Comments on the Colorado River Basin Study prepared by the the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission

Donnelly, David A.

Water Authority, Southern Nevada

English

University of New Mexico

River Basin Studies Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission (1997) 
4-3-1997 
Colorado River Basin Study Comments--Southern Nevada Water 
Authority 
David A. Donnelly 
Southern Nevada Water Authority 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_service_westernwater_rbs 
University of New Mexico 
UNM Digital Repository 
Recommended Citation 
Donnelly, David A. and Southern Nevada Water Authority. "Colorado River Basin Study Comments--
Southern Nevada Water Authority." (1997). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/
law_service_westernwater_rbs/3 
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open 
access by the Western Water Policy Review Advisory 
Commission (1997) at UNM Digital Repository. It has 
been accepted for inclusion in River Basin Studies by an 
authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For 
more information, please contact amywinter@unm.edu, 
lsloane@salud.unm.edu, sarahrk@unm.edu. 
Water Auchoriry 
WWPRAC RECEIVED 
APR07 'S7 
DA TE INITIALS CODE
Los Vegas 
Volley 
Water 
District 
Date: __ A_p_ri_l_4_. _1_99_, _________________ _ 
From: __ s•_w_A_R_e_s_ou_r_c_es ________________ _Department: Southern Nevada Water Authority; Resources SNWA Resources FAX#: (702) 258-3951 Document( s): __ c_oL_ o_R_Ao_o_R_r_v_ER_B_As_1_N_s_r_uo_v_RE_v_1_Ew _______ Number of Pages (including cover sheet): 7 Note: tl?W,api6 fo tU�tD 
Western Water Policy Review Office To:------------------------
303 236-4286 APR 1 t 1991 
FAX#=------�-----------
April 3. 1997 
� ... t.miERN NcVM>A. 
WATER AurHORTTY
Dale Pontius 
Western Water Policy &:view Office D-5001 
P.O. Box 25007 
Denver, CO 80225•0007 
Dear Mr. Pontius: 
SUBJECT: COLORADO RIVER BASIN STUDY REVIEW 
I IA/ I .). V IUWJ If lnlJ DIV#&; 
us V�•1, NeHJ. 89153 
T,upho,,t: (7fl2) 258·3!JJ!J 
Fa: (702) 258-3268 
. /'rofaa OJ/ltt 
1900 E. Fl,n,,i"&"• Su. J 70 
UI V,z-41, Nt!NMII 89119 
T rkphtm,: (702) 86.2-3400 
Fa: (702) 862°,3470 
My staff has reviewed the draft "Colorado River Basin Study" and generally finds the document 
well-written and comprehensive. with a good grasp of the issues. We have attached our commen� 
mostly editorial in nature. 
In closing. your recommendations arc s� .-but general. and we wii1h that you could be more 
specific. Thank you for the opportwiity to comment. If you have questions on these comments, 
please contact Susan Selby at (702) 258-3214. 
;;y A-!Jr>1 y<, Iii
David A. Donnelly 0 
Deputy General Manager. 
Engineering/Operations 
DAD:SRS:vw 
Attachment 
c: Kay Brothers 
Gm-aid Edwards 
David Lindgren 
Susan Selby 
Gary Weatherford 
Chris Weiss 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 
M11,y ]. Ki11&Aitl. Chtnr 
Co111uy C..mmi.uioner 
1'«""1 I� Brown 
Nnnla us Vcp, CowtciLn••
.kDbm .A. Groab"i Eric L L11ttJ1urd 
Maya,. Ha1deHon Mayo,, Boulder Qty 
P61rieu M,J,,,y
Caicral Mauga-
, 
.Amit Adtimsm. Viet Ch.Jm111n 
la Veps Councilman 
M:,n,4 Wil/u"" Bruet L. Wo.Jbu,,y 
County Commiwi- Cowny Commiuiontt 
SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY 
COMMENTS 
Page ii: The page numbt=rs are inconsistent with the report's sections starting with pg. 40. 
Page 2: The "shift in values" is really more an EXP ANSI ON of values; the traditional management 
roles are no less valuable, they are now more complicated by emerging environmental and 
recreational values. 
Page 3, last bullet: " ... into the development of a reasonable AND prudent alternative ... '" 
Page 4, par. 1: " .•. provide water development interests with accountability and more clearly 
defined mitigation requirements. . .. .. With regards ta accountability, do you mean to say ••provide 
interests with RCcountahility requirements, i.e. make intc�s more accountable" or "make the 
accountability requirements more clearly defined'r 
