WSP10723 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:~b."~'S~~'th~ c-a1ifo~'s-Colo. .redo. R1ver Board wbich l'Ias been . fighting for California's Water and . power rights for 39 years. . -:-)1\ his budget message, Brown recommended that the board be '. eUmtnated; that it's fUnctions be reassigned to the state Department of Water Resources in Sacramento. His reasonIng: the Colorado River . serves only Southern California and the agencies represented on' the bom are all Southern California agencies that should not be speaking for the state. -. The dectsion, thus, takes a philo- sOphical rather than a practical vi,ew, since the Colorado River . Board can point to a history 01 sUccess. ':TIle board, fonned in 1937, is com. prlsed of representati....es of S1)l sijuUtland agencies dependent upon the Colorado for water or power: 1;1le Palo Verde Irr1galion DiStrict, the Imperial Irrigation DIstrict, COachella Valley County Water Dis. trict, the Metropolilan Water Dis- trict of Southern California, San Diego County Water AuthQnty and the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The board operates on a budget of $393;000, two-lhlrds of which is paid by 'QIe member agencies and one- third by the state. 1be board, bowever, has a differ- ing and more pragmatic view of it's fUnction: every other state among tl:ie seven served by the Colorado Rtver is in an identical position to 9aUfomla; ie., Just a portion of the states benefit from Colorado water but thE:' water boards speak for the enUre state. "The federal government wants lo deal with state agencies; the other states want to deal with each olher," Myron B. Holburt, chief engineer, pointed out. "If we try Lo present our views lhrough a regional agency, we would be severely handicapped. We would be in a much poorer bargain. ing position." Other states served by Colorado River water are Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah in the upper basin, and Artzona, Nevada and Cal- Uomla in the lower basin. The Re- pubUc of Mexico also uses water from the Colorado. "Although we now speak for the state of California," Holburt sald,r "w.e:do not attempt to speak for the state. on any other water matlers and 'we coordinate our efforts Wllh other state agencies when neces- SBIJi. We are a unit of the Resource!' Agency of Callforriia. '~Thus," be said, "the input by the adniinistration in Sacramento is weU ,taken'care of now." . This, then, is what the Coloradc RIver Board says is wrong with - The six agencies now represent. ed on the board are the ones which own the water nghts to the Colorado. They. are the ones which own the contracts with the secretary of the interior; the state itself has none. Any kind of pollcy determination involving these ri~ts is so Vital to the six agencies, which distribute water and power to 11 million people in Southern California, that it 15 wrong to cut them completely out of the decision-making. U BroWD'S recommendation is ap- proved by the, Legislature, Holburt said, the agencies would have to fonn another organization and Cali. . forni.a would end up with two groups representing California's interests instead of one. _ The Colorado River Board also compares the sIze and focus of its small 13-member agency with tha~ of the Department of Water Re- sources, with thousands of employ- es and widespread responslbillLies. The direclor, they pointed out, "would have to delegate Colorado RIver maUer~ dO.....TI the lme." The Colorado Ri',;er Board, on the other hand, is composed of high- level personnel (Holburt" as chief engmeer, is on a par with the state highway engineer or the diviSIOn engineer of' water resources i':l . rank). . "We have .the expertise, the con- tacts, the knowlp.dge and are able to move quickJy on any matter to pro- lect CaJifornia's interests," Holburt said. _ TIle Colorado River also 15 concerned about potential conflict of interest in the state Department of Water Resources, which has the re- sponslbillty of managing and seWng water from the Slate Water Project. The major purChaser of stale water and the major urban user of Colorado River water is the same agency, the Metropolitan Water Dis- trict. "So on one hand," Holburt said, "you'd have the official responsible for selling state water, primarily to MWD, also being asked to protect . Metropolitan's interests in the Colo- rado River. To the extent MWD doesn't use one, it uses the other. Such a situation "would, at the least, lead to diffenng views on what is important." There bave been some past exam- ples that bear out this fear: _ In 1968, legislation was passed by Congress which gave priority to Californla of 4.4 million acre feet of water per year over the Central Arizona Project. In the event of a shortage, CaHfornia would get its full 4.4 million and Arizona would have to absorb the shortage. _ Under the Edmund G. Brown -1."'";"';f."7oO'~'='l'i,~'''''''''', ,'" .f.'~'t ,', v'.. ~;;:~ '~"':..~.: u~>:;;, f ' 1 ,_/,_~ ",'-"i':-"~, ','";;''''.-''?'?~:' '\~."/ . t\~', ~:' . :'.?;~.R~:::':;:'i.~~(0 iq ",.""'.;/;;/t/~7,',;I""-;:'~"",-,,,~:,,,,-,-., .... .. ;.',!~.....(: ..z,j:,./P~;!;'~."'. .......~.';:y " .'v~ W.I, r. ...",. ~".. ~ c. '?,~/)r":':I~t'liy.;::.::;,f~,~t~ . ;. ,.j IJ,I'i~I'V' ,""'","',''' ' i,'~, :~/Ij)~'''>;..~~r::?;:j;::\~ ""~'0!",";,'/ ~" "....':'.... ,^ ."...~ '"," >,. "''''d'/' I,' . ,.,:--- .7.7._.,:'.-::....~ . ;':::'.,:.' ",',' ,'-, ,.'t1,<:i ~ "'j,., //- '.' '. ';;:; ',P:'J_ ,:, . / ~'.-. ,-.' - (n ..,,) "!::ii ' '>l<lJ., ~) 4'".,:/';'\ ,. _ \"11I -l/~~ ( i!" '. , '.\:J~'. . ,', "'~-:'l~ ~~V~:~t ~:i" ..'f:;:')i~l :f!j -, ~.,~,.f,"", t ~'.I ,.,<~~;rj,~' ;"'/";:'f.!:'." 1i}9,1'!.;,' l.' t~, ti~ ':""" ~ 11::~r,.;~,.r.;:. ft?- '~J',:,s~.I;~~ \" ~,rtf.lir:~r!}~;(~~';{7';.;." . f"~r""~" "",~..,,,... ',*' JI';'~'~~\, .~"" ./" I'~!' t- :.~ '. V~ '.' <~ . ' , . .' , ... 1.l~..6'...x, '':_.,:'';;:',,~;;.... , jo:~.,.I\\lll;~~,~p~.~ ,~~~:.~/ . , \\~I,~>>";.