Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-20; Municipal Water District; 308; Water Transfer - Water Auth./Imperial IrrigationCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - AGENDA BILL c RB# 3og TITLE: MTG. 02/20/96 WATER TRANSFER BETWEEN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY AND THE IMPERIAL DEPT. CMWD IRRIGATION DISTRICT RECOMMENDED ACTION: This is an informational item only. No action is requested. ITEM EXPLANATION: DEPT. HD. p. s& CITY All-Y. a ’ s CITY MGR. At last week’s CMWD Board meeting staff presented an informational update on the potential Imperial Irrigation District water transfer. As a follow-up to that presentation, Ms. Chris Frahm will be present at this Board meeting to make a presentation to the Board on this IID issue. Ms. Frahm is a Board member on the County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District Boards She is also the Chair of CWA’s Ad Hoc Water Committee, which was formed to specifically address the issues concerning this potential water transfer. A copy of last week’s agenda bill is attached for the Board’s reference at this meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. EXHIBIT: 1. Agenda Bill No. 306 - EXHIBIT NO. 1 , f 1) CARLShaD MUNICIPAL WATER DIS’r u ilCT - AGENDA BILL AN 30 TITLE: WATER TRANSFER BETWEEN THE SAN DIEGO MTG. 02/l 3/96 COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY AND THE IMPERIAL DEPT. CMWD _ IRRIGATION DISTRICT RECOMMENDED ACTION: This is an information item only. No action is requested. ITEM EXPLANATION: In November 1995, staff presented an update to the Board on the potential plans for water transfer between the San Diego County Water Authority (CWA) and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). Subsequently, the CWA and IID did enter into a Memorandum Cf Understanding (MOU) to provide for up to six months of continued negotiations to develop a water transfer agreement for up to 500,000 acre feet of water from the Imperial Valley. This MOU should detail the amount of water to be transferred, the terms of the agreement, the price of the water to be transferred and an enforcement mechanism. To again put this quantity of water in perspective, the CWA last year imported 393,000 acre feet. New Aaueduct Alternative The CWA is investigating the feasibility of transferring this water from the Imperial Valley to the San Diego area. There are two potential alternatives. If the amount of water transferred is about 500,000 acre feet per year, it may be feasible to construct a new aqueduct from Imperial valley to the San Diego area. CWA staff believes that the cost per acre foot for this amount of water could be competitive with the present cost of imported water. If a new aqueduct is constructed, the water would probably be delivered to the South County portion of the San Diego area. If this is the case, then it would be logical to bring the water into the San Vicente Reservoir which would act as a temGnus reservoir. In order to get water to North County, the water would have to be pumped through very large pumps. This water would not be treated water. Since the CWA is not planning to treat this water, the “treated water agencies” (such as Carlsbad) would continue to receive treated water from the Metropolitan Water District (Met). * “Wheellna” Alternative Uslna the Colorado River Aaueduct GFiA) If the amount of water to be transferred is significantly less than 500,000 acre feet per year, it would not be feasible to transport this water through a new aqueduct because the cost per acre foot would be prohibitive. A better solution, in CWA’s view, would be the “wheeling” of this water through the existing Colorado Aqueduct. When approached with the question of what this wheeling charge would be, Met answered that the cost would have to be enough to cover the cost of energy, operation and maintenance of the pipeline. The wheeling charge would amount to $285 per acre foot. This charge would be added to the negotiated price of the transferred water. According to the CWA, this charge is more than the actual costs to transport water to San Diego and would probably make the water transfer from the Imperial Valley infeasible. CWA has proposed to pay $58 per acre foot for the wheeling charge. This payment would not include any payment for capital or other fixed costs that Met says would be necessary. Met contends that the CWA proposal would not result in any new water in the Met service area. Because Met intends to operate the Colorado River Aqueduct at capacity, the wheeling proposal displaces water available for regional use at a cost of as little as $0.25 per acre foot with water costing several dollars per acre foot for use by a single member agency. 2 Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 3 0 6 In addition, Metropolitan, in an effort to secure more water from the Colorado River, has proposed to enter into an agreement with the Southern Nevada Water Authority to jointly pay for the lining of the All-American Canal which delivers Colorado River water to farms in the Imperial Valley. This joint venture would conserve about 70,000 acre feet of water a year and would be split with Nevada getting about 30,000 acre feet a year. This arrangement was attractive to Met because the Las Vegas water district indicated it would support the Met effort to acquire water- storage space in Lake Mead. This proposal has upset many people and agencies including the San Diego County Water Authority. The Imperial Irrigation District, the Palo Verde Irrigation District near Blythe and the Coachella Valley Water District all claim that this proposal is a momentous step and should be widely discussed before any agreement is signed. Because the Nevada deal would involve changes in the federal management of the lower Colorado River, Arizona Governor Fife Symington has threatened to sue California. As a result, the Imperial Irrigation District voted unanimously to void the agreement under which Met would do the work and get the saved water. Resolution of Issues These and other issues have caused differences of opinion between CWA and Met, and must be addressed in order for the proposed water transfer to be successful. In addition, there are concerns that member agencies of the CWA have that must also be addressed so that an informed decision concerning the proposed water transfer can be made. CMWD staff has some concerns and questions that must be addressed as well. Some of these are as follows: 0 Should the IID water transfer prove to be viable, facilities probably would be constructed to bring water In to South County. As a result, this water would have to be pumped to North County member agencies. However, the water would not be treated and therefore Carlsbad, as would other agencies presently receiving treated water, would continue to receive treated water from Met. It would appear that Carlsbad would have to pay for the capital program for Met and for the CWA which would include the IID water transfer project, although Carlsbad would receive no direct benefit from the water transfer. If Carlsbad has an opportunity to purchase water directly from a source other than CWA, would the wheeling charge to Carlsbad be similar to the one proposed by CWA to Met? Should the IID water transfer prove viable, the amount of water purchased from IID plus the supplemental water needed from Met would provide 100% rellablllty. Will CWA continue to provide Incentives (e.g., rebates, etc.) to member agencies for the continued development of local supplies such as reclaimed water? Since Carlsbad Is ready to embark on a $20 million Phase 2 of Its reclaimed water master plan, the present program of rebates from CWA and Met are needed to make the project feasible. It Is doubtful that with the loss of one of Its largest water customers Met will be generating the revenue to continue the rebate program to the CWA. L d Page 3 of Agenda Blh No. 306 For the upcoming Board meeting of February 20,1996, staff has arranged for Christine Frahm, a CWA and Met Director, to be present to make a presentation to the Board on this subject. The information in this agenda bill is to inform the Board in advance of some of these issues and to provide a basis for discussion of the concerns and questions to be addressed at the February 26 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. EXHIBITS: None. 02/20/96 15:28 mu.. 431 1601 CAIWD +a-) c IGR Boo2/003 February 20,1996 TO: CITYMANAGER FROM GENSALMANAGER CORRECTION MADE - IMlpERIAc IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER TRANSFER CMWD BOARD PRESENTATION Attached is a comcted version of the letter to Christie Fmhm The only change made was on Page 2, in the last sentence of the kst paragmph. The change made was “have to & for,“... to “have to ~71~ fbrc,.. ROBERT J. GREANEY 02/20/96 14:24 ZmllJ 431 1601 CIUWD +++ C YGR . , @002/004 Carlsbad Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Englneering: (619) 438-3367 Administration: (619) 438-2722 FAX: 431-1601 February 14,1996 Christine Frahm, Chair Ad HOG Water Committee San Diego County Water Authority 3211 FiiAvcrmt San Diego, CaMxnia 92103 ImpesiaI Irrigation Distrkt Water ‘Ihmfer -CMWD Board presentation Dear Ms. Frahm; CMWD staffmade a presentation to the CMWD Board last Tuesday evening on the potential Imperial ligation District water transfer. This presentation updated the Board on the issues surrounding this potential water transfk and included the possible alternative methods of transporting any water&n Imperial Valley to San Diego County. As we understand it there are two basic alternatives for delivery. The first alternative would be to cassruct a new aqueduct facility that would transfer water fiam the Imperial Valley to Saa Diego County. It ix understood that there are several routes under aualysk but the most probable route would deliver the water to some point in south County. Construction of a new aqueduct fkcility might only be feasible ifthe qua&y of water transfkred amounts to about 500,000 acre feet per Year. The second alternative would involve “wheeling” water fkom the Imperial Valley to San Diego County through the misting Colorado River Aqueduct. This alternate would be ftasl’ble ifthe amount of water to be traasferred amouated to considerably less than 500,000 acre feet per year (e.g. about 100,000 acre feet per year). During this prcsex&on to the CMWD Board, a number of issues, concems and questions were raised and discussed. These questions and concern are as follows: “Servhg Carl&xi for over 40 years" 02/20/96 14:25 fttIl9-431 1601 CMWD ki.j003/004 Page 2 (co&d) . 0 Should an agreement be reached to transfer approsimately 500,000 acre feet of water, a new aqueduct Acility would probably be constructed that would transferred from the Imperial Valley to San Diego County. The terminus of the new aqueduct would probably be somewhere in south County. For \ agencies in north County to receive any direct benefit, a large pumping f&ity would be necessary. Since there doesn’t appear to be any large treatment factity in this propospl, the agencies presently receiving treated water will continue to receive their treated water from Met facilities. As a result, there appean to be no direct be&It to agencies in north County including Carlsbad. Since major pardons of M&s and CWA’s capital programs arc funded through water r&u, what potion of those programr would CarIsbad have to pay for, keeping in mind that Cadsbad would receive no direct btnefit from au IID tran&r. 0 Should an aqueduct be constrncted to tramport water from the Imperial Valley to San Diego County the beuefits appear to favor south County. Since it’s possible to proceed with this project with a vote from San Diego and a vote from one other member agtncy, member agencies, including Carlsbad, have serious conceru regarding this &me. These concerns include tht costs of the project, the resultant impact on tht rate payer in terms of affotiability, and the fact that these agencies (including Carlsbad) could be required to participate in a project that hau no direct beuefit to them. 0 If Car&bad has, in the future, an opportunity to cuter into I water transfer outside the county and ‘%vheel” tht water through CWA pipelines, what “wheeling” policy and charge might be encountered from CWA? 0 Should the IID water transfer pmvt viablt, the amount of water plrrehrwd from IID, combined with tht supplemental water from Met, would provide 100% reliability. Will CWA continut to support developmtnt of local water supplies such as the development ofgroundwatet enhancement or water redamation? Will there be a need to continue to develop local supplim if the IID trrngfe tcsultr in 100% rdiPbili@? 0 Since Culsbad is preparing to embark on a S20 millioir Pb 2 of itn water reclamation master plan, the present program of rebates from the CWA and Met are necessary to makt the project feasible Is there any anaIysis of whether Met will continut their Lucal Projects Program for San Ditgo County should their aourcc of revenue be substantially reduced by CWA reducing its water purchasea from Met? The Met rtbatt was a result ufan . 02/20/96 14:25 t%u~ 431 1001 C?!#VD -)-)a C YGR - B004/004 Page 3 (cont’d) avoided cost by not pumping over !he Tahachapi Mountaintop If there is no titer being purchased from Met, there is no avoided costs md therefore, no future rebates for Sau Diego County local projects. 0 How would OVA resolve the higher TDS level in the Colorado River water for both alternate methods of transporting the water to San Diego County? By bringing water to San Diego County through the Colorado River Aqueduct, what might Met’s policy be concerning the blending of the Colorado River water with State Project water to reduce tbt concentration of TDS? This letter is being sent to you prior to your presentation at nclct Tuesday’s Ch4WD Board meeting to allow you some insight as to Carlsbad’s concerns regard@ this potential water tram&r, to avoid any surprises and to allow you to prepan responses to the concems mentioned.. Thank you for volunteering to attend our meeting next week to review with our Board this most important issue. CC: CMWD Board of Directors CWA General Manager City Manager Assistant City Manager WATER FOR THE FUTURE San Diego County Water Authority’s Water Resources Plan Introduction More than 2.6 million people living and working in San Diego County depend upon the San Diego County Water Authority and its retail member agencies for a secure and reliable water supply. The drought of 1986-92 brought home a wide-reaching awareness that there cannot be a prosperous, secure future without a reliable source of water. The drought exposed the dangers of an unreliable supply and prompted intense activity throughout the water com- munity to develop alternative local and imported sources. Two approaches have been identified to address supply and reliability: 1 Supplies must be managed to minimize future shortages. 2 The county must .be prepared for a supply interruption in the event of an earth quake or other disaster to avoid prolonged outages. The Water Resources Plan (Plan) details how the Authority will meet its water supply mission by analyzing current and projected conditions, forecasting water demands for the next 15 years, and recommending an optimal combination of imported and local resources to meet those demands. Because conditions affecting water resources can change rapidly, the Plan is formally updated every two years. The mission of the San Diego County Water Authority is to provide a safe and reliable supply of water to its member agencies serving the San Diego region. Managing Water Supplies Management Objective: The Authority’s primary goal is to provide the most reliable water sup- ply at the least cost. The Authority will always seek to find the strategic balance of benefits and costs to achieve this objective. All alternative local and imported water supplies will be considered. Variability: The county’s water requirements are variable in nature. Weather-generated fluctu- ations influence both the demand for water and the amount required by the Authority for import. This means the Authority must plan, design and construct storage and conveyance facilities to have enough capacity to meet peak and emergency requirements. Management Strategies: Long-term strategies range from the development of local and import- ed water supplies to participation in state and federal efforts at managing the Authority’s cur- rent imported water sources, including the State Water Project and the Colorado River Aqueduct. Water conservation programs also figure into finding this challenging balance. As future demand increases, the Authority will need to provide sufficient facilities to convey, store and treat water. Currently, the Authority neither owns nor operates any facilities for pro- ducing, storing, or treating water. As a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), the Authority will also work to ensure that the San Diego region’s facilities needs are adequately addressed by MWD’s policies and programs. Water Supply Challenges The Authority must face and resolve many issues uffixting the supply ofwuter to Sun Diego County. Supply Source: The Authority is a water wholesaler, purchasing its entire supply from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and selling the water to its 23 retail mem- ber agencies. In a typical year, the Authority provides 90 percent of the region’s total water supply. Ongoing negotiations between the Authority and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) could result in a major new source of imported water. This supply would be generated by conserving agricultural water currently used by IID, and transferring it to the Authority, using either MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct or new facilities to transport the water. While local resources provide on average 10 percent of the total supply, the amount of local water used in a given year can vary widely, depending upon weather. During a wet year, local supplies may be used to meet up to 25 percent of total demand; during a dry year, this number can be as low as 5 percent. Emphasis on Imported Supplies: The Authority will likely continue to import most of the water used in the San Diego region, at least in the near term. The need to import water is driven by the Authority’s current inability to develop sufficient quantities of cost-effective local resources. However, it is possible to improve the region’s overall water supply reliability by developing selected local resources, and this is part of the Authority’s overall strategy. Even a small percentage gain in reliability can pay big dividends during a drought. Reliability oflmported Supplies: MWD receives its water supply from two sources: the State Water Project and the Colorado River Aqueduct. Until recently, these supplies were highly reliable. But during 1991-92, toward the end of a six-year drought, supply cuts were imple- mented as these soarces fell short of demand. A short-term operating agreement that guides the export of water from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta has improved the outlook of reliability. However, a long-term solution is still needed. WATER FOR THE FUTURE Long-term uncertainty also exists with the Colorado River Aqueduct. The MWD does not hold firm entitlement to the amount of water it currently takes from the aqueduct, relying upon surplus flows for nearly half of the 1.2 million acre-feet per year it receives. As Arizona and other Colorado River Basin states develop and take more water, MWD could see its share reduced. Water storage projects have been launched to improve this situation. Demand Management: The Authority has taken an aggressive lead in promoting water conser- vation, using programs that provide permanent water savings without affecting lifestyles or the economy. Conservation is viewed in a similar light as local water development, and has proven to be cost-effective. Future conservation efforts will be more challenging as customers’ ability or willingness to conserve diminishes. Emergency Water Storage: Currently, only five pipelines are used to transport all Authority sup- plies. Water stored locally will help prevent economically crippling shortages during an emer- gency such as an earthquake. To insure against such disaster, the Authority is pursuing an Emergency Storage Project, which will store approximately 90,000 acre-feet of water for emer- gency use. The project could consist of a new reservoir, the expansion of or re-operation of existing reservoirs, or a combination of the two. Projected Demands By the year 2010, water demand in the Authority service area is expected to increase by more than 50 percent over 1995 demand. Virtually all of this new demand will be for urban uses, as the projected regional population increases by more than 800,000 people. Agricultural use, which currently represents about 18 percent of total demand, is expected to proportionally decline to about 10 percent. For the first time in recent history, population growth is projected to come more from natural increase, or births exceeding deaths, than from in-migration. Developing Future Water Supplies RefiubiIity Goals: The Authority’s reliability goal is to meet 100 percent of its member agencies’ demand 90 percent of the time, 90 percent of the demand 98 percent of the time, and never deliver less than 80 percent of demand. Transfer or storage agreements under study would provide additional water during drought years. Resource Development Options: Options for developing water resources involve deciding the desirable level of local supply development (reclamation, repurification, groundwater, seawa- ter desalination) and determining the amount of transfer water that may be available to meet demand. Economic, physical and institutional limits such as cost and capacity must be exam- ined. Con timed on buck page .- ,.,.,.,., . . . . . . .A.. ,... ..,.. ,........ ...\ .‘......:.:.:.: .,..,, ,.,.,., . . . . . . ,...,.. ,.. ,. . . . . . . . . ..*........... ,,,,:,:::: i::;;$i:::::w .‘.O ” ” ” ‘.’ .‘. . . . . . . . . . . ,..... >>1: ..,.,.,. .,. . . . . .,......... . . .,.,>:,: ,,,,., ,,,. +:‘:i(‘.‘.. . . 5; ,..,:. :‘::::::‘,::,:,,,, ‘.“:.‘:::;::‘:;; :,,,, . . . . . . :.:,:::::::::i:::::.:.:.:.:.:~.:.:~.:.:~:::gi,: ,.,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,:,:,:: II:if:lil:::““‘ ‘:::.:i:‘.::.>.;,, ,. ,,,,: :::i:$;:;::...“” ,.,. >:.;~:::i:;+ ‘. “‘:‘:“‘::~& ,:,,, ,, ,~ :::: ,(:~.~~~~:~:::‘i”‘. ” ““:‘:::‘:::Li:i:~~:::,:,~,, “:‘...:!:::‘K::I:~I.::~,:,~ :,:.: :,:,:,:,:,::: il:il::::::.” ..,... . . .*... . . . . ,.,. :.:~::::I::::~,:.‘.“’ ~:~:r:j:i:~~:l:~:::.~.‘.“ ” “‘+::%q$ ‘::: :: ,:,,,,,,.,,, . . . . . . . . . “‘.~I::::~.:~,.: .:,:..,.,.,,..~.:,: :*:,:,i:I,~:~:i’~:B::““““’ “.‘.‘.‘.:....i....:.:.~ .,.....,..,, ,, . . . ‘...~,.):::: WATER FOR THE FUTURE Recommended Resources Development The updated Water Resources Plan will recommend a mix of imported and local water resources to meet the water supply needs of the region. Each potential water resource, includ- ing the IID proposal, will be reviewed for cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and reliability. The final mix of resources selected will reflect a balance between the costs of supply development and established reliability goals. Because conditions affecting water resources can change rapidly, the Plan will be formally updated every two years. Conclusion The 1986-92 drought drove home an essential fact of life in San Diego County: Our lives and livelihoods depend upon a resource that is transported hundreds of miles, largely controlled by outside agencies, and subject to cutoff through natural disaster. Without a reliable water supply, San Diego’s economy and quality of life are at stake. The Authority continues to work to increase the safety and reliability of its water supply sources. The Water Resources Plan will set forth goals and objectives for developing local and imported supplies, constructing necessary facilities, arranging transfers for dry years, and pro- moting water conservation. By maintaining its focus on reliability, San Diego County can face a bright water supply future. Q San Dirgo County Wafer Authority 3211 FIFTH AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 DECEMBER, 1995 L E Briefing on IID - SDCWA Water Transfer Negotiations b San Diego County Water Authority January 1996 IID Transfer Negotiations Chronology I. Sept. 14, 1995. San Diego County Water Authority Board approves memorandum of understanding with Imperial Irrigation District to begin negotiating a possible transfer of water to the Authority. The Imperial Irrigation District Board of Directors approves memorandum of understanding Sept. 19, 1995. l MOU, Page 5 l 09/14/95 San Diego Union-Tribune editorial supporting agreement, Page 11 - II. November 1995. Metropolitan Water District proposes wheeling prices and policies that would affect Authority’s proposed plan to transport transferred IID water to the San Diego region via the Colorado River Aqueduct. Under MWD’s proposed wheeling prices, the Authority would have to pay $285 per acre foot to transport the water via the Colorado River Aqueduct. l 1 l/13/95 letter to MWD General Manager John Wodraska from Robert Campbell, Authority finance director, questioning proposed pricing, Page 2 I l 1 l/17/95 letter to Wodraska from State Assemblyman Richard Katz critical of MWD’s interpretation of Katz’s legislation, Page 26 l 1 l/19/95 San Diego Union-Tribune editorial critical of MWD’s proposed pricing, Page 29 III. Nov. 21, 1995. MWD and Southern Nevada Water Authority announce plans to enter into memorandum of understanding regarding the transfer from MWD to SNWA of IID water to be conserved through construction of a lined canal that would replace the existing All American Canal owned by IID. MWD Board approves MOU Dec. 12, 1995. Under an existing agreement with IID, MWD would pay to replace the All American Canal with a new, lined canal. IID, in exchange, would give MWD the water that otherwise would have been lost. However, MWD’s subsequent plans to sell the water out of state raises Colorado River water users’ concerns. l 1 l/17/95 letter from Arizona Governor Fife Symington to California Governor Pete Wilson critical of interstate transfer proposal, Page 30 l 1 l/28/95 letter from Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District and Palo Verde Irrigation District board presidents to MWD Board Chairman Jack Foley critical of interstate transfer proposal and questioning MWD’s independent action, Page 35 l 12/01/95 letter from Authority Board Chairman Watton to MWD General Manager Wodraska critical of the interstate transfer and MWD’s failure to consult other agencies with Colorado River rights, Page 37 l 12/l l/95 San Diego Union-Tribune article detailing criticism of MWD-SNWA MOU, Page 39 l 12/l 8/95 San Diego Union-Tribune editorial criticizing “surprise deal,” Page 40 IV. Dec. 3 1, 1995. IID does not renew contract with MWD for construction of lined canal and transfer of IID water to MWD. By letting the contract expire, IID effectively cancels - MWD’s plan to sell to Southern Nevada Water Authority the conserved water MWD was to receive from IID. *IID press release announcing IID Board’s vote not to extend agreement, Page 42 l 12/24/95 San Diego Union-Tribune article noting IID’s action cancels MWD- SNWA plans, Page 44 V. December, 1995 - January, 1996. MWD announces the “reliability plus” program which they claim will ensure a full Colorado River Aqueduct for the next 30 years; however, various questions are raised about the program from the agriculture districts in the Imperial Valley and the Authority’s General Counsel. The Six Agency Committee (of the Colorado River Board) begins facilitated negotiations on a unified California position regarding development of a Lower Colorado River Basin regional solution. .MWD’s Reliability Plus Brochure, Page 45 l 12/19/95 memorandum from Vincent F. Biondo, Jr., Authority General Counsel, regarding questions and issues raised by MWD’s new reliability program, the Colorado River Board mediation process and the Law of the River, Page 47 l l/5/96 Six Agency Committee press release regarding the first negotiating session and the issues raised during the discussions, Page 82 l l/17/96 editorials from the San Diego Union-Tribune critical of MWD’s reliability program, Page 85 l l/24/96 letter from Governor Pete Wilson to MWD Chairman Jack Foley regarding MWD “usurping the authority of the State of California,” Page 87. .2/4/96 San Diego Union-Tribune editorial calling for MWD to cease unilateral negotiations, Page 89. I:\IID\CHRON02.DOC 2/5/96 Sai Diego County Wafer Authority A Public hgency 3211 Fifth Avenue l San Dieaa, California 92103-5718 (619) 682-4100 FAi (619) 297-0511 Fact sheet Water transfer negotiations between San Diego County and the Imperial Valley The San Diego County Water Authority and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) have agreed to formally discuss a long-term transfer of conserved water from the Imperial Valley to the San Diego _ region. The talks should be completed by spring 1996. At that point, Aut&ity directors will decide whether to approve a transfer agreement with IID. The Authority entered into the negotiations because it has an obligation to San Diego County residents to evaluate water resource alternatives that are potentially reliable and prudent. The region’s $65 billion annual economy, job base and quality of life depend on securing a permanent and diversified water supply. The goal of the negotiations with IID is to reach mutually beneficial terms for a transfer. The key issues or the Authority are the amount of water available for transfer, the water’s price and the contract’s duration. The Authority is seeking up to 500,000 acre-feet of water annually for at least 50- 100 years at a price comparable to that of other reliable sources. _ _---. The Authority is analyzing methods of conveying transfer water from the Imperial Valley to San Diego County. -Potential means include use of the Colorado River Aqueduct, which is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), and construction of a new facility. There should be sufficient capacity in the Colorado River Aqueduct to convey transfer water from the Imperial Valley to San Diego County. The aqueduct has delivered its capacity of more than 1.2 million acre-feet in recent years. But MWD’s firm entitlement to Colorado River water is only 550,000 acre-feet. The rest of the aqueduct’s deliveries either were surplus or unused water that belongs to other states. MWD’s 1994-95 fact sheet notes, “As other states take more of their (Colorado River) apportionments, MWD diversions will diminish.” The Department of Water Resources highlights the same problems in its State Water Plan update, which projects water shortages of up to 1 million acre-feet for the South Coast Basin alone and a dwindling Colorado River Aqueduct supply. Today, San Diego County’s water supply is subject to: l Reductions of 20 percent or more in drought years. l Total cutoff during an earthquake that severs imported water pipelines. l Cost increases from MWD over which the Authority has no control. l Limitations that MWD could impose during shortages because of the Authority’s entitlement. The Authority is officially entitled to only 12 percent of the district’s water, but it buys more than one-quarter of the water MWD sells each year. MEMBER AGENCIES CITIES IRRlGmON DIsJRIcJs WATER DlsrRIm MUNKJHL WATER DISJRICTS . w Mar. Evdda . Nohowl city . hnhl h . hum by . Mix . olor .Cl#libd . n- l oco.mld..hm*.hnc+n . “irt.3 . son o*oum . oh-n . “incondJ~0 COUNTY - 3 .