Laserfiche WebLink
<br />04/03/98 <br /> <br />10:12 FAl 619 299 3450 ,., SDCWA GH <br />000631 <br /> <br />1Q003 <br /> <br />Bureau of Reclamation <br />Administrative Record <br />A TIN: Mr. Robert W. Johnson, Regional Director <br />April 3, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Assuming that a primary purpose of the proposed rule is to facilitate voluntary <br />water transfers to areas which have come to rely on the River for its water supply but <br />now face impending shortages, it is important that the rule not be restricted in a manner <br />that would frustrate that purpose. The Authority sees the proposed rule as another <br />opportunity for the San Diego region to meet its future water needs, and we think other <br />entities in California could also benefit Based on these considerations, the definition <br />of an "authorized entity" in a Consuming State should be written to encourage, not <br />restrict, participation. Our understanding is that the interested states and potential <br />participants generally agree that the definitions of "authorized entity" for the Storing <br />State and Consuming State should be separated, and that the rule not raise unneeded <br />barriers to qualification as a Consuming State "authorized entity". Therefore, the <br />Authority recommends that the definitions of 'authorized entity" for the Storing and <br />Consuming States be separated and that the definition as to a Consuming State be as <br />follows: <br /> <br />l <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />l <br />I <br /> <br />"Authorized entity means ... (2) as to a Consuming State, an entity having <br />the power pursuant to applicable laws of that state to enter into tnterstate <br />Storage Agreements.. <br /> <br />At the March 27 public meeting conducted by Reclamation in Ontario, California. <br />a Reclamation representative remarked as an example that San Diego, if it qualifies as <br />an "authorized entity", would have an opportunity under the proposed rule to participate <br />in an Interstate Storage Agreement. The representative further said that if a contract for <br />delivery of the water were required pursuant to Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project <br />Act, the Secretary could enter into such a contract to provide the water as available <br />under the storage agreement We believe that position to be legally correct and clearly <br />the right public policy in light of the general purposes of the proposed rule. <br /> <br />Again, we appreciate the Secretary's efforts to find solutions to the impending <br />shortages on the River, and look forward to working with Reclamation on this and other <br />opportunities, <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />co: Colorado River Board Member.; <br />Colorado River Board Agency Managers <br />1:\l:tl1.l(.OOC <br /> <br />~~~ <br /> <br />Maureen A Stapleton <br />General Manager <br />