Page 4, par. 3: Provide benefits AND COSTS of restoration. 
Page 14, footnote 1: You should also explain that the 111(0) requirement is leaving less than 7.S 
MAFY for the upper division, due to overestimation of supply vs. flows on record. (This point is 
made in Table 4 (footnote 1 ), Table 5, and page 48, but should be introduced as early as possible.) 
Pagt: 14, par. 2: Why not include a reference to Ccntr,11 Arizona Project agricuhurc, among major 
us ers? 
Page 14, par.3, first line: If you are going to discuss overallocation, then the first line should be 
revmttcn to say, .. Ifn,cent flow estimates of 13 MAFY arc corTect and it is assumed that the Upper 
Basin is supposed to receive the full 7.5 MAFV. then the river has been over.tllocated by 25 
percent." The Upper Basin must provide the Lower Basin with 7.5 MAF (75,000,000 over 10 
years); it Jets the remainder, which could be less than 7.S MAFV when the flow on the River is less. 
(See our above comment for Page 14, footnote 1.) 
Page 17, Tables 3 and 4: Use .. apportionment" rather than entitlement. 
Page 18, Table S: This table covers the basic apportionments among the stale!i and Mexico. Oiven 
the continuing significance of unused apportionment and the rising importance of surplu.�. both rypcs 
of apportionment should be mentioned in a footnote. Check 11(8)(2) for details; Nevada ha.; 
contracred for the 4 perc:ent. (Otherwise. they arc not referred tu until page 36, line I, briefly.) 
Page 24. line 2: Replace" cmtitlemcnt" with "apportionment". (You could do a "global" search.) 
Page 25, last three lines. and page 26, top two lin6= Delete and substitute something like "Second. 
while the Ari7.ona v. California opinion made iL clear that the tributaries in the lower basin belong 
-
to the respective states, argumcntc; have been raised against the diversion of water contributed by 
those tribur.Rri� from the mainstream, even though such a prohibition would cau.� the Southern 
Nevada Water Authority to build a pipeline approximately 60 miles at great ex.pensc to divert Virgin 
River water." 
Page 26, last line: The Secretary's authority is 11ol dependent upon exhausting efforts at consensus. 
Page 27 (and elsewhere): Refer to lower and upper "division" states. rather than "basin.,.. state5y for 
accuracy. 
Page 27, line 14: Use "'lower division" rather than "Lower Basin states". 
Page 27. line 19: Change "4.4 mafy entitlement" to "4.4 MAFY basic apportionment." 
Page 28. linc 24: Is there a current intention to cover tribal water marketing in the next iteration of 
dr.:1n regulations? 
Page 31. Jac;t paragraph. and page 46, par. 2: 2007, not 2010. 
Page 36, last paragraph: Research (Bo:ant y. Yellen. 447 U.S. 352 (1980)) and replace this 
description of 11D's rights with the C01Tect ooe. 
Page 38, footnote 6: Replace with uAlthough MWD has expressed interest in lining the All 
American Canal, 110 currently asserts the right to do so and it is unknown whethtrr MWD will 
contest that right. The project is at a standstill because of this. dispute and because of opposition by 
Mexico, which claims the seepage from the canal." 
Page 44, par. I(?): Add footnote reference to the ESA lawsuit filed in March. 
Page 46, line 8: Substitute .. apportionment" or "basic lf'POltionmcnt'' for "entitlemcnt.1' 
Page 47. par. l: Delete paragraph after" ... (Mulroy, 1994)." and add the following: "Latest 
forecasts show Clark County reaching a population of 1.4 million by the year 2000." ("Forecast" 
report, CBER.) In 1991, the Las Vegas Valley Water District, the largest water provider in the Las 
Vegas Valley and a member of the SNW A once it was created, suspended commitments for water 
delivery to new projects for a year, to determine e'la<.'tly how much water it had committed for 
future years. In 1995, during SNWA's resource planning process. SNWA's citizen advisory 
committee recommended that the Authority utilize all available supplies to meet water demands, 
