[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48531-48538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20033]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public availability of information submitted on a 
draft environmental impact statement for the proposed adoption of 
Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: INT-DES 
00-25.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Council on Environmental 
Quality's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of 
NEPA, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has issued a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed adoption of 
specific criteria under which surplus water conditions may be 
determined in the Lower Colorado River Basin during the next 15 years. 
A notice of availability and public comment period was provided in a 
Federal Register notice published on July 7, 2000 (65 FR 42028).
    As noted in the Federal Register notice published on May 18, 1999 
(64 FR 27008), during this NEPA process Reclamation is consulting with 
state representatives of each of the Governors of the seven Colorado 
River Basin States, Indian Tribes, members of the general public, 
representatives of academic and scientific communities, environmental 
organizations, the recreation industry and contractors for the purchase 
of Federal power produced at Glen Canyon Dam. Reclamation has received 
information from the Colorado River Basin States of Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming during the 
public comment period on the proposed adoption of Colorado River 
Interim Surplus Criteria. The information provided to Reclamation is 
the product of significant effort on the part of the representatives of 
the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States. As noted in the 
Federal Register notice published on May 18, 1999 (64 FR 27008), the 
statutory framework for operation of Colorado River Reservoirs 
underscores the importance of working with the Colorado River Basin 
States in developing interim surplus criteria. Reclamation has made a 
preliminary review of the specific surplus criteria in the information 
presented by the Basin States and has made a preliminary determination 
that such criteria are within the range of alternatives and impacts 
analyzed in the DEIS. The information provided by the States does 
contain details regarding proposed surplus criteria that may be helpful 
to others preparing comments in response to the Federal Register notice 
published on July 7, 2000 (65 FR 42028). Accordingly, Reclamation is 
providing this information for public consideration during the public 
comment period on this action. That period will not be extended. 
Reclamation will be analyzing the issues and information presented in 
this submission, along with all other public comments on the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed adoption of 
Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria. Reclamation, along with the 
Department of the Interior, will utilize this information, along with 
all other public comments, as appropriate, during its preparation of a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement and accompanying Record of 
Decision. The information provided by the representatives of the 
Colorado River Basin States may be found below in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section.
    The DEIS, and the information provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section below are available for viewing on the Internet at 
http://www.lc.usbr.gov and http://www.uc.usbr.gov.

ADDRESSES: The comment period on the DEIS remains unchanged. Send 
comments on the DEIS to Ms. Jayne Harkins, Attention BCOO-4600, PO Box 
61470, Boulder City, Nevada, 89006-1470, or fax comments to Ms. Harkins 
at (702) 293-8042. As provided in the Federal Register notice published 
on July 7, 2000 (65 FR 42028), comments on the DEIS must be received no 
later than September 8, 2000.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual 
respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public 
disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There 
also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's 
identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to 
withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at 
the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from 
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.
    Copies of the DEIS, in the form of a printed document or on compact 
disk, remain available upon written request to the following address: 
Ms. Janet Steele, Attention BCOO-4601, PO Box 61470, Boulder City, 
Nevada 89006-1470, Telephone: (702) 
293-8785, or by fax at (702) 293-8042.

DATES: The public comment period on the DEIS remains unchanged and 
comments on this DEIS must be received no later than September 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact 
Ms. Jayne Harkins at the above address or telephone Ms. Harkins at 
(702) 293-8785.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following information was received from 
the Colorado River Basin States:

Interim Surplus Guidelines--Working Draft

I. Background

    A. The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (28 Stat. 1057) (the 
``BCPA''), authorized the Secretary of the Interior (the ``Secretary'') 
to construct Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal, and to contract for 
the delivery and use of water from such facilities for irrigation and 
domestic uses. The effectiveness of the BCPA was contingent upon 
ratification of the Colorado River Compact of 1922 (the ``Compact'') by 
the Colorado River Basin States, or, in the alternative, upon 
ratification by six of said states, including California. The 
effectiveness of the BCPA was further contingent upon agreement by the 
state of California, by act of its legislature, irrevocably and 
unconditionally with the United States and for the benefit of the other 
Colorado River Basin States, as an express covenant and in 
consideration of the passage of the BCPA, to limit the aggregate annual 
consumptive use (diversions less returns to the river) of water of and 
from the Colorado River for use in California, to no more than 4.4 
million acre-feet (``maf'') per year of the waters apportioned to the 
Lower Basin States by Article III(a) of the Compact, plus not more than 
one-half of any excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the

[[Page 48532]]

Compact, such use to be always subject to the terms of the Compact.
    Six states, including California, ratified the Compact by 1929. The 
California Legislature also passed the California Limitation Act (Act 
of March 4, 1929; Ch. 16, 48th Sess.). Thus, the conditions of the BCPA 
were satisfied, the President proclaimed the BCPA effective on June 25, 
1929 and the Secretary thereafter constructed Hoover Dam and the All-
American Canal and executed contracts for the delivery and use of water 
from such facilities. Arizona ratified the Compact in 1944.
    Before the Secretary entered into water delivery contracts with 
California agencies, he requested such agencies to agree to relative 
priorities of rights among them. This was accomplished by the 
California Seven-Party Agreement of August 18, 1931, incorporated into 
the water delivery contracts (the ``California Seven Party 
Agreement''), which established the following priorities within 
California:

