The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-02-17; Municipal Water District; 405; Update of the Proposed Water TransferCARLSBAd MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRrr;T - AGENDA BILL ,gf 7 DEPT. HD. 9B# 40 5 TITLE: UPDATE OF THE PROPOSED WATER MTG. g-,17-98 TRANSFER BETWEEN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (CWA) AND THE IMPERIAL CITY All-Y. CITY MGR.Zgf? DEPT. CMWD IRRIGATION DlSTRlCi (IIDj RECOMMENDED ACTION: This is an informational item only. No action requested. ITEM EXPLANATION: The San Diego County Water Authority staff will update the Board on the proposed Imperial Irrigation District (I ID) water transfer. The CWA and the IID entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1996 to develop a water transfer agreement for at least 200,000 acre feet of water from the Imperial Valley. This MOU was supposed to 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. The negotiation of this proposed transfer is in its final stage. The proposed agreement has been released for public comment. CWA staff will be making a presentation regarding this agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. EXHIBIT: None. . . . . 6 p A\ San Diego County Water Authority A Public Agency 3211 Fifth Avenue . San Diego, California 921034718 (619) 682-4100 FAX (619) 692-9356 NEWS CONTACT: . Authority Dennis Cushman (619) 682-4126 (619) 6051330, pager or Janice Collins (619) 682-4128 (619) 300-3371 IID Ronald Hull (760) 339-9350 or Patricia Brock (760) 339-9417 December 11, 1997 IID and Authority release terms of water conservation and transfer agreement The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the San Diego County Water Authority (the Authority) today released for public review the terms of a water transfer agreement that promises to play a key role in advancing Western water policy while greatly benefiting Imperial and San Diego counties. The boards of directors for both agencies have not voted to approve the agreement, only to make the terms public. The boards will consider approval of the agreement in February 1998. “We have arrived at an agreement that would help provide the security of a long-term reliable water supply for San Diego County at a price that favorably competes with comparable supplies and the price we pay the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), (more) MEMBER AGENCIES CITIES IRRIGATION DISTRICTS . Del Mar . Ercondido . N.Yan.l City . Santa Fe . South Bay . Oceanr,de . Paway. Son D,ega . “,r+o WATER DISTRICTS . Hei,x . okay . San Diegu,lo . Vdlecltor MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTS . Carlsbad . Ramona . Olivenhm . Rincon del D,ablo . Padre Dam . Valley Center COUNTY . Son Diego (ex afhol PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT FEDERAL AGENCY . Fallbrook Pendlefon M,htary Rerervat~on . Rainbow . Yuirno PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Transfer Terms/page 2 of 5 currently our sole imported-water supplier,” said Chris F&n, chair of the Authority board of directors. “Through this agreement, we are not just helping to secure our water future, but the water future of Southern California, the state of California, and the Colorado River Basin states.” “The agreement also provides advantages to the Imperial Valley,” said Don Cox, president of the IID board of directors. “The IID will receive the funding necessary to go fotward with innovative water conservation efforts that we and our landowners can uridertake without resorting to the fallowing of productive farm ground. Through this agreement, IID can assist in California’s search for new water supplies and protect our water rights and our agriculturally based community at the same time.” State Senator David G. Kelley (R-Idyllwild), who represents all of Imperial County and portions of San Diego County, called the water transfer contract a “landmark agreement.” “This landmark agreement--the largest water transfer in the history of California--is the cornerstone component of the California 4.4 Plan and is critical to the solution to the Bay-Delta.,” said Kelley. “It will bolster Southern California’s economy by protecting the Imperial Valley’s water rights and agricultural economy while assuring a reliable supply of water for the San Diego region’s $87 billion economic base.” Under the agreement’s terms, IID would transfer conserved agricultural water to the Authority for at least 45 years. Either party could extend the agreement by 30 years. Transfers would total 20,000 acre-feet during the first year and would increase annually in 20,000 acre-feet increments until they reached a minimum of 130,000 acre-feet or a maximum of 200,000 acre- feet. If IID determines there is additional water available, the two agencies may agree to transfer (more) . Transfer tern&Page 3 of 5 an additional 100,000 acre-feet a year, starting no sooner than 10 years after the start of deliveries. The water’s cost would be determined through a formula outlined in the contract. The formula takes the price the Authority pays MWD for water plus other MWD rates and charges . and subtracts the estimated price (based on legal interpretations) for transporting, or “wheeling,” the transferred water through MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct. Once that figure is determined, the price would be discounted. The discount is 25 percent the first year, declining gradually until stabilizing at 5 percent in year 17 of the agreement. In addition, if the Authority experiences water shortages as defined in the agreement, the Authority will pay IID a “shortage performance premium.” The agreement provides for a “price redetermination” process through which the price may adjust to reflect the market value of IID water. The redetermination process would start no sooner than 10 years after the start of deliveries, provided that an active California water market develops. IID would begin transferring the water to the Authority after a series of contingencies are satisfied. The Authority must arrange a cost-effective and reliable conveyance method for the water. IID must meet specified targets for participation by its farmers. Both agencies must be able to reasonably mitigate environmental impacts of the transfer. The final terms of the contract were developed through a negotiations process that addressed matters raised during a public review period of the agreement’s draft terms, which were released in July 1996. Both agencies are planning public briefings and hearings on the final (more) Transfer tern&Page 4 of 5 terms during the next two months. California is entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water a year. It regularly exceeds that amount by about 20 percent, with almost all the extra water going to MWD. This is a concern to other states that rely on Colorado River water. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has asked California to develop a plan to live within its water entitlement. In response, the Colorado River Board of California, working with State Department of Water Resources Director David Kennedy, is developing the California 4.4 Plan, and the IID water transfer is one of the plan’s cornerstones. “A water conservation and transfer program of this magnitude is a linchpin of the California 4.4 Plan,” said state Water Resources Director David Kennedy. “This agreement demonstrates to the other Colorado River states California’s resolve to successfully complete the 4.4 Plan process. “The announcement today is a significant step forward in the marathon effort to complete the California 4.4 Plan. I look forward to hearing comments during the public review process.” “Negotiating this agreement so that it meets the needs of our Imperial Valley constituents, the needs of our partners in San Diego County, and the needs of other agencies and states who depend on the use of Colorado River water has been a significant challenge,” said Cox. “It’s extremely satisfying to see those negotiations come to fruition and to have the opportunity to heIp shape the future of Western water policy, while recognizing that IID can’t solve all of California’s water shortage problems.” “This agreement with IID promises progress on a number of Western water issues,” (more) . Transfer terms/Page 5 of 5 Frahm said. “It would help alleviate concerns of other Colorado River basin states by reducing California’s use of Colorado River water. It would reduce future Southern California demands on Northern California water and alleviate pressure on the sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by providing a Southern California solution to a Southern California water problem. “It would help free a portion of MWD’s limited supplies to meet the needs of its other Southern California member agencies. Most importantly to San Diego County, the water transfer would provide a higher level of water security for our 2.6 million residents and $87 billion economy.” #i# DltClIMBltR 11.1997 SUMMARY OF BASIC TERMS II&SAN DIEGQ WATER CONSERVATION TRANSFER AGREEMENT Purposeofageanent StatusofwatauansMed Tranqmrtrtion of water Qurnw Additional consemd water TCllTl Pricing Shortage premium Price redettrmhation Shoeage shariq Environmental compliance ApPro=ls Contingencies Other provisions NQ&: This summary is presented only for the benefit of providing an ovemicw of a compkx agreement. This sumtnary is not ‘mtended to be a substitute for the terms of the m. Readers should refer to the agreement itself for a complete understanding of specific provisions. 