|
<br />002Z:1J
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />fully at a future Board meeting,
<br />
<br />For your information, included in the Board folder, is a copy of a letter, dated June II, 1999,
<br />from Reclamation to IB WC Commissioner John Bernal accepting Mexico's modification to its water
<br />delivery schedule for the remaining months of 1999. Mexico has requested that its July deliveries
<br />be decreased 12,550 acre-feet and that an offsetting increase be made in its September delivery.
<br />
<br />Basin Statesrrribes Discussion
<br />
<br />Since the June Board meeting, the discussions related to development of the 4,4 Plan have
<br />focused on the "administration of the third priority" held by the agricultural agencies, Those
<br />discussions have been among the CVWD, lID, MWD, Mr, David Hayes of the Department of the
<br />Interior, and Mr. Tom Hannigan of the Department of Water Resources, Also, representatives from
<br />the San Diego County Water Authority have been brought into the discussions, The deadline for
<br />reaching agreement among the parties is now August 3, 1999.
<br />
<br />Since the June Board meeting, Reclamation held four public hearings to solicit comments
<br />on the development of surplus criteria for management of the Colorado River and to initiate the
<br />National Environmental Policy Act process. Hearings were held in Phoenix, Arizona; Ontario,
<br />California; Las Vegas, Nevada: and Salt Lake City, Utah, Overall, attendance at these hearings was
<br />small. The largest attendance was at the Phoenix hearing where about 35 people were in attendance,
<br />The only oral comments that were received at the hearings were from the Arizona Department of
<br />Water Resources, the Central Arizona Project, and the Central Arizona Project Association at the
<br />Phoenix hearing and Yuma County Water Users Association and Larry Paulson, a person from the
<br />public, at the Las Vegas hearing, Each of these entities also provided written testimony,
<br />
<br />The Board held a Special Meeting on June 28'h to discuss its comments and negotiating
<br />position related to Reclamation's notice on development of surplus criteria, Along with the Board's
<br />comments, Reclamation received written comments from 32 different organizations and individuals,
<br />Included in the Board folder are copies of the Board's comment letter along with the comments from
<br />the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, the Upper
<br />Colorado River Commission, and the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, In your
<br />handouts, 1 have included a synopsis of the comments by the three categories: I) the need for
<br />development of surplus criteria, 2) the format for the surplus criteria, and 3) specific issues and
<br />alternatives 10 be analyzed in the NEP A process,
<br />
<br />In general, the comments stated that there is a need to develop surplus criteria; furthermore,
<br />shortage criteria must be developed concurrent with surplus criteria, Responses on the desired
<br />fonnat for the criteria varied from the surplus criteria should be a part of the 1970 Long-Range
<br />Operating Criteria, to they should be developed pursuant to the 1970 Long-Range Operating Criteria,
<br />to they should be developed as part of the annual operating plan process. A number of issues that
<br />should be addressed as the surplus criteria are developed were identified. Those issues include: I)
<br />the effects of off-stream banking; 2) the relationship to California's 4.4 Plan; 3) the impacts on
<br />602(a) storage requirements and the equalization of Lake Powell and Lake Mead contents; 4) the
<br />relationship to the Endangered Species Act, the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation
<br />
<br />3
<br />
|