~~~T ' 'Iio~';~~t{.~:.-W/~/ ~- "'("-e- ;-.::-" ....I-:J1.... ,~ ":. ;.;fF,'?f;': .. . , . . ,'.. -'ri' rp{l:I'1 'tt .,_', Sr. administration, the board was urged "not to fight for it very hard." I. The thinking at the time was that California should go to the Columbia River for water. _, Agam, under the Ronald Reagan .admirustralion, the Colora- do board was urged to ease up, too, because the credo was "to buy mor~ slale water." The Colorado River Board held out, Holburt recalls, for the fE'deral legislation whlch is now law. "It's thIs kind of thing that worries our guys quite a bit," he said; "whether you'd have the kind of dedication and interest in fightmg . through a tough problem and max. imizing protection of our Colorado River rights." . Still another factor is this' If the responsibilities of the Colo- rado River are turned over to the Department of Water ResourcE'S, Il will have to start buildmg up a starr, assembling experts it does not now have to represent California. TIle Colorado is a water-short stream in tenns of demand-there are more proposals for its water than there is water in the river. Thus California, which uses more water from the stream ttlan the other six states combined, is the prune target for .anyone conung up with a new idea, or, new'legal maneuv('r to change . this allocation. California gets more than 5 mill10n acre feet of water a year from the Colorado, whIch represents about three-quarters of the wllter used in Southern California. Even when the SLate Water Project is completed, sometime aner the turn of the centu- ry, the Colorado will be providIng half the water used in Southern California. Yel, nowhere in the governor's budget is there shown any mCIea5e . in the budget of the Department of Water Resources to take care of this new responsibility, Holburt pointed oul. , The Colorado River Board is still I hopeful that present. negotiations , beillg carried on with the governor's office may result in some kind of a compromise. "The govE'mor's budget dffletes the Colorado River Board but no action has been taken to abolish the , C.Ol.oRJ'OO R'Vi:.R WP.TE~,., ,t-" '~""'~"'~'~ '-.-' s,;,-' .', . -Jo~$ B ~H The San Diegb tkion board. The response we get from our contacts in the Legislature is that such a bili wouldn't pass. So what happens If the money to operate isn't there but the board 51111 is on the books with a statutory function?" he asked, The Colorado River Board can point to major successes in the past. In Hl74, for example, it took the leadership In dratUng what later turned out to be the Colorado River Salin1ty Act of 1974, working with the other states in getting a unWed position among their representatives in Congress. This law, wtuch authorizes salinity control projects, is expected to pre- vent sallnity damage that by the year 2000 could cost California $40 million a year. Last year, the board-again work- ing in a leadership position among the other six states--gained unani- mous agreement on numerical salin- ity standards for the Colorado. Also joiniDg the tight is the Colora- do River Association, a citizens group representing Southern Calilor- nia. George F. Moody, its president, declared that "Gov. Brown's propos- al to eliminate the Colorado River Board would sabotage the agency that is responsible for protecting the . Colorado R1ver supply of more than half the state's populaLion. "The board has proved highly ef- fective in protecting California's im- mense stake in the water and power resources of the Colorado River." economy program." R. E. Badger, a d1rector of the San Diego COunty Water Authority and Its representative on the board, also has voiced a deep concern among Southern Californians. He said he fears that the state Department of Water Resources, as indicated by its past actions, may not pay the same attention, as the COlorado River Board has done, to the water prob- lems of Southern CalIfornia." The Metropol1tan Waler District also has gone on record as opposing Brown's proposal, saying that "at one stroke it would destroy the sound and productive working relationship the board has developed over the years with the other basin states. . Hans Doe, chainnan of the san Diego County Water Authority, sees the move as "endangering water and ,power of the river as far as California i~ concerned." Letters of protest to Ule governor also have been written by Sen. James R. Mills, D-San Diego, presi- dent pro tern of the' state Senate, and Sen. John Stull, R-&'icondIdo. Stull poinled out that "a substan- tial legtslaLive majority believes there is a state--as opposed to strict- ly a regional-interest in the actIvl- ties of the Colorado River Board." Secretary of Resources Claire Dedrick, replying to Stull, comment- ed: "We recognize that there is a state interest in the COlorado River Just as there is a. state inlerest in other important streams in Califor- nla. The basic question being raised with regard to the Colorado River Board is the appropriateness of the present fonn of the board, not the need to protect the water rights within the state." The governor's position is support- ed, also, by Hugo FISher, fonner state director of the Resources Agency under the Edmund G. Brown Sr. administration, and now a supe- rior court judge. "The CRB has often taken posi- tions that are not compatible with the rest. of the state," he said. "There's no reason why the state should support a regional posItion that is at variance wlth the overall . state position. "I think the state Resources Agen- cy should be the agency to do busi- ness with the other states and the federal government, with the Colora- do River Board acting only in an advisory capacity." The Colorado Ri....er Board is'head- ed by Raymond R. Rummonds, of Indio, cha.1ntJan. Other members, besides Badgar, tnclude .Robert F. Carter, of EI Centro; Warren W. Butler, of Compton; Virgil L. Jones, of Blythe, and Rober V. PhUlips, of Los Angeles.