1. pUlPOItOf~-T~~~providerthrt~ImpaidIrriguioaDistria(m)) wiflllncmae8ndwill wntrau with Imped V&y kncfown(ns to undertake water coruennrion dforuinordcrto~~useofCdonrdoRi~wrtcr~nm)- Tbeytalso provides ttvt ED will transfkr the w w8ter to s8n Diego county water lkhfity (bthority)ia~~mo~payznaru~omtheAutbority. xxD8ndthaAuthoritywiu uS4t~~(bfbRdto~tedunhgthe~oftherSrsemeni to 8dlieve irs purpose. m: 7-heAut&ofitywill~8tlindcpendent,rdisblqaftcnrrte~wucr supply to pruvide Cbought pmection md to we 8rlepted growth in mlsnicip8l. domcstk,mda&ultmrtwss. m>mdvalkyfinraerrrwinraxi~the~~rasocwvyto procssdwith~~~~~~~aflbNthtm3urdthaludownerscuruadtrtoCrr! tithOUtl’UOrt;xl~tOt!KIfiDowingof~fbt&d. SouthcmCsl~asawhdcwilJ ~tsincsthistransffisviewed~a~nto8broodcrtuoktimrof~~~ch~ to the ovcnll v oftllc cdodo River. As an essutwput ofthe Yhmmi8 phn’to live witbin ChIiids 4.4 million ruse ta1 Colorado River apportionmen t, the IID-huthority truufa~dkadto~ri~opcratiorrrwhichwillbcofs~~totha Authority and the other AND member awes. 4 Th-m== tdoesmtprovideforanytrarsfkror as&uncnt of ITDb senior water ri&ts to the Authority. Rather, the Authority will have a ri&t to use the water cofwmcd within 1ID dwingrbetennoftbtagreemsnt ad duriq my renewal period. At the end of the transfc~ period, and any renewal period. the co- water will return to IID for future use. b) For Colorado River accountins purposes, and as part of the reI&iliiy the Authority is paying to obtain, the co-al water transferred to the Authority till retain the senior priority of rms wiucr rights. c) The agreancnt provides that the transfer will be carried out under the authority of California Water Code se&on 1011, w&h facilkates transfers of this type- Under that statutory authority, the bmeficial use and the senior water rights remain with ID. 50 the use ofammvcd water by the Authority will be viewed by the Stcrctmy of the Interior (Semtaty), for Colorado Rive accouRa purpobsr, as jurc of IITYS water use. a) The agreement provides that it is the Authority’s responsibility to provide for tmnspormtkxt of the conserved water to the krthority’s setice area. ITD’r responsibiii is to provide the conserved water to the Authority at Imperial Dam. lXD and the Authority will work together to sea~e approval for the diversion of the water at Lake Havasu on the cdorado River. It is the Authority’s rcsponsiMity to arrange for the transportation of the co- water through the MWD d&very system. b) The agreement is ccmtingat OII rhe Authotity, within two years of the execution of the agreement, being able to obtain from MWD m acc8ptabIe long-term wheeling w-t. Tbc whsd)ngtrttwittrtAccton)ytht~ofu~oftho~~rtrchtrot~deliveryry~rrm fcquiredtowheefthe coIuend~iPomthcColmcio’RiwrtotlmAuthotit)rrdcfiverysynem in SWI Diqo County. c) Thc~~t~bomtimetotirr#MWD~beIbktofillitsrqueduclon 8~montb~withwottr~~omLaktMad~tfoodcornrolpupo~.Durine such - the agresmsnt provides that the Authariy and IID will share -payment of a supplar#cartwhdling~wfiichwillrflowfortheddivay~them)~wrtar through the MWD systeq notwithrtMding the 8v8iiiIity of flood control wuer. a) Sina~productionOfconrrvsdwarerwilfdependon~lbrdOfvolUrrhry~~ ~W~~rsrament dOWlOtWt8SpCitiCMlOUllt 0fwtcrthatwiilbetrMsf~edfrom xTDtotheAlIthority.Ratkr,ths~ Sctsrceilingofnornorcthlm200,000acrefkt,aTuJ sets a minimum amount of 130,000 acre f#t. In other wo& if as a result of landovmer particip&Pn co rnmitmcnts llD can only produce an amount of co& water. which is Jcss than 130,000 ame ftet, there will be no e ard no transfu of water. ‘Ihe 130,000 acre fact is bused on whu the Authority and J3D see 115 the minimum amount ntccssuy for the agreement to beimpk!mMtai. b) ThrinitialtransfiitargetdateisJ999,or whenevu the 4xmditiocLs v for the apmmobefiMfiztd8re~edorwrivtd,whichevcristta. c) The idid 2fanAr quantity is 20,000 acre f&t for the first year, with a build up of 20,000 acre f&et per year therdk for a puiod of ten years it until tht transf~ amount Js reached. The maximum amow that can be 2randkrrai is 200,000 acre fee& but a ksser unount (above J30,OOO acre feet may be the finaJ transfer amount depending on the level of landown~ participation and whether IIBundenlkes any system cons~tion mea~.~es. d) If the agreement is renewed, IID has the ability to ta&e back 34,000 acre feet of the transferred water afkr the 1988 llD-MWD ttansfer agreemmt has been tuminated (as early as 2033) and returns to the valky 106,000 acre feet. The purpose of this “recapture arrangement” is to allow IID to provide water for the vaky’s municipal and in&s&l needs if growth projeabns warmllt the need for this water. e) The Authority has the ri&t to engage in temporary re-transfa of the consen& water to other public water suppliirs as mcessuy to respond to emcr~encics, natural disasten, or system fidurcs. Such rbtransfefs cmnot h8ve my injurious affect on IiD. 5. Additional conserved water a) The agreement provides that rdditional consaved water may be made avrilabk by IlD in the fishrre if IID determines to do so in its compkte diiion. The maximum amount of additional conse~ed water that may k provided to the Authority is 100,000 acre fat -2- b) ThepricctiuyddionJ colW-dwttawillbct&sameasd\cpriceforthcbuc amount of wan&red lmtff. c) I%cusslons #momrine tbc transfk of additional cmsuved water may take pIace within years 4 thmgh 10 of tb aJpm-t(durinet~rrmpupperiod).~t~ qrecmmtprwidesthat no additional B water wiff be provided to the Authority until on or after year 11 of the wansfbrm. d) If iID decides to produce additianil axwmmd water the Authotity has the right to purcbsctbrd~.Howwer*the~~ tb8uJDmaynadvmreofthu rdditionrl CoIllcNcd water fbr other purposea, arti U set&g disputes with h4WD of Coacha& JQxcdii, tba agfemfa prO~~thatmbutberi~tibintht~#ven~ofthe tmtsfh w to exctudt water km the - of additional consanrcd .watcr madr 8Mikblerouto~~disQutsswithMwD~coachd~ a) Mditional conserved wat- apcciftcally does not include watar sanerated as a rasult of the 19% IID-MWD mmsfer agreement and aho doer nut include water sav-tai by amsenhg sqiagc fiomtheAf~AlndcancanaI. a) Tbainit~tcrmofthetrsnsfer~~b4syearsfiomthe~~date(rftctcc*tsin conditions are aati&d or waived). If the agfM is not renewal at the end Of tbt 45 yw peliod the ctgmmcnt terminates. Any additknal conserved water RllLic available by ilD to the Authority wouJd also be available during the 45 year initii tam of the base transfm sgtaeznerd. b) The~mentmayk~twcdfbrm~Qaiodof30ytars.Bathm)Mdthe Authority have the unilateral right to renew the agreement for the 30 year renewal period. Renewal of the agrtemcnt llrsy be avoided by either party if there is a material change in the wheeling arrangement. IID’s right to recapture 34,000 acre feet for municipal and industrial purposes goes into efkct when the renewal tern cafnmcncea. If the agreement is renewed. then the initial and additional conserved water will be available to the Authority. c) Although the agreement provides no obligation for either party to continue the transfer agreuncnt beyond 75 years, the agreement provides that IlD a& the Authority will meet and confer during the latter part of the renewal period in order to discuss the possiile continuation of the transfer agreemat beyond the end of the renewal period. Any continua&n of the qrccmcnt beyond the renewal ttnn would be under terms negotiated by the parties at that time. a TJ=agr- t provides cross “rights offirst re%aI” to ITD and the Authotity in regard to post-mewal period transfm. la other words. 8x a period of ten years afkf the end of the renewal perid IID has a right of first r&Sal to JvpprV water to the Authority if the Authority attempts to obtain water &where, and the Authority has a right of first &iasaI to pv&a.w cormwed wa2er $om UD if UD attempts to transfkz conserved mer dsewhen. -3- a) The fbcus of this consemationbns~ 8panent is the production of cauewcd water through ordlm conselv8sion snusuru. m: Tkpriwofth8consmed W8tdS8reobctiOnOfthCpaqreaivlerUftkputi6s. From IiD’s parpactivq the price must be high em@ to covw tha cost of con;ravins the wacr plus8ninccntiv+to~ p8rticip8tion1Dyfarman,Md8lsudiftrict8ndenvi~tosts Udc~mmunJtybeneAs. FmmthsAuthority’s~tkpriccpridtoIID,pfuswfiatitwifl ncaitop8ytowhccltk t24lmmdw8tatos8nDicgoCounty,mrutbeco~vewitllwhat theAuthorityp8ysMwDtiw8tcr. It is iIlpdnt to faxqizethuoverthtputsOycarrmud~~Juve&rPe8 glcatdulto- vmte&,merythin%liningcanaJs8ndwmlsto~-kvetirrg6el& AJ#,rmanberofsystuaa7ldan-b -tion mcasufcs wcfe irrqdamti thmqh the 1988 IID-MWD C mt. As a result, the tining oppor&&ies for water co-t& within the vaJJy are gqcraJly more diflkult 8nd cxpensivt th8n wtrat hu ken done in the past, and thcrcfora rebct a higher price for probcing the corlsmd-. The vaasfer price feflects curuiderabk due di.ligeRce by both ZlD 8rld tk Autbon’ty in con.tirming the costs.~O prciduce w&cl on-mm thloufi mc8swes such as pumpbacls systarns. b) Tk plicb axmqmmlt is al8dc up of a Wrnbcr of dif%rcnt components: tk axnount MWDdweesfbrwrterwahinitsrcrvicc~thawhserurOntet0movethc~wrter throqh tk MWD system, and 8 ptice discounr tbr the Authority wFr.ich declines over the first 17 years of the vt. - The rtarting paint fat understanding the pricing arrangement is the MWD fLJI wrtcr r;ste which equals the MWD price for untreated fill seti= water plus other applicable MWD rates and charges. w Subtract from the WI MWD rate tk estimated cost of v&cIing the conserved water through the MWD system. - A discount is applied, which begins I 25 percent in yau one of the agemat and declines over 17 years to a flat discount of five percent for tk rcmaind~ of the agreement. w Finally. if tk con.scrvtd water would displace flood control water, the Authority and IID will sh8fc in tk payment to MWD of 8 Supplementi wkdii charge BASE vvhliq rate 33150 2s pcrccnt discotmt (yew 1) -82.87 But price S248.6VAF c) Although the qreementruts8spccifkasamredwh#~mttinorktodetermincthc pric-c OF&e cxmsewcd water, the agreement rccognizcs that tk act& wheeling rate could be diffhnt. nlc pricing fomwla provides fw IID and the AuthWity to aju8Uy sh8rc tk 8mount# if any, th8t the 8ctud wheeling rate varies tkom the base wheeling rue, subjta to 8 c&Ring as to what will be paid by m, and the Authority. - In the example above. if the actual wheeling rat: is 378.50 per acre foot and the base wheeling rate is S68.50 per acre foot, ZD and tk Authority would split the SfO diffi. making the bast price $243.63 pet acre foot. However, in regard to IID’s and the Autbority’r responsibiIity, there is a cap on the amount the actual whding rate may exceed the brtt weeding rate. 8. Sborwe nr~urn In addition to the bu price, the Authority will make additional payments to IID when the Authority declares a shomxge or imposes mandatoty rationing or conservation, 2) the State of California declares a criticafly dry condition for the state water project. or 3) the Sacrctary declares a shortage for the lower Colorado River. N: Given the timited water suppkr 8vahb1e t0 the Authority, the reliability of IID’s senior water rights is a point of significant value in this transaction. In times of water sborrage, the nliability of IID’s water rights has even more value 10 the Authority, and that fact is reflected in the agreement. 