- .IbdnOMn . W~c.n~ . ranha. . ““mm .h”DW+J PU8UC UTILITY DJSlRJCJ FEDPMl MXNCY I” dfmo) .Fonb*Dd . Pend*mn Mlloq R-n PRINTED ON RECYC!ED PAPER l Total cutoff by MWD of deliveries to local agriculture. Agriculture uses about 17 percent of the Authority’s deliveries. l A water transfer agreement with IID would help San Diego County to: l Secure a long-term, reliable water supply with entitlement rights ahead of most other California users. l Establish an “insurance policy” against the devastating impact of drought. l Safeguard the region’s business and jobs for the benefit of area families. l Guarantee the cost of a significant portion of the its water. l Reduce its reliance on MWD, where the Authority holds only 15 percent of the voting rights and 12 percent of the water entitlement while purchasing more than 25 percent of the district’s water. - l The Authority intends to continue as an MWD member agency and rely on the district for a significant portion of its water supply. San Diego County remains vitally concerned with MWD issues. In fact, a transfer agreement between the Authority and IID would relieve tremendous ..- pressure on MWD by reducing the growing demand on the district’s limited entitlements, thus helping MWD’s other member agencies have a more secure supply. . An Authority-IID transfer agreement would be consistent with MWD’s plan for water resource development in urban Southern California. MWD encourages the Authority and its other member agencies to develop water sources independent of the district. Most of the member agencies have been rapidly seeking more independence from MWD, at costs in excess of S 1.000 per acre-foot. All of urban Southern California’s communities share San Diego County’s desire for a more independent, reliable water supply. Clearly, it would be highly imprudent for the Authority to remain so dependent on MWD. l An Authority-IID transfer agreement would provide a tremendous opportunity to reexamine MWD’s costly Capital Improvement Program with an eye toward reducing aspects of the program that would not only save money for San Diego County residents, but also would result in less expensive water for all of MWD’s service area. In fact, MWD has encouraged this step since the Authority-IID negotiations were announced. l Consideration of a water transfer agreement with IID is compatible with the Authority’s own plans, which state that the Authority should fully evaluate water transfers as a way to meet San Diego County’s future water needs. The Authority has evaluated several resource options both inside and outside of San Diego County and California, and will continue to do so as possibilities arise. Indeed, San Diego Mayor Susan Golding was the first mayor in California to call for water transfers in order to bring more stability and water independence to the San Diego region. l An Authority-IID transfer agreement would benefit all of California. It would strengthen the Southern California economy by improving the reliability of San Diego County’s water supplies and providing an economic stimulus to the Imperial Valley. As it provides a Southern California solution for a major Southern California water supply problem, an agreement also should increase the likelihood of a timely resolution to the ongoing CalFed Bay-Delta process. I:\IID\FACTS.DOC 12/6/95 4 MEMORANDUMOFUNDERSTAN’DING BETWEEN IMPERLAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT SAN DlEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered by Imperial Irrigation District (TD”) and San Diego County Water Authority (the “Authority”) this day of i 2 September, 1995. The agencies are sometimes referred to individually as “Party” or collectively as “Parties”. RECITALS WIEREAS, the Authority was organized for the purpose of au_ementing San Diego County’s minimal local water resources with a safe, reiiable and sufkient suppiy of imponed water. WHEREAS, the Authority through its 24-member agencies supplies water to almost 2,700,OOO San Diego County residents; and about 20% of the Author-in’s water supplies are used by local agriculture. WHEREAS, the Authority is dependent upon the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“Metropolitan”) for approximately 90% of its water supply. U’HEREAS, MetropoIitan is almost entirely dependent upon two major water suppiies namely (1) the Colorado River and (2) the State Water Project which brings water from Northern California. WWREAS, almost two-thirds of Metropolitan’s current water supply comes from the Colorado River. Of that supply, greater than one-half belongs to other states and soon will no longer be available. Moreover, under existing contracts for Colorado River water, the supplies utilized by Metropolitan are junior in priority to all other Califomia Colorado River water users and therefore the first to be cut off in times of shortage. WHEREAS, the State Water Project is incomplete because of environmental, political, and institutional issues, with the result that Metropolitan does not receive more than one-half of its contracted-for State Water Project water. WHEREAS, Metropolitan’s current poiicy is that it is only committed to provide an amount of water that is substantially less than 100% of the full senice demand of its customers and sometimes as low as 80% of such demand. Moreover, Metropolitan expressly states that it makes no guarantees of these supply levels. 5 WHEREAS, the warer demand in Metropolitan’s service area is scheduled to grow substantially in future decades At the same time, the most recent Department of Water Resources report on the SUIUS of California’s water supply hi-&Ii&s that available sources of water are expected to become even more constrained due to such factors as the Bay-Delta Accord and groundwater overdraft, among others. WHEREAS, the successfd negotiation of an agreement to transfer water under this MOU would alleviate pressure upon Metropolitan and its member agencies to develop equivalent water supplies from the Bay-Delta and should, therefore, help facilitate a more timely resolution of the pending Bay-Delta issues including the eventual approval and funding of a through-Delta facility. WHEREAS, in recent times Metropolitan has stated that “MetropoIitan supports the obtaining of additional water supphes by its member agencies.” WHERJXS, Metropolitan has more recently formulated an Integrated Resources Plan (“m”), a key part of which is the development by its member agencies of independent supplies to meet part of their water demands, thereby reducing their dependence upon MetropoIitan. WHEREAS, the Authority is dependent upon Metropolitan for as much as 90% or more of its water; most other Metropolitan member agencies are far less dependent, many less than 50%, and many have adopted programs under Metropolitan’s IRP that wiI1 continue to reduce their dependence upon Mezopolitan. WHEREAS, the Authority uses and pays for approximately 25% of Metropolitan’s water supply. However, provisions of the Metropolitan Water District Act (the “MWD Act”) leave the Authority without a proportional representation or voice in the establishment of Metropolitan’s poIicies and with a cloud upon its legal right to a proportional share of water in times of shortage or drought. WHEREAS, other provisions of the MWD Act define water use by agriculture as “surplus” water with delivery subject to being cut off by Metropolitan. This leaves San Diego County’s farmers and agricultural businesses, which account for about 20% of the Authority’s water sales, in the untenable position of never knowing whether water will be made available by Metropolitan from year to year. WHEREAS, the Authority has a mission to secure a long-term water supply that is (a) reiiabie (b) certain and speci.6~ as to quantity and quality, and (9 affordable and certain as to cost to meet San Diego County’s water needs, to provide protection against drought for municipal, domestic and agricultural users and to safeguard local industry and jobs, including agriculture, for the benefit of its local citizens. WHEREAS, the Authority seeks a Iong-term water supply to allow for appropriate iong- term planning and financing activities by both the Authority and local businesses. 6 WHEREAS, KID has a permanent senior water right to use on average approximateiy * 3,300,000 acre-feet per year from the Colorado River, the majority of which are present perfected rights that must be satisfied in times of shortage before most other rights in the three Lower Basin states. WHEREAS, KID seeks to maintain and improve the economic well being of the Imperial ValIey by promoting and supporting oppornJnities to transfer the right to use Conserved Water, provided: a. alI legal title and ownership to ail Conserved Water remains with LID; b. the transfer is economically beneficial to the Imperial Valley; - C. third party impacts, if any, are appropriately addressed; d. the price of the Conserved Water is based upon the fair market value as agreed between the parties; and e. environmental impacts, if any, are deemed to be satisfactorily addressed pursuant to federal and state law. WHEREAS, Conserved Water means a water suppiy of the same priority as if used within Ill3 created by the use of less water and/or the reduced usage of water, which less or reduced usage is of a type which is deemed to be “water conservationn as defined in Calif Water Code g 1011. WHEREPLS, California law and water policies authorize, encourage and supporr the voluntary transfer of Conserved Water benveen willing buyers and willing sellers. - _ WHEREAS, the United States Department of Interior encourages water marketing. WHEREAS, MetropoIitan has encouraged water marketing as a key element of its Water Resources Plan. WHEREAS, the Authority’s Water Resources Plan includes water transfers as a part of the long-term solution to San Diego’s water needs. The Mayor and City Council of the City of San Diego recentIy requested the Authority to further investigate water transfers on a priority basis and the Authority has agreed to do so. WHEREAS, the Authority would continue to be a member agency of Metropolitan and would continue to rely upon it for a significant portion of its water supplies. WHEREAS, IID and the Authority would utilize a water transfer to supplement and strengthen both the agricultural and industrial economic base of San Diego and Imperial Counties. 7 . WHEREAS, the Authority anticipates a need for an additional water suppiy of up to 500,000 acre-feet per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: A. The parties agree to develop for consideration by their respective communities and Boards of Directors an “Agreement” under which IID would make avai.IabIe Conserved Water and the Authority would agree to purchase the use of such water on mutually acceptable terms, such Agreement to address among other things, the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. B. The amount of Conserved Water which the Authority would receive. - The length of time covered by the Agreement (“Term”). The price to be paid to LID. The legal means necessary to assure the Authority that the amount of Conserved Water it buys will be available to the Authority for the Term of the Agreement. The Agreement shall comply with alI applicable state and federal laws. Although neither IID nor the Authority is bound in any way to proceed with the transfer of the right to use Conserved Water until final and complete documents are executed by both p&es acting in their sole and absolute discretion, this MOU confirms their mutual understanding and desire to enter into good faith negotiations towards consummation of the necessary agreements. Such negotiations shall continue for a period of up to six months, but will in any event proceed in a timely and deliberate fashion according to a mutually agreeable timetable to be enabIished by the Parties. Such period may be extended by mutual agreement. During such time including any extension, BD and the Authoriq may aree to negotiate with others regarding the provision or acquisition of any water supply in a manner that does not interfere with the negotiation and consummation of this transaction. C. Transportation of the Conserved Water from IID to San Diego County would be by the most practical and economical means availabie and according to the circumstances and oppommities that may exist from time to time. D. The parties anticipate that this MOU will be fully communicated by the parties to their respective constituents, Congress, state legislators, federaI and state agencies, and others. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the day and year tist above written. 8 c t ATTEST: IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT Approved as to form and execution: 9 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY ATTEST: 10 . - ’ The welz won’t go dr- w * _ If San Diego and Imperial agencies agree I t could solve our water probiems for aII time. A proposed agreement between- the San Diego County Water Au- thority and an Imperial Valley irrigation district would be a real solu- tion to a previously intractable problem. If the agreement goes through. and the County Water Authority builds a con- veyance system to get the water here, San Diego would have enough water to meet its needs for the foreseeable fu- ture. This week, the boards of the County Water Authority and Imperial Irrigation District are considering a memorandum 01’ understanding that would begin ne- gotiations for a water-transfer agree- ment. Under that agreement, San Die- go could buy as much as 500.000 acre-feet of water a year for perhaps as long as 100 years. Currentiy, the County Water Authori- ty impons only about .~O.O,OOO acre-fee: into the county through the Los An- geles-based hletropoiitan- Water Dis- trict. That means this deal could pro- vide all the water we would need for years. although our population grow-th ensures that we still would have to import water from Northern CaLifomia. Such proposals between San Diego and Imperial counties have been ar- tempted before and have failed, en- snared in arcane water law. But, al- though many obstacles remain, eve? efiort must be made to ciinch this deal. The San Diego and Imperial county water boards should approve the memo of understanding. It would benefit the people of both counties. : For San Diego County residents, the deal could mean that businesses, agri- culture and residences would have all the water they would need. Short of a cataclysm, we would be drought-proof. And while we still wouId need some Northern California water, we would be nearly immune to .north-south water politics. As for Imperial County residents, they would get a truckload of money from us every year:Tky currently buy water from the Colorado River for about $12 per acre-foot. They would sell it to us at market rate, somewhere between $400 and $800. If the Imperial Irrigation District were to sell the full 500.000 acre-feet, it could earn hun- dreds of millions of dollars a year. Most of that money would go to con- servation projects and to the individual farmers who sell their w-ater. But Impe- rial Irrigation Dis*&ct of%& say it’s like& a fund would be established for pubiic projects. The Imperial Irrigation District gets more than 3 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado River each year - six times what San Diego County uses. Impetial Irrigation District board mem- bers beheve that, through conse.Tation measures, they can save the 500.000 acre-feet to se!1 to San Diego Counry without undermining the agricultural economy there. The vagaries of water law could still obsxucr any deai. A pat: calied the Seven Parry -4giee.ment. passed in 193 1. divides California’s share of Colo- rado River water by gi!\‘ng certain agencies priority iri water purchases. Whatever one water agency doesn’t use goes to the nelcl agency on the list. The Imperial Irrigation District is at the top of the list, but the San Diego County Water .riuthority isn’t on it a: ah. San Diego and Imperial county water officials say .their deal wouldn’t take water from any other water agency, so other agencies shouldn’t object. How- ever, water is power in California, and it’s unlikely that such a huge-amount of water could change hands without other agencies in the Seven Party Agreement trying to get a piece of the action. Nevertheless, the San Diego County Water Authority and the Imperial Irri- gation District should move forward quickly toward this historic agreement. Others may object, but in reality this deal wouldn’t affect them. The opportu- nity exists for abundant water for San Diego County. Seize it. 11 SanJXego County Wafer hfhority A Public Agency NEWS 3211 Fifth Avenue . Scn Diego, California 92103-5718 (619) 682-4100 FAX (619) 692-9356 Contact : l?i'.aczice Luque, San DieSo County Water Authority (619) 622-4181 or Patricia Erock Warrer., Ennerial Irricazior. Dlstricz, (Ei9] 339-9Ci7 - cc-- u-z-* 19, 1995 _. Water Authority, Imperial Irrigation District a;r ee to initiate water talks T ‘r_ e II;,=: ^ E-, -i al IrT-ir- + =c.-icz Dis-,ricc (113) hca--d c,f divC---Y= ---cY-- --;;-/ a;'Z3COVEC ope+r,c disccseiczs with the sax Diets ccil_-Ly *u-e_ T,-lt-=- $-~~=‘r-o-: '-,,' t-at ~L~~J lea", tG 2 T,<at--.r cc-s~~-v-EtiC; e.r_c --- - - -_ T- cexra.l, --- the memcran~zz szates t&t 113 ez.d t"e Axthority _- - - 0.: 1 i I dEVE IGD, for consideration by their respective corxxzities az2 board of directors, an aqefment under ;~;‘r,ich IID would m&c a\-?. Ila.jle conserved water and the Authority would agee to purchase the use of the conserved water on mutually acceptable tc--lc -e-L L . The ageement would address, among other things, the followirq: -more- CITIES - or uor . f,<ono.oo - r4Olwm.d Cd” - S..on..d* - bm. - b. o*.q. colmn . an Owyo ,.. *ah ‘01 MEMBER AGENCIES IRRIGAllON DISTRICTS WATER DISTRICTS - S.n*a Fe . b”lh B.. . H.4,. . 0,“. . “.,lO * 5.n 0.yu.m . “O,lr(llO, MUNICIPAL WATER OlSTRltlS . idIIID.0 - bmona . JI...mn.n” - P.vcon .A., onoio . P”dl. O”.. . “dr. c.m... . C.w~0.. . l”.l”O PU6llC UrlLlTY DISTRICT 13 FEDERAL AGENCY . idlb..m. hmdrum M.1.10,. Ir*r..ww PFIPIKD i)N QE;‘ilE3 PhIye A r Water talks/page 2 l The amount of water that the Authority would receive. l The length of time covered ;by the agreement. l The price to be paid to IID. l The legal means necessary to assure the Authority that the az.cunt of conserved water it buys will be evaileblr for t'ne term cf the agree-men t . a Compliance with all applica.jle state and federal laws. "We are pleas ed to b,e ooerirc _ water mar*+tirg ~ikC~SSiOTY~ bi 1 -z?L cur -,L I-cqg‘r?bor, the Saz Diego County Water Authority," said EI:l bcerd prz:si dez.t Eill Co&it. " bja t E ,T riEr;ceti-r?g ir- the l,c,oOs r;s=-c C'EZ'C' .-e--e _- ---- oppor~urlities for s ~rclgtherkig the ayic-LLlt-Cal --- cT4-Erall c--- ec0rsm-ric b.a.se for Im;erialCcunty, while making water ---- c. cilzkle for USE by another area in need. "15 oi?r role as trustee of the water rights for the l~-_c~b.~ers a.r,d growers in our district, our board has been wcrking closely within t-he community we serve to develop a cc:cervation program that will make conserved water available for -- trz7cfer n -a--u - . IJGyk Watton, -La chair of the San Diego County Water Authority beard, said, "This represents a tremendous opporttinity that could benefit eve,ryone. San Diego County would gain a secure, long-term WBZQ?I supply to augment the water we already receive from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The MOU e,xpressly -more- 13 I I - Water talks/page e . acknowledges that San Diego will continue to be a Eetropolitan member agency and rely on MTND for a significant portion of its tcczl water supply." "We must keep in mind that any transfer _ aoreerr,ent can 0~1~ succeed if both San Diego and the Imperial Valley find that it wiil benefit their citizens. --- I look forward. to beginninG the cl c-llccions End .znticiglte z successful outcome." ---u-w Wztton note5 that lezsers from throughout Ce1ifc;rz.i~ sxz~crt -- (Xc if to jocrzzlis;z: E_ttE.r:?eE are copies of kriei --c- I cc - =..te-r tc b-v SE-? Di ezo l4~yor E2szz Go1 din,, C-r D ,’ c-0 “c-, --= Co IL-P- c’ c..--cw---c7y tivr--‘.-,L- r ZT Sia:te- c-- -, UC--. D 2vic G. _- Ke’ 7 ey, SEX. ziz Costa EZd r-.7 cirsc=or Deb-it- Ke-y-y~.<y. ) Le.-. 14 Statement by San Die$,, Mayor Susan Gelding Regarding MOU between San Diego County Water Authority and Imperial Irrigation District "The San Diego Water Assurance Plan I established last year creates greater water independence for San Diego. It marks the first time any city in the state has ever adopted a policy to negotiate separate agreements to purchase water from a third party. ‘The water transfer agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and the Imperial Irrigation District means that we in San Diego would be able to buy water from a district that has extra to sell. The agreement would protect San Diegans from - the threat of mandatory water rationing. It, as well as others, should be pursued to help protect the quality of life for San Diecrans. ti Statement by San Diego County Supervisor Pzm Slater Regarding the MOU between San Diego County Water Authority and Imperial Irrigation District "The agreement that has been reached between the San Diego C0cE.t-y Water Authority and t'ne Imperial irrigation District represents history in the making. As a merker of the Authority EoarC of Directors, I have parti cipated in the s:r-uccle to solve -- SEX Diego's lor,g-term water needs, and have firs:-hand knowledge Gf our criticE.l need to secure and maintain a reliable, long-te-rm .- L LvG LET supply. ,,I e2thusiasticaJlV endorse this agreement, --- as it is a first E t e2 toward establishing an independent beachhead for San Diego --I i- the developing water markets. I applaud the efforts of these two public agencies and look forward to continuing to assist this effort." 15 I Statement Regarding . San Diego by Senate David G. Kelley MOU between County Water Authority and Imperial Irrigation District "This is a terrific and timely announcement that benefits all of California. This proposed transfer goes a long way. towards securing long-term water reliability which is so desperately needed to protect the economy of Southern California. In addition, this will now further enable us to shape solutions w'nich reflect a sensitivity to the continuing needs of Northern California's agriculture, environmental and urban interests. "This conservation and transfer prosram will help Imperial County bring some badly needed dollars into its depressed - agriculture sector while allowing some portion of the proceeds iC go toward helging the overall community as well. P-s for San Pi E.-O Coun--q d-v= A.-_ , this gives it something that you simply can't pet a price or - a guarantee<, long-term, relia.jle water s-JB?ly that ~'11 proiect t'ne local --^ economy from the devastating effeczs or' waier shortages. Not to nez.iior;, this relie7Jes tremendous gressze CT- the FetroGolitan, Water Dis~ricz and should trove e:czrE~Lely f a.';0 s.- - -&le to its 0 ker ne53er ageTic1es . " Statement by Senator Jim Costa, Chai,xnen of the Senate Agriculture a-d Wa'e- ,.A a - Ccmmittee, Kegarding MOU Eet-tieen San Diego County Water Authority and Imperial Irrigation District "T-*e lg,zter needs of our growing peculation are quickly cuzs zrigsirq our SilCD'V. I am s*cl-,gorYive of - - -- volur-itery district- iQ-dis=ric= w,stc,r transfers, s-ac'n as tkaz proposed bezwee:, San r,i CT-0 Ma'= a.nd Imperial. This is a model transfer that helps provide cnc gicrs --c -N-w to the puzzle needed to solve our long-term water ~r0b1e7.s. Acti0r.s such as this COUCHES with solutions to the E ay-C&ta pr oblems can give California t'ne reliable water sucolv -- a yccr;c.Y ---u-d to protect both jobs and the environment." Stat&Tent by David N. Kennedy, Director of the Department of Water Resources, Regarding MOU between San Diego County Water Authority and Imperial Irrigation District "This really is an extremely positive development for the State of California - it is a significant piece of the puzzle in the on-going effort by the agriculture, urban and environmental sectors to find long-term solutions to the State's water supply challenges. This could serve as the "model transfer,, in California as we strive to use our supplies as efficiently as possible and to develop additional supplies. San Diego County Water Authority and Imperial Irrigation District deserve great credit for moving this program forward.,, 16 : -.v: 5! c .-Ta aJ % ---T 2 - 2 c z-3 - x g3 5 u.0 z L z -“Ff? 3 fo a.- A c ziwlz : &$E 2 z!r ). g .(o n ..f m z-G-* 4 L 0 a.=: -22=l=, *WW cc’=. ~ cc ;;GzS. 2 -r;; z - .E 3 ‘Z E WC 2 037 CL v1.u LEC =.=*= - .puww> z’- -c = &,< lx 2 cd+ ;= WI= L %5-F C --i w2uzw zg<Gg .f L 2 '- -2 -zx 9” zzc z Eu -= z =,Z cc ss=g ,c E’= G x$.E .e = -- .- 2 33, 2 w &- 0- - VI .z = XW)l= w ZI- v) = -2 lx a2 = S-E=‘;; aI-- %OwZ w= cc 32 3 u-4: cc: xcc ET-- z L?,.- == Y ‘Z 3 %g ‘2 M’ =e z-,.3 2 “h 2.;: .,h ij - = w- v1 2-0 mg c MZ 5 t;z w- z-u e2=L-c =J-zZ!q) .E 2pg2 -3 .z g&$2 z W,?VJ :a $& ,zggz Yw = --au= ‘b s-2 c 5 $3 05 ;; Cht!! = C ezEF’3 ‘;j OL 2523-w +.Lc3;; ‘2 c ““2 3 MIIlw 2 3 W-r;&- - .- z = .s ;i .5 = tii- L-’ = z m “5 2 .