including temporary supplies. while working to acquire more permanent ones. Before that time. the 
Authority had considered only long-term water to meet demands. Now, Nevada is looking to 
unused apportionments. surplus. and participation in the Ari7.ono Woter Bank as possible interim 
supplies and to the Lower Basin and the fedcr-al government to expand it.c; permanent supply." 
Page 47, tines 14 and lS: Delete ... although this is not entirely clear." Begin next sentence with 
""Under a common interpretation ... " 
Page 55, p11r. 1: Insert after .. In 1984 ... efficiencies.'" the following .. The Boarll•s decision was 
affinned by the California courts, and the U. S. Supreme Court refused tn review it." (In alldition, 
please check the 400.000 AF figure. We think that the Board u.'-Cd. a range, with 400,000 AF as the 
low end and something like 700,000 as the upper end.) 
Page 56: Please add the following paragraph on Southern Nevada's conservation efforts. ""Southern 
Nevada Water Authority has a minimum con!!et"vation goal of 10 to 15 pcrccTit by the year 2000. 
Dy the end of 1996, the Authority had already achieved an estimated 11 % cumulative savings from 
conservation prognuns and water rate increases since 1991, when conservation programs began in 
the Las Vegas Valley. All waler customers arc metered and conservation water rates -- increasing 
block rates whereby large users pay higher rates - are in place. The Authority has a current 
wnservation program budget of$3 million. Programs include indoor plumbing retrofit programs, 
daytime outdoor watering restrictions during the summer. extensive conservation education, a 
"Cash for Grass" turf replacement incentive program, and water audit programs for outdoor 
irrigation systems." 
Page 56. last paragrc1ph: Reference to 50 MAF discharge is misleading. Most is from north coast 
rivers where reuse offers no potential. 
Page 57, par. 3: Replace with the following: "Southern Nevada has a unique reuse program in that 
it essentially reuses all of the treated Colorado River wastewater that it returns to the River. in the 
form of "return flow credits." This means that, for every acre-foot of treated Colorado River 
wastewater that Southern Nevada returns to the River. it can divert that much more Colorado River 
water, as long its consumptive use (defined in the Lew of the Rivt.-r as .. diversions less return flows") 
is no more than 300,000 &.Tc:-fix:t per year. Southern Nevada's existing diversion contract quantities 
are already based on the &Mumption that most of the treated wastewater is returned for credit. 
Because of this, more rcusc of the wastewater for outdoor inigation and power plants, for example. 
rather than returning it to the River for credit. would not incrca� the region's water i;upply. lnstea� 
decisions to reuse are usually ba5ed on facility capaciti� and costs. As a result. effluent reuse bas 
been increasing in Southern Nevada and expected to continue. The Las Vegas region for the most 
part now requim; the use of reclaimed waler for new developments with large land�ape irrigation. 
Some water features on the famous Las Vegas Strip tTeat and use graywater and nuisance shallow 
ground water.,, 
(FYI: Southern Nevada. the only portion of the state that uses Colorado River. does not have 
agriculture that uses Colorado River water, and the Las Vegas region (Southern Nevada Water 
Authority service area) does not have agri'--uhure at all.) 
Page 58, par. 2: To give an idea llfhow values have changed. even within the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, you might mention the poisoning of Flaming Gorge in the 1970s(?) to eliminate the "trash'' 
native fish, in order to allow the exotics to flourish. 
Page SB. par. 3: Bonytail chub should be just "'bonytail ... 
Page 59, 3rd bullet: Move !tentencc up to bullet. 
Page 62, par. 2: More information can be presented here in regards to the findingic of the BOR 's 
biological assessment (BA). 