9. JVia redttermin8tiw a) The price rwktsmination process cannot be engaged prior to year 10 af the tran&r agreement. A&r that time, either IID or the Authority may request the commencement of the price redetermination process only if certain conditions are s8tisfiai; for example: 1) the water market in CXifomia ha,s matured to the extent that there are sufficient eligible transactions which may be used as cornparables. and 2) at lest ten ytsn hu passed sinct the last rtdetennination or there have been mmerousreccntumxtiomuponwiGchrmktumktionjudgmeatnaaybe made. b) The agrcment p&&s for the adjustment of comparable transaction prices based upon ficton such as water reliability, water quaIity, and Iocatkm Cw: &withthcjurt~~tbeboeprigt~puticrhrve~~tt in~towhatmayocaninthcfL~wittl~~ofab~wacerutd~w~amcr mark~willdcwlopwithincati~~~kdisv~thu~~wrtrrwiUnmoinin rcl~~supplymd~demardwrllw.nKAuthority.ontheotberhm4rnticipltcr ~techndoeicrldunsesowtdrupprcu~pricer,urdtheo~~ofob~wrta couId go down. Because of these dSrunt papectM-IID md3he~Aurhotity traw agreed to pticcr raktefmination provisbns bvhkh will allow for the bore prica to pmiodkaily 8djlm to market conditions in the fhure. It is ucpexted that rrtiurce on the fcdctamirration process witi grow over time with the dcvdopmmt of the CaIifomii water cnaAct. . 10. s a) In light of the senior potiticm of IDS wtiff rights corn@ to other cruitkmcnts within the low basin of C&f&n& Mzona, and Nevada, it is uniikciy ti LID’s water rights would be afhtcd, even under shortage conditions, aq+time in the fomeerbk ttturc. Bkvetthekq since the diility of the unttc trar&rred to the Authority is gmmded in KID’s senior water rights, the agreement addfussus what will trappen ifa shmage on the river UVH iqac2s IIm rights. W mew eemcnt provicks that IID and the Authority will shm. on a pro-ma basis, any reductions in wattl availal#e to I3D as a result of a shortage declaration by the Secretary of the Interior. For exampk, if a shortage declaration resulted in a i~,OOO acre fc+t reduction in the amount of water available to IID, that reduction would b& shared by ID and the Authority. If the transfer agremcnt resulttd.-ie a transfe of the fi9l 200,000 acre fett to the Authority, the Authority would be tuponsiblc for 6.500 acre fat of the cut-ba& and IID would be responsible fat 93,500 acre fee, of the aJ!-back (assumi~ an OVeraJJ entirkmmt to ND of 3. I miJlion asYe feet), c) If a shortage condition afkts both parties, the agreement provides for the parties to meet and cot&r regarding the possibility of negotiating a suppltmental transfer agreement between UD and the Authority, so that the Authority may obtain a means by which to maintain its fi~U supply of water. The terms and conditions of any saqpkmcntai t~ansikr agreement wouid be negotiated at that time. d) If a suppkmental agreement is not entered into, the agreeme!n t provides that the Authority will have a right of first r&& as to any transfti wxter offeted by 110 to third parties during the shortage. Also, if suppkmental water is not available from IID, and IID hu not off’ transfer water to others, the Authority is allowed to mitigate its shortage situation by enterinq into M ttgmmmt with a third pany fk a rep1 acement supply of water. If that action is t&eq the agreement provides that IID WilI share in the cost of providing that mitigation water source for theAuthority,arbjecttoanrincdlinsrutomYsnrporrmbrlity. nmT@htofbntref&ulud myWfinu&lob~woufdt~ewiththtcndofh~irtgt. a) Laa~anruchis~itisvary~~tofb~~~k~oftbc parti~~u~ofwmplirn#withkwtIuchuther~o~Ewironmcnrrl~y~ (CEQA) and the National Erwirunnwcrcrl Policy Act (PEPA). Somethu with both CEQA and NEPAGO@&W~tbe~ptopoSiU@~raiaa~hnrrtOCOVUcaui~COS&S tiesigdt0~*~ofd#~onon~mvironmeust. b) wandthe~agmthtthe~m~ofthe~~k~ onco~withCEQAtndNEPA llwpamtddmerte,~cWb~ =spoasibiidwhsrrrtbrrAuthorityhs~~biliry.wsTcsQonsii C!CtdOOthO~V~udtheSaltonSsq~tba~~STerpolPibilify~~ s&?DiegoCounry,~tofrhc- wcttcrthIuughrhcm~aIxdmy co~sequenus on ttbe colodo River mmnh& hall changing tbc divusial wfromlmpcrtl van toLakeHavmu. c) Thergeementllsodividestbecnvkorrmatrlcomplhncs conpmeminr.0~ date and postzffective date rerpondbilitick For both pada the agreement provides exit ~w’~o~wbichrlkrwtitham)ortbeAuthbiityto~kr~~therlycemcncifthe cIv#iro~~wstsc%ceedthc- mmunrs dlowai. For exampk, the aglwmem~thattbe- 8mnmttJmtWwiUspendonpie4kti~date~~ is SlS million, and the maximum amoutIIDwiUspendonp43st4fkctk&teuncxpeUcd erJvirod 47onsequm will be $15 million, fcK 8 tota? exposure ofs30 mifliun. m: It is not expected that envirm camplianCCCOStSwilJtiO~~thb limits provided for in the agreement However, for a transaction of this magnitude, and given the ~betwetn~transoction~thcSa)tonSeaitwasdetenninsdthttthepNdentcourrc would be to provide for considerable flexibiity prior to being compelled to terminate the agreement. Also, eventhuugh t.heagrcurlen t pmvides that IID’s area of fesponsibirity covers the Salton Sm it was determined that the ovefau benefits of the trsnsfet, including ktors such as base pb and shortage prcmiwn. jusrifkd rhc lismmprh of thrt #-cqKmiMity. 6) Oneofthc cezmaksimpoudin!be agrecmWirthaxch4tm&rwiUbeapprovccibythc state water ResouEa Conhol Board (SWRCB) within five yam of when the agrmt is executed. ~~)byth~sw~~13tia~0~~~~hmatttrsr~: thhfdkir consistent with California Water Code Section 1011, oversight by the SWRCB, state con~tutiod mquircmen rs that water be used reasonably and ba~eficially, and veritkation of water conservation b) In addiicm to approval of the SWRCB, it is also a condition to obtain, within six years of the execution date, the qproval of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). BOR’s approval will cover such matters as tbo change in the divttrion point 5om Imperial Dun to Lake ftvlw and decrccr#;olmting a) The agramew is srrangcd so that it aanot &come ct&tivc unkm a ttumber of conditioruor~ art titbx ulidkd or waivd b) Exampies of conditions im&al on IID: -Within one year from the ‘exaation due, compk~ the contracting pmcus with participuing landownen so 85 to ConsWve at lea!H 13o.ooo acrefeet at the ad of the ramg UP PeM. -Obtain approval0 f&n SWRCB &i&in five years) and BOR (within six years). -Within five years of the execution date, complete state and federal environmental compliance processes. c) Exampks of conditions imposed on the Authority: -W&in two years from the execution date, obtain an appropriste long-term wheeling a@fcmatt with MWD. -Within five years fmm fht txtctftion daft, mplttt state and federal cnvifo~tal com@nce pTocuscS. 14. Other movision5 a) The Authority’s cant- rdationship is with IlD and will not extend to the contracts regvding on-f&n water coervation between IID and participating landowners. b) The decision as to whether to &rticipatc in the conscrvation/transfm program will be voluntary, and wiI1 be up to the participating landowners. c) Any reduction in the quantification of IID’s senior water rights as a result of legal challenges will not rcdt in a reduction of the conseryed water quantity being transferred to the Authority. d) IID bears the risk of non-pctibrmance by participating landowners. San Diego County Water Authority & Imperial Irrigation District Q. Where does San Diego County get its water? A. Nine of every 10 gallons typi- cally used in San Diego County are imported by the San Diego County Water Authority, via the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). This water originates in the Colorado River and in Northern California rivers. The rest of the county’s water comes from local lakes and wells and recycling pro- grams. Q. What is a water transfer? A. A water transfer - also known as water marketing - is the sale or lease of water from one party to another. Most transfers, including the one contemplated by the Authority and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), involve water, not water rights. Q. What is the status of the dis- cussions between the Authority and IID? A. The Authority and IID have released contract terms for the long- term transfer of conserved water from the Imperial Valley to the San Diego region. A period of public review and comment is under way; neither IID nor the Authority board of directors has yet approved the terms of the agreement. When the review is complete, Authority staff will report to their directors about the comments they have received from the public and ask the board to vote on the agreement. The Authority’s directors and IID’s directors will have to approve a water transfer agree- ment on behalf of their respective communities before it can go into effect. - . ,’ Conservation and Transfer Agreement Q. How much water is involved in the transfer? A. Twenty-thousand acre-feet of water would be transferred from IID to the Authority in the first year of the contract. Deliveries would increase in 20,000 acre-foot increments in ensuing years until they reach a maximum of 200,000 acre-feet. The two agencies may agree to transfer an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year after year 10. (An acre-foot is about 326,000 gal- lons - enough water to meet the annual household needs of two aver- age families.) Q. How would IID produce the water that is transferred to San Diego County? A. Imperial Valley farmers served by IID would voluntarily conserve the water by investing in state-of-the-art water conservation technologies. The water would result from this “extraor- dinary conservation,” not land fallow- ing (retiring farmland). Q. What is extraordinary conser- vation? A. Extraordinary conservation occurs when a water-user saves water using techniques that are unaffordable without financial support. In the case of an Authority-IID transfer, the Authority would pay for Imperial Valley farmers to conserve water by using techniques and technologies that make the most sense to them as indi- vidual farmers. IID has made signifi- cant efforts to promote water conser- vation in the past, but not all conserva- tion opportunities are affordable for its agricultural customers. Such opportu- nities include installing systems to cap- ture water for reuse before it runs off fields and use of drip irrigation. - Q&A San Diego County Water Authority & Imperial Irrigation District Q. What happens if there is a shortage on the Colorado River? A. The Authority and IID would share any declared Colorado River shortages proportionally - that is, if IID deliveries from the Colorado River are reduced by 10 percent because of a drought, the amount of water that IID transfers to the Authority will be cut by 10 percent for the duration of the shortage. Any reduction in IID’s legal rights to Colorado River water would not affect the transfer agreement. Q. Would water transferred from IID be more reliable during a shortage than water the Authority buys from MWD? A. Yes. Water transferred under the Authority-IID agreement would result from IID’s Colorado River rights, which are among the most senior in the Lower Colorado River Basin. In recognition of the value added by this reliability, the