What Is Firming

1
What Is Firming?

• Why Did the State Agree to an Obligation to
  Provide Firming?

2
Firming Obligation

• Firming is the term used in the settlement
  discussions for improving the reliability of
  water supply in a time of shortage.
• The method to be used to improve reliability is
  not determined, but the standards are
• NIA priority water firmed to the equivalent of
  MI priority water
• 100 year term
• Responsibility split between State and Federal
  governments

3
Why Did the State Agree?

• Part of CAP repayment negotiations
• Interior Dept. proposed to re-allocate
  uncontracted MI water for Indian settlements
• State objected MI water was intended for
  municipal providers
• Compromised reached Some of the lower priority
  water would be firmed so the Indian settlements
  would have the equivalent value as an MI
  priority supply

4
Arizona Colorado River Priority System

• Article II(B)(3) of Arizona v. California Decree
  allows Sec. of Interior to declare shortage
  conditions and apportion supplies in the Lower
  Basin.
• Sec. 301(b) of the Colorado River Basin Project
  Act (P.L. 90-537) establishes that CAP should be
  lower priority if shortages are declared.
• USBR contracts established a 6 tier priority
  system. CAP and other post-1968 contracts share
  Priority 4. CAPs contract allows diversion of
  all water remaining in Arizonas annual
  entitlement making priority 5 and 6 only
  available on a very limited basis.

5
CAP Priority System

• Some CAP water is Priority 3 as a result of
  transfers for Indian settlements
• Exchanges ( if any) have next priority right
• Indian and MI have next priority and are
  co-equal
• Non-Indian agriculture is next, but historically
  was not a quantified volume -- it was measured as
  a percentage of the remaining supply
• Excess water is lowest priority

6
Settlement Water Allocation

• NIA priority water will be quantified as an
  annual volume.
• Contracts will be limited to a maximum CAP
  allocation of 1,415,000 acre feet at delivery
  points
• Ak Chin and Salt River Priority 3 settlements
  68,400 af
• Indian priority 343,079 af
• MI priority 638,823 before 2044 and 686,126 af
  after 2044
• NIA priority 364,968 af before 2044 and 317,395
  af after 2044

7
Firming example

• Assume all CAP contracts were being fully
  utilized after 2044 and a 500,000 af shortage
  occurred.
• CAP deliverable supply would be 915,000 af.
• P3 would be fully met 68,400 af
• Balance of 846,600 af would be split between
  Indian and MI priorities
• NIA would be reduced to 0
• MI would receive 538,648 af or 78.5 of full
  allocation
• NIA would need to be firmed to 78.5 of
  allocation
• GRIC responsibility of 15,000 11,775 af
• Other responsibility of 8,724 af 6,848 af
• Total responsibility 18,623 af

8
Other Conditions

• Until full utilization of contract entitlements,
  excess water would be available
• Excess water would be shorted first
• Other shortage sharing formulas would depend on
  actual uses not contract entitlements
• Result is that shortages to NIA priority may be
  less than 100 so firming obligations could be
  less than in previous example