- E - = ” = SDSNION-TRIBUNE: qlzo/* sDcw* CUPRNG SERVrCE Sun qiego Comfy Wafer Arfhorify A Putilc Agency 3211 Fifth Avenue l San DieQo, Caiiiornic 92103-5718 (619) 682-4100 FA> (619) 297-0511 September 22, lG95 John V. Foley Chair, Eoard of Directors Merropolitan Water District *_-w& P.0. Eo:< 54153, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, CA 90054 FE.:< ~.cnber: 213-217-6650 De2r Chair Foley/: - -- I-2 YC,U knew, the Sa.11 Die,zc Co.<~;~-a; \rja,er ;-~~t‘nor~~-~- >-as i~-i=~~-e~~ ~iscc;?cci opt wit'n --- -I -- the 3lperiz: Irriga.tior Dlszrlcz ,---\ \ -AJ/ ccrcerzirg a possible wafer transfer agreement. I-A : --a-s dfyielcprie~-~z has prompted c_uesticr.s abcl.2: the -'.t'-ority's r-4 --- 1--=-- zpwc c;-- -.---.i---l.*- a-c.- I hope to ansi:er in this Ict,;_r. c ', - -.c - ..-:,,: .--- ---ir - -tvfs a~oc~Ec;, -:--:c- :c -- n?--\-ide 2 safe, _ .i.-== --.e -- CI k-d vLia.,le *:.-aze-' - - C-lDD: .- t- - - -I/ its 7;--,zr ,zz"r - fC . ..W_.WC_ _-__ __-- SE- -'-"->'I= t---E SEX 7: c-c rC,e2 p- --m-e il=‘*d - -= -dia. tcie- c f yoc:r iT.E%E-' a,~EIlciEs 5a.s a similar -- ==I pc =?Y I- . .._-- -a_* -de e-s 0 wz SETJlCE are5. ___- G2-,?Lcrlry 1s "'" c OizL ice ,c ~-;~,l,~~~e 7,.;a,-cr reS3-crce al~~r~-~-~\-~s -,5-z a.re ~c~e~ir~~lly c--"-F= ------ ET-C - pr,&r-t . \ya.,fr+= tra,_s fcrs cs.-'E E~.srL~ the -- c-tE-'re- - 1 :- -;- - c-e d es L--c, Ii-.i.,st be ,zSS~SC~.~ ,zs (-D-cr~.~:*it:es a.r+se. - -c r‘,- -..-;q,G --. ; - --a= I.-L--b.- - -1’ --cs pc.licly s,sgcr,e.;, ‘,-.e ;-T,;l~~~n=~:is~- r = E;,LZz.‘fle wa,,e-= tre?-sfErs -- &z-..i~er- b-1“ z-c ssi i E-C ar-6 ------ -- -I ;....-,- b-L’=- 2 f;- rLareT,- -ye=-= _ _ u-w. )je e:<Te.-z tza7-S fsrre,: ;.;,zzey tc be --_- ,-l -:- I -_ *c- - b - ,.:e E A A/_ Of r2sources -:-- c--c - .*:z 1 ; TliEsz - : ^ ..--- L-a= ,ca._ ws.zc y=,-: pm f - -=-e-- s p,:a- Fr -cm reeds. Our pjE-=- --- ?.eso;lrces Tlaz, a&pte.c: & * : ^ x . . - ; --.= E---I C’ t,- - 1-1 50ard 05 D~~E.CZC~S i- PT\;c~iE~kEr I293, --A SE2,ES -;- - L-.C- "C;\-s--- t+ difficclty i- ply-ir-c a.r-6 buildir,g ppil,-sece-- fa,cilities for increased develc~ment cf water resources -w- 1 * '- : - L-.-L C waif)?---; - .L -A-G, the option of water traxfsrs m-is; be -'..: - -i-I-- Iv evaluate5 as a means of meeting d~9an.d.~ With this in mind, the Puthority responded w-hen we became aware that IID Directors had approved establishment of a water marketing study committee to actively seek mutualiy beneficial water transfer arrangements with any interested party. Informal talks between the Authority and IID ensued, followed by the drafting of a memorandum of understanding that represents an agreement to hold formal CITIES . I *.I*, . .;no,,: - ‘,.a.,O”.,, <:.I> . h.O.-...I.. . +*... . ,a” 5 ,,.. il. C0UNl-f . n.... . .- MEMBER AGENCIES IRRlGArION OlSTRIcTs WArER OISTRICTS . L”l.3 ir . ;oum On” . II . ..#. . s) 10. . “,rkl . \.I.. IhOlll~l. . ..ll.Tll”. PUEllC uriwy DISTRICT FEDERAL AGENCY . :311,v,w. 18 . .‘..“Q,” . . . . t>.,.,“,. . . \. . . ,t, ,.. MUNGPAL WAlER DISTRICTS . :.a I.,,.l . : ,,* .,,,, . : ,,.... II/... . ,.. ..- ,. ..I . ,... i :- . ..,,... a..,. . c .,... m . ml /A Lerter co Chair Foley/ re t-do discussions regarding water transfers. The goal of the discussions is to reach mutually beneficial terms regardins the duration, amount, cost and other key terms of azy transfer arrangement. Authority Directors approved the IGOC' on September 14; IID Directors did likewise on Seprexber 15. The MOU expressly acknowledges that t'ne San Dieso County Water Authority will continue to be an F'WD member agency and will rely on the District for a significant portion of its water supply. San DieGo remains vitally concerned with EWD issues and t'ne s'uccess of t‘ne District. As I stated above, e:r.amination of a pctentia.1 transfer - arrangement with IID is consis zent with the Authorlt~'s aclGDtee plans. We feel it is consistent with F:!C's a~dc,pte~d ~:z-ls as well. The iz~e~ra.',eC', Eesocrces F1az ezc~xr~;~s ttif L..2t?iority and other i+iD me+er agencies to develc,g --:-f _ --a=-- c ::Y . _- 6 vvc,er SOU?rCES indeoendent c f X:13, as rnOSZC~ -. t" ET; ;z adde.5 benefit or' the potential transfer a.Ie dcir_ . a"a~~E~.E~t ^- Ic -;- - c--c L i= Would prcT;:de E pE.r:iE.l sout‘rer:- Cz.lifcrr-iz */,:z.te.-' s,ss 1y solu-,ion t- a rLa.j 0~ sc:~r>~erz Czlifcrr-ia +.:~f~~ s,s~~*.,- C -' -, ,--"-- 1- --.u:,c . As suck-i, - *- VJ e '&lie:;e ir will irT,c'F- c -,=,E :+-e ;i:ip=-~;d cf a timely resolution to the cncoing Eay--1elt~ il ,e~SL~a,1Ons, for ;>:e r--c--= ?,er-tiire.5 ir- mer-l; cf :.:cc<--J's C5-Lr.- Y=-rC?+ - ------ reports tc tke Ssa.rZ. We locic. forward to a period of time in the next s~y~-er= - -- X-LO ?- 7; ** ,LiS Clh2.t Will allow a corsldered a.nd cautious e:-:3I~razii5 cd discussion between the PT.-'- -l--Lority and ii3 resardinc a crss~ecrive transfer izvo-ve N'WD as well. i Sept. 25, to discuss a.cree3er.r. Of C-,Clc - t-r; c &-c, -I-- P rc,cec= - -1 : -- w--1 I look forward to seeing ~012 cn Fonday, t h i s s;lbject in more depth. Sincerely, Eark W. Watton Chair, Board of Directors cc: MWD Directors, General Manager Wodraska 19 SD UNION-TRIGUNE: \\I& sxw* Cs-bG YRVC ; . - San Diego’s water torture How to solve the problem of future county shortages By KEN WIDDER S an Diego County is facing a major problem which must be dealt with irnmediateiy to protect our econo- my. our jobs and OUT future. Fortunate!y. there is a solution. Tne probiem is stightfonvard- San Diego faces a year-to-year threat to its water supply because of our nearly total dependence on the Metropolitan Water Dismc: (MWD). Since MWD has one of the lowest prior- ities on the entire Coiorado River, we have been forced to live with an unreliabie ware: suppiy. as well as the cons’zn: threat of drought. The second aspect of this probiem is ever. more worrisome. San Diego County nek-5 an additional 500.000 acre-feet per yerr oi rehbie water in order to s-u.7.-ive the nex: 50 years. That’s 500.000 acre- fee: yr year on top of our already fragile curen: supoil;. Thus. we have an irnmedi- ate neti for an independent. reliabie wa- ter suppiy to cover today.‘5 needs, and we mus: aiso secure the adaltional suppiy needed to supper, our local economy for the inrxe. The droueh: tha: hit Caiifomia from 1955 :o 19~l - and the ensuing sate of e.zergenc; - was one of the most d?ti- cu!: times for San Diego’s biomedical in- aus-2-i. T’r,e region iaced potential massive cuts in i:s water supply from its singie provider oi impor;ed water, the MWD. hlWD was unable to guarantee San Die- go i:s allotted water supply. Water, the mos life-sustaining resource, was at a premium. and San Diego’s water vuinera- bihry was never more evident. Ko other water suppiier was a\-ailable. Today. the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the San Diego County Water Au- thoity (SDCWA) are taking strides to en- sure that San Diego has another water supplier. These agencies would like to prevent a water-shortage problem. With a water-transier program, San Diego Coun- WIDDER IS president of BIOCOM San Diego, c.‘lalrman of the San Diego Fiegional Tecnnoiogy Alliance and chawman and CEO of San Dt$go-based Lfolecular Biosystemr, II-C. RlC.iAFi3 W--14*.: t)r residents and businesses w-ill have a re- liabie water suppiy through good tures and drough:. The biomedicai indus-P; relies her+ on water to conduc: business. For b:cmed- ical companies to prosper, the regicn.5 water suppiy n~s: no: fall shor,. .4s =-a:~,: pro\%ies tie tc all lking things, so. t:.:. does it provide l2e for our indus-q. Wk. the possibie ex:ention of the local Sz. Diego County agncdtural i.ndus~<. ::e biomedical con-nun+ was the indzr:, most severe& mpac;e d by the last drought. Approxznate!y 130 biomedical cc:na- nies make the!r home in San Diegc. Should tis county ever face ratior-.; us a water crisis, our industry and the jc’k i:a: are directly (and mdirectly) affectei would be severei? damaged. San Diego’s water supply, deliverti by the MWD, comes from two sources. tie Colorado River and the State Water Pro- ject. and neither can be viewed as reLable or adequate. Approlcimately two-t-l-&s of our water comes from the Coloradc Ever. San Diego’s legal rights to this water are surpassed by other agencies in the region because we are drawing almost double our entitlement. Even more frightening is the fat: tilat we are using water owned by other states to meet our current and long-term needs. Our other source is the state water-pr* ject aqueduct, which export water irom the Bay-Delta to Southern Califoti. Numerous environmental, political and legal issues will continue to restrict the exports oi water from this source. and no one is expecting a resoluuon in the near future. - In fact; the California Deoarunen: of Water Resources recently concludd that areas l&e San Diego County, whid rely on the De!ta for all or a potion of tie- supplies, face great uncerainty in u-ate: suppiy reliability. Because oi this uncerzntv. our entre economy, jobs and qualit:; of ke are at riSk. One recent study note? that even a shon-term drought will result in economk ‘asses of S2j billion to 01~’ 1-i econom:;. For the biomedicai indust.;. this uncer- tainty in water reliability is simply unac- ceptabie. A water-transfer prograii beseen the IID and the SDCWX wodl soive our cur- rent and mture water-supply probierns. hlore importantly. due to Lne senkty of IID’s water rights. a tircier agreemen: would guarantee a reliabie. affordabie wa- ter supply for iurure economic develop ment. This agreement would also pro\;lde San Diego with long-term cost certain::: for a majority oi its water supoties. For the biomedical indus*try and busi- nesses throughout the region, the transier will allow us to lock in a fixed price for the next centurr. The program between IID and SDCR.4 is an important step in ensuring Sz-. DieEc is not faced with another water shortage or mandatory water ratiornng - rationing that would cause irrepamble damage to the biomedical industry and others which rely so heavily on a water supply. The biomedical industrl; will be watch- ing with interest to see if San Diego re- ceives a secure and reliable water source. This industry hopes that CWA and IID can reach an agreement that ensures our county has an alternative water supplier and is never again faced with the pros- pects of a water shortage. 20 . SaAXego Counfy Wafer Aufhorify A Public Agency 3211 Fifth Avenue l Scn Diego, Coiifornic 92103-5718 (419) 682-4100 FAX (619) 297-0511 November 13, 1995 Mr. John Wodraska General Manager Metropolitan Water District of Southern California P.O. Box 11583 Los Angeles. California 90018 Dear Woody: Prooosed MWD Policies on Water Wheelinq The Authority is concerned about the District’s proposed policies and pricing for wheeling water through the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) system. We think that the staff position is both inconsistent with the concept of equity for member agencies and with the current Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) and water pricing policies which allow and even encourage agencies to find other water supplies. it1 fact, MWD’s IRP policy calls for MWD to pay an agency up to $250 per acre foot to reduce their MWD purchases. In contrast, the staff wheeling recommendation attempts to hold captive those MWD member agencies who wish to wheel water, by including lost sales in its proposed wheeling rate. The proposed wheeling policy will force agencies to bypass the MWD systefn rather than use excess MWD system capacity, and cause water rates to rise unnecessarily for all MWD member agencies. Schedule Last month staff promised the Board and its member agencies that they would perform additional analyses on unbundling of cost factors. Instead, the draft wheeling policy submitted to the Board this month does not reflect any such analysis nor have member agencies had an opportunity to provide review and comment. A MWD cost-of- service study in progress has not been completed, and again the member agencies have not had a chance to review or comment on the approach being used or the key assumptions. We would like to see MWD complete this study and develop an equitable wheeling policy as soon as possible so that the Authority can better evaluate its proposal to purchase water supplies from the Imperial Irrigation District. The Authority believes that the November draft memo to the Board if approved in its present form cannot result in an equitable resolution of the issues. Fairness requires a full understanding of the costs and their allocation. It also requires a clear vision of how the use of wheeling to supplement supply to District members will be incorporated in the IRP and how it might reduce the Capital improvement Program (CIP). The draft CllIES . > \I<. . <rt;rooo . ..:. :s: ---. . J..s*w, - a;--, . :c- : ‘I: COUNTY . ..<- : -:: _. -.. MEMBER AGENCIES /RRlCArlOtJ OISTRIC~S WATER DI~RICIS . s.ante ce . IOYlh SC.. . wr(,. . c.:. . v.,lO . bn :a;. .D . ‘,.!Jk 7,) PUBllC UTlllTY DISTRICT 21 fEDERA AGENCY . + L.^... . Yrr<l *.,.- .* .~. ;* _. :... MUNlClPAL WATER DISiRlC7S . irwaoo . P:-po . a-““..” . t -a:- d.I O..aio - bar, h” . a? 0 :,n..r . h-.0- . ..-a Mr. John Wodraska November 13, 1995 Page 2 document sent to the Board of Directors on September 26, 1995, with the subject: “Transportation (Wheeling) Water by Metropolitan, “clearly indicates a lack of detailed study and would not (in our view) stand up to scrutiny if challenged in the courts on the basis of fair and equitable rates. Blanket Approach The staff draft reflects a “one-size-fits all approach” to making wheeling available and to the pricing of services. The proposal results in a wheeling rate which can be _ higher than MWD’s non-interruptible rate and at the same time gives wheeled water the least possible priority for delivery. MWD already charges a much lower rate for seasonal deliveries when excess capacity is available. It is unclear to us how MWD can justify a lower seasonal rate in one case when excess capacity exists, but charge a much higher rate for wheeling water with a lower priority of service using similar excess capacity. We urge that MWD’s proposed requirement for full revenue replacement (especially if for non-firm capacity) be reconsidered. The proposed policy recovers more than full costs and appears to be designed to penalize those wanting to wheel through District facilities, Further, the policy allows for “exit” and other fees. MWD member agencies, at least to some degree “exit” the system regularly. To call for full revenue replacement-and “exit” fees only on wheeling member agencies or upon some agencies and not others, would be discriminatory. Such fees would also run counter to the policies of the Local Resources Program (LRP). Member agencies that diminish their demand upon MWD through the LRP are not asked to pay amounts to cover the same fixed costs “that a water sale would provide” to MWD. Why then should a wheeling member agency be required to make such a payment when such member agency accomplishes the desirable goal of downsizing its demands upon MWD, the same goal as that of the LRP? The Authority thinks there should be further detailed investigation into the concepts of unbundling services, costs and rates, providing both firm (non- withdrawable capacity) and non-firm wheeling, and separating supply from transportation, The Authority believes that this approach, with proper consideration in the IRP and CIP, will not hurt MWD or compromise other member agencies. The IRP is designed to decrease the need for new, high-cost supply. Purchase of supply from outside MWD by the Authority would do just that and should therefore be supported by staff. 22 i Mr. John Wodraska - November 13. 1995 Page 3 Cost-of-Service MWD has long relied on the postage-stamp principle of assigning costs and benefits of water supply, conveyance and storage facilities on the basis that the integrated system cannot be effectively allocated according to use. The Authority has gone along with this approach even though we are currently receiving our supply principally from the Colorado River through the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) which has lower costs and provides substantially poorer quality water than State Project supplies enjoyed by other member agencies. The new wheeling proposal aggravates _ our situation and causes us to question the equity of MWD’s rate structure. As we look to the future, we see a high likelihood of agency-to-agency transfers between MWD members and with entities outside MWD. We also anticipate increased reliance on water transfers. The integrated or bundled system approach, as proposed by staff, simply will not work for this new environment. Tine Authority proposes that the cost-of-service study (now under contract) be managed to provide clear separation of the MWD’s supply and conveyance costs. In addition, we recommend that facility-based wheeling rates be included. Contrary to the staff report, this is consistent with the changes which took place in the natural gas deregulation and the trend developing in the electric industry. Finally, the Authority thinks that separate rates should be established for firm versus non-firm wheeling service. It makes no sense to charge the same amount for firm deliveries as for withdrawable conveyance capacity or even conveyance capacity that is available for only off-peak delivery periods. Availability of Capacity The staff plan assumes that at least through fiscal year 2003-04 the CRA will be at full capacity. The ability to do that however, is dependent on acquisition of additional supply from others holding Colorado River water entitlements. If successful, this will leave idle a substantial portion of MWD’s State Water Project (SWP) supply entitlement and increase its unused capacity. We believe that as long as MWD has unused capacity and supply in the SWP system, then it really has unused capacity in the CRA system, because water can be obtained from the SWP to replace capacity used to wheel water in the CRA. Further, it is not clear that the need for MWD to secure a full CRA has been demonstrated. Neither do we think that the potential for future contracts can be considered as “used capacity” under Article 4, Section 1810, of the California Water Code (Katz legislation). We believe that the intent and purpose of the Katz legislation is to make prospective unused conveyance capacity available to other interests, and that based on current contracts there is unused capacity, 23 Mr. John Wodraska November 13, 1995 Page 4 _ Effects on IRP and CIP If a member agency, such as the Authority, is able to develop and contract for a long-term supply, this should relieve MWD and its member agencies from some of its high-cost alternatives, such as the subsidy of local supply development, seasonal storage or continued expenditures for certain features of the CIP expansion. If a member agency’s purchase of supplemental water from outside MWD displaces -.. marginal supplies at $650 to $1,000 per ac-ft, the melded future cost to all member agencies could be lower. The proposed policy will clearly defeat the concept or value - of partial dependence on water transfers. Section 1811 (c) of the water code provides that the transferor is to receive a “reasonable credit for any offsetting benefit for the use of the conveyance system.” Causing MWD’s demands to be reduced provides a definite benefit, such as more reliable supplies and lower costs for other agencies. MWD will be less likely to incur shofiages and therefore will maintain its revenues. The burden on MWD to expand its supply base and CIP will be eased. Pressure to solve the Bay Delta problem within a short time frame will also be reduced. Additional Considerations It appears that the staff considers the SWP as a conveyance cost. The Authority thinks that this is a supply cost for MWD and that conveyance costs for MWD begin south of the Tehachapi Mountains where MWD takes delivery of this water. Only MWD-owned facilities should be included in wheeling charges. The Authority also thinks that the District should exclude the cost of new or proposed facilities from the calculation of wheeling charges. The current staff proposal violates both principles. Further, the proposed compensation policy suggests that any wheeling through the State Water Project would be subject to Department of Water Resources wheeling charges. This, combined with MWD’s full revenue recovery policy proposal would result in an agency being charged twice for the use of SWP facilities. Given cooperative and innovative approaches to the issue of wheeling, we believe that solutions can be developed that are truly win-win for all parties. As just one example, even if the CRA could be fully utilized by negotiating new contracts, it may still be better for other MWD agencies if the Authority transported some of its own water through the aqueduct, MWD more fully utilized SWP supplies, improved blended water quality, and charged the Authority for the use of the aqueduct and incremental pumping costs between the CRA and the SWP. Many MWD agencies would benefit. 24 Mr. John Wodraska - November 13, 1995 Page 5 Conclusion The water industry is changing. Examples from the natural gas and electric industries provide some good examples of how unbundling and pricing evolve in competitive markets. The combination of higher costs and supply shortages are converging to introduce more competition into our business. The Authority believes that the staff proposal for wheeling access and charges is anti-competitive and in direct contradiction of the intent of the Katz legislation, which was adopted to make available excess capacity on water conveyance systems. MWD would be well served if it heeded the warning made by its former Board Chairman in the July 12, 1993 Water Problems meeting. In that meeting on the topic of wheeling, the Chairman stated that the Legislature would be very unhappy with Metropolitan if Metropolitan charges those who would transfer water a wheeling rate that is as high as that recommended by staff. He said that the Legislature would be inclined to pass a law that would allow the California Public Utilities Commission to establish wheeling rates and perhaps other water rates. You are well aware that we are not proposing to become independent from MWD. Instead, we expect to purchase a large portion of our requirements from the District, but feel the need to at least consider meeting our growth in demands from outside sources, as are many other MWD agencies. Finally, we urge the staff to work with the Authority and other interested members to allow in-depth consideration of the costs, benefits and related issues tied to wheeling through the MWD system. CWA staff is evaluating what a more reasonable MWD wheeling rate should be with respect to our IID proposal and which is consistent with the intent of the Katz legislation. We look forward to meeting with you within the next two weeks to discuss this rate and the issues contained in this letter. Sincerely, Robert R. Campbell Director of Finance H.hrpS 1 ‘dc.iriMtr2.doc Novcnbu 1:. 1995 25 ’ L ;,%wt nrn A-.*,-t:‘: . CT*: t a-..- ;r y~wrt'tl!l TA-14 WC1 *c-'C.c ru ~ln,X'r *4; ,I ,,un.svcwt.\rqr.C'~'lmcC . ;~rrt CAP,,;;' fhr:.4AMcrl!" cr x&G“ (olh,r4$.:?'8 CAY :Qt$:rr: ?x: I LhYZlfllCT L;DPfSS 0"UVAW WY; y:"L:.-cc'lc 102 Prwwr4C:lr,u 3'Gz (Our PY.3.‘ I* PAZ IaIr] a^d.Ltr: wrulltrs w4a*i( Lnu Ee-uTC. TW.WQ ow *L-a" I . VW*- b%..cLWC*. A$SEf~&,~t&ii THIPN#iii 1 bSTAI(; I CtiAIAMAh!, ASS?v’i.etv TkWSP~~iAT:3~ CaMh’l7-Fk m8a tcmn.uo 0. :.w- cvmnm haw-w caonu, ECwehr. ktJmp.r, r+J- h’ovcmber 17, 1335 Mr. )ohz ‘Woody” Wodrxka General Manger Mettopc,[iIan Water District ~SC, South Crande ~vcnuc. Los Aii~ci~s, CA 30071-3 193 mJr Vmldy: I Leant IO follow-up on our meeting l;st week rcgarciing the proposed ~‘;lter wlc bcrween Impc.rial Irrigation District (IID) and San Dicgo County W;llrr Authority (SDCM’A), and the issue of my AB 2746 (Ch. 910, 13861, which set fonh the wakr wheeling law in California. Firdy, I am artlazed by your suggestion (or your s:Jl’s suggeslion) [hilt I, in draf[itlg A6 274f:, intended to incorporate into water Mhceling costs the [fxility] o\vner’s costs beyond kc scope of the: conveyance facilily, Contrary to my wheeiing law, yoil arc suggesting MM/U proposes to load up their wtxxling rates by adding a mullitudr. of charges and cxpcnses, including capital project cnsls not asscciakd kth the convryancc facility and ol her projects -- such as conservaliun and rccyciing projecls. To suggest IllAt wheeiing COSIS should aiso rc.0ec.t the cost of conservation and recycling projects otltsidc the bourlr!arics of the buyer and the seller’s districts and counties is rrrinri-bop,Gling. II is dlso of[ellsiv(? consider;ng MWD’s supposed “pro-transfer” position. AS I said very clearly in our meeting, my wheeling law provicks for Mlheeling c.osts which arc solelv &tribrJtabie tojhe fdcilltv in OuestiolL and solctv attrjbulable to the use of the far.ililv (including capitol, operation and maintenance and repl;ic:trrncnt costs allrilutabie In the proposed use). in fan% MWD aggrcssivclv pursued this t;lrlrr:age in 7986 to cnrure that ~lhc~l~n~ costs solclv reflect tile costs associated with rnovinp. water t!lrnll& a specific corivev~nc~. facilitv. 7 II sqgcst otherwise is ;f thinly veiled attcrnpt to undermine wtlilt appears IO bc. an ideal water transfer discussion. Not only is you and your staff’s “interpre!ation” of the law incorrect, ir is foolish for MWI-) to publicly set forth such an intcrprctation. It is Southern 26 jrhn wotfmka Page 2 California ratepayers that will suffer severe consequences should uther agcncias impose the same strategy on MWD in the future. Imagine the whc.r.lirlg costs for A transfer from North of !hc Dr:ll;l 10 Los Angclcs under your formula -wheeling costs cc~utd rtJn into the tens of thousands of dallars per acre foc& I VVOUI~I suggest that your stat?’ read the law, that you rethink your approach, and Iha! ~011 inform your Board with factual information regarding lhe law’s (rue rr~~;~ning. AIM - whtxling law was adopted to facilit;ltc water transfers in California for the benefit of the public, not as a weapon for MWD to superficially block water lransfcrs. Furlher, you very briefly raised the issue of the convcyancc facility’s available cqacity. I can’t help but notice in your most recent publications, MLVD tlils miraculously gtine frorll being d water agent.. that [only months ago] was in drastic. need of major water Iransfers and sLffix?d from the ever-present threat of drought tc a suddenly “reliable” water c~i~c~lr~s~lc~. Eittler MWD ha5 obtGed senior entitlements on the Colorado River, or you’ve hixrj ,I tx:iv press ;Igr.nt. C:ijrrc.ntly, MV.‘T) C~OCS not t:njuy the benefit of senior wz.;er rights to Colorado River. If it is your intent to superficially fill the Colorado River Aqueduct with tenuous spot” water in order to prohibit the movement of water lnlhich is held as a pristine “senior” ~ntitlcmcnl, you arc again foregoing the public good and threatening long-term reliability irk SuuItterrl California. The most troubling aspect of all this is the position you are taking reIdlive KI lhe IIT),FJXWI\ transfer proposal itself. Your proposed wheeling rate is a clear allq~ to tlr:cjc:rrninr: an idol water rnxkcling qqxxtunity fur Southern California. It is your dut,l to ilr;)viclc: Icq-(c:rm, rc.liat,lc: ws(c.r slqplics to ~hc ciiixns uf California at the lowest cost po.s.~ihlP. I css than five years ago, your agency stood with me in promoting voluntary water SACS Ixtwccn willing buyers and sellers -- without district approval. MWD espoused water mJrkctinf: JS I ciid - an cnvironmcntally sound, economically feasible solution to c.nmplimr.nr the. St;ltr.‘s watc.r supply policy. It svms clear to me that vclu are wlllina Jorc~o dislr-i~~:ontrol of waler sa&Jx.c&~oul Calilarnia -- -- -m.d.