contract requires the Authority to pay a pre- mium on IID transfer water if either the Authority declares a water short- age and imposes mandatory conser- vation and rationing, the State Water Project declares a criticaIly dry year, or the Interior Department declares a shortage for the Lower Colorado River Basin. Q. How long would the trans- fer contract last? A. IID and its agricultural cus- tomers would conserve water and sell it to the Authority for at least 45 years. Either agency may extend the contract for another 30 years beyond the initial term. Q. How much would this water cost? A. The cost of transferred water would be competitive with other water supplies available to the Authority. The Authority would pay an amount for the water that equals the cost of conserving the water plus an incentive to encour- age participation by farmers. The water’s price reflects considerable effort by the Authority and IID to confirm the cost of on-farm conser- vation measures. The contract includes a formula that indexes the water’s price to MWD water rate, less the cost of conveying (or wheel- ing) the water to San Diego County. A discount is applied to the price that begins at 25 percent in year one and declines gradually over 17 years to stab&e at 5 percent for the remainder of the contract. Q. How about an example of the pricing formula? A. Keep in mind that the num- bers below are only examples for the first year of the contract. MWD untreated rate $349/AF Other MWD charges +a MWD “full rate” 400 Estimated wheeling rate -a 320 25% discount (year 1) -80 $240/AF There also is a provision under which the Authority and IID share the difference between the estimat- ed cost and the actual cost of wheel- ing the water. Q. Would the water’s price remain steady throughout the con- tract? A. Either the Authority or IID may request a redetermination of the water’s price after the first 10 years of the contract, and at lo-year intervals thereafter. As the market for water transfers expands, the price redetermination wilI be tied to the price of comparable water trans- fers. Until the market matures, the price will be redetermined based on a comparison with the cost of com- parable transfers, Authority water supply projects and MWD’s water rates. These provisions bring flexi- bility to the contract’s pricing provi- sions. (The discount on transfer prices and the shortage premium mentioned above are eliminated once prices are tied to the transfer market.) Q. When would the contract go into effect? A. IID would begin transferring water to the Authority in the first year after a series of contingencies are satisfied. The State Water Resources Control Board and the federal Bureau of Reclamation must approve the contract. The Authority must arrange cost-effective and reli- able conveyance for the water. IID must meet a specified target for par- ticipation by its farmers. Both agen- cies must be able to reasonably mit- igate environmental impacts of the transfer. Q. Why is the Authority involved in these discussions with IID? A. The Authority entered into water transfer discussions with IID in 1995 as part of its ongoing effort to maintain a safe, reliable and ade- quate water supply that supports the San Diego region’s $87 billion economy, job base and quality of life. Estimates based on population projections by the San Diego Association of Governments indi- cate regional water demand will increase by 30 percent in the next 20 years. The Authority has an obliga- tion to evaluate water resource alternatives that are potentially secure and prudent and, in fact, performs such evaluations regular- ly. The task of evaluating and developing new water resources is especially important given that in 1991 the county faced potential 50 percent reductions in imported water deliveries because of drought-induced shortages in its traditional imported water sup- plies. In addition, California is expected to lose some of the Colorado River water that it has used for many years (see below). Q. Is the transfer agreement tied to efforts to change the way California uses its supply of Colorado River water? A. An annual 200,000-acre-foot transfer of water from IID to the Authority is a key component of the draft “4.4 Plan” released by the Colorado River Board of California and State Department of Water Resources Director David Kennedy. The plan is so named because California is entitled to take 4.4 mil- lion acre-feet of water from the Colorado River each year. Thanks to surplus water supplies, the state regularly exceeds its allocation by about 20 percent, with almost all of the additional water going to the MWD service area. The federal gov- ernment, prompted by the other states that have Colorado River allocations, insists that California reduce its take of river water and live within its entitlement. If California is able to accomplish this task, it may also gain renewed access to surplus water when it is available. Q. Would the Authority make the transfer agreement with IID itself or individual water-users? A. The Authority is dealing sole- ly with IID. The district holds in trust the Colorado River rights of landowners within its service area in the Imperial Valley. Landowners interested in participating in the con- servation and transfer program would arrange to do so through IID. Q. How does the water trans- fer program fit in with other pro- grams the Authority has in place to improve San Diego County’s reliable water supply? A. Water transfers are among the options explored and recom- mended in the Water Resources Plan adopted by the Authority board of directors in 1997. The plan outlines a San Diego County water supply in the 21st century that is significantly more diversified than today’s supply. Under the plan, San Diego County in 2015 would import 55 to 60 percent of its water through MWD, produce another 15 to 20 percent through local water recycling and groundwater pro- grams, and get the rest of its water through long-term transfers. Water transfers are “one of the Authority’s greatest potential resources,” according to the plan.’ Q. What might San Diego County gain from a long-term water conservation and transfer program such as that contemplated with IID? A. A long-term water transfer agreement may help San Diego county to: . l Secure a long-term, reliable water supply. l Diversify its water sources and reduce its reliance on a single supplier. l Establish an “insurance policy” against the impact of drought. l Stab&e the cost of a signifi- cant portion of its water. Q. What might IID and the Imperial Valley gain from a trans- fer program with the Authority? A. A long-term water transfer agreement may help IID to: l Achieve affordable water conservation. l Recapitalize the valley’s agricultural economy. l Stimulate diversified investments in the local economy. Imperial County has the second lowest per- capita income rate in the state and an unemployment rate of more than 30 percent. l Provide direct assistance to the community. Q. How would the Authority get the transferred water from the Colorado River to San Diego County? A. The Authority is negotiating with MWD concerning use of the district’s Colorado River Aqueduct, the sole existing water delivery facility connecting the river and coastal Southern California. State law allows and encourages use of existing water conveyance facilities to convey - or “wheel” - water for agencies involved in transfers. Under a wheeling arrangement, the Authority would divert water allot- ted to IID into the Colorado River Aqueduct -before it flowed downstream to the Imperial Valley - so it could be conveyed west to coastal Southern California. Q. Would the transfer require a new pipeline/tunnel facility from the Imperial Valley to San Diego County? A. The Authority is pursuing a contract to wheel the water through MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct to avoid construction of parallel or duplicate facilities. The Authority has studied the feasibility of build- ing its own facility to the Colorado River, either on its own or in a part- Q&A water resources and thus to help Authority will brief each of its the Authority’s fellow MWD member agencies and offer briefin- member agencies have more gs to San Diego County’s cities San Diego secure water supplies. MWD also and to interested private organiza- County could gain increased certainty as tions. In addition, the Authority to the source of the additional plans to hold a public information- Water water it will need in the future. In al meeting Feb. 3, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. Authority addition, as the Authority-IID and a formal public hearing on transfer is a key to the “4.4 Plan” Feb. 17,1998 at 9:30 a.m Both & mentioned above, it would help meetings will be at the Authority MWD maintain access to surplus office, 3211 Fifth Ave. in San Imperial Colorado River supplies when Diego. Input gathered in this fash- Irrigation they are available in the future. ion will be presented to the Authority board of directors District Q. What would be the impact before the directors vote on the on the state of California? agreement. A summary of the A. A water transfer agreement agreement is available to the pub- between the Authority and IID has lit at the Authority’s two offices, the potential to benefit California 3211 Fifth Ave. in San Diego and nership with Mexico (which has its in several ways. As it makes San 610 West Fifth Ave. in Escondido. own Colorado River entitlement Diego County’s water supply and a need to deliver more river more reliable and provides an eco- water to growing lijuana). A deci- nomic stimulus to the Imperial ]unuay 1998 sion to construct a new delivery Valley, it could strengthen the facility must be made separately Southern California economy. As it from a decision to enter into a provides a Southern California water transfer agreement with IID. solution to a Southern California water supply problem, it could Q, How would the transfer reduce reliance on State Water agreement with IID affect the Project deliveries from Northern Authority’s relationship with California rivers and help relieve MWD? pressure on the Sacramento-San A. Through its Integrated Joaquin River Delta. As it uses Resource Plan, MWD encourages California’s water to help solve a the Authority and other member California problem, it could help agencies to develop their own to avoid contentious disagree- water supplies. The Authority wel- ments involving other states. comes the opportunity to diversify San Diego County’s water supply, Q. What is the scope of the making it less dependent on