Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />t <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />APR- <br /> <br />3-98 FRI 16=21 UPPE~ COLORADO RIVER COMM <br /> <br />P..e2 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />000653 <br /> <br />Bureau of Reclamation <br />April 3, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />proposed rule and implementing draft EA are a positive. step toward solvin~ the Lower D~vi,s~on <br />States water supply needs while still protecting water entitlements and uses In the Upper DIvIsion <br />States. <br /> <br />In the context of that background and our general statement of support for the regulations <br />and draft EA, the Upper Division States have a few specific comments on these documents, The <br />"law of the river" is a complex series of compacts, Federal laws, court decisions and an intemational <br />treaty. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to be precise discussing individual elements of the "law <br />of the liver." Because of the important rights that are based on the law, however, the Upper Division <br />States believe that precision is required. Particularly in the Federal Register "Notice of Proposed <br />RulemaKing," the Upper Division States believe Reclamation has incorrectly attributed definitions and <br />concepts in the Supreme Court's decree in Arizona v. California to the Colorado River Compact. The <br />most egregious example is a sentence that appears near the middle of the first column of page <br />68493 of the Notice, which states: "Under the Compact, 'consumptive use' means diversions of <br />water from the mainstream of the Colorado River, including water drawn from the mainstream by <br />underground pumping, less retum flow to the river." The term "consumptive use" is D.2.1 defined in <br />the Colorado River Compact. The definition attributed to the Compact is comparable to the definition <br />of that tenn in Article I(A) ofthe Supreme Court's decree in Arizona v, California. The Upper Division <br />States urge Reclamation to correctly identify the source of this definition and avoid homogenizing <br />the discrete elements of the "law of the river," <br /> <br />On at least five pages of the draft EA, the Upper Division States noticed a version of the <br />following sentence, which appears near the middle of page 10: "However, without the rule, it is <br />possible that offslream storage credits could be developed between Califomia and Nevada" (similar <br />sentences also occur on pages 14, 15, 24 and 25), There is no explanation of this sentence any of <br />the times it appears. If this concept is important enough to appear so many times in the draft EA, <br />the Upper Division States believe the sentence warrants further explanation. <br /> <br />In conclusion, the Commission and the Upper Division States want to emphasize their <br />general agreement with the concepts in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and draft EA, While we <br />believe the documents should be more precise in their discussions of the "law of the river" and <br />should reflect more consideration of possible salinity impacts and explanation of other possible <br />"offstream storage credits , . , between Califomia and Nevada." the Commission and the Upper <br />Division States commend Reclamation for its efforts in facilitating a solution of the water supply <br />prOblems in the Lower Division States. The Commission and the Upper Division States look forward <br />to continued involvement in this process and an opportunitY to comment on other documents and <br />concepts in the future. <br /> <br />:;;:;:rng .tLt <br /> <br />way;[h . Cook <br />Ex ive Director <br /> <br />WEC:pj <br />