--,, 7s long as )‘OlJ tlavC ul[irrl;llr! control over who buys and sells water in vour service area. I-inally, I believe MWD is at a true crossroads -- a point in time in which your Board must meet its fiduciary duty by demanding accurate facts and analysis from your staff which comprehensively address the long-term reliability needs of our region. MWD’s current apparent interest in smothering this model transfer will destroy the District’s credibility Ihro\lghoul Ihe Slale, not only on the issue of water markeling, but as well your ability to 27 - John Wodraska Pap 3 work coopcrativcly with other agenci~ towards local, region;li ilrld statewide water stq~pi) snlutions. In fact, it appears MWD is instead choosing to revcrsc much of the progress that 1~35 tzcn made in recent years 0r1 Gilifornia waler policy, appxclntly for lhe Mr ol prOteCting ils hislariC3~ Water mOnOpOly drld txJrc.ntKr~q~ How disheartening it is that h4WD is rp!turnirlg lu its old habits of trying to solve 1330’s problems with a 1330’5 rncntaiit),. (Yi\,crrl the intensity of recent droughts, and the difficulty in siting water projr.cts (overcoming regulatory, c:ost and environmental mitig,llion factors) that you arc ,111 ILIO fanliliar with, and given the policy dircctivcs found in your IRP which initially promo:4 tgnsfcrs as a viable option ia srxurc water on the local Icvci, I am astounded tq what ;1pIx?;\rs to bc a deliberate altetnpl IO llncicrminc il proposal whic:ll will result in a mo;e efiiclent use of rvater in Souftlcrn California. MWD’s Ixjsition Mlithin rhe past five! years hns beer1 lo remove bureaucrstic harric.rs to water markeling. Now, MWD seems 10 lyf)ify whr7f you hmcl vi1ific.d in the past. RK:aj I hope )‘ou will rethink your posiiion. CC: Br-ucc Babbi\l, Secretary of rhc Inrerior Jc,hn C;ardrnentli, Undcrsccretary of the Intcrio: Llave Kennedy, DWR Mcmbcrs, Senate hg!*icuiturs & W,~tc.r CYurnmittee ~sscrnbly \Va(er, Parks and wildlife Committee MLZ’D Bo;lrJ rnembcrs D;llr. I Iuntrr, Legislative Liaison, MWII ltonorable Susan Gelding - Mayor of San Diqp Honorable Valerie Stallings, San Dicgo City Councilwoman John Lockwood, General Mr7rlq~r, San Dicgo County Water Authority Mike Clinton, G!ne.ral Manager, Imperial Irrigation Distric:l 28 _ --- . J- YI .” II (I I[ (” ZXWA CLP-H; SERVCE We dun% need water war . -’ z-. . . . .-u*_L- AfWD and CWA mg& settle tiff wihout threats m he last thing Southern Caiifor- . . nia needs is a battle between -. -i 1L the Metropolitan Water Dis- t.rict (MWD) and the San Die- ,I go County Water Autboriry: The MWD is riled over negotiations between the County Water Authority and the Imperial Irrigation District on developing large-scale water transfers from Imperial Valley’s cropland to San Diego’s urban coast. When news of the negotiations first broke, San Diego and Imperial County officiais talked about transfetig up- ward of 500.000 acre-feet of water a y2ar from the All-.&-nerican Canal. That’s more than the MWD, the Los &ge!es-based water wholesaier, cur- reztly se!ls to San Diego Count];. The turf-conscious MWD began playing hardball, clearly r,tig to dis- courage the deal. Most recentiy, the LiWD staff proposed that if San Diego County wants to use the MWD’s Colo- rado River Aqueduct to transfer Impe- rial Valley water, it will have to pay S285 per acre-foot. That wouid be on top of the amount San Diego County would pay the Impe,iai Irrigation Dis- trict for the water, estimated at about $400 per acre-foot. .d:The MWD currently delivers untreat- e6 water to San Diego County for $344 per acre-foot. The staff proposal, de- signed to put Imperial Valley water out of..reach economically for San Diego County, should be rejected by the MWD board. .,But that’s not all the MWD has done. It’..also froze a contract to design a pipeline between reservoirs in River- side County and.San Diego County. MWD officials apparently fear that if San Diego goes out on its own, the MWD will lose a lot of money in water sales, since this county is the MWD’S biggest ciient. Also, the MWD has in- vested heavily in recent years on proj- ects that would particularly benefit San Diego County, induding the $2 billion Domenigoni reservoir near Henet. If San Diego County goes independent, the MWD fears that investment might be wasted. Such fears are overblown. First of all, the 500,000 acre-feet figure for Imperi- al Valley water transfers was prelimi- nary. Some experts say nowhere nea.r that amount will be reached. What’s more. the County Water Authority doesn’t intend to secede from the MWD. Water transfers from agricuiture to cities should benefit ail of Southern Cal- ifornia. The MWD and the County Wa- ter Authority should sit down and nego- tiate how to make that happen. A split between the County Water Authority and the MWD must be avoided. While it might sound attractive to some people here to be free from the MWD’s behemoth bureaucracy, collec- trve security is the oniy way, for Southern California to ensure its water suppiy. Right now, a truce between ag+ul- ture, cities and environmentalists has all sides negotiating the future of the state’s water. The so-called C.%LFED Bay-Delta Program is progressing to- ward an eventual solution for the Sacra- menio-San Joaquin River De!ta. That could allow large amounts of Northe.rn California agriculture water to be shipped to Southern California ‘cities. Negotiations between all the states us- ing Colorado River water are expected soon. For Southern California to wield its political muscle in.these and other wa- ter issues, it must remain united. The MWD and the San Diego County Water Authority should settle their differ- ences - without threats. 29 . * 2 fE!t k 3 P 3 LJ . . .I -1 ,_- STATE OF ARIZONA EXECUTIVE OFFICE Fir-c CS,Y~r;X=fTON I KOYC&C~ 17, ES!35 TkEGmxzbiC PseWascn Guveaar, Stzrc of Cti& Stafc Cqi:c;l, Firr Eocr Sacz3xcnm, W& 95614 Dcziz Gcvcr, ydan: pl;tr Y!& ~~s~J~.~csJ~ &cm ad Cdiik& rqzz52g Colorda Rive: issues ix ixez fm wi5 &qut=, &mrd ad Iitigztim. Mcr, xztiy, Akcxzi hzs ‘E= h-51 ti E..m,r, had bu cks&.ng z;;d tk our KYO sstl?s could '~'0~2 Lkqti IUL'JZI CGqe~tioc ta m L -'& L'CJ $-ztu' C& fcr G-&T f&n tie Caloracic. We =eze idmztt; this r;c&, howe-rc, of cn-gc;zg ~:gziz5xs tctcwzcz the Sir=!qwli~a Wakt, Dkic, (MWD) sd tie Sezzzrj of tke lkx5o~ tiar lcz”, u to b&we t3x A&o= zti C&orA ax or?. tie tLrzkcIC of xxxirkg to om cistoy of iitigrtioc in the Uniti States Sqrcme Ca.3 over be ColcraCo Eivczs I aa w%g to ;JCX to ti your ZZSi.YiiC iIl pl3’Cd~~ 2 Si gi5~3llt d&xx fmn dwc.Iopiq txxcc~ oxr sac?. . . Tilt= ccam concx22 a pmyil by WiG3 to ~ZC~EZJC CzEoniz’s 4.4 &lion 2cz feet (iiz3iJ Fr ye3r e.&rkzc~t from the Coior3Co River. i3k kmea5ez! w-a is to lx c.sz& by impmveserrts to the Au-i4fmZi~ Cm& which xc t2xpxd *a sac 65,CUl ai32 fc5.t F<i Ta in_ 5qage lcssx in ti iz+iion sys+m. M%YD pizposx to pq for tiosc improvemzq ticn uce the 5xm.i wze: as a 13cas of rcmu~icp its ktv~5~2nmt. AAzz12.3, of couze, sr?ugxs *he more c*ht USC of Colorado Zver ww P;?&& cati’& am! would have no objdon to MWD’S FkUl if -&r WaLc were tn bc uxd wi-dlin cd&mia’s c-t exkk=nCL In fscc, a ,qeciic prqxzl for the EX of&t s~wzl wakr v&I2n (Zalifa& has akmdy btxn qqmve-f by Con_p?ss as pa?2 of tie SZII L&s z&y Llc52r.l waier Rigis Settlmrat ACL (P-L- ltm-675, lG2 S-a. CGG, Novedxr 17, 1988). ! 7?0 VI’557 w~ji(lNCfZ.~. ?L(GE-itX. .$l;-.=N.s, $1307 d ix:‘: 5Lc.AII ihe c~~nent plan, hawser, 3 much difkmt- We a-c a&k& tbs: MWD ime& lo cn3tc an arzifickl s-jsrerrz cf ‘bat&q” tse saved witcr in the Cokxa&c Xiv= rzscrvoin, the:: witi&wing that waltz f&m the miiinserr in later yeys. Pzxinably, diversions af &is “baGed’* wazcr would tx in addition GO Calihmia’s curem tnliti!erx l3.S inxztxd use or’ waxer by Cdifati ciimxlp threatens tiivenions of Colarxio Rivcz watzz into the GIN& hizoua Project cd due to ti ex3ng priorky snc&rc qz4 hs as patt of tk Coiondo P~AX Basin Project Act of 1968. Su& a simatin is in G.II kug&oa of tie J&V cf tie - B&IX ud a tiuktin of tk ix.u.nction issued by ttrz Su~znc Couz in &Mnr v. CdMfomic. would alle@y be stod on top ait& Arcsenmin, wx iaacdud by MWD d&ng ttie L3w.e~ E& SW i&M Codtee dk=ussions. Aizxa &ays cqxzsed rcscx&rions abet t!x - ccnfcp k-use it creati m errtidy ncv d fkSxls Cltc~ry cf gx3aa-s’j~:zt We witi ihe ma&a of the &lor;ldo Ri~tz F&Q, aftz hztig ,*dki -3~ matter for SOIK: tkq md ‘“xrtfnlly dmg CL-C imp= that inrrcd~~tin of Wnoc-sy~~ narrr” would IEJC on tie k&y ovc--lurdt-,ti LO-GC Colorado Rive:, Ark0112 kid& that it EUZ qpose tic l q water ba&ng pmpasL Tais dcc% OII WZ.S anmcn& in a b&fag ~-xrp.~zA by tk .kkonz E~ZZEZ cf wazz EtxNTc~, clad acd C~SCK~UKCA Kovczkr 7, IS?5 a3 par ot’ tit ca-g&g oegcea&m mocg ki.ZQ~, cmti .& Kevada. In acE&q tic Dircf,or of cur Dfzprm: of water ~0cric.q I?& P~_2TsSU, EE peziody WiIh seYc.d rt;Rscltativcs of kc Cdifcti waatc hi* ~313 Monday, Kavu’k 13, IS55 fo dki tF;c imyrks brieF2g paper ad dt:&c dlx, if azy, rxxilin g nqotiticis would kc pIzdutisc. w: oicrc ntt :sld at tix me*&~, but led lixz, that EfTvD had lxx Ilc~o-k.tizg Ec2crAy wti tkc E&,-rerary g’& .kCzona wzs srtdyiq &: top Katz b&&g pKQC~, ;RO bad b&z@ K&II%! qb-e2=3G wiii the s.Q?qi ro iL+Earz a top waer lxs!&g pk i;i& oi G5hont .k3na’s CZiZSL WC have also lad &a: MG3’s top wafer Ix& pl;n ha k z&&7 pImm to fell Lk kz zevczii yc2n of ‘f?&4” kztr fc the Scife of Xez&, cia thcu:i tis wafer tiz e~mdy rservcd for KX k C&forz by ‘t5.c Szz Lois Rty kzksc=lt ACZ citd a’con KVD pqats tc avoid tkk dZi!icyuky bq’ si.mpLy dzlazkg ,tk~~ tk SD& water cootisue: to bz ~2d i3 Wom& wbilc DOW excess MWD waxr is made ar&ble for &me saie. G~<ous~~, ‘ti k n&kg more tb~I aLI aC~OUati$ E3S.C to avOid tie eqPLSS pm%iSkKS Of tic 0.G 5d30rkkg tic liaiitg of thr: AU-h3etican Can& aclj xrizc~ PC not SlL: idly by o;hile smb a ~m@z.Jous pl33 is ptlt inxl Gpezz&l. N&its ta say, Axkona was dtqly Gz-~inted to Sour oi &esc -cccrct negoktions. $2, YOU how, WC have hem aegoliadng dili~edy uiti California z.nd P&adz over tic ksi Wo’ run to ccnsidct a3d cffer silq _stians oc m&a& of inquUm,o Cokrztdo River apcra~ocs IO cm.!c mcrc water ava.iIable fry Ixti C&‘oroirr .a& Ncxk Fv’: kvc adic;zx.!y i&x& however, rOar czrt=rin gnund rules goven these pmceedkgs. Rz&&i~, VC have i&is& ‘&a~ any proposal on x%x qxAation musx no: tiolzte tI3.e fuu&zne~~A Tay of tir River tit prc&z kizxa’s *hard fought batic for its 2.8 nzt.f exkkmex Tne tcp =ztrr bax.k pkn, e,~-%$ Titi ti z.~iil;Lry prop054 to scLt wa*zx to Xu’tvac!a auf oi &e CziXcni3 ezkt!ezne3t, c35-3 a 31 . ’ . S&US th-at *LO Aizona’s wsfe su,&. Such a&on cn tie paz ot‘ M%X ir ergo&.+ l &.rcdy s-ich the Sezdary rbr tis pl.n dezons’Jacs the rccon fcr CLL’ f&zzxicc in ti proczss; WC cannot cclntinut tq La -~tict fiZX-[Gfxt With cfi? %On?k tie== to s.c&ve workable pm- witi the Law of ttie Rker whik objtivs eviic proves thx those me pzu,tcs are ecgkzing a progam b&cd oEr backs tiar U cnqly:el:~ ckkez.ral to ou:: &m. I cehdy do sot netd to tell you how stioudy Arksa nzgxck is 2.6 naf etide=;se=lr, or how tdously WC intend to L&nd OUT xigkz a@nst ti cb.dknge m the tiw of the Eiivc. Ooi ~titIe~~~ U our futi~, and ~e FC?JJ not allow ti to k vi0b.M by tk ~~*iion of a fk%.nUS Ch3 Of ROIPSySiXM wztc thnU@ a to? JmcC bk Insmd, WC !xve dcated our atzesio~ to ti2.e ceaion of projxszls f&x w,ii; provide wazrr to cxcmia ald Nexti widlcut -‘- CaLzirg llmxl to Azizol2iL -. Your arriors a5 Gtxc,--,ar hxve ckrl~ denoc.nzti your con% fo: tic ke*Tax! &A m&s ci cs3foni.a. You csn t&x well ur’C-?,d my co- far t.k w%re ti m&s of Akopa. Axizonz hs consis ;caiJv ‘sikez Lhc pcsiticr that thez arc oppzLx2iz3e3 in ~a.-::ti7,0 th Colrdo Eiv:r l ht can bcxkr CaEouk ad Nevada P;i&ci cxtie ham t” .kko~L G-m ?iovtmbtr 7, 1995, bric.%g ppcr i&k% focr sdcb ~piztitis. ?k-r ~3:; k otici r2.x hzve EOC yet txx pm-xti. I txcus~c you to ex.nk &se cpzmtitia ad tc rc..ec; . ‘tack rcoiz dczl5’ tbat sx5ELrr~ the we!kz oi one site for tba: ci anck. VC rZpX tit aCy CCp waxr bati; ppsi& or my sim’at p-rcposzl ;,-tr&x-$ l mfi- syscczn water*’ hta tie Coiozati ,4iver ogeztig re$x, lx itxok-d izznedtd2’;lr f;nn cccsi&.hoc by tie Ssfr-eT by the eTJlx.s r!zqzt of tit Sap3 cf c&k&i & i\icva&. Itis Isy hspe t!xl you d!L ird-kacthk izre,-c,cs afcdi$iEx& L% bts SC-f& ‘cy CZE&.!l& CT~‘-~C~VC ad cFe= nsgodarioxzs c%k -kkcca, and net by a ~tti!=l, ta tit Tjri:& S~-ti I r-L SLpc=c Ccmt for atitinzl yt5xs cf tig15on. Fie S j&~CI? GWEXKIR 32 =-= 5. ‘0 --cl -= ;; CJI 0 ‘= 2 c-,- - E s - 2 -- I = - ,L=L 2 ma0 c 5.2 3 EC= a !=a ;EG. z ;; g..< ,cz*s c=:U C -d =-Jm’=o a e L.-- .-g= 0 E a- E -,a% 3 Fv. P 7 = &,LZ .- ;. a- = c- - -L. =cd=~.‘~ 5 @.c=g 2 Em= _ 0 c-3 2 z= a- a 2 d CL be L. ~ g Lie = 0 c g-5 c.3 c __ - o.f.f”cT- “u -L sey: f2 c c J k;=c z=c E; a- -..0 &= e- = EYLZ-c a -c- 0.s2 E = “gv-$J c 0 c c 8% 5’;” OELC: -E z’c J Or’a ,CJ’Z” t2kcu J o 5 9 e:cEv-= 2:; 0s; Q- == c - c, :< !C=C-4= 7 3 E;i< ..z E 2 ._ ===zLUC: 7 -E=-L- L- -- -x= c= = .- tz 32.5 :I J ;;ZE LC ‘i c: - .E pz g i=‘g -= cc: a .L &CM e 2-g 2 0- 3- .C -Z ctu Z&C-‘= go,= ,’ = - -) c, c.m -g> ES= S y EZ c m ‘i d .EC 5 z&.5 AYE E -- 0 4 = 27s ;z c- -2 5 g 2 - c & tpcJ E-CA C” c 4’3 c z L 2 CC3 y-- 2-c aJ 0Za.L =*r 0 =cl,;; 2+$ ‘E 3z EE = cc.&3 L - .E aa-c - -0 cc d1 3 LCCa &I= c 0 -CL a r-&E c = 3f C ’ 0-L.I iE=‘~ ‘Z.--( CLOJ c-=cz - = =- -7 L=’ *; ;5 C t-c< EJ SZ’S ; .a L - _. 2 E =z -CU2C ,c-=a ‘id L-3 o=o =z = z-0 ‘-- = .- - a” ;: L’5: 12.2 g “c xs= - 4- CL = - I c; p 5.” S&CL Cf L 2 ‘7 2 ?z C -- i I = L = E L = = .f i L -C 22 o,=.- .J = <-;a -5 =r; .= s-,5= J =c =E=p= r3fz ‘. = g--s = 3 = =,f-ec = fA -- -.zz z- = 3- ,-c C.--z ‘= C =.=-c T 3= =-‘,c. c.;-Y cc z-e== L = *z = 5-E &ZIL: 2 c L c c: = E ,z-‘=,Z z-5 =5 z- = .- - :- I ‘C 7 ?j ‘- = -.- . =- .- L a, 2 0; .- 5.2 : &-/g. -z rz’E< oz= -,_ i -zcc - E ‘& .= 5 c L .- == >- ,z z LE 5 z,- y A,-= c:= tcz > zr = -,zS.N 2’;: t g -C.fkz = f SE; i ; w’= 5 = = a x - =’ =, r -.- 2 “.=A- c L ZL SCC =f c== .- ==E== = c- = -=“t ZL .= 3 c.5 L .- “;= C- _, E z c ua Z z;z;; a= =:s-: r=ac-a 2 E ifF3Za o= ooZT lt S%SZ bl= 3 c &Z c E 3 as 4c-g 2 =SEC: -a EZ c ta -g”E ” “C --- u + ;“z :c = ‘; Ef g x’s 3m. co c =c2 &s 83&c-- r L -- y U>l.cf gas xc ,dS J *- =+E OdSE - . 4-z ’ E EC.E c ;;c-g %:=E .s ( + E EZ c3cc: = em= .=:‘- LC’iiZ E QC z cz-” = @g CCC e-c z’,.== -z Er= = cf EZ &:t SE a c- Cc: ,: C 2°C -2 -er ifA= E- 5: z3 : 3 =r -- f 5 =a =a L; c - . 34 C November 28, 1995 Mr. Jack Foley, Chairman The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California P. 0. Eox 54753 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Dear Mr. Foley: Subject: MWD’s Actions Regarding California’s Colorado River Entitlements Coachefla V&y Water District (CVWD), Imperial Irrigation Distric! (IID), and Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) (collective!y, Districts) are graveiy concerned by the recent Colorado F,iver management actions of the fvietropoliten Water District of Southern Caiifcrnia (MWD). These ac?ions include: . 627king of non-wet water; Selling California’s entiiiement to Southern Neva,da Water Authority; . Agreeing to waive the shonage protections of the lSS8 Colorado River Easin Project Act (1956 Act); and Supporting Congre,, c+onal changes to the Law of the P&r. All of these listed actions could jeopardize existing water rights of the Districts and, potentially, the i vater uses of all of the entities that use Colorado River water. Our Districts are also concerned that these actions were apparently taken by MWD’s management without the knowledge or concurrence of staff from the Districts. This marks an abrupt change in the former approach teken in California, which was ?o act as a single entity in m &ers of strategic importance to the state. 35 Mr. Jack Foley -2- November 28, 19% Our unified approach in the past resulted in many successes such as the language of the 1963 Act, which makes water use by the Central Arizona Project junior to California’s 4.4 million acre-foot apportionment. Also, this unified approach did not invite others outside California to “divide and conquer’ the state’s water interests for their own gain. We b&w MWD’s recent actions place not only MWD, but a!so the Districts in a vulnerable position. We be!ieve tha? it is important for the four Chairmen or Presidents to meet toaether with their general managers to discuss this change and to attempt to find common ground that will continue to allow California to be united on the Colorado River. It is impera?ive that California’s Coloraco Eiver resources be s:ls:aineci for future generations. Accordingly, we n eed to nest immediately to acddress these issues. We awaif your timely response. Sincer&y yours, J&a /- = J, ’ . TELLIS CODEKAS President, Coachella Valley Water Dis;ric; WILLIAM R. CONDIT President, Imps+ IrrigGion District . - ,- .; r- ./ -7 .:;:,i/: 4.&--p+cc 1.’ 1.’ /-- VIRGIL JONES > President, Paio Verde Irr@ation District COfilVER Cc- David Kennedy 36 December 1, 1995 John R. Wodraska General Manager Metropolitan Water District P.O. Box 54153, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, CA 90054 Dear Woody: Proposed Agreement between Metrooolitan and Southern Nevada Water Authoritv - I am writing to convey the San Diego County Water Authority’s (Authority’s) concerns regarding the recent proposed agreement between the Metropolitan Water District (Metropolitan) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) concerning Colorado River water. These concerns are connected to the substance, process and timing- of the proposal: The Authority questions Me?ropolitan’s intent to sell a portion of California’s water to Nevada, Bulle?in 160 states that California faces significant water shortages in the future unless we act decisively to bolster our supply. Metropolitan’s Integrated Resources Plan makes a similar forecast for urban Southern California. Selling California’s water to another state makes little sense at any time: when we face impending shortages, it makes absolutely no sense. Process: Your staff should not have announced the potential agreement before Metropolitan’s Directors had a chance to vote on it. Your news release and the resulting news media coverage places pressure on the Metropolitan Board to approve the proposal. After all, who wants to vote against something described as a “first-of-its-kind interstate agreement . . that will help solidify the reliability of urban water supplies.” as the news release’s first paragraph reads? Moreover, the District staff acted on this agreement without consulting with its member agencies, other water agencies in California or the third Lower Basin state, Arizona. The irrigation districts are understandably concerned about how this agreement would affect the’ shortage protections written into the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act. They also have rights to Colorado River water that are senior to those of Metropolitan. Arizona, for its part, has always acted decisively to defend ‘what it perceives to be threats to its Colorado River entitlement. Based on Governor Symington’s recent letters to Governor Wilson, Governor Miller 37 December 1, 1995 Page 2 and Secretary Babbitt, Arizona definitely considers Metropolitan’s actions threatening. Your staff announced the proposed agreement with the SNOW on Nov. 21. You will present the agreement to your Board on Dec. 12 and expect a vote to occur at that time. This does not leave the Metropolitan Directors sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and its broad implications and cast an informed vote. Metropolitan’s actions to date regarding the proposed agreement with the _ SNWA have been hasty and ill-advised. They threaten to splinter the consensus among California water agencies that has allowed the state to act in a unified fashion regarding Colorado River issues. They also may imperil the water rights held by the various Colorado River water-users in the Lower Basin. On behalf of the Authority’s Metropolitan de!egates, I urge you to withdraw the SNWA agreement from the December 12 Board agenda. Then you can commence the kind of wide-ranging discussion of this proposal that should take place. Sincerely, Mark Watton Chair, Board of Directors -- cc: Authority Directors MWD Directors --I. ,OE ICI-i,*- c. \ c-ZJ- 7: v\ YJc-,=Ts. 3(-J= -. -m_ -- -..._ ~- - 38 uu= I ! i i . I r- Las Vegas water deal draws fire m-by Arizona, San&go By STEVE La RUE juff Bnccr A surprise move by the Los &i- ge!es-based Metropaan Water Dis-&ct to soive the -dty of IAS Vegas’ looming water crisis and fix a water storage problem of its own has triggered protests in &Xtiern Cahforrua and legal threats from krzona. Under a tentative agreement that would require approval from the Interior Deparment, Las Vegas would contrioute $50 million toward an MWD project to line the earthen All herican Card in the Irr.petial Valley. The gambiing capital would re- ewe 30.000 of the 67.000 acre fet of the water this project would save. h acre-foot is about 326.000 gallons - enough to supply the househoid needs of two fanuhes of ’ I follr ior one year. San Diego Counry czxxnei, 53i.000 acre-feet last in turn. wouid suppon I an htWD proposal to store river water in Lake Mead. This would 1 allow MWD to keep its 241~mile I Coioiado River Aqueduct fuIl of low-cost water for Los Angeles, 1 San Diego and the rest of Southern J California even during droughts. I The San Diego County Water Authority buys water that MWD 1 impons from Nor&e-m California and the Colorado River and whoie- saies it to cities and water districts. They in turn retail it to about 2.6 million county residents. SU UNIC)N- I HIGUN& Qj [\ m s3clv* c26=w2 SERVO In a biistering broadside of letters, Arizona GQV. Fife Syming- ton has warned Calfomia Gav. Pete Wilson, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and others that ‘Arizona and California may be on the threshold of returning to our bisto- ry of litigation in the United States Supreme Court over the Colorado River.” SMgton suggested that the MWD is really seeking a subterfuge . - . to mcrease Its snare 01 river water illegally. And San Diego delegates on the MWD board accuse the MWD staff of trying to set the proposed deaI in concrete before board members learn much about it. maybe we’ll get banked water, maybe we won’t, and we don’t know what we are going to pay for it.’ said France= Krauel. one of San Diego County’s representa- tives on the MWD board. Mark Watton. &airman of the County Water Authority, tid that if MWD delegates vote on the issue this week with their turrent dearth of information, 7here is no way I could classify tit as an informed. intelligent vote. I think you can see the San Diego County position will be not in favor of moving forward with the agreenenr. We don’t know w-hat the implications for the long and short range are.” Three key agricultural districts also expressed concern in a letter to the MWD s+ng they were nev- er consulted. This marks an abrupt change in i the former approach taken in Caii- fomia, w’hich was to act as a singie entity in matters of strategic im- porance to the state.- the districts mote. It is impe--rive that Caiifor- ma’s Colomdo River resources be sustained for future generations.” Tine lerter was signed by leaders of the Coachella Valley Water Dis- trict. thePal Verde lrrigatlon Dis- tnct in the BIvt&e area. Imperiai tigaion Dis*trict. and the Tom Gra.ff’. senior attomev for the Environmental Deiense F&d. a ‘national environmental group. said the MWDNevada deal would cast an unflattering light on MWD’s in- sistence on receibmg more North- em Caliiornia water through the environmentally sensitive Sacra- mento-San Joaquin River Delta. “How is passing 30.000 acre-feet of California water supply off to Nevada going to help?” Graff asked. Interior Secretary Babbitt and his second in command moved Fri- ._ aay to pour oil on the increasingly roiled waters, although they imii- cated they might give the MWD proposal a friendly reception. The MWD-Nevada deal is similar to current negotiations to bring Im- perial Valley water into San Diego County, said John Gararnendi. dep uty Interior secretary. The San Dieg+IID deal is very much on the table and of great interm to this depamnent.’ he said. Garamendi said that although questions remain, We see both as being of significant benefit to Cali- fornia because. in their fullness. they would bring substantial water 1 to urban California. 39 . - tInion~&riPtnc !&c r, rcrss A c0p1ty iVtl&dpaptr Troubled waters NIVD-Nevada deal aqtgers water usen s toring Colorado River water in Nevada’s giant Lake Mead could be a good idea for Southern California. But the deal hatched by the Metropoi- itan Water District to accomplish it is not. In making the surprise deal. the Los Angeles-based MWD. in a cavalier man- ner. has ignored the interests of other Colorado River water users and the traditional concerns Northern Califor- nians have about Southern Californians. The MWD risks losing much more than it gains. This deai couid inflame tensions over water jus: at a time when a deiicate peace e.uls:s. Under an agreement given fentatlve approvai by the MWD board las: week. the M!‘iD and Neq;ada would pay :c iize the earthen All American Canal in the Imperiai Valle::, thus conserving about 67.000 acre-fee: of water a year. Las Vegas would get 30,000 acre-fee: and Southern Caliiorma would gef the rest. And. in exchange. the blWD would be allowed to bank water in Lake >lead. But no other water users on the river were consulted. Because the deal in- cludes transferring water from Caiifor- ma to Nevada. that was very unwise. Water is a vev touchy subject. for good reason. Transferting water be- tween states is a weighty matter. Arizona is hopping mad about not be- ing consulted and is threatening to fiie suit to block the Nevada deal. Three key Southern California agricultural wa- ter districts on the river. which control most of our state’s Colorado River allo- cation, are angry that the BlWD never taiked to them. either. Northern California water users and environmentalists are wondering aloud why they’re working to pipe more wa- ter southward when the MWD is selling it to Nevada. That’s a big problem. because a fragile water peace now ex- ists in which state and federal officials are crafting a solution to the problems of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, through which northern water flows. Whv should the MWD board risk years of lawsuits with Arizona and ani- mosity by Northern California and Colo- rado River irrigation districts! There’s a lot more at stake here than 30.000 acre-feet and water banking in Lake Mead. The MWD should be considerate to- ward the three agriculturai districts - Coache!la Valley, Palo Verde and Impe- rial - because they con:roi 3.85 mii- lion acre-feet annually from the river. more than three tunes as much as the MWD gets. Equai consideration shouid be shown to Northern California. Togerher. the!, could provide much more water for Southern Caiifornia thar. the Nevada deai. At :te same flme the 1lC’D IS mahng deals with Las Vegas. it’s working to thwar: San Diego Count:: from buymg water from the Imperial lrrigatlon DIS- trlc:. Our county wants to become less relian: on the >l\VD. like Orange Coun- fy. which rece:‘:es oni:; hal! its water from the XIWD. Los Angeies needs even less. But San Dlego County mus: ge! ne3rly 95 percent of its water from the >lWD. As the IMWD’S blggesr customer. we’re supportmg :he res: of :he syste.x. Apparently, the 5lWD board fears that if San Diego County starts buying water elsewhere, the MWD wiil lose money and powe:. But a guaranteed water suppiy for Southern Caliiornia is far more impor- tant than such politlcal conce-3s. If wa- ter-bankmg on the Colorado River is good for urban Southern Caiifornia. then so are water transfers from the Imperial Valley to San Dlego. Both would bring more wafer to thirsty cities. The MWD board members should be seeking water surety for Southern Cali- fornia on all fronts. and consulting with all major water users. Making surprise deals with Las Vegas that anger the major water-rights holders will do little to attain guaranteed water. The MWD board needs to reconsider its decision. And it needs to start work- ing with other water agencies. including the San Diego County Water Authority, instead of playing the parr of the BOO- pound gorilla. 