Authority’s public outreach effort MWD, its only source of imported concerning the water transfer water. However, the Authority agreement? does not intend to terminate its A. The Authority’s public out- long-standing membership in reach effort is similar to that which MWD. Rather, the Authority it undertook for the summary of expects to remain MWD’s largest draft contract terms released in customer. July 1996 by the Authority and IID. At that time, the Authority Q. How would an Authority- conducted more than 100 briefin- IID water transfer agreement gs, then compiled all of the input affect MWD and its member for presentation to its directors agencies? before transfer negotiations A. It has the potential to resumed in 1997. With release of Son Diogo County Water Authority relieve pressure on MWD’s limited the contract in December 1997, the San Diego County Water Authority & Imperial Irrigation District + The San Diego County Water Authority and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) have negotiated an agreement for the long- term transfer of conserved water from the Imperial Valley to the San Diego region. Directors of the two agencies approved release of the contract terms for public review. Neither board has approved the agreement; both are expected to vote on it in February 1998. + Summaries of the contract terms are available at the San Diego County Water Authority’s offices, 3211 Fifth Ave. in San Diego and 610 West Fifth Ave. in Escondido, as well as at other local water providers and at public libraries. + Under the negotiated contract, IID and its agricultural customers would conserve water and sell it to the Authority for at least 45 years. Either agency may extend the con- tract for another 30 years beyond the initial term. San Diego County’s Water Supply Typical Potential Supply Today Future Supply + Deliveries in the first year of the con- tract would total 20,000 acre-feet and increase annually in 20,OCKl acre-foot incre- ments until they reach a maximum of 200,000 acre-feet. The two agencies may agree to transfer an additional 100,000 acre- feet per year after year 10. The water would result from voluntary conservation by Imperial Valley farmers. The contract expressly prohibits land fallowing - retire- ment of farmland - to produce water for transfer. The Authority and IID would share any declared Colorado River shortages pro- portionally. + The Authority would pay an amount for the water that equals the cost of conserving the water plus an incentive to encourage participation by farmers. The wafer’s price reflects considerable effort by the Authority and IID to confirm the cost of on-farm con- servation measures, including systems to capture and reuse water and the lining of earthen irrigation canals. + The contract includes a formula that indexes the water’s price to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) water rate less the Authority’s cost to convey the transferred water to San Diego County. A discount is applied to the price that begins at 25 percent in year one and declines gradually over 17 years to stabilize at 5 percent for the remain- der of the contract. Under this formula, the water’s price would be comparable to that Dollars per acre-foot Comparison of Water Rates: (Estimated wheeling rate $6O/AF in year 1. Achml wheeling rate !%O/AF in year 1. Estimated Authority charge $405/AFinyear 1.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 Year of other supplies available to the Authority + Water transferred under the Authority-IID agreement results from IID’s Colorado River rights, which are among the most senior in the Lower Colorado River Basin. In recognition of the value added by this reliability, the contract requires the Authority to pay a premium on IID transfer water if either the Authority declares a water shortage and imposes mandatory conserva- tion and rationing, the State Water Project declares a critically dry year, or the Interior Department declares a shortage for the Lower Colorado River Basin. + After the first 10 years of the contract, either the Authority or IID may request a redetermination of the water’s price. As the market for water transfers expands, the price redetermination will be tied to the price of comparable water transfers. Until the market matures, the price will be redetermined based on a comparison with the cost of compa- rable transfers, Authority water sup- ply projects and MWD’s water rates. + The Authority entered into water transfer discussions with IID in 1995 as part of its ongoing effort to maintain a safe, reliable and ade- quate water supply that supports the San Diego region’s $87 bilhon economy, job base and quality of life. Projections indicate regional water demand will increase by 50 percent in the next 20 years. + Nine of every 10 gallons of water used in San Diego County typically are imported by the Authority through MWD. The Authority is acting to diversify San Diego County’s water supply and make it more reliable. The Authority’s Water Resources Plan identifies water transfers as “one of the Authority’s greatest potential resources.” + A long-term water transfer agreement such as that envisioned with IID may help San Diego County to secure a long-term, reli- able water supply; diversify its water sources; establish an “insur- ance policy” against the economic impact of drought; and stabilize the cost of a significant portion of its water. + Implementation of the contract is contingent on several factors. Chief among these for the Authority is the securing of con- veyance for the transferred water Southern California Water Systems from the Colorado River to San Diego County. To avoid construc- tion of parallel or duplicate facili- ties, the agency is negotiating with MWD to secure the use of available capacity in the district’s Colorado River Aqueduct, the sole existing water delivery facility connecting the river and coastal Southern California. The Authority also is studying building its own facility to the Colorado River, possibly in cooperation with Mexico. + The Authority is MWD’s largest customer and is projected to remain so. As such, the Authority is vitally concerned about MWD’s issues and future viability. A trans- fer agreement between the Authority and IID would help MWD member agencies to have a more secure water supply by reducing the growing demand on MWD’s limited resources. + An Authority-IID transfer agreement may benefit California as a whole, by making San Diego County’s water supply more reli- able and stimulating the Imperial Valley’s economy. An agreement also may help relieve need for more water from the environmen- tally sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. + The ongoing “4.4 Plan” effort to reduce California’s use of Colorado River water includes an annual 200,000-acre-foot transfer of water from IID to the Authority. The plan is so named because California is entitled to take 4.4 million acre-feet of water from the river each year. California regularly exceeds its allocation by about 20 percent and must draw up an implementable plan that will allow the state to live within its alloca- tion. Canal / Dlogo County Wotor Autkority December 1997 . 3NovoxE: \ao? Iii x s (z1 c 0 .- I .I E I!7 c * L l.*?g.?“-!.L. - ..4.‘---‘-CoI 1, CO c # - LOS ANGELES TIMbJ,EDITORIALS Tough, and Crucial, Water Issue / TheSanDkgoCountyWaterAutborityhas announctd a tentative agreement to buy as much 88 300,OCN acre-feet of Cdorado River w~~y=&r=$.h; giant Imp-$ Fp . . histo& one with 8243niCmt for d futURatJP&r8UpplythroughoutGlifornL But the accord mean.8 nothing unless San DiQpb1MetOlXiIlgintkWJtcrflWIlUX ColoraQRi~r.Aadtheoalywrytodothatir to use the Colorado River Aqueduct d the Metropolitan Water Distrkt of Suthern Cali- forniaForthepastyear,SanDiegoandthe MWD have been involved in often-bitter xlegobtionJovuthetermJforsaIlDiego’r rentingcrfJpaceintheq- ItqpearedSanDiegoandtheMWDwere cloJctoagxelnentlateiaatwe4butthe.talts broke off. Neither side would pubkly discuss proupects for future negotiationr But this watertran&ristooiqortanttoailofCalifor- nia to aIlow it to founder on the details of transporting-the water. The San Diego- h outpacing available water supplies. With a water supply of it8 own+ San Diego would be free of fear of severe shortagea in droughts. The county now gets abut 90% of its water from the MWD, which wholesala t0 27 member agencies throughout Southern Cali- fornikBecauseSanDiegoi.sanMWDjunior member,itcouidloeeaamuchashaLfib in a drought before original members 3 i Im Angela would suffer ahcrtaga. Moreover, the San Diego-Imperial tirade iz ak:eypartofaprOgramtod enzmdraktoatber colcrado River Basin states that califolllia iJ capable of living within its legal allocation of 44 million acre-feet a year. For years, the state haa drawn a8 much a8 53 million acre-feet from tbe j Colorado, tapping the 8urplu8 waters of other 1 ba&l8tateaButthose8urplu8eaarenm&lg out and California is under intense pressure to live within its allocab There has been talk of throwing the San Diego-MWD negotiations to the state laglsL- ture for solution. That wild-card alternative Imperial transfer h important tease it wuuld ’ set a pattern for other water trades from agri- might wind up making everyone unhappy. The southern California in- are far better off cul~~tourban~ wheregrowth JettliIigthiadiJputeonth~~ Open:tbe gates ; No we bati8 to wah tTan@im I county-Ian&I v&y wa- terdeaI,pblemi8cyour had. Noue? Youqn’t4eeprfoodidtrdown.A stJperimchl!tjudgeinsauF~ juscthrewuutcher8tionalebythtIns Allgcbw Metcopo~ water Dh- t&t - Southern fhlifomb’s water WimkMler lud San Diego couuty’s chief au- - to clmge outr* eeourlv~~-~pwnP~ v8uc9 water tlucJ& itlaaucduct Reliability, was expoacd for w&t it re& ly is. ?lwg.i~‘khicii lib bghgtj &trd against the Sal Dkgdmpcd VaIIcy deal, wis fingered for spending s11,ooo in N2payerS‘ money to try to dig up dirt on any staCe &i&b, from the goveruur to ixluuty a&rr, who might have a conflia uf ipurest regiiding the watei deaL Tk~rcport tumedupnothing,butraary~thosc investigltd arc Maul. aud qlxstions are bdng railed obuut the prop&y of rudl au ilwmti@w * FiiU9. the BAWD ‘&ems to &n lost 7% MWD. w&b - its support in the city of Los Angeles, wbcre it’s bmed. The Icas An&s Times, which hrd been dt &kdIy m tbc fence abut the sm Dicigck Imperial valley d&l, came out in bte De- cember u&h an edit* rial supporting it. And yesterday, Times columnist Bii Boyarsky wrote a scathiug piece euti- -. tlcd, “MWD’s dirt- digging scheme is all wet.’ It appears An- water trrarferr. - gclcnos have fillally Trausferriug water from farms to cities rcsliEtd that the water deal would hcnc ir exact& w&at Soutkrri California fit than. because it wouki fret up water Iweds fight now. for Los Arlgck8 that’s now going to San Meauwhile. the 8tate’s water chief, Dicgo County. hidKeMcdy,&#~him8eIfib With no allies and no rationale for co the sluggish talka between the MWD further intraudgence, it’s time for the and the Sau Diego Couuty War Au- MWDtopbykIkWecxpccttoseea thority on the aqueduct, popokg rea- deal to pump Imperial Valley water SOIdktGCtMfoSthCCOUU~tOpunp througtl the aqueduct within a few water. His prtkipation and the judge’s weeka When that happens, San Diego clediou ebould reiuvigumte the talks. county win have acchiavcd a hi8toric nlen,bltweekapuppeturg8niM- l tion of the MwD’s top brass, the so- transfer that will hcIp everybody in Southern Cailfomia. including the callad Plrtncrshii for RegioMI water MWD and the people of Los &+a. ‘Dynamite the dam iiii~&YE~ . Chxtty 200,000 ut-fmt d mterryewi,tmacCqmd byntariydllltmtusmtht WertElcrpoac,t&tir,huttbekr .hc Me- WIttr Buttvaid6cialsfromsootbcrac8li- fomibpornfplruarbderllam8y btau4ingd lnrapttcbytaadaytmmtrsdtbt -y- ilwdbgsMDicp~,bdai& secretary Bruce Babbitt made it cltartimtthtIm- !iFYtzi*~ putdqCgortr& get cdifw to live with its 4.4 milliuJ~ttt3 lotment from the rivtrslunany. Rightnow,c8li- Rum’c-‘w focni8take8&batlt5.2minkay1c-kct. Thtrestdtbtrtrter~tLcrira- alxlthtkdaal prarmrart,nms thtrivtr-&xttEktcalifmwsQr~ ingtmrttbrrricshksb8rt. sofar,tbtMwDlLasrtfudtoJbr itsCdorrdoRiver~tokuaed uthtooodtritfortht~v~ vrttrtb;ltwlnbtsddtosIIlDic1o. l7wtvolumt amamtstoabaithdfd OlXCOWktjScurrmtWt. tohiscrtt&B8b&in~illhh LasVeg8s8peecbtbtthebfWDmaat tzmptrstthtbeprogolcdtrrarda.if tlbtSSdXtgO~-ImpcrilJV1pcl dtalwtrttof8nthralghbtfamethr Metrefuaedto8greetorred&ic@ce forusingitaaquabt,tbewrathd otharbtcr8ndthclntaia~- -roplldmtmat wontthrltbd,witbut!ilmcom- dVttXWSrrta’rmtk& RiW!C,bbWtd.ttUt-cpr- ~i@crPeirltOthtWS~. MwD,sRyingit’smthis~ nmrstDobd.bsuuttbccoaldhrc illimma5tt~ l%ttntaior~bcli+rart& tmedtbtCokdoRimrAqmahtisi rWrQ8ttt?.IbcgOVWWdSd6Ct, tbtlghS&ttWStdbWCUDinc- taDnidIc4mtdy,b~~tht . . lke@mm&8ndEab- bt8oagmawlt fcmwedtbequ&cUkapecta cltarpmgrt8swithbaftwwttk Ifoot,tbtLtgWm,rbrU* wllArbm8~itsfull~ Rivmalbtmaadatba~tu& tluadbg tlut csllhnh stop Ming tbtimourrtgimlsmrw8ttrarnwh. tbtonlyrtmonwtddtftelitLtlMt wt%taLrra@mvayTttytaraBut iaromrpbrnttrfiwnt&tircr,wt’rt goingtobtindttptIoabk thtadysdutioairtotrradcrrrta lvittknthtst8~,dtht’smctly~t spmDltgOCOWJQSdthtIUtpthlVI1 lty8rttqbgtodRtkbstea@h WltcrlXdCttSOlWtk8lbWtdtO smdintbtwsy. .““C +@fl y t. rc 1pI 8 ” ;: ‘-ii? 1 . . - -‘WV.. a .A,-- .- State should end water folly ‘Sew up the deal FRIDAY. DECEMBER 12.1997 - MWD must agree to realidic water rates he landmark deal for Imperial V&y to sell San Diego Coun- ty 200,000 acre-feet of water a year changes the future wa- ter supply for the region. It provides San Diego County with an independent, reliable supply of new wa- ter for 75 years in the future from water conserved by Imperial Valley farmers. And it eventually could help bring more water to all of Southern California. But that’s only if the Metropolitan Water District, the county’s Los An- geles-based water wholesaler, will agree to sensible rates for piping our new water through the MWD’s Colora- do River Aqueduct. If the MWD keeps trying to thwart the Imperial Valley deal by proposing ridiculously high Bruce &bMtt rates for using its aqueduct, it wiIl thwart water progress for all of Southern California. Here’s why: All the states that use Colorado River water, and the federal government, are demanding that Cali- fornia live within its 4.4 million acre- feet annual allotment. For years, the state has been taking as much as 5.2 million-acre feet, the extra coming from unused allotments of other states. All the extra is taken by the MWD. The San Diego County-Imperial Val- ley deal will be a giant step toward reducing Southern California’s intake of Colorado River water. But if the MWD won’t play ball, other states and the federal government will believe, and rightly so, that the MWD isn’t serious about living within its Colo- rado River allotment. And, if that hap pens, the other Colorado River states and Northern California will probably oppose plans to f= the Bay-Delta, a crucial project for Southern California’s water supply. If Southern California is ever to re- ceive more water from Northern Cali- fornia, the water flow through the Sac- ramento-San Joaquin River Delta and San Francisco Bay must be fixed. Cur- rent pumping operations are slowly kill- ing the Bay-Delta. A major state-federal project to fix the Bay-Delta is under way, but it must receive funding from Congress. If elected officials from Northern Cal- ifornia and other Colorado River states think Southern California isn’t serious about reducing its Colorado River in- take, they’ll oppose the Bay-Delta plan. That would be very bad for the future of our region. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt must step in immediately and encour- age the MWD to go along with the San Diego County-Imperial Valley deal. Po- litical pressure from the governor and the Legislature also must be brought to bear. This new water deal will be the model for future transfers from agriculture to cities in California. And it will benefit all of Southern California by showing ev- eryone else that we can live within our water allotment. But that can happen only if the MWD realises its responsibility to Southern California water reliability and agrees to realistic rates for using its aqueduct. Federal and state officials need to make sure it does. :)UDAY. DECEMBER 12.1997 Pact provides county a ,new water source By Steve b Rue, srm warm An agreement to insulate San Diego County’s .$SO billion-plus annual economy from disastrous droughts was unveiled yesterday by city and agri- cultural leaders who called it historic. Irrigation water now used in Imperial Valley fields would be conserved and begin to flow into San Diego County in 1999. according to the 75year pact. The agreement would expand San Diego County’s water imports by at least 29 percent and as much as 66 percent. Backers say the agreement, if finally approved in February, will lead the way toward future farm-city water transfers in the West. ‘This would be far and away the largest such water transfer in California, and probably the larg- est in the Western states,” said Christine Frahm. board chairwoman of the San Diego County Water Authority. Directors of the authority and the Imperial Irriga- tion District voted yesterday to send the 70-page draft agreement, which took more than two years to negotiate, to the public for comment and review. The water transfer cannot pro teed, however, without an agree- ment between the water authority and the Metropolitan Water Dis- trict. the regional supplier that og crates the Colorado River Aque- duct. The San Diego agency and the Los Angeles-based MWD must agree on how much the m can charge to transport the Imperial Valley water. Negotiations have continued for months. One major impetus for the water- transfer agreement occurred in 1991, when a statewide drought threatened San Diego County with 50 percent cutbacks in water im- ports, which at the time comprised more than 90 percent of the coun- ty’s supply. “The leadership of San Diego County got focused during that drought and said, ‘Never again.’ What this transfer has been about all along has been reliability,” Fralun aaid. Record raina of the state’s “l&a- de March” 1992 eased the &ought, but did not erase the scare. Soon after, !3an Diego Mayor Su- san Gelding mobiliaed the city’s 10 delegates on the 34-member water authority board to put a priority on developing new water supplies, warning that doubts about water reliability could scare away water- dependent high-tech and other in- dustries. This is a very historic change, Gelding said of the agreement yes- terday. % will play a very sign& cant iole in adwincing water &icy in the state of California.” Business and political leaders al- so cast the agreement in terms of economic health. “Without water, we have no jobs. We have no economy. We can now feel that industry will be here and it wdl take us into the next century,” said Steve Cushman, outgoing chaiman of the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce. State Sen. Steve Peace, D-El Ca- jon, who sits on the Senate Commit- tee on Agriculture and Water, said the agreement is about more than water. “lt is about power and economic independence,” he said. “This is about whether we will be an eco- nomic appendage of the Los An- geles area or not.” “To me, the whole thing is about trust.” said Llovd Allen. vice chair- man ‘d the hi&al diitrk. This is a historical mark for our area.” Under the pact, the water au- thority would begin to receive - Water ---. . .- - THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE n FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, igg; Public comment sought on 70-page agreeme Continuedfrom A-l 20,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water from the Imperial Valley’s entitlement in 19?9. This would increase by 20,000 acre-feet a year - as water con- servation works are installed - until;.it reaches at least 130,000 acre-feet, which is about 29 per- cent as much water as is currently imported into San Diego County. Water imports comprise from 80 percent to more than 95 percent of total water supply, depending on local rainfall. San Diego County imports about 450,000 acre-feet of water from the MWD, which brings it from the Colorado River and rivers in North- em California. An acre-foot is enough to serve the household needs of two families of four for a year. Imports from the Imperial Valley could rise to as much as 200,000 acre-feeL over a decade, or 44 per- cent as much water as the water authority imports in all, depending on the voluntary participation of Imperial Valley farmers and land- owners. They will be offered economic incentives to participate in the pro- gram. If many more of them than expected decide to participate, the lmperial district could sell up to 300,000 acre-feet to the water au- thority under the pact. The water volume that this coun- ty receives from MWD is not ex- pected to fall. ‘We expect that we will maintain the same usage of MWD supply, and that the (Imperial) water would be for future growth,” said Maur- een Stapleton, water authority gen- eral manager. The pact’s initial term of 45 years can be extended for 30 years by either party. After the 75 years, a free market in water supplies is expected to be flourishing