                    California Seven-Party Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Acre-feet
            Priority                   Description           annually
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................  Palo Verde Irrigation    ..............
                                  District--gross area
                                  of 104,500 acres.
2..............................  Yuma Project             ..............
                                  (Reservation
                                  Division)--not
                                  exceeding a gross area
                                  of 25,000 acres.
3(a)...........................  Imperial Irrigation           3,850,000
                                  District and lands in
                                  Imperial and Coachella
                                  Valleys to be served
                                  by the All-American
                                  Canal.
3(b)...........................  Palo Verde Irrigation    ..............
                                  District--16,000 acres
                                  of mesa lands.
4..............................  Metropolitan Water              550,000
                                  District and/or City
                                  of Los Angeles and/or
                                  others on coastal
                                  plain.
5(a)...........................  Metropolitan Water              550,000
                                  District and/or City
                                  of Los Angeles and/or
                                  others on coastal
                                  plain.
5(b)...........................  City and/or County of           112,000
                                  San Diego \1\.
6(a)...........................  Imperial Irrigation      ..............
                                  District and lands in
                                  Imperial and Coachella
                                  Valley.
6(b)...........................  Palo Verde Irrigation           300,000
                                  District--16,000 acres
                                  of mesa lands.
7..............................  Agricultural Use in the  ..............
                                  Colorado River Basin
                                  in California.
                                                         ---------------
    Total......................  .......................      5,362,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1946, the City of San Diego, San Diego County Water Authority,
  Metropolitan Water District and the Secretary entered into a contract
  in which the right to storage and delivery of Colorado River water
  vested in the City of San Diego was merged with and added to the
  rights of the Metropolitan Water District under conditions since
  satisfied.

    The California Seven-Party Agreement thus allocated water both 
within California's limitation of 4.4 maf per year, as well as surplus 
water above that amount. Only about one-half of the water under 
Priorities 4, 5(a) and 5(b) diverted by the Metropolitan Water District 
of Southern California (the ``MWD'') through its Colorado River 
Aqueduct is within the 4.4 maf limitation. Diversions under Priorities 
5(a) and (b) are dependent upon surplus water being made available. The 
amounts of water allocated to Priorities 1, 2, 3(a) and 3(b) were not 
quantified by priority, but were aggregated to not exceed 3.85 maf.
    In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court entered its Decree in Arizona v. 
California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964) (the ``Decree''), pursuant to its 
Opinion in the same case, 373 U.S. 546 (1963). The Decree and the 
Court's Opinion confirmed and ordered the apportionment by the BCPA of 
water available for release from water controlled by the United States 
in the mainstream of the Colorado River downstream from Lee Ferry and 
within the United States to the states of Arizona (2.8 maf per year); 
California (4.4 maf per year); and Nevada (0.3 maf per year). The 
Decree also established certain federal reserved rights, and provided 
for the quantification of present perfected rights, all to be supplied 
from the apportionments decreed to each of the respective states. The 
Decree enjoins the Secretary from releasing mainstream water controlled 
by the United States for irrigation and domestic use in the Lower 
Division States (Arizona, California and Nevada) except in the 
following circumstances:
    1. If sufficient mainstream water is available for release to 
satisfy 7.5 maf of annual consumptive use in the three Lower Division 
States, such water shall be made available in accordance with the basic 
apportionments set forth above. This is referred to as a ``Normal 
Year.'' (Article II(B)(1)).
    2. If sufficient mainstream water is available for release to 
satisfy in excess of 7.5 maf of annual consumptive use in the three 
Lower Division States, water in excess of 7.5 maf shall be apportioned 
50% for use in Arizona and 50% for use in California; provided, 
however, that in the event the United States so contracts with Nevada 
(which it has) then 46% of such surplus is apportioned for use in 
Arizona and 4% of such surplus is apportioned for use in Nevada. This 
is referred to as a ``Surplus Year.'' (Article II(B)(2)).
    3. If insufficient mainstream water is available for release to 
satisfy 7.5 maf of annual consumptive use in the three Lower Division 
States, then after satisfying present perfected rights in order of 
priority, such water shall be apportioned consistent with the BCPA and 
the opinion of the Court, but in no event shall more that 4.4 maf be 
apportioned for use in California including all present perfected 
rights. Under Sec. 301(b) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 
1968, 82 Stat. 885, diversions from the Colorado River for the Central 
Arizona Project (the ``CAP'') shall be so limited as to assure the 
availability of water in quantities sufficient to provide for the 
aggregate annual consumptive use by holders of present perfected 
rights, by other users in the State of California served under existing 
contracts with the United States by diversion works theretofore 
constructed, and by other existing Federal reservations in that State, 
of 4.4 maf, and by users of the same character in Arizona and Nevada. 
This is referred to as a ``Shortage Year.'' (Article II(B)(3)).
    4. If, in any one year, water apportioned for consumptive use in a 
State will not be consumed in that State, the Secretary may make 
available such apportioned but unused water during such year for 
consumptive use in another Lower Division State. No rights to the 
recurrent use of such water shall accrue by reason of the use thereof. 
(Article II(B)(6))
    In the Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado 
River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado

[[Page 48533]]

River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (P.L. 90-537) (the 
``Criteria''), the Secretary adopted Criteria implementing his 
authorities under the BCPA, as enjoined by the Decree. Article III of 
the Criteria provides for the determination of Normal, Surplus and 
Shortage conditions for the release from Lake Mead of mainstream water 
downstream from Lee Ferry for use in the Lower Division States.
    B. California's basic annual mainstream apportionment of Colorado 
River water is 4.4 maf, whereas its use of Colorado River water has 
ranged from 4.2 to 5.2 maf since 1975. In the past, California was able 
to consumptively use water above its basic annual apportionment because 
the water use by both Arizona and Nevada was below their basic annual 
apportionments.
    In 1991 and 1992, as California faced its fifth and sixth 
consecutive years of severe drought, entities in California were able 
to divert all of the water that they requested or could transport from 
the Colorado River within the Lower Basin's apportionment. However, 
Nevada's Colorado River water use was forecasted to exceed its basic 
apportionment of 300,000 acre-feet (``af'') in the first decade of the 
21st century, and Arizona's water use was projected to reach its basic 
annual apportionment of 2.8 maf. This meant that, in the future, 
without the Secretary declaring a Surplus condition, California's use 
of Colorado River water would be limited to its 4.4 maf basic 
apportionment, some 750,000 af less than its forecasted use of Colorado 
River water. The bulk of any mandated reduction in California's water 
use would occur within the priorities held by MWD, which serves the 
coastal plain of southern California through its Colorado River 
Aqueduct.
    Since 1964, California has made significant investments to offset 
the eventual reduction in available Colorado River water. These 
investments have included: developing additional sources of imported 
water, conservation (demand reduction and use efficiency improvements), 
surface and groundwater storage, local supplies, conjunctive use 
programs, reclaimed water projects, and recovery and treatment of 
contaminated groundwater. While these investments have significantly 
increased supplies and reduced demand for imported water, they have not 
been adequate to offset the reduction of Colorado River water to 4.4 
maf per year, when considered in conjunction with population increases 
and the reduction in dependable State Water Project (the ``SWP'') and 
Los Angeles Aqueduct supplies. This reality has fueled further efforts 
to maximize the beneficial use of Colorado River water in California 
through cooperative conservation programs and transfers of conserved 
water.
    C. Nevada is quickly approaching full use of its 0.3 maf basic 
apportionment. Nevada's basic apportionment is projected to meet its 
domestic needs (excluding groundwater recharge) until approximately 
2007. Also, Nevada has a need for additional water above its basic 
apportionment before 2007 for groundwater recharge in local groundwater 
basins.
    Nevada's long-term options for additional water supply include 
surplus Colorado River water, participation in the Arizona groundwater 
bank, a number of in-state options such as the Muddy and Virgin Rivers, 
recovery and treatment of poor quality shallow groundwater, import of 
groundwater from basins within Nevada, and recovery of water from local 
groundwater banks. Nevada projects that even with an aggressive water 
conservation program it will need additional water for domestic needs 
in about 2007 and the need will steadily increase to almost 40,000 af 
in 2016. Nevada also projects it could use an additional 30,000 to 
50,000 af per year for local groundwater recharge when surplus supplies 
are available.
    D. Arizona's Lower Basin apportionment is divided among a number of 
major agricultural, Indian, and municipal contractors. Geographically, 
there are numerous diversions by contractors located along the River 
corridor and there is the singular diversion by the CAP which delivers 
water through a series of aqueducts to the interior portion of the 
State.
    Arizona's uses of Colorado River water are increasing rapidly, but 
primarily because the CAP, which was declared substantially complete in 
the early 1990's, is becoming more fully utilized. In contrast, uses by 
contractors located along the Colorado River in the Yuma and Parker 
areas have been developed for many years and their consumption has been 
stable. Increased municipal growth in the Yuma and Mohave County areas 
will gradually increase water demands over a period of many years, but 
some of the growth will result in a corresponding decrease in 
agricultural demand as farm lands are subdivided and urbanized. On-
reservation uses by Indian Tribes located in proximity to the River are 
also well established, although the potential for increased consumptive 
use exists, especially on the Colorado River Indian Tribes (the 
``CRIT'') Reservation.
    CAP water uses will increase over time as municipal and Indian 
contractors complete necessary water treatment and delivery 
infrastructure. In the meantime, the CAP will deliver significant 
quantities of water to irrigation districts who will use the water to 
displace groundwater supplies. Arizona has also developed a major 
capability to use CAP water that would otherwise be unordered, for 
groundwater recharge activities. The largest purchaser of water for 
recharge purposes is the Arizona Water Banking Authority (the 
``AWBA''), whose primary purpose is to firm municipal CAP water 
deliveries.
    E. In January 1986, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) issued 
a special report titled Colorado River--Alternative Operating 
Strategies for Distributing Surplus Water and Avoiding Spills. This 
report suggested operating strategies for avoiding Lake Mead spills 
that went beyond the Field Working Agreement between the Bureau of 
Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers for Flood Control Operation 
of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, but were, in essence, based on similar 
principles. Under one of these strategies, limited surpluses would be 
determined based on the need to provide adequate storage capacity for 
an assumed runoff rather than the actual yearly forecast in order to 
reduce the probability of reservoir spills.
    One of the alternatives considered assumed that runoff to be the 
value of the 70th percentile of exceedance based on the historic 
record, which is equivalent to about 17.331 maf runoff above Lake 
Powell. This strategy was named OS 0.70 (``70R'') or ``space building 
to avoid reservoir spills'' in the 1986 report. This and other 
strategies have been utilized for long-range operation projections 
since 1986.
    F. On October 18, 1999, the respective boards of Coachella Valley 
Water District (``CVWD''), Imperial Irrigation District (``IID''), MWD 
and the State of California released the Key Terms for Quantification 
Settlement (the ``Key Terms'') as the basis for obtaining public input 
and completing a Quantification Settlement Agreement (``Settlement 
Agreement'') among the districts. The Settlement Agreement provides the 
basis for California to reduce its reliance on Colorado River water 
above its basic apportionment. The agreement further will quantify the 
rights and uses of Colorado River water by designating water budgets 
for CVWD, IID, and MWD. The quantification of the rights and uses of 
water with respect to priorities 3 and 6 of the 1931 California Seven 
Party Agreement is designed to

