OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX VII VH-9 DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS ON COMMENTS FROM UPPER AND LOWER DIVISION STATES ON PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR 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 title of the Operating Criteria has been modified slightly from "Coordinated Long-Range Operating Criteria for Colorado River Reservoirs . . ."to "Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs. . ."to accord with the provisions of Section 602 (a) of P.L. 90-537. The second sentence of the first paragraph of the Operating Criteria has been revised in accordance with the Lower Division proposal that the word "Upper" be deleted from the phrase that the Operating Criteria are to control the "operation of the storage reservoirs in the [Upper]1 Colorado River Basin ..." since the reservoirs referred to are in both the Upper and Lower Basins. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, a Lower Division suggestion was adopted that "consistent" be inserted in lieu of "consonant". In this same sentence an Upper Division proposal was adopted that "contracts" be deleted. These changes are reflected as follows: "The Operating Criteria will be administered [consonant] consistent with applicable Federal laws, [contracts,] the Mexican Water Treaty, interstate compacts, and decrees relating to the use of the waters of the Colorado River." While "contracts" are pertinent in the context of the sentence, the deletion of the word makes this sentence consistent with the provisions of Sections 601(c) and 602(a) of the Colorado Basin Project Act in which the word "contracts" is not included. In this connection, the Upper Basin proposal to refer to the several Compacts, the Mexican Water Treaty and court decrees as constituting "the law of the river" was not adopted since the phrase "the law of the river" cannot be said to exclude "contracts". The Upper Division also proposed that the import of Sub-article 11(1) (f) be incorporated in the preamble to the Operating Criteria "in order to express the indispensable reason" for the criteria. This refers to the necessity to assure that upper basin consumptive uses not be impaired because of failure to store sufficient water to assure deliveries under Section 602(a) (1) and (2) of P.L. 90-537. This proposal was not adopted because this provision is more appropriately retained in its present position as one of the factors to be considered by the Secretary in determining the quantity of Section 602(a) storage. The Upper Division proposal with regard to the second paragraph of the Operating Criteria was adopted because it is consistent with Section 602(b) of P.L. 90-537. This revises the provision that the Secretary "reserves the right to modify the Operating Criteria" to provide that the Secretary "may" modify the Operating Criteria. The Upper Division proposed addition that the formal review will include "participation by State representatives as each Governor may designate" was added since this is also provided for in Section 602(b). However, the word "once" was deleted from the phrase "that the review would be made at least [once] every five years" as being unnecessary. The statement that the participation in the review would include "such other parties and agencies as the Secretary may deem appropriate" was retained since this participation is provided for in Section 602 (b) with regard to the initial review of the proposed criteria and these same parties should participate in the formal review thereafter. To be consistent with the format of the balance of the Operating criteria, the second paragraph of Article I, which previously was unnumbered, has been designated Subarticle 1(2). In Subarticle 1(1), which concerns the Secretary's annual report of actual operation for the "preceding compact water year and the projected operation for the current year", the Lower Division proposal that the reference to "current year" be changed 'Words in [brackets] are deleted and words italicized are added. |