and to offer new water supply choices. This is a very significant trans- action,” said Tom Havens, a Colora- do water adviser and longtime ad- vocate of water marketing. “This is not the end. It is the beginning of a paradigm shift that will affect the entire Western Unit- ed States.” Rob Hallwachs, a spokesman for MWD, said, We are pleased they have finally reached an agreement, so the process can move ahead. We look forward to reviewing the con- tract in more detail, and may have additional comments.” Under the agreement, the water authority would pay the Imperial district an estimated $249 an acre- foot in 1999. The authority also will pay a fee to MWD for transferring this water into Southern California via the 242~mile Colorado River Aqueduct, the only pipeline from the river to Southern California. If the authority pays close to what it considers a legal “wheeling rate” to MWD for this service - about $70 per acre-foot - the total cost of the vahey water, delivered, should be competitive with water offered by MWD, which would cost about $350 to $400. Under the agreement, the water authority and the Imperial district will be able to renegotiate the price every 10 years to have it reflect what is expected to be a bustling keeetmarket in water supplies in the W’e will be able to recalculate the water rate every 10 years so that the water authority is assured that we are not paying more than the market rate,” Stapleton said. But MWD and the water authori- ty have not agreed on a price for use of the MWD’s aqueduct, and MWD leaders in the past have SW ken of wheeling rates of $250 or so per acre-foot. More negotiations are scheduled this weekend on this point. One motivational factor is a law written this year by state Sen. Dave Kelley, R-Idyllwild, who represents large parts of both San Diego and Imperi- al counties. If the water authority and MWD haven’t agreed on a wheeling rate, this law requires state Water Re sources Director Dave Kennedy to recommend a rate to the Legisla- ture in January. Frahm said, We’re either going to reach an agreement with MWD this Saturday, or there will be a clear understanding that we cannot reach an agreement.” Historic Water Pact Reached But Oficiuls Need ‘Ib Clear Next Big Hurdle In LA. ~KIMPEIERSON *DLFwhvrripl San Diego and Imperial Valley water officials heralded Thursday the 6rst tip to bringing an inde- pendent rupply of water here, but all eyer are now focwed on clearing the next great hurdle at the Metropolitan Water Di&ict MwD) in Lo6 Angelen. The San Diego County Water Authority and the Imperial Irriga- tion District releaned thi# week the term of an agreement tbat will bring up to 200,000 acre-feet of con8erved agricultural water a year b the county. An a-foot ir 326,000 gallona, enough to rervim a family of four for one year. The pact marb a shift toward independenoc for the authority, which currently receives about 90 percent of it8 water &om MWD. ‘Ibin heavy reliance on one agency makea local officials unury and worried how another drought could affect the region, In 1991, San Diego County faced a 56 percent cutback in water mpply, raid Chriutine Frahm. chair of the authoritfr board of directura. ‘I think the leadenhip in San Diego got focwed during that drought.’ Frahm raid. We’ve taken that fimt rtep toward raying never again will S8n Diego’r economy have to be impacted in a negative way because of the unavailability of water.’ The initial trmfer ie targeted for 1999, with an estimated 20.000 acre-feet ret to go the first year. After that, the amount will ramp up 20,000 acre-feet per year -for 10 yearn to mu out at 200,OW acre-feet. The minimum amount of imported water, a&r the ink&i #tart-up yew, wiIl be 130,000 acre-feet. There ia room for another 100,900 acre-feet of water if Im* rid Valley hw wnmrved addi- ~tional murcw. according to the agreement. The initial term of the deal~45yearafromthedateof effect and may be renewed for an additional SO-year period. The ngreement b about tmmt more than anything else, tid Lloyd Allen, vice preuident of the ImpelialIrligationDi6trictboard. Neither Imperinl Valley nor San Diego wantad ta back out of nw tiatio~ onw they hutul, he raid. Wewemgoingtumethbto theenduntilwebothagreedit would not work,’ he raid. It ha&t been easy. Ih telhg you there’s more damn paper over there in Imperial Valley now than thereeverwMinthehi6toryof that wunty.’ Local officiale gave the appr+ priate congratulationa and patr on the back Thum&y at a a~remo~ prsu conference. ‘BasicaIly wbat you’re Betting here in an example for the rest of the tttate of Califorrk: said e &n. Dnvid Kelley. There’r no place elre to go for water but the wnmmed arena in rhtewide agri- wltural wmmunitim, he said. Other water int.erwtd in C4Ii- fornia are cloeely watching the San Diego-Impuial ValIey m ment in hopsa it wiIl allcrirtc 6ome of the etate’r pw ta stay within iti allowanCe of 44 million acre-feet of Colorado River water every year. More water from Imped Valley conceivably would mean lea6 San Diego reli8nce on the Colorado River. Californh contin- uaIly haa ured ib rhare PIU l urplw river water, but it ir m=iving mom prer8ure from other w-m rtrtw to cl& & TZbe other aat~ M * b loOk ‘it *m vni;.eiiG’ “, iij m l e how a11 of this ame, toqttk’ mey mid. ~vimi.6antchangwb dWaY# bud, raid Mayor Suw CMding, who nerved on the County Water Authority board for eight yeam. Water itself and alone ir that one ingredient that make8 OUT ~VW hen in Southern California w&e,’ Golding raid. That’6 wiry &in agreement here today is 80 abrolutely aiticsl.’ But tbja agreement in only a eg point for the transfer to proceed. The authority next must foge an agreement with the Los Angeles-bared MWD to transfer the water here. San Diego mwt use aqueductcl ownedbyMWDtoimportthe Imperinl Valley water. The hrr0 ages&m have battled for ym on ’ an appropriate tran8fer price. . Authority official raid both agencies could decide thin weekend whether to work together or call off the deal wmpletely. The San Diegohprirl Valley deal ia not yet finali& both a@!@?#’ bon+ of &=- will i& io approve after a tw*month review period. The authority board haa tentdively rchedulad a February vote. patereon@mddLcom .,_- -l llos Ass~elei @imet I. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12.1997 OWRIGHT~~~~/~ET~MDMIRRORCOMPANY/~/~~~PAGD Key Deal Near on Shift of Water to Cities From Farms n Policy: In accord hailed as national model, San Diego could make cheaper purchases from Imperial Valley instead of MWD. Agency could OK pact this weekend. By TONY PERRY, TIMES STAFF WRITER SAN DIECO-In a move that could influence state and federal policy for decades. San Diego County and the Imperial Valley announced a tentative multibillion-dollar deal Thursday to shift water from some farms to thirsty urban and suburban areas. The deal could provide the county with enough water for up to 2.4 million people for less money than it has been paying the mighty Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The arrangement will be sealed once the county reaches an agree- ment with the MWD over the use of its 242-mile Colorado .Aqueduct to bring the water from the Colorado River. That could come as early as this weekend as negotiators, goaded by Gov. Pete Wilson, return to the bargaining table-although details that are still on the table could derail or delay finalisation. MWD officials have retreated significantly, albeit reluctantly, from earlier positions on the price of the water delivery. If San Diego County and the MWD cannot reach an agreement, key state legislators are set to push legislation that would get the deal done. State Sen. David C. Kelley (R- Idyllwild) hailed the plan as a model for the state and nation: a way to shift water from agricul- tural areas to cities without victim- izmg either side. The state’s per- petual conundrum is that the agricultural areas have the water, but the cities have the people. For the first time, Kelley said, Southern California is trying to solve its problems within its own region rather than reaching out to Northern California, the Sierra Nevada or the Central Valley-so- lutions that are becoming politi- cally untenable. Although water disputes tend to be measured in decades, all three major parties-the MWD. the Im- perial Irrigation District and the San Diego County Water Author- ity-seem motivated to make a deal quickly for at least three key reasons: l To forestall U.S. Interior Sec- retary Bruce Babbitt from cutting back on California’s draw from the Colorado River-already 20% over its limit. Babbitt is set to give a key speech next week in Las Vegas on the subject. l To keep the state Legislature from getting involved and possibly setting terms for the water sales that all three parties might find unpalatable. l To keep together the fragile alliance that has been trying to find a solution to the pollution and saltwater problem in the San Francisco/Sacramento-San Joa- quin Delta, a waterway that is crucial to the state’s water supply and economic health. 0 ne suggestion has been to build a canal around the delta to keep Northern California water flowfng to Southern California. But environmentalists and other Northern California pressure groups are liable to bolt from the alliance and fight a “peripheral canal” idea unless they are con:- vinced that Southern California is serious about finding better ways to solve its water shortages than “stealing” the north’s water. In 1982. state voters rejected a pe- ripheral canal measure. At the heart of Thursday’s deal is San Diego’s decades-old drive for water independence and its continuing anger at having been forced to join the MWD during World War II. Bereft of ground water, San Diego is the MWD’s biggest customer. A unique convergence of state IBS ANGELES TIMES FRIDAY. DECEMBER 12. 1997 Nears on Shift From Farms to Cities What this is about is economic independence for our two communities [San Diego and Imperial Valley) rather than being an appendage of Los Angeles and Metropolitan.’ - STATE SEN. STEVE PEACE (D-N cajon) and national politics-and the fact that the governor is a former San Diego mayor-has given that county leverage to wrench a deal from the MWD to use its aqueduct. Significantly, one of the county’s negotiators with the MWD is San Diego building industry executive Michael Madigan, a former Wilson staffer and still very much a Wil- son insider. An exultant San Diego Mayor Susan Gelding called the deal with the Imperial Valley “the triple crown of the water industry” bemuse it will provide a dependable source of water for the state’s second-largest city, help speed the solution to the bay delta problems and ease pressure on the Colodo River. “What this is about is economic independence for our two commu- nities [San Diego County and Im- perial Valley] rather than being an appendage of Los Angeles and Metropolitan,” said state Sen. StevePeace (D-EICajon). In a turn of phrase sure to resonate to local political ears. Peace railed at “those guys in Los Angeles,‘* a reference to the MWD. He compared the agency to a man “too dumb to know what is in his best interests.” The MWD-water wholesaler to 16 million residents in SIX coun- ties-has insisted that San Diego is attempting to shirk its share of the overall MWD water delivery sys- tem to the detnment of other Southern California water users. For months, the MWD has in- sisted on a wheeling rate-a charge to deliver Imperial County water to San Diego via the aque- duct-of about $262 per acre-foot (Thursday’s deal is for up to 300,ooO acre-feet). The MWD has now softened its position and is willing to accept $70 to $120 per acre-foot. (An acre-foot is enough water for two families of four for a year. 1 San Diego County believes that the proper race is $68 There are also differences between the two sides involving storage and use of the aqueduct during flood periods. Also, the loss in revenues from San Diego to the MWD could force water users in other counties to pay higher rates. Imperial County, with only 141,500 residents. has an annual entitlement of 3.3 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. If put to nonagricultural uses, that amount would accommodate virtu- ally all of Southern California. The San Diego-Imperial Valley deal would involve a graduated scale of sales over a period of years that eventually will reach at least 130,ooO acre-feet a year and possibly as much as 300,ooO acre-feet, de- pending on the needs of both parties. The pricing schedule is set so that the cost would always be lower than what San Diego would pay the MWD for an equal amount of water. The deal, which will require one more vote each by the governing boards of the San Diego and Im- perlal Valley agencies, would last 45 years, with a possible extelwon for 30 years. San Diego County would buy the water, but the water rights would remain with Imperial Valley. The money @ by the San I>lego agency to the Imperial Valley would be used for conservation measures and equpment to allow farmers to reduce their use of water. Michael Clinton. general manager of the Imperial Irrigation District. said there would be no profit available for at least two decades. until such meamres are fully paid for. For 300,ooO acre-feet. San Diego County would pay about $110 mil- lion to the Imperial district. S an Diego’s historic gripe with the MWD-restated at Thurs- day’s announcement-is that it could face a 50% cutback during a drought because it was not an original MWD member, like Los Angeles. In the 1991 drought, San Diego County suffered a severe cutback, particularly to its billion- dollar agricultural economy. At a hearmg last month, the judge in a wheeling-rate case filed by the MWD appeared to some observers to look askance at the MWD’s insistence that lbe cost of bringing water from Northern California through the State Water Project can be included in a wheeling rate for transfers from the Colorado River. Of the proposed $262 wheeling rate. about half would be to cover State Water Project costs Within days of that hearing, the MWD and San Diego returned to the bargaining table. A decision in the case could come next month. David Kennedy. director of the state Department of Water Re- sources. said a San Diego-Imperial Valley deal is key to convincing Babbitt that California is learning to be more conservative in its water use and thus should be spared a drastx cut from the Colorado River. , - IlLLi’ H irc.ap.utg AYIIC...+(L. IL I tubI.KUh I IL)=>LAKCH 12/12/l 997 05:33 EST Details of Water Pact Released AP WIRE (online) By PAULA STORY Associated Press Writer SAN DIEGO (Al?) -- A multibillion-dollar deal to ship Colorado River water through the Imperial Valley could quench San Diego County’s thirst for generations and become the model for future Western conservation efforts. Two years in the making, the proposed 75-year contract would allow San Diego to buy water from the Imperial Irrigation District, which takes water free from the Colorado River and sells it to farmers in the fertile Imperial Valley. Under the tentative deal reached Thursday, San Diego initially would pay about $250 per acre-foot, compared to the more than $400 it now pays the Metropolitan Water District. An acre-foot is 326,000 gallons -- enough water for two average Southern California households each year. The agreement, which could have water flowing to San Diego County as early as 1999, offers the county a declining discount that would start at 25 percent and end at 5 percent in the 17th year. California currently takes around 5.3 million acre feet of water each year, although it is only allotted 4.4 million acre feet. Proponents laud the pact as a historic model for a law requiring the state to reduce the amount it can take from the river. The federal government, neighboring Arizona and other states along the Colorado say the Golden State is sucking down more than its share and must find alternatives. “We’ve always gone to some other part of California -- or some other area -- for our water,” state Republican Sen. David Kelley of Idyllwild said Thursday. “There’s no place else to go.” The pact will have a public review before both board consider final approval in February. The plan hinges on the giant Metropolitan Water District’s rates for sending the water through its aqueduct and pipeline facility. The San Diego water authority has been negotiating the cost with the district since January 1996, but the two have been at an impasse. Home 1 US News 1 World News 1 Business 1 S~orls I lndex 1 Weather I Help AP I ofl Copyright 1997 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Send comments and questions about The WIRE to feedhac%&m.org. 12/12/97 11:27:3’ :L SW Dm EkMNES3 Joust San Diego Reaches Accord for Imperial Deal Hinges on Charges For Transport From MW ‘D The San Diego County Water Authority board of directors has released the terms of an agreement to purchase as much as 200,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Imperial Irrigation District in El Centro. An acre-foot is 326@0 gallons, or enough water to supply two average households with a year’s supply of water. The water authority and Imperial district jointly agreed td release the terms of the wa- ter transfer agreement for public review with- out putting tbe pact to a vote, said water authority spokesman Dennis Cushmaa. The authority is expected to vote on the merits of the agreement in February, said Cushman. Under the pact, the water authority will purchase at least lOO,ooO acre:feet, and up to 2~,ooO acre-feet, per year from the Imperial district for an initial term of 45 years. The water’s cost would be determined through a formula taking into account the price the authority pays the Metropolitan Wa- ter District (MWD), $4UO an acre-foot, minus the estimated cost for wheeling, or transport- ing, the water. ‘f’he wheeling charge is still to be resolved. in recent weeks, the authority and the LOS Ang&s-&cd MWD have renewed talks to end a stalemate over wheeling fees MWD would charge the authority for moving the water through its Colorado Ague-duct. Representatives of both agencies were to have resumed negotiations on the wheeling rate Dec. 13 in OtttariO. County . _.. Water - h Q San Diego County Water Authority A Public Agency 3211 Fifth Avenue l San Diego, California 92103-5718 (619) 682-4100 FAX (619) 297-0511 MD/Water Authority Partnership Summary Overview: On December 11, 1997, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the San Diego County Water Authority released for public review the terms of an historic agreement that will allow conserved agricultural water from the Imperial Valley to be transferred to San Diego County. At the end of the public review period, both agencies’ boards of directors must vote whether to approve the agreement. Below is a very brief outline of the agreement’s terms. QUANTITY a Maximum transfer 200,000 acre-feet/year a Minimum transfer 130,000 acre-feet/year l 20,000 acre-feet /year ramp up l Up to 100,000 acre-feet/year additional if agreed to by Authority and IID TERM 0 Initial term 45 years a 30 year extension by either party 0 Up to 34,000 acre-feet can be recalled by IID at end of initial term PRICE l MWD rates and charges, minus wheeling cost and a declining discount starting at 25 percent 0 Premium during times of shortage as defined in the agreement l Price can be redetermined when a water market is mature enough to establish a new price, but no sooner than year 10 SHORTAGE SHARING l IID and Authority share the shortage on a pro rata basis CONTINGENCIES 0 Satisfy the environmental concerns 0 Imperial Valley farmers’ participation must be at least 130,000 acre-feet/year l Approvals by the proper federal and state agencies 0 Authority secures transportation of water CITIES . DeI Mar * Ercondido * Naliond City . oceonride * Powoy - San Disgo COUNTY . San Diego (ex officio) MEMBER AGENCIES IRRIGATION DISTRICTS . Santa Fe * South BOY . Vista PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT . Fallbrook WATER DISTRICTS . Helix * otoy . San Dieguito . Wlecit0* FEDERAL AGENCY . Pendlebn Military Rerer~olion MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTS . Corlsbod . Ramoncl . Olivenhoin . Rincon del Diablo . Padre Do”? . Volley center . Il.,inbow . Y&no IlDMlater Authority Parts rership Summary Page 2 BENEFITS l For San Diego County: Long-term, more reliable supply at 1ower;predictable rate; protects $87 billion economy from threats posed by drought and other prolonged water supply shortages l For Imperial Valley: Protection of water rights; affordable water conservation without land fallowing; economic boost 0 For MWD: Essential step in securing interim Colorado River surpluses to help * meet the need of all Metropolitan member agencies; protects other Metropolitan member agencies from water rate increases by reducing Metropolitan’s obligation to pay for additional supplies into the Met service territory; helps ensure a full Colorado River ,4queduct l For California: Cornerstone of California 4.4 Plan; key to release of interim Colorado River water flows for California; eases pressure on sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta and on State Water Project supplies; strengthens Southern California’s economy