[[Page 48534]]

help facilitate implementation of cooperative water supply programs, 
and provide a quantified baseline from which conservation and transfer 
programs can be measured. The Settlement Agreement is expected to be 
fully executed in January 2001, after the conditions precedent 
contained in the Key Terms have been satisfied.
    California's Colorado River Water Use Plan (the ``Plan''), is a 
framework by which programs, projects, actions, policies and other 
activities would be coordinated and cooperatively implemented allowing 
California to meet its Colorado River water needs within its basic 
apportionment in Normal years.
    The Plan describes resource and financial investments and provides 
overall coordination on important initiatives undertaken by the 
Colorado River Board of California member agencies and others. The 
diverse components of the Plan are designed to help protect and 
optimize California's Colorado River resources. Some of these are 
associated components, meaning that they don't directly involve 
Colorado River water but are needed by implementing entities to meet 
their water needs within California's Colorado River water 
apportionment. The components of the Plan are broad in scope addressing 
both quantity and quality of California's share of Colorado River 
water.
    The California agencies with Colorado River rights and contractual 
interests are the principal implementing entities for the programs and 
projects described in the Plan, and for obtaining the necessary program 
and project approvals, conducting appropriate environmental reviews, 
and ensuring compliance with endangered species acts (federal and 
state).
    The Plan is intended to be dynamic and flexible enough to allow for 
modifications in, and periodic updates to, the framework when and where 
appropriate, and to allow for the substitution of programs and projects 
within the Plan's components when they have been found to be more cost 
effective and/or appropriate. Programs undertaken by the California 
agencies to transition California's use of Colorado River water to its 
basic apportionment without potential major water supply and economic 
disruptions include:
     Further quantification of rights and use of Colorado River 
water in California where helpful to facilitate the optimum use of 
California's Colorado River resources;
     Cooperative core water supply programs and voluntary 
transfers;
     Increased efficiencies in water conveyance and use;
     Water storage and conjunctive use programs to increase 
normal and dry year water supplies;
     Voluntary water exchanges;
     Administrative actions necessary for effective use and 
management of water supplies;
     Improved reservoir management and operations;
     Drought and surplus water management plans;
     Coordinated project operations for increased water supply 
yield; and
     Groundwater management.
    The State of California has supported Plan implementation from the 
General Fund. Most notably, $235 million was appropriated in 1998 for 
lining portions of the All American and Coachella Canals ($200 million) 
and for groundwater storage and conjunctive use programs ($35 million) 
identified in the Plan. Also, between 1996 and 2000, California voters 
approved historic levels of general obligation bond financing for 
improving California water supply reliability, water quality and for 
restoring watershed ecosystems. The funding support provided by the 
$995 million Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act in 1996; the $2.1 
billion Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal 
Protection Act in 2000; and the $1.97 billion Safe Drinking Water, 
Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act in 2000 
extend to the implementation of the Plan.
    The proposed Settlement Agreement, other proposed interagency 
agreements and associated implementation agreement(s) with the 
Secretary, together with the Secretary's administration of water rights 
and use below Glen Canyon Dam, constitute the principal binding and 
enforceable provisions of the Plan. Provisions regarding third and 
sixth priority use provide the mechanisms needed to help facilitate the 
voluntary shift of approximately 380,000 af per year from agricultural 
use to urban use on the coastal plain of Southern California and the 
needed quantified baseline by which such programs can be measured.
    The Settlement Agreement, when fully executed, provides the basis 
for California to meet its Colorado River water supply needs from 
within its annual apportionment of Colorado River water. Specific terms 
of the settlement include:
     A shift of 380,000 acre-feet per year from agriculture to 
urban use, through water acquisitions from IID and CVWD to MWD and 
SDCWA and forbearance of the use of 38,000 acre-feet per year of 6th 
priority water by IID and CVWD for MWD's use;
     Caps on use of water by IID and CVWD under the third 
priority at 3.1 maf and 0.33 maf, respectively;
     The exclusive right for MWD to utilize all water below 
420,000 acre-feet per year unused by the Palo Verde Irrigation District 
and the Yuma Project-Reservation Division collectively;
     A permanent water supply of 16,000 acre-feet per year for 
the San Luis Rey (the ``SLR'') Indian Water Rights Settlement, from the 
All American and Coachella Canal Lining Projects;
     Deductions from IID, CVWD, and MWD's supplies to permit 
the Secretary to satisfy use of miscellaneous and Indian present 
perfected rights by holders of those rights as they were not addressed 
in the 1931 Seven-Party Agreement, the majority of the rights having 
been quantified in 1979; and
     A net yield of up to 90,000 acre-feet per year from the 
IID-MWD Conservation Program for MWD over a period of up to 
approximately 75 years.
    Table 1 summarizes the yields and estimated start dates of the core 
cooperative voluntary water conservation/transfer projects and 
associated exchanges:

       Table 1.--Cooperative Water Conservation/Transfer Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Cooperative water conservation/                            Estimated
         transfer projects            Annual yield (af)     start date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MWD/IID 1988 Water Conservation     100,000-110,000 \2\.           (\1\)
 Program.
SDCWA/IID Transfer and SDCWA/MWD    130,000-200,000 \3\.            2002
 Exchange.
MWD/CVWD SWP Water Transfer/        35,000..............            2003
 Colorado River Water Exchange.
Coachella Canal Lining-MWD/SLR \4\  26,000..............        \5\ 2005
All American Canal Lining-MWD/SLR   367,700.............        \4\ 2006
 \3\.

[[Page 48535]]

 
IID/CVWD/MWD Conservation Program.  100,000 \6\.........           2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Complete.
\2\ Yield to MWD, except for 20,000 af per year to be made available to
  CVWD.
\3\ Yield to SDCWA.
\4\ Yield to MWD and San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement
  Parties.
\5\ Date by which full conservation benefits will be achieved.
\6\ Yield to CVWD, MWD has an option to acquire water CVWD does not
  need. MWD assumes responsibility for 50,000 af per year to CVWD after
  year 45 of the Settlement Agreement.

    The agencies' Colorado River entitlement water use budgets are 
adjusted for each increment of transfer, resulting in an overall 
reduced use of Colorado River water by California. There is 
approximately a 20-year transition period before the core water 
conservation/transfers are fully implemented. All of the core 
conservation/transfers to the coastal plain of southern California are 
proposed to occur within a ten-year implementation period.
    The agencies responsible for implementing the components of the 
Plan intend to move forward as quickly as possible. In a number of 
cases, environmental documentation must be prepared and, in certain 
cases, permits and approvals must be secured from state and/or federal 
agencies to permit projects to move forward. It should be understood 
that some components and/or associated components may be modified but 
would still produce the same conceptual results, or that other options 
may be substituted if they are found to be more effective and 
appropriate. There are also related activities, such as the Salton Sea 
(the ``Sea'') restoration efforts. Congress specified in Public Law 
105-372 that alternatives to restore the Sea should not include 
importation of any new or additional water from the Colorado River and 
should account for the transfer of water out of the Salton Sea Basin.
    The Plan also includes consideration of environmental factors. 
Implementation of the Plan will reduce California's reliance on the 
Colorado River without severe dislocations in either urban or 
agricultural areas. Fundamentally, programs and projects in the Plan 
are not designed to increase water supplies to accommodate increased 
population growth. Thus, their implementation will not stimulate new 
growth, foster unplanned urban development, affect demands on local or 
regional transportation systems, require new public services and 
utilities, or create long-term increases in ambient noise levels. Their 
implementation will make a de minimis contribution to cumulative land 
use impacts and have a de minimis effect on associated socioeconomic 
resources, such as employment, earnings, and housing. The Plan and the 
accompanying Settlement Agreement programs and projects are designed to 
preserve the ability to meet existing needs while diverting less water 
from the Colorado River.
    In accordance with the Plan, California's use of Colorado River 
water during the Interim Period will decline over time. During the 
Interim Period (2002-2016), MWD will use surplus water, when available, 
to meet direct water supply demands on the coastal plain while programs 
and projects in the Plan are implemented, as well as to provide a 
source of water for conjunctive use and storage programs. Following the 
Interim Period, beyond 2016, MWD's water supply demands will be met 
from occasional years of surplus water, conjunctive use and storage 
withdrawals, dry year transfers, and other water acquisitions.
    California expects to have the projects shown in Table 1 yield the 
following amounts of water in the years shown:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Date                              Acre feet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006.......................................................      340,000
2011.......................................................      460,000
2016.......................................................      490,000
2021.......................................................      510,000
2026.......................................................      540,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Authority and Purpose