40 C SAN DIEGO CLIPPING SERVICE IIdPERIAL VALLEY PRESS DEC 2 0 835 IID balks at extending agreement By PA. RICE . Staff writer . Imperial Irrigation District direc- tors, angered by what they see as the Metropolitan Water Disaict’s at- tempt to change the “Law of the Colorado River,” refused to extend a contract the two agencies had signed to build a cement-lined All-Ameri- can canal. See WATER. A6 Water (ContinuedlromPagel) IID tiirecton cited their concern over MWD’s agreement with the Southern Nevada Water Authority to “share” the water that would be con- served by the cement-lined canal. The board’s decision may have stemmed from what diitors see as attempts by MWD representatives to secure more water for its 16 million customers insix.Southem California counties, as well as recent comments by MWD officials that KID is wast- ing water. “I was very d&u&d by staff at ‘Metropolitan and their total disre- ‘gard for Califor+a agricultu% the opinion of-the gavcrnor of ti state of California and some of the repre- sentatives of the state of Califomi&” said IID Director T+d Lyon.. “As far -as I am* caticemcd. until that staff re- alien that they **part @ the state of Califomiamand w have to come up with a combined ‘solution that meets the one@ of- all ‘parties, I won’t support anything with Meu* pobarl.” MWD officials -were not avail- able for comment today. The lining agr&ment is set to ex- pire Dec. 3 L The Ill) board’s refusal to extend the agreement may’ strain already tense relations that have de- veloped over the last month between MWD and Southern California agri- cultural water districts 7- IID, the Coachella Valley Water District and Palo Verde Inigation District. The board’s action also escalates the pos- sibility a full-blown “water war” will develop and hurts the chances of finding a lasting solution for distrib- uting Colorado River water so agen- cies in California, Nevada and Ari- zona get what they desire. In a letter sent to the board Tues- day, state Scn. David G. Kelley, 37th District. asked LID to not extend the canal-lining agreement. “Given the fact that MWD has created tremendous negative feeling with its recent actions and proposals throughout the state, I feel com- pelled to ask that your board let the current agreement expire,” Kelley wmu. “MWD’s attempt to use the All-American Canal in their p’~- posed arrangement with Nevada has Elated serious and significant re- percussions throughout the state. I have heard from numerous people and groups that share this concern and who are extremely troubled by MWD’s actions. These actions dem- onstrate a total disregard for the many other interests which comprise our sratc” . Kelley represents Imperial-Coun- ty: and portions of San Diego and Riverside counties. 61 a letter to be sent to MWD, IID board President Bill Condit cites concern over MWD’s plan to send ‘California water” to Nevada as one reason the KID board declined to ex- -tend the agreement The letter states hWD’s idea to “share shonages” of Colorado River water with Arizona interests would be detrimental to IID and other Cal- ifornia agencies. Under current law Arizona must reduce its ~-allotment whenever there is not enough water in the river. MWD has proposed both California and Arizona water agencies reduce allotments when there is a shonage. 3n 1993 both Lyon and IID Direc- tor Ralph Menvielle voted against the original canal-lining agreement with MWD. At the time, the two agencies agre-ed to build a 23-mile cement-lined canal parallel to the earthen ditch that is the lifeline of water for the Imperial Valley. Tues- day night all five directors voted against extending the agreement. The board may have been em- boldened by the fact that water agcn- ties other than MWD are.intcrested in forming water conservation part- nerships with IID. ‘. _: The San Diego County Water Au-. thority .and <JID have signed an agreement to negotiate a water trans- fer. “I anticipated IID would react in a way they did by not extending the contract because I understand tba na- ture and depth of their concern. and I am quite disappointed by Met- ropolitan’s conduct to date,” said SDCWA Chairman Mark Watton. 41 . . . IMPElHAl iRRiGATlON OISTFXT NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 20, 1995 CONTACT: Paticia 3rock Warren (619) 339-9417 KID BOARD DECLINES MWD’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ALL-AMERICA! - CANAL LINING AGREEMENT The Imperial Irrigation Distict (IID) Board of Directors voted Tuesday (Dec. 19) to let an a-greement expire for obtaining ne cessary approvals for the a-geement with the Merropolitzn Water District of Southern California (MWD) relating to the construction of a concrete lined Cad ptiel to the existing All-American Canal. The agreement, by its terms, will expire on December 3 1,1995. IID and MWD had spent more than two years assembling an a-geement for the concrere lining project that would conserve approximately 70,000 acre-fee: of water annually. Recently, M?WD announced plans to negotiate an agreement with the Southern Nevada Water Aurhoric (serving Las Vegas) and to share with Nevada the project costs and the consemed water. “We don’t want one or two agencies negotiating water deals without takin,o the rest of us into consideration. The Colorado River’s resources are limited. None of the agencies should be out making deals that could adversely affect the water needs of the other users,” said Bill Condic ITD Board President. Representatives of each of the California water agencies on the Lower Colorado Basin (IID, MWD,’ Coachella Valley Water District and Palo Verde Irrigation District) met in early -more- 42 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT. 333 EAST BARIONI BOULEVARD. P.O. BOX 937. IMPERIAL. CA 92251 . (619) 339-9417 December and a-greed to work in good faith toward a consensus on water management strategies. “We are still committed to that process,” Condit said. “We seiected a facilitator last week and will work through the end of January to hopefully develop a package of Colorado River water management programs on which we can all atigree.” ### - 43 . AZ&:=!+ ;:g f g “p22 c .- -2 3 2.z m- - -0 gg"-;;; ii&,;; 7 n.mo &=a- .l-L CT- .- ;;J= i$i m Jz 2 e: 2 3-= A-r4 w-cl E: w mE=w-= J=oown Tj g ;= -0Ulm \ -, UNION-TRIBUNE. vh/cFi Valley people would rat&r deal ‘VC5 with San Diego,” Condit said. - The Imperial district, the Pal0 Verde Irrigation District near Blythe and the Coachella Valley Water District also contend that transfening a portion of Cdlifor- nia’s Colorado River water to an- other state is a momentous step that should have been widely dis- cussed long before any agreement was signed. ‘The people I am talking to up and down the state are pretty upset about it.” said Sen. Dave Kelley. a Reptblican who represents the threti water districts and a part nf San Diego County. He is a member of the state Senate Agriculture and Water Committee. Because the Nevada deal would also involve basic changes in federal management of the lower Colorado River, Arizona Gov. Fife Symington has threatened to sue California over it. If MWD proceeds with this, I am sure we are going to find 0urseIves back in COUR for years and years to come,’ Kelley said. Gov. Wilson was suffjciently con- tzer~zj tq summon John Wodraska. MRD general manager, and senior staff members to saaamento on Tuesday to brief bim on recent events. Meanwhile, John G&e&i. for- mer California legislator and insur- ance commissioner and now deputy U.S. Secretary of the Interior, re- cently told reporters, The worst thing that could happen is for Southern Califomia to get into a ’ water war, one that could stymie MWD efforts or the San DiegeIm- perial Irrigation District efforts. “It would be a great tragedy to lose this opportunity. We strongly believe it.would be critically impor- tant for California to get its act together.” Not unlike a marriage counselor, Abraham Sofaer, a State Depart- ment staff member when George Shultz was U.S. secretary of state, will soon begin visits to talk individ- ually to managers of the six water districts that hired him. Soon after Jan. 1. he will invite them together to Tacilitated discussions” that are expected to last through Jan. 31. We have to do it.” said MWD spokesman Jay Malinowski. There is too much stuff swirling around here, and I suspect that all of the agencies involvecl probably have not done as good a job commu- nicating with one another as they might have,” he said. 1 suspect this wiII go a long way toward reopening communication.” -_. ~‘sourhcartandsouLThc Mctmpolitan Water District of Southern Wifomia Ins relied on the cdord0 Rkr as its lifeblood since the fitst drops ts~~lcd through dx Cdotado Rkr Aqueduct in 1541. But in 1963. Weuopolian lost half its frm Colorado Rhrr supplies in a legal kdc. The SNM’A will prrnidc $30 million of the funding for the All-American Canal and will rcccivt SO.000 AF per “y of the project’s convrvcd waur. This saved water also prmidcs the impetus to develop other long-term agreemenu. ShX’A and orher rcgknal agencies to store water for kta tnc. thereby prolid- i.ng incenthrs for signSant tnwsuncnu in conscnadon. m An in&mat2 a.Uiantr 0-g .4~3na. &!i~bmi~ and &vada LO SLOW unwed Souhcm St3ada h& cxpcricn&d Sub snncid economic growth in recent dmdca. and its regional economy is cxpccud to prosper in the fkurc. This phenomenal growh ras nor anticipated in 1928. how cwr. when use of the Colorado Rncr KU apporuoneh Ica\ing Se\ada with rights to onh 300.000 acre-feet (.W per year. In a rcccnr aunsnt regional planning procar the Southern Smada Nitcr Authorin (SSKAJ dctcrmincd that addi- tional Calorado Ri\-cr uaur suppiia wrc csenti for the long-term health of the .Soa& cconom\. To+. ?.fcoupoli& and the SL-IV.4 have dtigncd a handful of projects COI- lccmch i;norn as ‘Reliabiiin Plus.‘This ‘. rmcnhip and program rqrcxn t a totic c\cnt in inlcnntc nater csourcc pkuming. Once impicmcntch thcrr projects till oansbrm 50 vurs of unccrnin Colorado Rkr suppiia into 30 ycan of cctinry. Tic projects cmphasuc s~~~tcgics such Y credit for conxnadon investments. sound water managcmcnr and banking poiicics. and ctitcrta to use surpiu rkcr ka~cr. Slcuopolicm has committed mow than 5100 million to pnsjccrs alrcad! wdcrua\. .AJI additional $X0 million bill be invstcd in the Rciiabilim Plus pro-g-tam to ensure a rclhblc natcr sup plv for the w&n economics in the lower Colorado RA-cr rqon. lncludcd in the Reliabilin Plm pm- gram arc: r A ,b~nlmxhip hm hff?n7@iJoIr Od lhf 5\7114 Lo implement a wnsmr2Jion fmgram that amstnrct5 a 920 nrilljotr wndnni mnal pailel lo 23 mib 01 G-u WrlJun -VC.4 mmium Cmaiui~h mop eraion jvm lh Impid hptiotr District (IW)and Gmch& Ii&y llhln District. This cma1 would prolidc n\ings of about tiS.000 AF of hater per year, cur- rcndy losr through seepage. In cxchrsngc for funding the canal consuucrion. Metropolitan and the S?X4 bar Ihe opponunity to udLc the conscncd Mater for 53 wzars Gth an option to rcnw for ano& 55 yeat E An appmfh to opflnut monapnml oflhr Glmcuio RJW lwf.3 m anlnll .i M”O Cdmzdo Rxur mmvm. which urmld $tl! g-mundwcun banns :a aiqmzaon unth thr out when SU@LS U’IIICT is avaahbk and Gntral Anxna N’w tLnwaurrm Drrtnc how unucd uum u apommed ammg wuld takt gmut~ akecp of high-ruatt- A&ma. lZabf& and hmda. Tixsc changes in hvcr operations am expected yan. Currcnd~. hlcmpolicm and the ShX’A each have 5O.ON 3.i stored PROGRAMSTO ENSURE RELlABlLrrY OF COLORADO RIVER WATERSUPPLIES to make additional low~osr rcltcr a\ailablc to ~!cuopolitan and S?X.I with no impacts on other Colorado River water usen Sclada would rccckc the fin1 60.000 .AF. California the scc- ond 60.000 AP of unused Arizona appor- tionmcnt and they would share amounts beyond this underground. whid may be rcco\crcd once surplus rclcasu arc made from LLe ?&ad. K Ttufindjrtg of trat-imu ?mj,~-~ IO COILWW rmfrr, in coopnation srth IW, uk%~ in$mnv 1W 3 distribumn ~~tnn arld on-farm uvur munap.-ni Sea+ TJ.OOO AF per year have been conxncd to date and total annm) wings Gll reach 106,000 AF by 199;. K A jfnpxal lo ulilk rhr v13ratt.f cnpaciq in Caimdo him rntnvin jar water &ding. This would permit Stctropolitan, the 45 c 3 C Thr Polo lirdr Im’prion Disrnct i’& Land Falhir~g Pq-ram: &r;cmr 1992 and I?%. .~lr~rtplitun paid Polo \.kth lblb Ju- lo JOIILW man. ~lron 20.003 ores ojlond. Thar’s abow 22 perccm of Lhe irrigated acrcqc in lhc \3lle\ char surround5 tic tin of B&IX. To bc’uscd on an as-needed basis in Sourhem California. rhc con- served IGIW - ncariy 186,000 AF - is stored currcnrlg in lake Mead for use b) ~lcuopolicsn. L ThcJariiirorion of (I wlrkmntr of a lap standrng dub& tvnurtr ~71~ bnndr oJ Miuwn Ind;am and IL 09 qlLmn&do and I-WLI lmgarm Drrmd. Thus arrulgr- men1 would permit tic ale of 16.000 hF of supplcmcnel uaur annually Lo the San his Rq Rkr Indian Mawr Au’thoriry. Colorado River supplies arc an inwgml pan of Soulhem California’s S-475 billion econorm: which supports nearly 16 million midenu. a population base that cononucs Rtif¶hp¶zipfM ~tcuopohun cu cfexd cn 1925 IO build an aqwdurr from rhr Colotxio RI\ cr 10 die coasul plan of Sourhcm GliiormJ. The sOur.hcm Smad3 \\ur .Aulhonn U;L’ created in 1991 IO respond to NaLcr and wsrcuaur ksua of proving Unpornncc in the Sourhem Scrada arcs Tog&w. rhn are planning for the fucvc. Your suppon ts need4 to sccwc tic inno~xivc Colorado Ever rcsur~e manage- mcnt sua.t~ cncompascd by the Rcliabiliry Plus pmgnm. 1%‘~ YC ar a rurw ing point in rhc mcr’s hlsron - mo\,ng Refiabiiiity Plus l tletropditan Water District 19% ZOlO to grow by about 23O.OOO people annualI\. Bv rhc yzr 4010. Mcuopolinn’s conswncr pop&Con is projccrcd 10 bc almost la.5 millton. liio*isc. this karcr suppi!. is a kf~ factor in rhr grouti of Southern Sk7da.s S20 billron econom\. \$irh up IO 6!I.O00 pcopir annualI\ monng 10 join Lht nrarh I milllor. rcsidcna. b\ t.hr scar 2010 Sourhcrn X;c\ada’s populauon 1s expected IO bc about 2 million. Ic maks economic sense to impiemcnl ksc programs. The awage cost of Lhc uaur is no more than SX/.G. Even lrith the highest componcnr of 51X ‘.iF. Lhc louiosl uatcr from Lhcsc programs Hill sucng-kn no[ onlv the Soulhland’s cconc- m\: bur bill ensure tie condnucd economic \idin- in Southern Se’c\zda. For many yca.rs .\lruopolinn wrL.cd *ith long-range plans hai assumed rhc Colorado River Xqucducr would be onl! half full. .& il turns OUL J,c riwr’s rcscr- vain haw been full or nearly full over Ihe last 10 yzars. pcrmirring all users to contin- UC divcning as much Colorado River \\arcr as nccdcd. Full, ho\revcr, does nor mean reliable. The Colorado Ri\rr Rcliabiliq Plus pre gram assunzs char Lhe supplies will indeed be dependable for rhc next 35 JCUS. Reliable at a rcasonablc COSL from a pcnod oi qon;Li uncce nmn to a pcncr=- rion of ccrzunn The allunrr5 forged Lhrou$ incsc proFm< *ill pro\% secure. afTord;lbir dcil\cncJ o\cr Li?r nest 30 wm. I\? nerd ,011: ~ppo” beaux rhc prvm5 must bc +proicd br Lhr c.s Srcrcnn of Lhc Inurior. 1t.c arr roniidcnr rhr mwxt;llr allnnca and progzuns kc have suncd xc no4 approaches lo\\7rd rnaL.m,e oncr unccruin Colondo ILt\cr suppi~s mow dcpcndzbic. For additional iniormaoon on chic Rcliabilly PILU pro,Tm. CO~UCI Li \‘Yqucr. naan3Fcr 0; .\lcuopoiiun’s po\cmmem a.f!zun 31 (213)2176752 or + Bro*n. &rrcror of public YT\KCS for Soulhem +.2i& \\atcr .%&~onn 31 (iO2125S3263. ,- I- .* MWD hfmmnl\ ., .: 7= s:smzr oi S;RnER’; c.wR..L POST OFFICE BOX 541s LOS ANGELES. Ch -S lE.15 IAIlEnDe UD. WW&.~~sjlj3 46 San Diego County Water Authority P. Public Agency 3211 Fifth Avenue l San Diego, California 92103-5718 (619) 682-4113 FAX (619) 2952815 \‘!S,EST F. !33SDCl II;. ocr!cr.,i c.i cn-c JAMES J. TAYLOR T;i+n. Gcnsll counx4 Y December 19,1995 TO: FROM: RE: Board of Directors Vincent F. Biondo, Jr., General Counsel Questions and Issues Raised by MWD’s New Reliability Program, the Colorado River Board Mediation Process and the Law of the River MWD has announced a new “reliability plus” program, which they claim will ensure a full Colorado River Aqueduct for the next 30 years. The additional water estimated at 429,000 acre feet a year is to come from a combination of “banking” and more “flexible reoperation” of the River. I have previously distributed an extensive memorandum indicating that MWD’s banking objective is not achievable without consent from others and a change in the law of the River. MWD’s lawyers have a contrary view but acknowledge that more Arizona v. California litigation before the Supreme Court may be required before we know who is right. The last round took 12 years from 1952 to 1964 to resolve. Nevertheless, to achieve its objective, MWD is committing now to supply up to 16,000 acre feet in perpetuity to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority. A second element to the program, which was approved at the December 12, 1995 MWD Board meeting is a sale of MWD’s fourth priority rights to the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) in an annual amount of 30,000 acre feet. The Authority’s Special Counsel and I think the SNWA “deal” will also require a change in the law of the River and the consent and approval of IID, Coachella and Palo Verde, who have all expressed serious concerns. The Authority staff shares many of those concerns and prepared a list of questions on the sale to SNWA (Attachment A). It seems to me t,hat MWD’s priority water should not be given away without answering those questions and that the questions need to be addressed in the mediation process. The justification offered by MWD for the sale of water to the San Luis Rey Indians and SNWA is that it is necessary to secure their support for banking and reoperation of the River. However, none of that can be accomplished without the consent of Arizona, which has announced grave concerns. MWD’s staff stated their MEMBER AGENCIES CITIES .&.eh’-. .: ,,‘,:.. ~...yyr (., . “cr., 0 . iv*:. . ,, _ :a”;; COlJNrY . >,l “. -. .,L lRRlGAlfON DISTRICTS WATER DISTRICTS - xmu Fe * ii.:n 80. . Helm” . OI”, . ..,.- . *or Dleq”,‘o 47 . ‘Vd?mO, PUBLIC IJTILfTY DlSTRfCT FEDERAL AGENCY . ia ‘CiiC. . ie”d,?*or h,hlO,” i.,*r,o.,r- “r*..-ry cr; RL< ,‘:E; DLDCJ MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTS . C”rl.Doa . sonlooo . Ol’renno~r . Pmon del Dml,r. . Pmw Dam . “ollcr ‘enlrr . PO,“,,,~ - Yumo Board of Directors December 19, 1995 Page 2 intention to deal with those concerns by a further gift of MWD’s fourth priority water to Arizona through a pledge to share future shortages. That would reverse California’s priority gained in 1963 as a result of Arizona v. California and remove the consideration received for California’s consent in 1968 to the legislation authorizing construction of the Central Arizona Project. That is a fundamental change of the law of the River, which would give up long-term rights in return for possible short-term advantages. The purpose of this memorandum is to raise some additional questions on MWD’s action and the two assumptions, which underlie MWD’s program: 1) the amount of water available in the River, and 2) the amount of additional supplies for the coastal plain of California that allegedly can be made available through banking and reoperation. Unless MWD’s assumptions about those matters are true, everything they are giving away as discussed above is to no good purpose. Some of the questions that need to be addressed in that regard are as follows: 1. MWD assumes that Colorado River has an average 16 million acre feet per year available. The Grand Canyon Trust is on record that “seriously overestimates the size of the pie from which slices can be cut”. The Trust has concluded that “the Colorado River is drastically over-allocated.” How can MWD or the mediation process go forward without agreement on the amount of water available in the River? The first step in a legal process is to determine the facts, and it doesn’t appear that has been adequately done. 2. Until 60 days ago, all of MWD’s experts, General Managers and General Counsels were in agreement that when Arizona began using its full allocation, the aqueduct would be half empty. It is not clear what has changed that enables MWD to give Arizona and Nevada substantial amounts of its existing priorities and thereby claim they have guaranteed a full aqueduct. 3. MWD’s estimate that 429,000 acre feet per year can be made available is based on a draft memorandum from a staff member in a division of the Bureau of Reclamation. Discussions at the Colorado River Board indicates the new methods of operation are unacceptable to IID, Coachella and Palo Verde, and the memorandum has been recalled by the Bureau. The shape of the new rules for the River remains under discussion in the three-state process, and the outcome of those discussions is unclear. MWD appears to have based its program on a quantity of water which is not yet even risen to the level of being the staff recommendation from the Bureau and which is unacceptable to the parties with rights on the River. 4. A news release from Secretary Babbitt says he will consider the banking of conserved water, specifically referencing the All American Canal Project (AAC), and while supporting consensus hints he may be willing to go forward notwithstanding a lack of agreement (Attachment B). MWD is trying to get the Secretary’s agreement to bank an additional 106,000 acre feet of water from the IID conservation program. MWD acknowledges this part of their “deal’4k the most uncertain. If the opposition - . Board of Directors . December 19, 1995 Page 3 from the other California contractors and Arizona makes this water unavailable, they are left with the AAC that will only produce 67,000 acre feet. Deducting 16,000 for the Indians and 30,000 for Nevada, that would allow MWD to bank 21,000 acre feet per year, which cannot make up for the 30,000 acre feet of entitlement water, which MWD has agreed to forego to facilitate the transaction. 5. MWD estimates the amount of conserved water available to MWD for banking each year at 144,000 acre feet. That has been questioned, and it is possible _ 50,000 acre feet or more may have to go to Coachella to secure their approval. Even if MWD wins the fight for banking and is right about the amount, the conserved water seems inadequate to fill the void that will be left when Arizona reclaims its water. The MWD program depends on the Secretary’s approval of more than conserved water and includes banking of surplus water and the reoperation of the River. It is uncertain that the Secretary intends to go beyond acting on the transfer of conserved water. He has stated there will not be any “takings” of anyone’s water on his watch and that all rights would be protected. While the conserved water may meet the needs of the Indians and Nevada, it’s unclear how it can meet MWD’s desire for a full aqueduct. 6. Even if MWD is correct, they admit their “solution” is good for a maximum of 30 years. The program does not explain what happens after that. The priorities will be gone, and their permanent replacement has not been identified. It is not clear how that meets the region’s long-term reliability needs. 7. MWD’s alleged rights to bank water run only to its entitlements. Adding conserved AAC water doesn’t seem to make up what will be lost in the assignment of MWD’s entitlements to Nevada and Arizona. It is unclear how MWD can bank its entitlement and use it at the same time. It appears MWD needs to use Arizona’s surplus water. Estimates are that surplus will become unavailable in 2009. If Arizona pumps its entitlement for groundwater recharge, the surplus may be gone before 2009. It seems to me, in either case, that MWD’s withdrawals from the bank would empty the account in a few years. MWD has not shown how its numbers “add up’ to meet the claim of reliability. 8. The law authorizing the San Luis Indian settlement and the AAC limits use of the water to California’s coastal plain. The assignment of water from the AAC appears to violate that law. Section 132 of MWD’s Act limits water sales outside the District to surplus. MWD has no surplus, especially since their Board has notified SDCWA’s agricultural customers of a possible cut-off due to shortages. Even if MWD can find some surplus water, Section 132 requires “preference” to uses within the District, which it appears MWD has violated by rejecting the Chair’s request that the Nevada deal be continued to give the SDCWA time to consider making an offer to purchase the water. MWD’s legal ability to implement its new policy has not been addressed. 49 Board of Directors December 19, 1995 Page 4 The Authority shares MWD’s goals. However, the people who built the system and brought water to Southern California fought long and hard legal battles to secure California’s priorities. Even with that, it is open to question if there is enough water to go around for the future. MWD appears to be giving up those priorities in return for a hope that additional supplies will be given to them sometime in the future. Supplies, which based on the information available to me may not exist. As presently proposed, litigation appears likely. MWD appears ready to buy Arizona’s acquiescence by giving up California’s priority. It is understandable that Arizona would be willing to trade short-- term surplus water that they are not in a position to use in return for a new priority which they do not now have, that will guarantee them water when their increasing needs bump up against the shortage situation on the River. It appears that MWD may be buying a short-term gain at the cost of long-term reliability and doing that without answering the questions we have raised. MWD’s actions, which they claim have solved the reliability problem, instead, may have made it worse. The California contractors, MWD, IID, PVID and Coachella, with the City of Los Angeles and the SDCWA, are members of the Colorado River Board (CRB). They have also contracted to act together to protect their common interests on the River through the six-agency committee. The concerns raised by MWD’s new policy will be subjected to mediation by the committee, and a recommendation on the results will be sent to the CRB. The effort is being made to avoid litigation and preserve the ability for California to “speak with one voice” on the River. The CRB staff has prepared a draft dated December 13, 1995 of the identified issues from the discussion at the December 7, 1995 meeting in Las Vegas (Attachment C). Bob Campbell and I will be representing the SDCWA in the mediation scheduled for January 4 and 5, 1996. It is our intention to raise the questions in this memorandum and the SDCWA’s interest in the IID water transfer as a part of the discussion of the identified issues. There are serious doubts that MWD’s policy can be “squared” with the law of the River. Directors at the December 14, 1995 Board meeting indicated an interest in gaining a better understanding of that law. Attached is a draft of Chapter Ten, “The Law of the Colorado River,, which was included in a new book, California Wafer by Arthur L. Littleworth and Eric L. Garner, published by the Solano Press (Attachment D). I have consulted with Mr. Littleworth in the past, and he was kind enough to send me an advance copy of Chapter Ten, so it can be shared with the Board without violating any copyright laws. Mr. Littleworth has done an excellent job of summarizing the litigious history of the River, and I recommend that every member of the Board carefully read Chapter Ten. That will help explain words like “fourth priority water,, and “present perfected rights” that have been heard in the boardroom. It will also help to understand that we are now engaged in writing the next section of the chapter on “The Law of the River,,. As Mr. Littleworth explains on page 299, the May 6, 1994 draft regulations from the Bureau for the Colorado River include some of MWD’s ideas for “banking” and “reoperation”. They are under discussion a;$ have become controversial because, as _- Board of Directors December 19, 1995 Page 5 he says, “some experts also question the Secretary’s authority to allow water banking and transfers generally without certain changes in the law of the River.” Those questions lie at the heard of my concerns with MWD’s new policy and provide the legal context for the mitigation process. The “bottom line,” as I see it, is that MWD’s new policy is an attempt to expand its priority and legitimize the use of Arizona’s water. History shows similar changes in the law of the River have only been achieved after protracted litigation. Consensus is a- possible alternative, but MWD voted on December 12, 1995 to move ahead with the Nevada agreement, despite requests from the SDCWA and IID, for a “time-out,” which seems inconsistent with a good faith effort to achieve consensus. All of these problems could be avoided if MWD would take a different approach. The IID transfer is a reliability alternative entirely within California’s 4.4 million acre-foot entitlement. Intrastate transfers that are acceptable to the California contractors have been done before and would not require a change in the law of the River. As a legal matter, it is a much simpler transaction with a higher chance of success without litigation. After reading Chapter Ten, if you have any questions, please let me know. If anyone wants to read the “raw material;” that is, the primary agreements and the cases, which make up the “Law of the River,,, they are available in the office. General Counsel VFB:ps Attachments cc: John Lockwood Maureen Stapleton Bob Campbell Gordon Hess H: \WORDd\BOARD. 