WSP12519

• File Number: 8282.400
• Description: Colorado River Operations and Accounting - Deliveries to Mexico
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 9/1/2001
• Author: Natural Resources Journal
• Title: Natural Resources Journal - Water Issues in the US-Mexico Borderlands - Fall 2000 - RE-Colorado River-Mexican Delta Issues - 09-01-00
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

856

NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL

[Vol. 40

Fall 2000]

MANAGING ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION

857

International Boundary,l73 one of two sites where water is currently
delivered.174 Resolution of these issues will require negotiations between the
two countries, creating another opportunity to discuss water for the Delta.

water transfer agreements. Off-stream water banking in the United States
has been established in several states as a means to move water between
consumptive users.1T7To date, environmental resource agencies and private
groups have not used these banks,178 so changes may be needed in water
banking provisions to allow a market-based approach to Delta preservation
to succeed. Any such program will need to designate entities eligible to
bank water for the environment, implement water transfer and purchasing
programs, and support prospective water-banking regulations that allow
timed releases to meet environmental needs.

c'
o
w
W
f . ;,
CJ1

D. Market Opportunities

The Law of the River, established historically and based on a
system of equitable apportionment, creates entitlements to Colorado River
water. Dedicating water to the environment after these rights have been
established presents a challenge: how to secure water for instream flows
while respecting. existing entitlements? A potential solution is to
compensate possessors of water rights. .
The direct cost of water required for conservation of the Delta is
considerable, although impediments to water transfers imposed by the Law
of the River make it difficult to put a price on Colorado River water. Based
on recent transactions between consumptive users of Colorado River water,
it is possible to estimate the cost of an acre-foot of water between $144 and
$233.175 The cost of a permanent water right is greater by at least an order
of magnitude, so securing permanent rights to a minimum annual baseflow
of 32,000 acre-feet could cost at least $46 to $75 million. Securing the larger
pulse flows needed on average every four years is a matter of policy and
management changes rather than the acquisition of additional water rights,
as Army Corps of Engineers Flood Release Guidelines176 dictate the release
of floodwaters. Additional direct costs will include on-site management and
operation of a binational institution.
Market transactions offer several possibilities for conservation of
the Delta's ecosystems, resulting in either water or funds that could be used
to purchase water. Mechanisms have been established in recent years to
allow for the market transfer of water rights, including water banking and

1. Water Transfer Agreements

Two recent water conservation and transfer agreements in
California set a precedent for future transfers. In 1989, the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the Imperial Irrigation
District (lID), located in southeastern California, signed a water
conservation agreement enabling MWD to divert up to 106,000 acre-feet per
year of conserved agricultural water through MWD's Colorado River
Aqueduct.l79 A 1998 agreement between lID and the San Diego County
Water Authority would allow the transfer of as much as 200,000 acre-feet
of conserved water from agricultural users to the Authority.l80 These two
agreements are driven by urban users' desire to increase the reliability of
their supply of water. Each year since 1986, MWD, which supplies water to
16 million people in Southern California, has diverted more than 1.18
million acre-feet of Colorado River water through the Colorado River

177. For example, the Arizona Water Banking Authority has proposed to contract with
California and Nevada to allow these states to store Wlused Colorado River water. The
contracting state would pay to store water in Arizona, helping to replenish Ari.z<ma's aquifers,
and in the future would be able to draw a similar quantity directly from the Colorado River.
The program does not involve the sale of any future rights to water, only a specified quantity
of Wlused water. See ARIz. REv. STAT. ANN. S 45-2471 (West Supp. 1999).
178. Telephone Interview with Tim Henley, Manager, Arizona Water Bank (JuL 10,2000).
179. See NATIONAL REsEARCH COUNCIL, WATER TRANsFERS IN DiE WEST: EFFICIENCY,
EQUl1Y, AND mE ENvIRONMENT, 234-48 (1992) for a discussion of the water conservation
agreement, and ROBERT STAV1NS, ENvIRoNMENTAL DEfENSE FuND, TRADING CONSERVATION
INvEs1MEN1s FOR WATER (1983) for an appraisal of the conditions leading to the agreement. In
1984, the California State Water Resources Control Board held that no was wasting water and
ordered no to implement waterCOl'lBervation programs. See California's State Water Resources
Control Board's Decision 1600 of June 21, 1984,llffd, Imperial Irrigation Districtv. State Water
Resources Control Board, No. 58706 (Super. Ct. Cal. 1985), rev'd in part 231 Cal.Rptr. 283 (1986),
cited in Hayes, suprll note 170, at 813. DO's own Draft Water Conservation Plan (date January
31,1985) identified potential conservation of 325,000 aae-teet annually. See Hayes, supra note
170, at 813. DO has rights to 3.1 million acre-feet, making it the largest single user on the
Colorado River and an obvious party to water trUlSfer agreements. See Key Terms for
Quantification, supra note 156.
180. See Conserved Wllter Trllnsfer Agreement, supra note 175.

173. See PmrrtUS, supra note 1, at 69.
174. Mexico's interest in receiving its entire allocation at the Northerly International
BoWldary (NIB) is twofold: (1) water delivered at the NIB can be diverted into the Central
Canal, while water delivered at the SIB bypasses this diversion point; and (2) Minute 242 to the
1944 Treaty holds that water delivered at the sm is not subject to salinity control. See Minute
242, supra note 63, at 1105.
175. In 1992, the Metropolitan Water District in southern California paid $26.7 million to
the Palo Verde Irrigation District to fallow 20,000 aae& for two years, in order to bank 186,000
acre-feet in Lake Mead. See PONTIUS, suprll note 1, at 31-32. In 1998, the San Diego Water
Authority contracted with the Imperial Irrigation District for water purchased at a rate of $233
per aae-foot. See Agreement for Transfer of Conserved Water by and between ImperiJIllrrigation
District and San Diego County Water Authority (visited Sept. 8, 2000)
<http://www.iid.com/water/agmt/> (hereinafter Conserved Water Transfer Agreement).
176. See generally U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENcINEERS, WATER CONTROL MANuAL FOR FLOOD
CONTROL: HOOVER. DAM AND l.AI(E MEAD, COLORADO RIvER.. NEVADA AND ARIzoNA (1982).