Page 62, par. 2: Change second sentence to read, .. A reasonable AND prudent alternative will be 
developed by FWS and the BOR if the BO results in one or more jeopardy opinions." 
Page 62, par. J: Change paragraph to read, "ln 1994, the Lower Ba.sin states and watt.-r users created 
a Steering Commince to explore options under the ESA to create a proactive program that could 
cost effectively provide ESA compliance for water and power uses, while still meeting recovery 
plan objectives and precluding the need to list udditional species. 
Page 62, par. 4: Change first sentence to read. •• ... fish and wildlife agencies of the three LOWER 
BASIN state!!: in 1995 to develop ... '' 
Page 63. par. 2: Change first sentence to read, " .. .in a number of ways." 
Pages 62-63. in general: The disc�;on which addresses the Lo� Colorado Multi-Species 
Conservation Program seems overly detailed and docs not clearly present the program's concept. 
goals and objectives. A suggestion would be to begin with a discussion which defines the "modified 
HCP .. concept and compares this to the Upper Basin RIPs. A slightly more detailed discu.�ion 
which presents the reasoning behind utilizing this strategy in the Lower Basin., and the program's 
g\)a)S and objccti ves could then follow. The chronology of this program is important. but is second 
to the progrdm's concept, goals and objectivc=s. 
Pa� 66. par. 2: The first sentence is not understandable. The draft BO on the preferred alternative 
found a jeopardy opinion for the razorback sucker and hwnpback ch1:1b and a not likely to jeopardize 
for the other species that were addressed. The RP A included 7 clements . 
. Page 66, par. 3: A "ymposium presenting the results of the Glen Canyon "'spiked flow" experiment 
is scheduled to be held on April 8-1 o. 1997. This may give you a more accurate report of the results 
than a publication from the New York Times. 
Page 86, Marketing: Suggest some illustration of the substantial legal issues, e.g., off-reservation 
lea.,;ing, interstate shifting of Winters right between parts of reservations in two states, practicality 
standard for pre-dam w-c1ter in deep gorges. 
Page 96, ••equiry., bul1el: Missing from the stakeholders with equitable claims is Nevada, whose 
growth potential was markedly miscalculated in the l 920s. 
Page 97. par. 2: Insert between "few" and .. have" the following:"', with the exception of Nevada.". 
We've been loudly advocating major changes for years. 
Page 98, 1a.o;t par.: SuMtitute "administers water delivery contracts" for "has considerable authority 
over water entitlements." 
Page 113, par. 1: Change paragraph to read, .. Recommendation: Recovery plans for endangered fish 
in the Colorado RIVER basin should be integrated in one range•wide recovery plan; rcrovery goals 
need to be more clearly defined and SPECIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS should be 
coordinated basin-wide." 
(FY1: There are only two RIPs in the Co1orado River basin. The third species management 
program, the LCR MSCP. is a modified HCP and should not be referred to as a ''recovery 
implementation progr.un", if in fact you arc referring to all three species management stmtcgies in 
the entire ColorddO River basin.) 
General comments: Regarding tnbal rights., the report should acknowledge that the transferabilily 
of tribal rights is an unsettled legal and policy is.,ue, and the report should not take a position on the 
issue. In addition. you might add Peter Sly's book on Indian settlements to the reference list. 
We found no mention of the Ca1ifomia Limitation Act. by which California agreed to confine its 
use to 4.4 mafy except in years of surplus. 
J:IU!U!ltS\SE:LBVIPO"NTlll!l WMJ 


Colorado River Basin Study Comments--Southern Nevada Water Authority

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=law_service_westernwater_rbs

Colorado River Basin Study Comments--Southern Nevada Water Authority

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of New Mexico