95\ADHOC.DOC 51 ,- Attachment A Questions of Due Diligence for the MWD Board of Directors Regarding the Approval of WP&R Item 8-12. (u/12/95) 1. Does Metropolitan have the authority to sell this water to SNWA? How can the 30,000 a.f. be used in Nevada without violating federal law? PL 100-675 Sec. 204 (b) provides for “beneficial use in California” and specifically requires ‘consumptive use by California Contractors within their service areas.” The MOU states that MWD receives the canal lining water and that MWD provides other water to Nevada. That, of course is an obvious subterfuge, and wouldn’t such a transparent mechanism violate the Act. Is selling fourth priority Colorado River water consistent with the contract with the Secretary of Interior? Doesn’t the contract with the Secretary require that fourth priority water be used on the coastal plain of Southern California? Is legislation required to allow the SNWA to receive this water? Doesn’t MWD’s Act (Section 132) restrict the sale of water supplies outside its sehrice territory to surplus supplies? - 2. The MOU provides that “The parties hereby establish a long-term partnership for the purpose of securing additional long term reliable supplies of Colorado River water.” What are the legal and policy implications of entering into a “partnership,, with the SNWA? What does a partnership mean? Does MWD have a duty to disclose information? Does MWD have a duty to be involved in SNWA’s long term planning efforts? Does it have a duty of financial support? Does it have a duty to politically support SNWA? How will MWD resolve any conflicts between the states of California and Nevada where interstate issues are normally examined? Is there a conflict between MWD’s fiduciary responsibilities to its member agencies and its new out-of-state partner? 3. How will the agreement be viewed by the State of California, including the Governor, State Senate and Assembly? Who has MWD contacted regarding this agreement, and what has been their reaction? Is MWD aware that it proposes to sell to SNWA the State of California’s right to water? What input has been received by MWD staff or Directors regarding how this agreement will impact the Bay Delta process? Shouldn’t MWD allow for broad policy input before it acts to make this historic change of direction? 4. Given that MWD believes that is already has a right to bank water on the Colorado River, what consideration is MWD receiving for 30,000 a.f. of fourth priority water, other than “support” for the September 27, 1995 USBR discussion memo? Doesn’t Nevada already have every incentive to support the memo’s principles anyway? If water is available from reoperation of the river, why doesn’t MWD support Nevada’s effort to persuade the USBR to reoperate the river, without giving up its fourth priority water supplies? 5. Why is MWD so anxious to forge ahead with this agreement over the objections of the other Colorado river interests including IID, PVID and Coachella? Is this in MWD’s best long term interests? Shouldn’t MWD make an effort to resolve its California interests and differences first? 6. Why is MWD moving forward without seeking input from northern California interests, including elected officials, environmental interests, and other - affected interests? Is MWD aware there are grave concerns that this action will hurt its efforts in achieving Bay Delta solutions upon which its water supply future depends? 7. Will other California parties believe that MWD has come to the table in good faith to negotiate with them, if MWD has already signed the MOU agreement with another state? How can Nevada’s support create the consensus necessary to achieve MWD’s goals on the River if it comes at the cost of losing the support of a majority of the Colorado River Board and the six parties? 8. Why isn’t the MWD Board willing to defer action for 30 days to permit the San Diego County Water Authority or other interested agencies within California to meet the offer of the SNWA to share the cost of AK lining and thereby receive the 30,000 a.f.? This would solve MWD’s cost sharing problem and keep the water within California as well. MWD member agencies have heavy historical investments in MWD and should have the first opportunity to participate with MWD in the lining project under the same terms offered the SNWA. 9. If legislative hearings are set to review the MOU, is the MWD Board sufficiently informed to explain the purpose and value of this transaction? 10. Why is MWD proposing to sell water to Nevada when because of possible shortages MWD has given notice to agricultural water users throughout its service area that their water supply is subject to total interruption? Where is the equity and where is the logic in such a decision? 11. As a “partner” of Nevada, wouldn’t MWD will be obligated to support Nevada in its efforts to get Virgin River water? Yesterday a Director described a dam on the Virgin River as bad. Why should MWD sign an MOU that has language that requires it to support such a project? Shouldn’t the Virgin River be specifically excluded? If MWD is concerned that Nevada may dam the Virgin River then doesn’t this agreement really say “In order to prevent Nevada from stealing Colorado River supplies, lets give it to them?,, 53 12. Aren’t the SNWA and San Luis Rey Indian agreements a defacto annexation of southern Nevada and the San Luis Rey Indian lands? How is tnis expansion of MWD’s service territory consistent with MWD’s Local Resources Program in which member agencies’ money is used to make payments to certarn member agencies to reduce their demand on MWD. !3. MWD has not yet addressed the Arizona situation. isn’t it likely that MWD will waive it priority over the Central Arizona Project, in order to get Arizona to approve banking? The banking described cannot fill the aqueduct for more than 30 years. Would not MWD give up a long term priority to gain a short run benefit? Isn’t it true that if MWD would somehow get a long term benefit, Arizona - would not agree to it? Please explain this. What is MWD’s strategy if MWD’s action results in a new of Arizona vs. California? 54 - Tr a &Cress ‘,C &)l= “&li;=liQ ~~~~~~ ii==*= zSt=S >Asc=L&=ic= ‘-c k ilz VW: T--ad c- =fe=L- -w--B - c-w-- car7atryy 3rye s-+-F; ‘,t p-+ r,2:=- for c ==-&- e-z2 ci c3o~E-c=iu~ CCL - - ‘Ivc,it’ fgLIS;~“pzi~C =~c=~ SZEEeaS 0-r f&e 13%-e= Cclor,(y :dvpT -p e - . =,2++d=t F>Scy~S~< - z-s=---” r’c= +;.r Icya -Sk -L-=x, & -- =k&, cc-Ye & s~c;~~~zs t”~ ‘ss-c= e-2 &2-q+- ;Sccce fz= LF .plTI -;E =;le to ‘77t pe zpeic cf ;1-: its c<ti=e”c * ” y-,’ q 23E=Cz.r> -=otii, ,’ 1$-l-& -LE ~E-$-F~S~ c~~s~~E~G=ic= -- OE z@iczticzs -v- -- zrr- &,+ Ii’-: jrr~v.-----,‘: - 1 STC ,--:; er .-;,-G1v= yr= --- ---- ---- w_ C=zC=,-16 -*-c’,=r &c-$pa b>= s=lr?s 0: +g lc;-z= C4crc~.s 3zs*, ->=izc=s, C~i~.fo~~~, zs ~e;~~~: -d>ic= S;>c- mxeF<r‘ff ;xter CSClf ;i_cg be j&cecl, (sic=yL f== fyt-..s -yt;, i= k-E pki,- JF e--i : ; zci;, s.LLcI? fT-C?Tc- ‘5 ------s_ i-L-- c’;y +5= c,cy-Lc=ez +s S>C:rLV I-E;- S~cr_szrctFcz >roj EC’LS f 2.F’naca 72; S-;?T?-S cr’” -52 =’ izlz _ ;;c ci c.. ,.Lzy crc.=‘- m---i -a--- ----- _ bbci=, s,:,c==z.f”-s zc p7=~,‘~Gcf~g . .---- -c-z CZZ.SEFw-cilCS ;'C CcegErEticr 6.: - ;=czir L-Z states. n &;,:;-; - - sz:.: _ "C&T'E-', t., s-..c ;_~~sp-‘=a= F--CT -- -m ,-o-et= e= rigkts of 21 5=2.5gs ;lrf ;:1 >s,-s. -- -'---ci ir C' -L---CC---, ->e ssti sko-AE bs k&e ac";sve-;zr cf CO~.~+F.~IJ~ -wt.3 if:.?<r, sac ='"siic 21 sc;tes of tie' Ccls,yCr, z:,lva- &;- fl -. 0 T .*-FL1 lo& -,;,f-;I fy;or -c;c= . - tE-cF(--io-S I-&t ;=e FiCL= ---=y-.~y q-c& zo, =TE -2;: & 10: ;&Jx;CL-=? ;f?act tha P'zjtlagzt cf C'>?T cscs, z s;'->itt sz.le* 7-a e-w first r,~gl=~yor v<e:,I' ?-S r?zC- -25 ~eT~t~L/ k'3.?75 '& 2 _uL'j-uys& i2-z t-e ye==op$Y~~ i;a=tr zis=r<c= o=' "-,--nr- d-----b-- C=l~fCIl~2 jg clown =O CC'Ee~== '-=t== ~=~sP-tL~ l~S= i'-,SilG~ s~e+~E b>- 1: -1: ~'5 t& &Ll-*=&=r C---r 7 , .==< .v=&t-~~~.= of t-e c--c'= -Jet' iuzt=- u-b -- -se --<.cc b LY<E &~a+~ for Lzt& a;r i= sf-*=ez - 'd-+CZY -A- --= ccc, NE-J&& wy'i"'lc ,u--,' _ c 5-t c=' -‘ne z-pf 1: -: 'C ..=.- ccst. >,o;-jc F"= of +22 ?,+Z'= -&O-GLC be -SF: to s2==15 -;e f---F '7s cr =Le sz 7.r1-i 3 +z T,>r-:'=- p&zttr p-==D+zy i= 3,--.Lk*, f-- c-' ' :-- -/ .A , .’ - , _ - ap&sLteC 33 oqo&q eff,-=-Ls to states, kc'ltntnr 71-77 c3=:=":72 of E - kwer 3as-52 TeahnicaL Cf&zitcep_ fczied -tibA r2presszratives iron t& 24 7r.7~, wifoFi= ,!' Se%.&, lcwer &s-k p+ii-s~ trijes, 112 tie ECtzczalz of *CT gqtim. Desiite thtt eEfos, talks 2ujseciexly Sro3Kr du-a.ii =7r1 kY.Lzoiz &cl;>&, 5lrtkz ;Z-ticLzt cion ia '32.at pgcess. s&bit- * . L nctea &at $+P i?.S, Sqrerze Cc5,z-t found -At Ccq=ess %L& vest& tie Secretez wit;, s~ff'5c.i mlt s.at5arity to rmase +"e avs 5 .&I ji:s =:2Cts nof& +hcia&s- -ae ,e=&~c * TPPP-:'~~~~D. of--t& cy&j;luimz iz&llitv 05 '&e tl-,-oe Sfa;t~ - - - d-;-e to Eisd c-gmu.n~* ,, :. . . X0 a3olFcatiozl kas 'Get bee- yesexed cc -tie Sececzy. x0 -- deci.slo--s 0~ 3cy s;artLcl;-ar ?ro-,csalo ‘"?v= l yr= bee- z<= 3y tk= .i . Cep2z.z -- =c- :: Tkzt are tocls 5~ " ctz ym-zg=eJlt, i-r7 uens CO~CTr&=FO1, kas~s, &d volu=e=y traaszc, w-ti& =zy I)rcTi& fOZ iztzesed water su+~ tc tkcst 2ze.3 ~,P'L Fr! x02," ZcGbitt aLC. ">,?i I, , . -, ; - WUT~ w&id Lest tzh plrce ~2% 211 tie s'kiity a= e tz“c'-g _ I p+I of bzrse take zto accc12t 2.2 -,';,c-4s of =21 ec.c,r -,cs jJ l&e la-de?:, hsb, a(? I -7f-P -milt ze';<er EC COzEllt cz ELiI tits? zx$zs. n : . :. 4. --gc*-- . . .* -. . . -. 56 -- __----. -__ draft 12/13/95 Attachment C . IDENTIFIED ISSUES 1) How are agricultural agencies protected against unforeseen consequences of MWD's action and what is the definition of - B'no-harm/no-foullt (ie. what constitutes llharmedlt?) 2) Will there be increased political pressure in the future for agriculture agencies to give up some of their water for municipal uses, as a potential result of 1) MWD's shortage sharing with* CAP and/or 2) MWD selling to Nevada part of the 68,000 af of saved water by the AA canal lining project? Is this a risk that the agricultural agencies will accept? 3) Can shortage sharing changes be accomplished without amending the 1968 Act? Does it matter, if Arizona would settle for nothing less? Are there any conditions under which agricultural agencies would accept amending the 1968 act? 4) Are changes in the 1964 decree in Arizona vs. California acceptable to all of the California parties if such changes are required to implement the Regional Solution? 5) Are any changes in the +jLaw of the River" acceptable to the 57 -. California parties? What are they and how would such changes be accomplished? 6) Is up to 30,000 af of water made available to Nevada under the MWD/SNWA MOU a legal transfer of water ? What kind of water is being transferred? Is the proposed transfer prohibited under terms .of the legislation authorizing the AA Canal lining? Is it prohibited _ insofar as it is a transfer of San Luis Rey settlement water? Is it a legal transfer (ie. by forbearance) of Priority IV water? Is such a transfer acceptable to the California parties? 7) MWD's banking rights under 1931 contract: Can San Luis. Rey settlement agreement constitute an establishment of guidelines (criteria) by the Secretary under that 1931 contract such as to allow MWD to bank water (of any or all of the four types being proposed) in the mainstream? (ie. 1) All-American Canal water, 2) PVID test fallowing water, 3) IID's Phase I water, and 4) Salinity control water) 8) Is the San Luis Rey Settlement an appropriate way to establishing banking when it only applies to MWD and no one else? Should banking only be authorized pursuant to an overall regional solution applicable to all parties and via an open, public process? 9) Is it acceptable to negotiate individual components of any -Regional Solution vs. an‘Overal1 Package 58 . . 10) Can a unified California position be achieved without CVWD receiving a guaranteed share of 3.85 maf agricultural entitlement? 11) Should intrastate wheeling of water be addressed as part of the overall package? 12) Does MWD's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) prohibit intrastate _ and interstate transfers from the Colorado River? Does this need to be addressed as part of any Regional Solution, and if so, how? 59 Attachment D CHAPTER TEN The Law of the Colorado River Introduction The Colorado River is the second longest river in the continental The Colorado Ricer is the second longest United States. Its characteristics were eloquently summarized by ricer in the contmentai L’.S. and drains Justice Black in his opinion in Arizona ~7. California (1963) 373 an area almos& 900 miles long and 300 to 500 miles in width. U.S. 546- The Colorado River itself rises in the mountains of Colorado and flows generally in a southwesterly direction for about 1.300 miles through Colorado. Utah, and Arizona and along the Arizona- Nevada and Arizona-California boundaries, after which it passes into Mexico and empties into the Mexican waters of the Gulf of California. On its way to the sea it receives tributary waters from Wyoming. Colorado, Utah, Nevada. New Mexico. and Arizona. The river and its tributaries flow in a natural basin almost surrounded by large mountain ranges and drain 242,000 square miles, an area about 900 miles long from north to south and 300 to 500 miles wide from east to west-practically one-twelfth the area of the continental United States excluding Alaska. Much of this large basin is so arid that it is, as it always has been. largely dependent upon managed use of the waters of the Colorado River System to make it productive and inhabitable. Arizona. page 552. The Colorado River Basin is divided into two regions, the upper and lower basins. This division came about as a result of a proposal by Herbert Hoover, the federal representative at the Colorado River Compact negotiations. This proposal was developed because the states in what became the upper basin were concerned that the 60 lower basin states would put Colorado River water to beneficial use before the upper basin and thus develop a priority- The major legal dispute lies benveen the upper and lower basin. Indeed all the problems very naturally divided themselves into tvvo parts-that is into the two basins of the river separated by the canyon. The character of agriculture. industry, and the engineer- ing problems in the two basins are of widely different nature. and it became the natural and logical thing to divide the Colorado River into two parts at the canyon. and to assign to each part a certain portion of the flow of the river permanently, and to develop the two basins as two separate principalities.’ The Upper Basin consists of the area The Upper Basin consists of the Colorado River and its tributaries upstream of Lee Ferry; the Upper Basin states are Utah. Colorado. and Wyoming. north of Lee Ferry, Arizona, and encompasses the states of Utah. The Lower Basin states are .Verada. Colorado, and Wyoming. The river and its tributaries drain approx- Arizona A’ew Mexico. and Catifornia. imately 110.000 square miles within the upper basin. The three primary tributary rivers of the Colorado River in the upper basin are the Green, Gunnison. and San Juan rivers. The lower basin consists principally of two rivers, the Colorado River and the Cila River. and encompasses portions of Nevada. Arizona, New Mexico, and Cali- fornia. Most of the water supply of the lower basin comes from the waters of the upper basin. The waters of the Colorado River are governed by various treaties, acts of Congress, compacts, agreements, and contracts. which collectively are known as the ‘Law of the River.” This chapter will summarize the Law of the River as it affects California and w-ill give the reader an understanding of how and why the waters of the Colorado River are allocated as they are. The Colorado River Compact Between 1918 and 1920, an organization called the League of the Southwest held several meetings at which the governors of Arizona. California. Nevada. New Mexico, Oklahoma (Wyoming was later sub- stituted for Oklahoma). Texas, and Utah were represented. One topic at these meetings was the development of the waters of the Colorado River by the Reclamation Service (which later became the Bureau of Reclamation). The upper basin states feared that the lower basin states would use tbe Colorado River’s waters sooner. Under the doctrine of prior appropriation, this would allow the lower basin ’ Wilbur and Ely, The Hoocvrr Dam Documents (19481 page 22. citing “Transactions of the Commonwealth Club uf California.’ volume 17. number 11. page 451. 61 210 ~~.~~OttNl4 w.\T,?,q states to develop a priority. The upper basin states believed they had only two ways to protect them- selves: 0) a Supreme Court lawsuit based on the doctrine of equitable apportionment (to avoid prior appropriation); or (2) an interstate compact that was not based on the doctrine of prior appropriation2 In 1920, the League of the Southwest adopted a resolution that the states whose territory ivas included within the drainage of the Colorado Riv-er should enter a compact to settle the rights of the use of the Lvater of the Colorado River. This resolution also suggested that each state legislature appoint a commissioner to represent that state in negotiations and agreement on a compact. In that same year. the legislatures of Colorado River flowmg the seven states authorized the appointment of commissioners and :mough the Grand Canyon negotiation of a compact, and in 1921 Congress authorized the nego- tiation of the Colorado River Compact. Negotiations on the compact began in January 1922 under the direction of the federal repre- sentative to the Colorado River Commission, Herbert Hoover. The primary goal of the Colorado River Compact vvas to provide storage needed for flood protection in the lower basin. and to allow junior appropriators in the upper basin to divert water. The compact is perhaps the most important element of the Law of the River. and its key provisions are discussed briefly below. Interstate water disputes historically have been settled on the basis of the doctrine of equitable apportionment. The origin of the doctrine dates back to Kansas u. Colorado (1907) 206 C.S. 46.3 That case set forth the basis for equitable apportionment- One cardinal rule. underlying all the relations of the states to each other, is that of equality of right. Each state stands on the same level with all the rest. It can impose its own legislation on one of the others, and is bound to yield its own v-ievvs to none. Yet. when- ever.. . the action of one state reaches. through the agency of natural laws. into the territory of another state. the question of the extent and the limitations of the rights of the two statep becomes a matter of justiciable dispute between them. and this court is called upon to settle that dispute in such a \vay as h-ill recognize the equal rights of both and at the same time establish justice between them. Kansas u. Colorado (1907 206 C.S. 46. 97-98. z Wilbur and Ely. pages 17-19: 3 Sax and arams. Legal Control of Water Resources. 19%. page 698. 62 “I r ,., 1’ I . 1 8 In Wyoming u. Colorado (1922) 259 U.S. 419. the court’s decree protected the priorities of the individual state law appropriators, regardless of state lines. Wyoming, page 465. The impact of this decision was described by the Colorado River Commissioner for the State of Colorado- The upper state has but one alternative, that of using every means to retard development in the lower state until the uses within the upper state have reached their maximum. The states may av_oid this unfortunate situation by determining their respective rights by interstate compact before further development in either state, thus permitting freedom of development in the lower state without injury to future growth in the upper.” After the decision in Wyoming v. Colorado. the upper basin states believed it was imperative to enter into a compact. The 1924 interstate compact divided the The compact was sined on November 22, 1924. and its provi- Colorado River System between the Upper and Lower Basins. Ari:ona refused to sions are described below. The compact was the Iirst one ever to be approve the Compact until 194-I. approved by Congress, and the first time the federal government i 1’ iI .‘. :*i-- & CALIFORNIA WAT,‘R had ever subjected the exercise of federal powers to the terms of an interstate compact. Article I outlines the purposes of the compact- The major purposes of this compact are to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System: to establish the relative importance of different bene- ficial uses of water; to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin, the storage of its waters. and the protection of life and property from floods. To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two Basins, and an apportionment of the use of part of the water of the Colorado River System is made to each of them with the provision that further equitable apportionments may be made.5 Article II is the definitional section. Article II (a) defines the ‘Colorado River System” to include the portion of the river and its tributaries in the United States. Article II (b) defines the “Colorado River Basin” to include ail of the drainage area of the Colorado River System and all other territory in the United States where the waters of the Colorado River System are beneficially applied. Article II (0 defines the “upper basin” to include the portions of Arizona, Colo- rado, New Mexico, Utah. and Wyoming from which waters naturally 4 Wilbur and Ely. pages Al& 22. 30. ’ Wilbur and Ely. page A18. 63 drain into the Colorado River System above Lee Ferry, Arizona. The upper basin also includes al1 parts of these states located outside the Colorado River System drainage which are beneficially served by waters diverted from the system above Lee Ferry. According to Article II (g). the ‘Lower Basin” consists of the portions of Arizona. California, Nevada, New Mexico. and Utah from which waters drain into the Colorado River System below Lee Ferry. The lower basin also includes all parts of those states located outside the Colorado River System drainage which are beneficially served by waters diverted from the system below Lee Ferry. Article III apportions the waters of the Colorado River. Article III(a) allocates in perpetuity to both the upper basin and the lower basin the right to a beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet of water each year. .\dditionally, Article III(b) gives the lower basin the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use by up to 1 million acre-feet per year. .%-title III(d) requires the upper basin to release 75 million acre-feet of water during each ten-year period at Lee Ferry, Arizona. Water to satisfy the requirements of a Mexican water treaty would come from the surplus waters, and if no surplus waters existed. the two basins would have their rights equally reduced. titicle III(c). In 1944, the United States and Mexico negotiated a water treaty con- cerning the Colorado River. The treaty obligated the United States to deliver to Mesico 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year and up to 1.7 million acre-feet of water in surplus years.(j As we look at the situation today, it is important to note that the compact apportioned not only the mainstream supply. but also tributary flows. Herbert Hoover, in his analysis of the compact, stated that the term “Colorado River System” covered the entire river and its tributaries.’ On this basis, it is also clear that the parties believed the supply was large enough to satisfy the appor- tionments and still have some surplus. Indeed, from 1906 to 1921 the average natural flow of the river was 18.1 million acre-feet. However, natural flows from 1906-1990 were only 15.2 r&ion acre- feet.s Hoover himself estimated the undivided surplus of annual flow ’ Wilbur and Ely. pages Z-26. .-\HSl-ASS.2. ’ The Hoover Dam Documents. pages A33436 R Smith and Vaughn. ‘Deconstructing the Colorado River: Part 1. LVater Strategist.” 1994, 7 I\‘nter Strategist. page 4. Lake Powell located in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River The Compact apportions i.5 million acre- feet of consumptire use per year to both the L’pper Basin and the Lower Basin. and giaes the Lower Basin the right to increase its use by up to I million acre- feet annually. The I’pper Basin is required to release 75 million acre-feet over each IO-year period al Lee Ferry. 64 (‘h:tptclr IO Thv Inrlq r~l’tlrr~ (‘olw-ndr, Hir*r*r :!q(R - I \ - The Compact appears to haue ooeresti- to be approximately 5 million acre-feet. Of course, later developments mated the long-term supply now available. also excluded tributary flows from the allocation process, and it appears that in the long run it will be shortages, not surpluses. that cause a problem. Article VIII of the compact states that “present perfected rights” are not impaired by the compact. Remarkably, this phrase was not defined in the compact. It refers to rights which have vested by being put to benencial use prior to the Boulder Canyon Project Act according to the law of the state. - Article XI required all seven states and Congress to ratify the Colorado River compact for it to become effective, but Arizona refused to give its approval until 1944.9 Federal Legislation Leading to the Boulder Canyon Project Act In 1904, the Mexican government approved the delivery of Colorado River water diverted from \Iexico and carried through the Alamo Canal, located in Mesico. to the United States. Almost immediately there were problems with levee breaks and with Mexican laws that impeded levee and canal maintenance.*O This situation spurred calls for a canal located entirely within the United States to divert and deliver Colorado River water. but it quickly became clear that this proposal would never come to fruition without federal legisla- tion. The first Kettner Bill 1H.R. No. 6044. 66th Cong.. 1st Sess. (191911 authorized the construction of such an All-American Canal. Although hearings were held on the bill, it did not come to a vote. The second Kettner Bill (H.R. No. 11553, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. (19201) included provisions for storage reservoirs and an All- American Canal. This bill was never enacted either.” The Kinkaid Act, approved on May 18, 1920. authorized a study of the Imperial Valley to determine the feasibility of irrigation in the area. The resulting study became known as the Fall-Davis Report, which was submitted to Congress on February 28. 1922. It recommended the construction of the All-American Canal and a storage reservoir at or near Boulder Canyon. Two months later, the first Swing-Johnson bill (H.R. No. 11449, 67th Cong.. 2d Sess. (19221). authorizmg construction of the All-American Canal and a dam at or near Boulder Canyon. was introduced to carry out the recommen- dations of the Fall-Da\-& Report. Hearings were held on the bill, but it was not voted on. The second Swing-Johnson bill (H.R. No. 2903. ” Wilbur and Ely. pages .421-.X4. ‘e Wilbur and Ely. pages 115-l 16. I’ Wilbur and Ely. pages 14-16. 65 68th Cong.. 1st Sess. (1923)) contained provisions similar to those in the first Swing-Johnson bill, and it met the same fate.*” These bills generated a great deal of controversy. Arizona’s unrelenting opposition to the compact meant that it could not be ratilied. The upper basin states feared that if Congress passed river control legislation before the compact was ratified, California would be free to take as much water as it wanted. The upper basin states wanted Congress to allow the compact to become effective with the approval of sis states and to require California to limit itself to a specific amount of water. Ultimately. this solution prevailed.13 The third Swing-Johnson bill (H.R. So. 6251, 69th Cong.. 1st it took four Suing-Johnson bills. OLW the Sess. (1925)). containing essentially the same provisions as the second period OJ 1922 to 19X to secure passage Swing-Johnson bill, svas submitted to the Secretary of the Interior and of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. since .Irirona would not sign the Compact. was redrafted and reintroduced on February 2;. 1926. This bill was favorably reported out of committee but \vas prevented from passing by a fdibuster in the Senate. The fourth Swing-Johnson bill was then introduced in the House of Representatives on December 5. 