    The purpose of these Guidelines is to provide direction for an 
Interim Period for the annual determination by the Secretary of Normal, 
Surplus, and Shortage conditions for the pumping or release from Lake 
Mead of mainstream water downstream from Lee Ferry for use in the Lower 
Division States. These Guidelines are used under the authority of the 
Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (28 Stat. 1057) (the ``BCPA''), the 
Decree in Arizona v. California, 376 U. S. 340 (1964) (the ``Decree'') 
and in furtherance of Article III of the Criteria for the Coordinated 
Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the 
Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (P.L. 90-537) 
(the ``Criteria''). Additionally, these Guidelines rely on the 
authority of the Secretary to make apportioned but unused water in one 
Lower Division State available for use for irrigation and domestic uses 
in another state under Article II(B)(6) of the Decree. These Guidelines 
are adopted for the purpose of providing enhanced domestic water supply 
reliability in the Lower Division States during a transition period 
ending December 31, 2016 (the ``Interim Period''), in accordance with 
the priorities contained in water delivery contracts or agreements.
    These Guidelines become effective only when the Settlement 
Agreement becomes effective. The Guidelines include triggers that will 
implement Normal, Surplus or Shortage deliveries at specified target 
elevations of storage in Lake Mead. They also include benchmarks, 
reporting mechanisms and reviews by which California and agencies 
within California will demonstrate measurable and defined progress in 
meeting the goals of the California's Plan described herein. If 
sufficient progress is not being made, these Guidelines will 
automatically terminate.
    The State of California and its affected agencies have recognized 
and agreed upon, and the Secretary has agreed with, the plan for 
implementation of agreements that will increase the efficiency of use 
within Priorities 1 through 3 of the California Seven-Party Agreement 
of August 18, 1931, and thereby reduce the amount of water required for 
irrigation and potable uses under such priorities. Savings shall be 
made available for use on the coastal plain of Southern California 
within California's basic annual apportionment of 4.4 maf.
    These Guidelines include measures to be undertaken by MWD to 
provide reparation to Arizona for increased water supply shortages 
associated with interim operations, both during the

[[Page 48536]]

effective period and for so long thereafter as such risk is present. 
During the Interim Period and after the termination of these 
Guidelines, the Secretary will withhold, deliver and account for water 
in accordance with such described reparation.
    These Guidelines are not intended to, and do not:
     Guarantee or assure any water user a firm supply for any 
specified period;
     Change or expand existing authorities under the body of 
law known as the ``Law of the River'';
     Address intrastate storage or intrastate distribution of 
water;
     Change the apportionments made for use within individual 
States, or in any way impair or impede the right of the Upper Basin to 
consumptively use water available to that Basin under the Compact;
     Affect any obligation of any Upper Division State under 
the Colorado River Compact;
     Affect any right of any State or of the United States 
under Sec. 14 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (70 
Stat. 105); Sec. 601(c) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 
(82 Stat. 885); the California Limitation Act (Act of March 4, 1929; 
Ch. 16, 48th Sess.); or any other provision of the ``Law of the 
River''; or
     Affect the rights of any holder of present perfected 
rights or reserved rights, which rights shall be satisfied within the 
apportionment of the State within which the use is made in accordance 
with the Decree.

For purposes of these guidelines, the following definitions do apply:
    ``Domestic'' use shall have the meaning defined in the Compact. 
``Direct Delivery Domestic Use'' shall mean direct delivery of water to 
domestic end users of other municipal and industrial water providers 
within the contractor's area of normal service, including incidental 
regulation of Colorado River water supplies within the year of 
operation but not including Off-stream Banking. ``Direct Delivery 
Domestic Use'' for MWD shall include delivery of water to end users 
within its area of normal service, incidental regulation of Colorado 
River water supplies within the year of operation, and Off-stream 
Banking only with water delivered through the Colorado River Aqueduct. 
``Off-stream Banking'' shall mean the diversion of Colorado River water 
to underground storage facilities for use in subsequent years from the 
facility used by a contractor diverting such water.

