be prelude to the future. By design, the proposed
regulations represent a formal statement of existing manage-
ment and operational policies. Their content docs nol ex-
pressly embrace key clements of Interior's general principles
released in 1988 nor faithfully incorporate the Bureau of
Reclamation's 1989 "Criteria and Guidance." Im.lead. the
bureau has proposed a system fOf investigation inlo whether
existing holder!; of entitlement pUI Colorado River waler to
beneficial use.
In their current form, the proposed regulations may create
the following future for the allocaLion of Colorado River water.
As rising water demands intensify the economic and political
stakes in water allocation, the bureau will launch investigations
into the rea'\.Onableness of water use. Rather tban engage in
voluntary transactions., municipalitiesc.an wait for the bureau's
reallocation of agricultural water. In the end, the bureau may
find that it has "facilitated" the mandatory reallocatioD of
water through regulatory fiat, rather than promol.e voluntary
watcr tranlOfcrs among willing buyers and willing sellers. 0

/11 No.t Issue

o Bay-Della Heonngr Revisited
o Local COrlcems ill Colorado

o 1991 Annllal Tronsoct;on Re~iew

o QllOfWfy Updates

<;:,<;)
\,."-'

Closing the Loop t

. . . ccmtinued from page 5

In the Augu."" 1991, Water Conservation Coalition report
in California, the Task Force called for increa.c;es in both
federal and slate funding programs. Since 1984,the slate bas
operated a fund of S25 million to ~ist localities with loans at
50 percent of the interest rate paid by the state in its latest GO
bond issue. The fund was expanded in 1988., but tbe legislature
is debating several bills to provide even more state moneys
from the proceeds of further GO bond issues (see "Annual
Legislative Revicw," this issue).
To the extent that projects are undertaken for water
quality rather than water supply reasons., some external fund-
ing may be appropriate. For eumple, Los Angeles Depart-
ment of Water and Power (DWP) must quickly reduce its
ocean discharges. To help meet this goal, DWP has sold up to
62.5 million gallons per day (of the total of 400 mgd) of
secondary treated water from its Hypcrion Treatment facility
to Wesl Basin Municipal Water Di.\trict (see WlM, 7/91).
West Basin will pay $7.50/af and the capital costs of the
neces.ury tertiary treatment and distribution facilities. It will
supply 25,()(XJ af/year to DWP at a price equal to its treatment
costs and u.-.c the rcst for greenbelt irrigation, process water for
Chevron and Mobil oil refineries., and for groundwater replen-
i.\hment (30,O:XJ af/year). West Basin wiJlcharge its cu."-omers .
S235/affor the treated water, only 10 percentlel'OSthan its usual
rale ofS261/af for potable water. Funding for the $183 million
project has not been decided: MWD hasagrc:ed to rebate West
Basin S.50 million under its local projects program to help cover
the costs of the project and some slate funds may be aV'.tlIable.
Altbough the costs of large scale projects may appear
daunting. the rapidly rising costs of alternative water supplies
means that, if they are properly designed, projects caD yield
large revenues. Many communities have demonstrated that
recycling projects are competitive witb other sources with no
state or federal financial 3S.\istance. In Colorado, Aurora's
long standing project delivers reclaimed water to a golf club at
a cost of 43 cents per tOO) gaUonsncompetitive with alterna.
tives available to the club. In Arizona, strict targcls to reduce
groundwater overdrafts ha\.e created a strong financial incen-
thoe for communities to look for viable reclamation projects
even without state funding (see "Ariz.ona ReWTites Groundwa-
ter Law," ~ July 1991). The CityofTuc:son is in the prottss
of completing a ten.year, S63 million project (witbout slate aid)
that will deliver about 35,000 aI/year of reclaimed water. The
town of Gilbert (located within the Phoenix A.\{A) has been
succel'OSlully deli\'ering waste water to customcrs for over a year
(see W1M 4/90). A water skiing park uses up to 200 af/year to
fill two lakes and developers have been able to irrigate land-
scapes and create lakes in ncw developments.
The I",ine Ranch Water District in California finds us;na
reclaimed water for lands.capc irrigation and for flushing toil~ II
in ils office developments is about 33 pcrc.cnt less expcnsi\.c

\\~\TER STRATEGIST

[phone]

Published by Stratecon. Inc. P.O. Box 963. Claremont, CA 91711