1927. and in the Senate on December 6, 1927. It finally passed Congress on December IS. 1928. and was signed by President Coolidge on Decem- ber 21. 192s. Because certain precedent conditions set forth in Section 4 had to be fulfilled, the Act did not immediately become law. On June 25. 1929. however. President Hoover issued a proclamation declaring the Boulder Canyon Project Act effective. ‘a The Boulder Canyon Project Act The Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA) sought to balance the interests BCPA = The Boulder of the lower basin in the construction of the M-.-‘unerican Canal and Canyon Project Act a storage resenoir, with those in the upper basin securing an inter- state agreement to protect against a lower basin water grab. The goals of the lower basin states were satisfied in the purposes of the BCPA, svhich ivere set forth in Section 1 as being for- . . . controlling the floods, improving navigation and regulating the flow of the Cplorado River. providing for storage and for the deliv- ery of the stored waters thereof for reclamation of public lands and other benelicial uses exclusively within the United States. and for the generation of electrical energy as a means qf making the project herein authorized a self-supporting and financially solvent undertaking, the Secretary of the Interior. subject to the terms l2 \Vilbur and Ely. pages 15. 38-39. I3 Hundlq. The Great Thirst. 1992. page 217. lJ \Vilbur and Ely. pages U-42. 66 (Ihaptcr IO Thr i-au, o.f the Colorndn Rir*vr 285 -. of the Colorado River compact hereinafter mentioned, is hereby authorized to construct, operate, and maintain a dam and inci- dentaI works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Black Canyon or Boulder Canyon adequate to create a storage reservoir of a capacity of not less than twenty million acre feet of water and a main canal and appurtenant structures located entirely within the United States connecting the Laguna Dam. or other suitable diversion dam. which the Secretary of the Interior is hereby autho- rized to construct if deemed necessary or advisable by him upon engineering or economic considerations, with the Imperial and Coachella Valleys in California. . . . *j Section 6 set forth the priorities of the purposes set forth in Section l- First, for river regulation. improvement of navigation. and flood control; second, for irrigation and domestic uses and satisfaction of present perfected rights in pursuance bf .%rticle VIII of said Colorado River compact; and third, for power.16 The BCPA became eflecticqe with the ap- Pursuant to Section 4(a), the BCPA became effective only if all seven proral of sir out of the seren Compact states if California would limit its use to basin states approved the Colorado River compact. However, since 4.4 million acre-feet plus half the surplus; it seemed unlikely that Arizona would ratif? the compact, Section California did so in 192’9. Only Arizona 4(a) also allowed the compact to become effective with the approval refused to ratify the Compact. of the six states. if California enacted a statute limiting its use of water to 4.4 million acre-feet of Article III(a) tvater and not more than half of any excess or surplus waters not apportioned by the compact.t7 Because Arizona would not ratify the compact. Cali- fornia enacted the California Limitation Act to comply with Section 4(a)(2) of the BCPA- [Tlhe State of California.. . agrees irrevocably and unconditionally with the United States and for the benefit of the states of Arizona. Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and \Vyoming as an express covenant and in consideration of the passage of the said ‘Boulder Canyon Project Act’ that the aggregate annual consumptive use (diversions less returns to the river) of water of and from the Colorado river for use in the State of California including all uses under contracts made under the provisions of said ‘Boulder Canyon Project Act’, and all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist, shall not exceed four million four I5 \Vilbur and Ely. page A.213. “I iVilbur and Ely. page A219. ” \Vilbur and Ely. pages A215-A216. 67 hundred thousand acre-feet of the waters apportioned to the lower basin states by paragraph ‘a’ of article three of the said Colorado river compact, plus not more than one-half of any excess or surplus maters unapportionr>d by said compact. such uses always to be subject to the terms of said compact. Act of March 4. 1929: Ch. 16, 48th Sess.; Statutes and Amendments to the Codes. 1929. pages 3S-39.t8 Section 5 of the .\ct gave the Secretary of the Interior the power to contract for the storage and delivery of Colorado River water. Section S subjected the construction, management, and operation of the dam, reservoirs. canals. and other works to the provisions of the compact. Section 131 b) made any water rights of the United States subject to the provisions of the compact.‘9 The Seven Party Agreement Neither the Boulder Canyon Project .4ct nor the Colorado River compact allocated the Colorado River vvater to users within the individual states. Therefore. the next step in utilizing California’s Colo- rado River entitlement ivas to allocate the water among California water users. By 192Y. plans were under consideration to use 6 million acre-feet of the Colorado River each year on 1.5 million acres. The two primary competing interests were the Los Angeles and San Diego areas versus the regions’ agricultural interests. On Februar! 21. 1930. the cities and agricultural interests entered into a prelimi- nary agreement allocating 3.55 million acre-feet of lvater each year to agriculture and 550.000 acre-feet of ivater to the hktropolitan Water District of Southern California. This agreement accounted for 4.4 million acre-feet of ivater. The next 550.000 acre-feet of water per year was allocated to the Metropolitan Water District, and all water available in the river for California use above 4.95 million acre-feet per year was allocated to agriculture. This preliminary agreement did not allocate priorities internally within each group. When the Secretary of the Interior attempted to negotiate a contract for the AR-.tierican Canal with the Imperial Irrigation Dis- trict. it became clear that a more precise intrastate allocation of water was needed Although the agricultural allocation included the Imperial Irrigation District. the Coachella Valley \Vater District. and the Palo Verde Irrigation District. there was no method to apportion the water among them. Furthermore, a dispute had arisen between the Metropolitan Water District and the agricultural interests involving 1~ 1Vilbur and Ely. pages I\Y:~I -.X32. I’) \Vilbur and Ely. pages .\Z 17. A220. X233. 68 The Seren Party .-lgreemmt allocated the California share among California water users. Hoover Dam and Lake Mead located ~n the Lower Easm the priority of use of the 4.4 million acre-feet of water. In November 1930. the Secretary of the Interior requested that California make a recommendation as to the allocation and priorities of parties to be given water contracts. Priorities and allocations under the Seren Consensus on priorities and allocation, the Seven Party Party .-lgreement Agreement, was reached on .August 18, 1931.‘O .4rticle I of this agreement apportioned the Colorado River water available to California as follows- ; II 288 ~I.IFORNIA WATER Section 1. A first priority to Palo Verde Irrigation District Tar beneficial use exclusively upon lands in said district as it now exists and upon lands between said district and the Colorado River. aggregating (within and without said district) a gross area of 104.500 acres, such waters as may be required by said lands. Section 2. A second priority to Yuma project of the United States Bureau of Reclamation for beneficial use upon not exceeding a gross area of 25.000 acres of land located in said project in California, such waters as may be required by said lands. Section 3. A third prioric ~a) to Imperial Irrigation District and other lands under or that will be served from the All-American Canal in Imperial and Coachella \.alleys. and tb) to Palo Verde Irrigation District for use exclusively on 16.000 acres in that area known as the “Lower Palo Verde Jlesa,’ adjacent to Palo Verde Irrigation District for beneficial consumptive use. 3.550.000 acre feet of water per annum less the beneficial consumptive use under the priorities designated in sections 1 and 2 above. The rights designated (a) and (b) in this section are equal in priority. The total beneficial con- sumptive use under priorities stated in sections 1, 2. and 3 of this article shall not exceed 3.S50.000 acre feet of water per annum. Section 4. .4 fourth priority to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California andor the City of Los Angeles, for beneficial consumptive use, by themselves and/or others, on the coastal plain of Southern California. 350.000 acre feet of water per annum. Section 5. A fifth priori5 la) to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and/or the City of Los Angeles, for beneficial consumptive use. by themselves and/or others. on the coastal plain of southern California. 550,000 acre feet of water per annum and lb) to the City of San Diego and/or County of San Diego, for bene- ficial consumptive use. 112,000 acre feet of water per annum. The rights designated ta) and lb) in this section are equal in priority. _‘I) Wilbur and Ely. pages 106-IN. 69 Section 6. A sL.th priority (al to Imperial Irrigation District and other lands under or that will be served from the All-American Canal in Imperial and Coachella Valleys, and (bl to Palo Verde Irrigation District for use exclusively on 16.000 acres in that area known as the ‘Lower Palo Verde Mesa.’ adjacent to Palo Verde Irrigation District. for beneficial consumptive use, 300.000 acre feet of water per annum. The rights designated (al and (bl in this section are equal in priority. Section i. A seventh priority of all remaining water available for use lvithin California. for agricultural use in the Colorado River Basin in California. as said basin is designated on map No. 23000 of the Department of the Interior. Bureau of Reclamation.” These priorities. summarized in Table 10-l. remain in use today. although agreements in 1946 and 1947 between MWD. the United States. and the City of San Diego provided for the consolida- tion of the WVD and San Diego water allocations as a result of the decision to include San Diego in the XlWD. Ko contract kvas entered into between the United States and the City of Los Angeles because the contract between the Cnited States and XlVVD comprehends the rights recognized jointly. but not cumulatively, in Los ;l\ngeles and 41\tD in the Seven Party Agreement.” .Xrizona refused to ratify the Colorado River compact until 19-l-l because it feared that California would take all of the Colorado River water. This long-simmering dispute between the two states ultimately resulted in the 19G-l Supreme Court opinion given in Arizona ~1. California (19631 373 U.S. S-+6. Arizona v. California The dispute between .+izona and California over the use of Colorado River water extends at least as far back as the negotiations over the Colorado Ri\,er compact. The completion of the compact did nothing to diminish this animosity. In 1930, .4rizona sued the Secretary of the Interior and the other six lower basin states to prevent the construc- tion of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal. to enjoin contracts for delivery of stored water, and to have the Boulder Canyon Project .4ct and the Colorado River compact declared uncons)itutional. The .ki:ona’s ejrort to have the BCPA and the United States Supreme Court found that the compact and the Boulder Compact declared unconstitutional/ailed. Canyon Project .4ct vvrre constitutional and that the Secretary could construct Hoover Dam. .Ari=ona 17. California (19311 283 U.S. 423. zi \\‘iIbur and Ely. pages .-\-tYO-.-NXl. ‘z lvilbur and Ely. pages 109-I 10. 70 (:hapIPr 10 Tffr I.ffW f)/‘IhP f:fJ/fJrfldlJ /?ir*pr ‘R’l In 1934, Arizona filed another lawsuit to perpetuate the testimony of the negotiators of the Colorado River compact for use in a future action. The defendants were the other six states, several California public agencies, and the Secretary of the Interior. The United States Supreme Court denied Arizona’s claim. Arizona ~7. Calijomia (1934) 292 U.S. 341. In 1935. the United States sued Arizona to enjoin its interference Ari:ona threatened militaryforce to block with the construction of Parker Dam. Arizona had threatened to use the construction of Parker Dam. military force and had physically prevented continuance of the con- struction. The court denied the injunction on the ground that the United States could not show that the Secretary was authorized to construct the dam. United States u. Arizona (19351 295 U.S. 174. Later in 1935, Congress specifically authorized the construction of Parker Dam. 49 Stat. 1039. In 1935, Arizona also Iiled suit against California, Colorado, Nevada. New Mexico, Utah, and 1Vyoming for Priority 1 2 3(b) 4 5(a) 664 Table 10-l Seven Party Agreement Priorities Description Acre Feet Annually Pal0 Verde Irrigation District gross area of 104.500 acres Priorities 1. 2. and 3 shall not exceed 3.850.000 Yuma Project Reservation Division-not exceeding a I gross area of 25,000 acres Imperial Irrigation District and lands in Imperial and Coachella Valleys to be served by All-American Canal Palo Verde Irrigation District-on 16.000 acres of mesa lands Metropolitan Water District and/or City of Los Angeles, and/or others on the coastal plain Metropolitan Water District. and/or City of Los Angeles, and/or others on the coastal plain City and/or county of San Diego 0 [al and 5(b) are equal in priority) . I 550,000 550.000 112,000 Imperial irrigation District and other lands in Imperial and Coachella Valleys served from All-American Canal Pal0 Verde Irrigation District-on 16,000 acres of mesa lands [S(a) and 6(b) are equal in priority) TOTAL 300.000 300,000 5.362.000 Nathanson. Updating the Hoover Dam Documents, page 30. 71 a judicial apportionment of the unappropriated water of the Colorado River. The Supreme Court denied the petition on the basis that the United States was required to be a party. Arizona 1’. California (1936) 295 U.S. 535.‘3 In 1944. Arizona entered into a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation for an investigation of the best means of utilizing Colorado River water in Mzona. This investigation was the begin- ning of the plan for the Central Mzona Project. In 19-W the Secre- tary of the Interior sent the Bureau’s report to Congress. The report concluded that the proposed Central Arizona Project could transport ivatcr from the Colorado River to an area in Central Arizona. Congress considered the Central Arizona Project for several years. finally concluding in 1951 that it should be “postponed until such time as use of the water in the Lovver Colorado River Basin is either adjudicated or binding or mutual agreement as to the use of the waters is reached by the States of the Lower Colorado River Basin.“zJ Arizona had no intention of waiting any longer than necessary for the water to be adjudicated. On August 13. 1952. .tizona filed a motion in the United States In 1953. ..lrizona brought suit in the 1’.5. Supreme Court to bring a lalvsuit against California and seven public Supreme Court against C’aliJornia and agencies in California. The public agencies were the Palo \‘erde wren prcblir aprncias in the state. Irrigation Distrirt. the Imperial Irrigation District. Coachella \‘alley \Vater District. The Xletropolitan 1Vater District of Southern Califor- nia. the City of Los Angeles. the City of San Diego. and the County of San Diego. This motion vvas granted in January, 1953. Subsequently. both the United States and Sevada intervened in the lawsuit. Trial began in June 1956 and continued until August 1958. The matter 1va.s submitted for consideration in July 1959. and in December 1960 the Special Master issued his report. The Supreme Court issued its opinion on June 3. 1963. and issued a decree on March 9. 196-1.‘” The central issue in the case concerned the amount of water The central ISSW conrerned the amount each state could legally divert from the Colorado River. 373 US. of water that each state could dicertfrom 551. Arizona’claimed that the apportionment of Colorado River the Colorado Rirer. waters in the BCPA included only the mainstream waters of the River. California, seeking more water for itself and with its eye on Arizona’s Gila River. contended that the apportionmdnt included all tributary waters of the Colorado River. 373 U.S. 563. 23 Wilbur and Ely. pagers l-k-1;30. 24 I368 U.S. Code. Congrc*ssionaf and .4dministratir!e .\‘ru*s. volume 3. page 3678. li N;lthanson. [‘pdating the Hooter Dam Documents. 1978. pages 127-125. 113. 72 (‘tl;!nr6ar IO 771~ /.nrr* r~T/h~~ (‘/J/fJrf7d/J flir*r*r ‘1’bl The Special blaster concluded that the Colorado River compact. the law of prior appropriation. and the doctrine of equitable appor- tionment (the doctrine the Supreme Court uses to resolve interstate vvater claims in the absence of a compact or statutory apportion- ment) did not control in the case. 373 U.S. 562. The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation. and wrote that. although the doctrine of equitable apportionment was generally applicable in interstate water disputes. it did not control in this situation because Congress had made a statutop apportionment. 3i3 U.S. 565. - The Supreme Court held that in passing The court held that Congress, in enacting the Boulder Canyon the BCP.4 Congress had enacted its own apportionment o/the Lower Basin Ilhters. Project Act. had created its own comprehensive scheme for appor- tioning the waters of the lower basin between California. Arizona. and Nevada. 3i3 U.S. 565. The court held that Section 4(a) of the Act lim- ited California to ‘water of and from the Colorado River.” not from the “Colorado River system.” and that the legislative history demonstrated that in the BCP.1 Congress only meant to refer to mainstream waters. 373 U.S. 568. The court’s determination that Congress had left tribu- tary waters to the individual states was a blow to the hopes of California. which had argued that the water apportioned by Congress also included tributary waters. 3i3 U.S. 567. Congress’ apportionment- The congressional apportionment divided the first 7.5 million 4.4 million acre-feet to California: 1.S mil- lion acre-feet to .-kzzona: 300.000 acre-leer acre-feet of mainstream waters as follows: (1) 4.4 million acre-feet to .lerada: and any surplus to be divided to California: t-7) 2.8 million acre-feet to Arizona: and (3) 300.000 equally between California and .-ki:ona. acre-feet to Sevada. Arizona and California would split equally any surplus. Although the states could have agreed on a compact to in- corporate these terms. by granting the Secretary of the Interior the power to make contracts for the delivery of water and by preventing any person from receiving water without a contract, Congress had already accomplished this. 373 U.S. 565. The court concluded that three factors indicated that Congress intended to apportion the mainstream waters among Arizona, Cali- fornia, and Nevada: (1) the legislative history of the BCPA: (2) the provisions of the BCPA itself. which in Sections 4(a) and 8(b) set forth several methods to accomplish the apportionment; and (3) the fact that, if the states did not agree on an apportionment. the Sec- retary had the power to carry out the provisions of the BCPA by making contracts to apportion water among the states, and by allocating water among the individual users within each state. 373 U.S. 578-5i9. The court also faced a significant issue involving the contract- making power of the Secretary of the Interior. Could the Secretary contract with anv users he or she might choose, or was the Secretaq 73 . bound by the provisions of state law? Sections 14 and 18 of the BCPA provide as follows- [Section 14.1 This Act shall be deemed a supplemrnt to the reclamation law, ivhich said reclamation law shall govern the construction, operation, and management of the works herein authorized. except as otherlvise hrrein provided. [Section 18.1 Nothing herein shall br construed as interfering \vith such rights as the States now have tither to the kvaters ivithin their borders or 10 adopt such policies and enact such laws as they ma! deem nrcpssary lvith respect LO the appropriation, control. and use of svaters bvithin their borders. except as modified by the Colorado River compact or other interstate agreement.“’ The effect of Section 1-I is to incorporate into the BCP.4 the non- conflicting provisions of the Reclamation Act of 1902. one of which is Section 8 of that Act- That nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control. appropriation. use. or distribu- rion of bvater used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired there- under. and the Secretary of thr Interior. in carrying out the provisions of this Act. shall proceed in conformity \vilh such laws 43 C.S.C. s 383. Although federal law clearly governs interstate apportionments of water. it has been suggested that nothing in the statutory scheme ivould prevent the application of state la\v once the BCP.4 \vater cn- tered a state’s boundaries. 27 However. the court interpreted the statutory scheme differently. It relied on Section 1 of the BCPA. which authorized the Secretary to construct and operate the facilities of the BCPA. as well as the language of Sections 5 and Y(b) of the BCP.4. Section 5 grants the po\ver‘to contract to the Secretary- That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized. under such general regulations as he may prescribe, to contract for the stor- age of water in said reservoir and for the delivery thereof at such points on the river and on said canal as may be agrked upon. for irrigation and domestic uses, and generation of electrical energY and delivery at the switchboard to States. municipal CorPorations. political subdivisions. and private cOrpOratiOiIS ofekctrical enT?Y Zh \Vilbur and Ely. pages A?21-A225. 27 Meyers. “Thv Colorado Kiwr. ” 1966. 19 Stanjbrd L.&c.. page 59. 74 Hayfield Pumpmg Plant along MWD’s Colorado Rwer Aqueduct. east of lndlo Chaptr>r IO The Lnw of the Colorado Rit*ar 203 generated at said dam, upon charges that will provide revenue which, in addition to other revenue accruing under the reclama- tion law and under this Act. will in his judgment cover all expenses of operation and maintenance incurred by the United States on account of works constructed under this .\ct and the payments to the United States under subdivision (b) of section 4. Contracts respecting water for irrigation and domestic uses shall be for per- manent service and shall conform to paragraph (a) of section -1 of this Act. No person shall have or be entitled to have the use for any purpose of the water stored as aforesaid except by contract made as herein stated.‘Y Section 8(b) allowed the lower basin states to negotiate a compact allocating the waters of the river. However. if the compact was ap- proved after January 1, 1929. it was to be subject to any contracts entered into by the Secretary. 3i3 U.S. 580. Subject lo certain limitations. the Supreme Based on these provisions. the court concluded that the Secretary Court ruled that the Secretary had the power to enter into delivery conwacts had the power to enter into contracts with whichever users he chose, within a stale with uhicherer users he regardless of priority, so long as the Secretary followed the limitations chose. on his power set out in the BCP.\: (1) allocating water in the order set forth in Section 6 of the BCP.\: (2) making revenue provisions to en- sure the recovery of the expenses of the project; (3) complying with the provisions of the Colorado River compact; (4) not contracting so as to interfere with the allocation between the upper and lower basins; and (5) satisfying present perfected rights. 373 U.S. 584. The court viewed the Secretary’s general authority to enter contracts as being sufficient to override state law in the absence of a specific declaration to the contrary in the BCP.4. 373 U.S. 580-581. The opinion did discuss Section 8 of the Reclamation Act but concluded that the Secretary was not bound by state law in disposing of water under the BCPA. 373 U.S. 587. The opinion also upheld the reserved rights doctrine articulated in Wnrers L’. Unifed States (19081 207 U.S. 564. LVater was resewed to meet present and In regard to Native American water rights, the court held that future needs of the Natire American the United States had reserved an amount of Colorado River water reserralions. for the Native American reservations sufficient to satisfy their pre- sent and future needs. The amount of water reserved was enough to irrigate all of the practicable in-igable acreage on the reservations. These water rights became effective at the time of the reservation. and since this predated the BCP.4. they were classified as ‘present perfected rights.” 373 U.S. 600. ” \Silbur and Ely. page A217 75 . The term ‘present perfected rights” was not defined until the decree of the Supreme Court in Arizona u. California (1964) 376 u.s 340- (G) ‘Perfected right’ means a water right acquired in accordance with state law. which right has been exercised by the actual diver- sion of a specific quantity of water that has been applied to a defined area of land or to definite municipal or industrial works. and in addition shall include water rights created by the reservation of mainstream lvater for the use of federal establishments under fed- eral law whether or not the water has been applied to beneficial use: (HI ‘Present perfected rights’ means perfected rights, as here ‘Present perfected rights’ were delined defined. e.xisting as ofJune 25.1929, the effective date of the Boulder as those existing as of June 15. 1929. the Canyon Project Act. _ . ,376 U.S. 341. effect&e date of the BCP.4. Article VI of the decree also provided for the determination of present perfected rights- LVithin two years from the date of this decree, the States of Arizona. California. and Nevada shall furnish to this Court and to the Secretary of the interior a list of the present perfected rights. with their claimed priority dates, in waters of the mainstream within each State. respectively, in terms of consumptive use, ex- cept those relating to federal establishments. Any named party to this proceeding may present its claim of present perfected rights or its opposition to the claims of others. The Secretary of the Interior shall supply similar information. within a similar period of time, with respect to the claims of the United States to present perfected rights within each State. If the parties and the Secretary of the Interior are unable at that time to agree on the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State, and their priority dates. any party may apply to the Court for the determination of such rights by the Court.Z9 The significance of present perfected rights is found in Article Present perfected rights haue a peorW if 11(B)(3) of the decree. In any year in which there is less than 7.5 there is less than 7.5 million acre-feet Of mainstream water available for use in million acre-feet of mainstream water available for consumptive .Ari=ona. California. and-Newada. use in Arizona, California. and Nevada, the Secretary of the Interior first must satisfy present perfected rights in the ofder of their priority dates. .%s a result of the decree in Arizona u. California. the Bureau of Reclamation, authorized to carry out the provisions Of Article VI of the decree, required the parties to prepare a draft stipulation of Present z9 Nathanson. page n-33. 76 Chapter 10 The Law of the Colorado Rirer 295 perfected rights. After years of meetings and arguments on this issue, Arizona. Nevada, and California in 19ii moved the Supreme Court under Article 11 of the decree to deter- mine present perfected rights. In 1979. the Supreme Court issued a supplemental decree determining present perfected rights. .