III. Allocation of Unused Apportionment Water Under Article II(B)(6)

    Article II(B)(6) of the Decree allows the Secretary to allocate 
water that is apportioned to one Lower Division State, but is for any 
reason unused in that State, to another Lower Division State. This 
determination is made for one year only and no rights to recurrent use 
of the water accrue to the state that receives the allocated water. 
Historically, this provision of the Decree has been used to allocate 
Arizona's and Nevada's apportioned but unused water to California.
    Water use projections made for the analysis of these interim 
Guidelines indicate that neither California nor Nevada is likely to 
have significant volumes of apportioned but unused water during the 
Interim Period. Depending upon the requirements of the AWBA for 
intrastate and interstate Off-Stream Banking, Arizona may have 
significant amounts of apportioned but unused water.
    Before making a determination of an interim Surplus condition under 
these Guidelines, the Secretary will determine the quantity of 
apportioned but unused water from the basic apportionments under 
Article II(B)(6), and will allocate such water in the following order 
of priority:
    1. Meet the Direct Delivery Domestic Use requirements of 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (``MWD'') and 
Southern Nevada Water Authority (``SNWA''), allocated as agreed by said 
agencies;
    2. Meet the needs for Off-stream Banking activities in California 
by MWD and in Nevada by SNWA, allocated as agreed by said agencies; and
    3. Meet the other needs for water in California in accordance with 
the California Seven-Party Agreement as supplemented by the Settlement 
Agreement.

IV. Determination of Lake Mead Operation During the Interim Period

A. Normal
    In years when available Lake Mead storage is projected to be at or 
below elevation 1,125 ft. and above the Shortage triggering level on 
January 1, the Secretary shall determine a Normal year.
B. Surplus
    1. Partial Domestic Surplus: In years when Lake Mead storage is 
projected to be between elevation 1125 ft. and elevation 1145 ft. on 
January 1, the Secretary shall determine a Partial Domestic Surplus. 
The amount of such Surplus shall equal:
    a. For Direct Delivery Domestic Use by MWD, 1.212 maf reduced by: 
1.) the amount of basic apportionment available to MWD and 2.) the 
amount of its domestic demand which MWD offsets in such year by 
offstream groundwater withdrawals or other options. The amount offset 
under 2.) shall not be less than 400,000 af in 2001 and will be reduced 
by 20,000 af/yr over the Interim Period so as to equal 100,000 af in 
2016.
    b. For use by SNWA, one-half of the Direct Delivery Domestic Use 
within the SNWA service area in excess of the State of Nevada's basic 
apportionment.
    c. For Arizona, one-half of the Direct Delivery Domestic Use in 
excess of the State of Arizona's basic apportionment.
    2. Full Domestic Surplus: In years when Lake Mead content is 
projected to be above elevation 1145 ft., but less than the amount 
which would initiate a Surplus under B.3 or B.4 hereof on January 1, 
the Secretary shall determine a Full Domestic Surplus. The amount of 
such Surplus shall equal:
    a. For Direct Delivery Domestic Use by MWD, 1.250 maf reduced by 
the amount of basic apportionment available to MWD.
    b. For use by SNWA, the Direct Delivery Domestic Use within the 
SNWA service area in excess of the State of Nevada's basic 
apportionment.
    c. For use in Arizona, the Direct Delivery Domestic Use in excess 
of Arizona's basic apportionment.
    3. Quantified Surplus: In years when the Secretary determines that 
water should be released for beneficial consumptive use to reduce the 
risk of potential reservoir spills based on the OS 0.70 alternative 
strategy (``70R'') as described in the Bureau of Reclamation's CRSSez 
Annual Colorado River System Simulation Model Overview and Users 
Manual, revised May 1998, the Secretary shall determine and allocate a 
Quantified Surplus sequentially as follows:
    a. Establish the volume of the Quantified Surplus.
    b. Allocate and distribute the Quantified Surplus 50% to 
California, 46% to Arizona and 4% to Nevada, subject to c. through g. 
that follow.
    c. Distribute California's share first to meet basic apportionment 
demands and MWD's Direct Delivery Domestic Use and Off-stream Banking 
demands, and then to California Priorities 6 and 7 and other surplus 
contracts. Distribute Nevada's share first to meet basic apportionment 
demands and then to the remaining Direct Delivery Domestic Use and Off-
stream Banking demands.

[[Page 48537]]

Distribute Arizona's share to surplus demands in Arizona including Off-
stream Banking and interstate banking demands. Arizona, California and 
Nevada agree that Nevada would get first priority for interstate 
banking in Arizona.
    d. Distribute any unused share of the Quantified Surplus in 
accordance with Section III, Allocation of Unused Apportionment Water 
Under Article II(B)(6).
    e. Determine whether MWD, SNWA and Arizona have received the amount 
of water they would have received under Section IV.B.2., Full Domestic 
Surplus if a Quantified Surplus had not been declared. If they have 
not, then determine and meet all demands provided for in Section 
IV.B.2. (a), (b) and (c).
    f. Any remaining water shall remain in storage in Lake Mead.
    4. Flood Control Surplus: In years in which the Field Working 
Agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of 
Engineers for Flood Control Operation of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead 
requires releases greater than the downstream beneficial consumptive 
use demands, the Secretary shall determine a Flood Control Surplus in 
that year or the subsequent year. In such years, releases will be made 
to satisfy all beneficial uses within the United States, including 
unlimited off-stream groundwater banking, and section 215 deliveries 
under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1263) (the ``RRA''). 
After all beneficial uses within the United States have been met, the 
Secretary shall notify the United States Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission that there may be a surplus of water as 
provided in Article 10 of the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944.
C. Shortage
    In a year when the Secretary projects that future water supply and 
demands would create a 20% or greater probability that Lake Mead would 
drop below elevation 1050 feet in a year prior to or in the year 2050, 
the Secretary shall determine a Shortage. This strategy is defined in 
the Bureau of Reclamation's CRSSez Annual Colorado River System 
Simulation Model Overview and Users Manual, revised May 1998. In any 
year when a shortage is declared, the Secretary shall deliver no more 
than 4.4 maf for consumptive use in California and no more than 2.3 maf 
for consumptive use in Arizona. Nevada shall share in shortages as 
required by law. If reservoir conditions continue to deteriorate, the 
Secretary may require additional reductions in accordance with the 
Decree and law.

V. Determination of 602(a) Storage in Lake Powell During the Interim 
Period

    During the Interim Period, 602(a) storage requirements determined 
in accordance with Article II (1) of the Criteria shall utilize a value 
of not less than 14.85 maf (elevation 3630 feet) for Lake Powell.

VI. Implementation of Guidelines

    During the Interim Period the Secretary shall utilize the currently 
established process for development of the Annual Operating Plan for 
the Colorado River System Reservoirs (``AOP'') and use these Guidelines 
to make determinations regarding Normal, Surplus, and Shortage 
conditions for the operation of Lake Mead and to allocate apportioned 
but unused water. The Secretary also shall apply, as appropriate, the 
provisions of these Guidelines related to reparation and termination. 
The operation of the other Colorado River System reservoirs and 
determinations associated with development of the AOP shall be in 
accordance with the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, the 
Criteria, and other applicable laws.
    In order to allow for better overall water management during the 
Interim Period, the Secretary shall undertake a ``mid-year review'' 
allowing for the revision of the current AOP, as appropriate based on 
actual runoff conditions which are greater than projected, or demands 
which are lower than projected. The Secretary shall revise the 
determination for the current year only to allow for additional 
deliveries. Any revision in the AOP may occur only after a re-
initiation of the AOP consultation process as required by law.
    As part of the AOP process during the Interim Period, California 
shall report to the Secretary on its progress in implementing the Plan.

VII. Reparation for Increased Water Supply Shortages

    It is possible that the operation of Lake Mead under these 
Guidelines will result in the Secretary determining a shortage 
condition more frequently, or for a shortage to be more severe, or for 
a shortage to be longer in duration than would otherwise have occurred, 
during the Interim Period or thereafter. During the Interim Period, if 
the Secretary makes a shortage determination in which deliveries to 
Arizona would be reduced, and if MWD has diverted water under IV. B.1 
and/or IV. B.2 herein, MWD has agreed to forbear the delivery off the 
River of 500,000 af per year, unless otherwise agreed by MWD and 
Arizona. The holders of Priorities 6 and 7 under the California Seven-
Party Agreement and Nevada have waived any claim to such water. After 
the Interim Period, if the Secretary makes a shortage determination in 
which deliveries to Arizona would be reduced and, if MWD has diverted 
water under IV. B.1 and/or IV. B.2 herein, MWD has agreed to forbear 
the delivery off the river of an amount of water equal to such 
reductions to Arizona, unless otherwise agreed by MWD and Arizona. The 
holders of Priorities 6 and 7 under the California Seven-Party 
Agreement and Nevada have waived any claim to such water.
    The total amount of water forborne by MWD during or after the 
Interim Period pursuant to these guidelines shall not exceed one maf.
    The reparation obligation of MWD shall terminate at such time after 
the Interim Period that the Secretary determines a Surplus based on the 
Flood Control strategy or as otherwise agreed by MWD and Arizona.

VIII. Termination of Guidelines

    These Guidelines shall terminate:
    A. On December 31, 2016, or
    B. In the event California has not implemented conservation 
measures as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, which actually 
reduce its need for surplus Colorado River water by the following 
amounts by the date indicated:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Date                              Acre feet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1, 2006............................................      280,000
January 1, 2011............................................      380,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In such event, the Bureau of Reclamation shall account for the 
total volume of Colorado River water diverted into underground storage 
from the Colorado River Aqueduct by and for the benefit of MWD under 
any Full Domestic Surplus determination. MWD has agreed to forbear 
diversions in an amount equal to such volume in the next following 
Normal or Shortage year(s) in an amount not to exceed 200,000 af per 
year, and the holders of Priorities 6 and 7 under the California Seven-
Party Agreement have waived any claim to such water. Such obligation 
shall be terminated in the first year that the Secretary determines a 
Surplus under a 70R strategy or a Flood Control strategy.
    Upon termination, Lake Mead operations, for the purpose of 
determining Surplus, shall immediately revert to 70R. Note: We will 
prepare a

[[Page 48538]]

separate document describing inadvertent overruns and average decree 
accounting that may be incorporated into the criteria or adopted 
separately.''

    Dated: August 3, 2000.
Eluid L. Martinez,
Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation.
[FR Doc. 00-20033 Filed 8-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P