-kizona v. California 439 U.S. 419. In California, pres- ent perfected rights were quantified for federal establishments. water districts and projects, and miscellaneous water users. The federal establishments were the Chemehuevi. MWD’s dIversIon facilities from Colorado River Yuma. Colorado River, and Fort Mojave Indian reservations. in amounts ranging from 11.340 acre-feet to 51.616 acre-feet. The amounts allocated to water districts and projects were as follows- Some present perfected rights within California The Palo Verde irrigation District in annual quantities not to exceed (iI 219.750 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii1 the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consump- tive use required for irrigation of 33.604 acres and for the satis- faction of related uses. whichever of 0) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of 1877. The Imperial Irrigation District in annual quantities not to exceed Ii) 2.600.000 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consump- tive use required for irrigation of 424,145 acres and for the satis- faction of related uses, whichever of(i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of 1901. The Reservation Division. Yuma Project, California (non-Indian portion) in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 38,270 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irri- gation of 6,294 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses. whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of July 8. 1905. .-kizona v. Cali/omia (1979) 439 U.S. 419, 428-429. Subsequent proceedings and legislation In December 1978. prior to the issuance of this decree. the a/fecting ,Vatiue American rights United States Bled an order for modification of the 1964 decree on behalf of five Indian reservations. The court rejected the tribes’ re- quest to increase their water rights to serve lands that initially had been omitted from calculations because the United States did not claim them. Arizona o. California (1983) 460 U.S. 605. The court also refused to increase water rights for irrigable acreage in new 77 296 &nItYI \ \o \‘1‘1‘1( lands determined to be in the reservation boundaries because these boundaries had not been “finally determined” under the definition of the I964 decree. The court did agree that the tribes’ lvater rights should be increased in consideration of irrigable acreage in the lands adjudicated to be within reservation boundaries because these boundaries had been “finaIl!- determined” under the definition of the 1964 decree. 460 U.S. 636. Since this decree. there have been several Settlement Acts that quantilicd Sative American claims. In 1988. Congress enacted the Colorado Ute Settlement Xct. which quantified the water rights of the Southern Ute Tribe and Cte Xlountain Ute Indian Tribe. 100 Stat. 585. In 1992. Congress enacted H.R. 522, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe \Vater Rights Settlement Act. and also H.R. 429, which resolved long-standing Lvater rights claims of the Northern Ute Tribe. The Mexican Water Treaty In 1944. the United States signed a treaty with Mexico concerning .\l~.rico has a right to 1.5 million acre-feet the Colorado River. The treaty requires the United States to deliver of Colorado River water: salinity is the I .5 million acre-feet of water per year to Mexico and up to 1.7 million main problem. acre-feet of water in years when a surplus exists. Pursuant to the terms ot’ the Colorado River compact. this treat) obligation is to be met first out of surplus it’aters. If there is no sur- plus. both the upper and lo\\.er basins must bear equal responsibility. Colorado River compact, ..\rticle Ill(c1. Salinity is a major problem in the delivery of water to Mesico. although the Mexican kvater treaty did not specifically mention the quality of water to be delivered at the Mexican border.“” Salinity con- trol efforts by states and the federal government date back to the earl! 1960s. EDF L’. Code (19811 637 F.2d 275. 250. Salinity regulations proposed by the EPA were the subject of the labvsuit in EDF U. Code and are described in detail in that decision. Costfe. pages 280-281. In 1972 and 1973. the United States entered into an additional agreement with Mexico to deliver water to Mexico with a salinit! not to exceed that of the water arriving at Imperial Dam by more than 115 milligrams per liler. Construction of the Yumaidesalting plant was one measure undertaken to deal with the salinity issue. as was the enaction of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974.“’ :K) Nnthanson. pages 217-222. :I ’ :\bbott. “(:aJifm-nia (:&s~do Hivrv Jssurs.” IOS. I9 Pacific L.J.. pages l-&31-I-132. 78 CAP = Central Arizona Project Water Rights of the Imperial Irrigation District The Imperial Irrigation District has been involved in litigation on a number of key water rights issues. The dispute involving the Imperial Irrigation District and the State Water Resources Control Board over waste and conservation is discussed briefly in chapters 3 and 8. However, one case. Bryant D. Yeellen (1980) 447 U.S. 352, should be mentioned here. The Bryant case involved the present perfected rights of Imperial. and the issue was whether the use of’Colorado River water delivered under contract with the Secretary of the Interior was subject to the 160-acre limitation of reclamation Ial;. In 1933, the Secretary of the Interior stated that the 160-acre limitation did not apply. Bryant. pages 193-19-L However. in 1964. the Depart- ment of the Interior took the view that the limitation should apply to all Imperial Valley lands in private ownership. This later position was rejected by the court, which held that the 160-acre limitation did not apply to Imperial Valley lands that were under irrigation in 1929. Section 6 of the BCPA. which required the satisfaction of present perfected rights, was held to override the acreage limitation. Thus, Imperial’s present perfected rights could be satisfied without regard to the 160-acre issue. Bryant. pages 364. 368. 370. The Colorado River Today The Central Arizona Pmject In 1968, Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Project Act. 43 U.S.C. 88 1501-1556. This authorization included the Central Arizona Project (CAP), which Arizona had been seeking since prior to initiating the Arizona u. California litigation. Section 301(b) of the Act subordinates deliveries of CAP water to the deliveries of 4.4 milIion acre-feet in California, as well as to users in Arizona and Nevada who hold present perfected rights or had diversion works as of the date of Legislation authorking the Central Ari- the Act. Of Arizona’s 2.8 million acre-foot entitlement. approximately zona Project subordinates the delivery of 1.5 million acre-feet is available to the CAP.32 As it becomes more .4rizona’s 2.8 million acre-feet entitle- ment to California’s 4.4 million acre-feet. evident that the long-term supply of the Colorado River has been over- estimated, and with the increase in demands, Arizona has become increasingly concerned about this subordination requirement. As the affected states negotiate possible changes in the present allocation of Colorado River water, Arizona seeks relief from this provision. I2 Brophy. ‘The Effect of the Central Arizona Project on the Mocation of Colorado River Water Supplies,” February 10-l 1. 1994. Proceedings of the 12th Annual ABA M’ater Conference. pages 4-6. 79 C l - . California has consistently taken more than its 4.4 million acre-foot entitlement by using the water that the CAP has not been taking. From 1987 to 1992, California’s use averaged nearly 5 million acre-feet.33 In 1993, California used appro.ximately 4.8 million acre-feet. In the early 1990s. the CAP was nearing completion and fears arose in California that Arizona would soon begin taking its full share of the Colorado River. On October 1. 1993. the Secretary of the Interior declared the CAP substantially complete3- However. CAP use remains considerably under its full share of Colorado River water. In 198i-1992. Arizona’s use averaged 2 million acre-feet. or 500.000 acre-feet less Central Arizona Project canal than its entitlement.35 Xloreover. in 1992. it became clear that wending its way to Tucson Arizona’s agricultural CAP subcontractors were in serious financial distress.36 Currentlv it appears unlikely that the subcontractors will be able to afford CAP water. and the future of Arizona’s use and its Colorado River entitlement are uncertain. In the meantime, Nevada Ca[ifornia’s recent use has areraged is grooving rapidly and seeking additional vvater. and Cahfornia seeks nearly 5 million acre-feet annually: Cali- to maintain. if not increase. the share it has been using. fornia has been using water not taken by .-lrizona. Banking and Transfer of Entitlements As this book is going to press, the Bureau of Reclamation has been I’SBR eflorts to insert some Jlexibility seeking informal comments on certain draft regulations issued May 6, into the present allocation system on the Colorado Ricer 1994. These regulations seek to inject some fle.xibility into the present allocation system and to meet growing demands along the river. Both intra- and interstate leasing are permitted. The water must have been previously used and made available either through consemation or land fallowing. Such water may also be “banked” in Lake Mead and later sold or used to offset excess use. The regulations specifically permit Indian resemations to sell water for use off the reservation. although they acknowled,ae that the authority for such use is ques- tionable. Indeed, some esperts also question the Secretary’s authority to allow vvater banking and transfers generally without certain changes in the Law of the River. The Bureau has asked the states to meet to see if some resolution of the various issues can be worked out. Quantification The Bureau has also prepared a separate proposal to duantify the rights of the agricultural users. Currently. these rights are fixed only 33 Smith and Vaughn, page 4. :” Brophy. page 1. x Smith and Vaughn. page 2. :I6 Brophy. page 23. 80 Chapter 10 The Law of the Colorado Rioer 299 300 CALIFORNIA WATER in terms of the amount of water reasonably required for certain lands or acreages. As a result. total agricultural use has at times exceeded the 3.85 MAF aggregate entitlement. Clearly. the issue of such overruns and the program to bank and transfer water would be facilitated if the agricultural rights of the individual districts were quantified. However, the Bureau’s initial proposal received a hostile reception from most users. and its future remains uncertain.3T Endangered Species The presence of endangered species on the Colorado River is another factor that may influence water allocation and use. The federal gov--- ernment currently lists four species of f&h that inhabit the river as endangered: the razorback sucker, the Colorado squawfish. the hump- back chub, and the bony-tail chub. 58 Fed. Reg. 6578 (19931. Critical habitat has also been designated for these species. It is not yet clear how the management of the Colorado River for the protection of these species will impact the availability of water for consumptive uses. Other Issues Salinity .is another problem that has not been rectified. The reverse- osmosis Yarona Desalting Plant has been completed but is not in operation. The cost of operating the plant is nearly double the amount originally anticipated. and alternative methods of satinit! control are under evaluation. Latent disputes on two issues behveen the upper and lower basin states also esist. The parties disagree as to the burden of meeting the Mexican Treaty water obligation. The! also disagree on whether the upper basin must meet its Lee Ferr) delivery obligations to the lower basin if doing so means that the upper basin will not realize its 7.5 million acre-feet entitlement. Finally. under surplus conditions. California is entitled to 50 percent of the surplus. However. a surplus in the lower basin has never been declared. and specific criteria for determining surplus have never been adopted. The Bureau of Reclamation is currently working on the development of such criteria.3s In view of the changing needs for Colorado River vvater. it is likely that some modification in the allocation of water uill occur, achieved either by consensus or by the intervention of Congress or the courts. However, given thehistory of the river and the enormous interests at stake, one would not expect changes to occur easily orsoon. 3i Rieke, “Emerging issues on the Colorado River,” February 10-l 1. 1994. Proceedings of the 12th Annual-A Water Conference (amended version), page 5. 38 Rieke, pages 2. 4.15. 81 : -- -.. -_____cc “Id La,: -2-E A”.J;j O~o-s~J-~~d; . Per fmmdiatr arleaer Contaot I t?arr( atfmr,r3wa ~sl8~543-467e Jen. f, 2996 A l paclrl meeting 0 f the Calfforku Six Ag8r.q CFmittrs, which includes California wrtor egenciar with w ecatracta for Cul.or8do Riwr water and power, Wag held Cm, I aad 8 tc dimcurr l ach of th+ agency’@ ccntrrctual intarmats fn thr Cclorrdo R~VNZ, Thr meat ing , hmld In Orr~&rFc, began Ln cp~ rsrrion with comment8 fron, the puS~ic and wad followed by alam@d-rtsrion dircusricnr among the rix l ger.cisa rsgardir,g twlTls oz WatQZ @8Ufb8iM?S, ~J~LlillBB~bl@ CCnCrsCtQ With CthCYS, qurntifico,tian of water availablr for transfer, pxasibility of bath intrarate and intetstata tra;.?sfwr, and cthrr wuter conrorvatfo~ and mrrhzing opcrtunitiso. “Durfng the QJUKL saao:on some 23 irrurs ar,d Challrngrr regarding future water WC by tkoee agencies were lirted," maid Jsrry Simrwmm, r8crwtary at the committee, IA l.ie fo l ,*arhd.) These iurrueti wrm then included in d$scuoeiQne rUgardQlg h~trw~ionn co agrncier’ nmptiakotz, No (Lee ian wa8 cakwn bf t210 com:cc~e. (More.. - . * ) - 82 _ _.. ,.-w-.. WI. The Six Agonay Cmrmitter ir%\;luilea ~110 Vsrcle Irrigation Pirrtxicr, mparirl Xrrigatlon District, Coachalla VaL18y W&tar DistrLcr/ FZatropcliCm3 Water DLmtrict of goutham California, Pan birgo County h‘rtor Authority, and ba8 Anqalrs bopartmmt of Hatmr r;ld Power. Zimmerman, wke arid pblic input is rncouzaged at t.u lwmt LeDpa'. actd the ecmittss dimcurrad, b\;t did not dt@dulm, a Zoilcw-Up ~~~f?ng oz Ju. 18 - Rather, the next - l prcirl mrating of tkr comitt8r iS art for Jan, 25 &ml 26 ?n C?nCrria. YW 83 “-, ” -I# .b 2zo L’J. J; oLF-3G.~-4C3= . 1 - ‘ . a, 2. 3. 4. s- 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11, 13. 13. 14. 1s. 17. 18. 19. L~JLUK/-UJO RIVtK BD a Agtarment an how/if cbntracturl prioritiro govern. How/if intrmtate trmrfarm work. ww/it interatatr trrnsf axs work. Can watar br banked !whrra, when, hw, whc, what ki.li5 cf wrt8r) 3 what Ir prnniraibh undar the 'Law oF the Rives*? (Ox what changra wcuSc3 be r.cc&dr) Cm uataz be rhsrlmd inrarstrtt or intrretate? Mow, whwa, who, what kind? 1 uarttng unmet nmde (Palo Verde :rrigrtion ~iotrfct, Imperial Irrigczon Dbtrict, Coachrl3a Valley Wate: trimtrict, Metropolitan Water Di&mfict ef Southern californi+, Urn Diego County Water Authority, SRR i;?is Ray Rivrr Indfar. Water Autkarfty, foevflda, and Arircnr) . anruting uno ham, ” tPoe8 drfic~tio~/inplsmentstion ahang* QV@X tuta?) Elhorcrge-ah&ring intrastate and interstate. Liafng ci! the All American Canal. Wow or later, rcl4za oc pRrtie84) Rfvor ux3 r8esmois ~aaagcmenc !cxpl~s, shortages, umm*d qport~omurxto, river augmentarionl . ovorrurl rccuuating l Selling unuaod 8griculturrl wa+. SZqu$xmmmt that water bo put to reasonable, ktr.tZFclol u&a * Quantification of agricultur81 ~0st~at&m4~ l ntitls!lwlt8. Indian l titlmwnts. Colorado River Paafn a:atae’ o6ncsrnr/r~acrLone/usrs. ImpmAr dxtmrnal to Southern Califomia inclu3ir.g by- d83tr and Wexiao. YYY - a4 Ryhts and the river . . . iWWD wheeling and dealing with Hhte’s water W ater is the lifeblood of Southern California, and that means laws, regula- tions and agreements on water distribution must be handled with care’. Unfortunately, the current managers of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is San Diego County’s water wholesaler, are trifling with the law of the river - a collection of legal decisions, contracts and other policies that govern water apportion- ment on the Colorado River. MWD officials are holding unilateral discussions with Nevada and Arizona officials with an eye toward changing California’s water rights. And they’re doing it without consulting other Cali- fornia water users. Last Thursday, Tim Quinn, MWD’s deputy general manager, went to Phoe- nix to discuss water rights with Rita Pearson, director of the Arizona De- partment of Water Resources. She said they talked about changing the formula whereby California has priority over Arizona for Colorado River water in times of shortage, including the possi- bility of putting Arizona on an equal footing with California during droughts. That would be a profound change, endangering San Diego’s water supply and jeopardising an already inadequate right to Colorado River water. So why is the MWD doing it? Its general manager, John Wodraska, has his own plan for guaranteeing Southern California’s water supply. However, no other Colorado River water users, es- pecially not the San Diego County Wa- ter Authority, support his plan, which he has dubbed Reliability Plus. Despite this lack of support, Wodraska is push- ing ahead on his own. The main component of Reliability Plus is storing more water for our re- gion in Lake Mead, on the Nevada-Ari- zona border. Support from those two states is needed for the plan. Wodraska has tried to secure that support by giving Nevada 30,000 acre-feet a year of California’s Colorado River entitle- ment and negotiating with Arizona over California’s water rights. But other Colorado River water users in California don’t think Reliability Plus is all that reliable. Besides San Diego County’s opposition, it’s not supported by the three big agricultural irrigation districts in Southern California that con- trol 3.85 million acre-feet of Colorado River water a year, about eight times bigger than MWD’s entitlement. Wodraska has no business wheeling and dealing with Southern California’s water entitlement without support from all our Colorado River water users. He has no authority to discuss changing the law of the river with Arizona. If the MWD wants water reliability from the Colorado River, it needn’t look outside the state. It should look toward the three Southern California agricul- tural irrigation districts, which could make additional supplies available by using water more efficiently. Southern California cities could get more water from them and not trade away the state’s entitlement in the bargain. That’s what San Diego County Water Authority is doing in negotiating with Imperial Irrigation District to transfer hundreds of thousands of acre-feet a year from the Imperial Valley to San Diego County. Some suggest Reliability Plus is a ploy to head off that deal. Gov. Pete Wilson and the state De- partment of Water Resources should take a more active role in this matter. Wodraska’s moves have statewide im- pact on north-south water distribution issues and water supply for Southern California’s urban areas. But at the same time, the U.S. Interi- or Department should remain on the sidelines. Wodraska implied in a recent speech that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt supports Reliability Plus. While that may be an overstatement, the feds should understand this is an extremely delicate issue in California. Currently, all six Southern California users of Colorado River water - the MWD, the San Diego County Water Authority, the city of Los Angeles and the three agricultural water districts - are meeting to hash out their differ- ences. Until or unless they agree, Wod- raska should back off his Reliability Plus program, and especially his dealings with Nevada and Arizona. The MWD has no imperial authority over Califor- nia’s Colorado River entitlement. 85 0 l 0 Erosion of authority How LA. controls San Diego’s water decisions T he Metropolitan Water Dis- trict’s errant moves toward trading away California’s wa- ter rights to Arizona show A that the staff is running the MWD, not the board of directors. It also shows why San Diego County needs better representation on the MWD board. MWD’s decisions affect us more than any other member agency. Right now, San Diego County has six members on the $l-member MWD board; our weighted vote counts for about 15.5 percent, which is gauged by assessed value of property. But the San Diego County Water Au- thority provides about 28 percent of the MWD’s revenues through water pur- chases and other funds. San Diego county is the MWD’s biggest customer. Currently, a state audit is examining, among other issues, whether assessed .laluation is a good basis for determining representation on the MWD board. ZlearIy, it is not. It means that rapidIy gowing areas like San Diego County are footing the bill for already estab- khed areas like the city of Los Angeles. Assessed valuation gives Los Angeles a bigger say than San Diego County. Los Angeles has 10 members on the board and a weighted vote of about 21 percent. But it produces much less rev-- enue for the district because it buys much less water. Los Angeles has its own aqueduct to Owens Valley. The actions of the MWD staff, such as promoting Re!iability Plus, have much greater impact on San Diego County than on Los Angeles, since we get near- ly all of our water from the MWD. Because of this, and the fact that we are the MWD’s biggest customer, San Die- go County deserves stronger represen- tation on the district board. Such a change will require legislation. But legislators from around the state should see the inequities that exist on the MWD board. And, after Iearning that the MWD general manager is run- ning around trying to trade away the state’s water rights, they should be ready to change the board’s structure. . The MWD board needs to wrest con- trol back from the staff. And that’s exactly what will happen if San Diego County receives the representation and the power it deserves in the district. 86 , 4’ * JftN-25-96 THlJ 06:25 PM COP-PI g. CLclY - D-C. 202 3933255 P-02 ,. -. - A c . ‘, 8 -.. fi1!25/96 THU 18:18 PAX Qou2 a JRN 23 ‘86 9: iY TO nc OFFICE PfJGE.002 GOWULNOR RTS WILSON January %,I996 Mr. Jack Foley Chairman, Board of Directors 33e Menopolltan Water District of South0111 CaUfornia La8 Angeles, Califomia 900!54-0153 ever the past several months I have rweived many expressions of concern abcrut activities of the Metropolitan Water District with respwt to Colorado River matkra. 1 understand thal in mid-December you, ywur ftrllorv Board member E. Thornton Ibbetson, you Gneral Manager Mr. Wodraska, and several other representatives of the District b&fed mcmbcrs of my staff on thcsc rrctkities. In particular, you explained both the transaction which Metropolitan hse proposed with Southern lUevada and. your diamsaiom with Arizona with respect to sharing of shottakes wfth that State. These proposed arrangements are all part of your broader colwrvation, banking, and uperations program intended to lc~~p Mctropolitan’e aqueduct full for the next 30 years. My conc~m, and the concern of many who have spoken to me, ia lhat Metropolitan appears to be usurping the authority of the State of Cabfomia in &ulk\g IndeptmdentIy with Arizona and Nevada. III particular, Metropolitan is acting QS though it has the autflority to sell Culurodu R.&r water to Nttvadtl and tu potmrtially give up California’s bt&utoy priority over the CcrUxal Wizona Project. Ar ‘you know, however, under California law, the Colorado River Board, a State agency, has the authority to represent California in interstak matters. I certainly appreciate that Metropolitan and the other California agencies using Colorado River wakr have their own cuntracta with the federal gvvemment. Further, I strongly support your objective of working out arrnnganents to provide for more Celorado River Aqueduct water. However, to the extent thcsc ursngernents include k&m&ate negntiations. the Colorado River Board is the appropriate entity to represent State fnterests. SrAfE ChpItQL . SA(tRIIUBNTO. cALri=ORNIA 95814 . (916’) 4454841 87 211”-*-1-Ye I nv c)e .A- t-l-l car.rA.. 5: CLcaY - D-C. 202 3933255 P-03 -* . i-“” ‘I” ,_ . ., . . . - . . I . _. . T _ . . . . . . r: - _ 01/26/96 TIN 18:17 FAX JR14 25 ‘38 3:20 .- . Boo3 f TO DC OFFICE. PAGE.FitB.? Mr, Jack Foley ;=ggy,gy,, 1996 I bclicve it is csscntial for the Cokmdo Riper agenciea in California and the State itself to develop a unified State poeition bafore there arc hrrt-hcr interotatc - negotiations. I know this win take addXma1 time but it is the only way to ensure * ultimate succtm, f am pleased that you and the other CaIifornia agenda holding Colorado River corrtruc~ have bcw B process to resolve differemces among the Colorado River contractora. If Metropolitan or any of the other contractors continues to pursue its own * interests without regard to the legitimate interests of all parties, including the State of California, it will undoubtedly lead to protracted litigation which will not mx~e the waler intrrvsls of individual contractors or the State. AlUs lhere i3 a unified California poeition, it WU be posssible to negotiate with Arizona, Nevada, the Depastment of the Interior, and the Colorado Rivex Indian Tribco on a regional aelufion which r&olves the water supply issues in all three states. Sincenly , /G!?A PETE WILSON cc All Directurs All Members, Cdifemia State Senate All MexnberJ, Califumia State Arselhbly ** TOTQl PRGE. 003 ** 88 . L’ . -. * c Unity for.water MKD must cease unilateral negotiations SC-:NION-TRIBUNE: sccwAcb=wGsER~ T he message from Gov. Pete Wilson to the Los Angeles- based Metropolitan Water District was unequivocal: Stop trying to negotiate away’Ca.b- fomia’s water rights. The governor recently sent a letter to Jack Foley, chairman of the MWD’s board, saying he was concerned %at Metropolitan appears to be usurping the authority of the state of California in dealing independently with Arizona and Nevada.” His concern is very real. MWD Gen- era1 Manager John Wodraska has been pushing a plan to increase Southern California’s water supply by storing more water in Lake Mead. Xn order to get Nevada and Arizona to agree to such a plan, his minions have been hold- ing unilateral discussions with officials from the two states. His idea is to give Nevada part of our state’s Colorado River water allotment and to surrender California’s priority water rights to Ari- zona in times of drought. Perhaps the MWD has been the big cheese for so long that Wodraska as- sumes he has the power to do whatever he wants. But he doesn’t. As the gover- nor pointed out, only the Colorado Riv- er Board, a state agency, has the power to represent California in talks with other states about our Colorado River water allotment. And so far, it has taken no position on Wodraska’s plans. The governor also said in his letter that all California agencies receiving Colorado River water must develop a unified plan before there are any fur- ther negotiations with other states. That should put a stop’to Wodraska’s wheeling and dealing. It also sends a clear message that unity is imperative in water issues. Right now in California, we’re enjoying a truce in our decades-old water wars. Farmers, cities and environmentalists are not attacking each other in court. North and South aren’t at each other’s throats. Quite the opposite. AU sides, plus the state and federal governments, are working together to fmd a solution to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta so that more water can flow to cities, farms and fisheries in the southern twc+ thirds of the state. Cities and agricultur- al water districts are negotiating to transfer water from farms to thirsty urban areas. Among the most promising efforts are talks between the San Diego County Water Authority and the Impe- rial Irrigation District about selling hun- dreds of thousands of acre-feet each year to our region. Gov. Wilson’s letter states that if the MWD pursues its own course without agreement from other water districts and the state, it will only lead to pro- tracted court battles. That would de- stroy this singular opportunity for Cah- fomia to make real progress in establishing a secure water supply for cities, farms and the environment. Perhaps Wodraska, who came to Cali- fornia about two years ago from Flori- da, hasn’t yet grasped the delicate poli- -tics of western water. If not, he may need a crash course. And if he doesn’t start working with people instead of against them, he’s going to get one from the governor and other Southern CaIifomia water districts. 89 I I , i ! 1 / I I f I ,