Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0015~7 <br /> <br />2002] <br /> <br />THE lAST GREEN lAGOON <br /> <br />923 <br /> <br />oppose transfers from the Upper Basin,117 even though the Lower <br />Basin needs all the water it can get. This seemingly inexplicable <br />position results from the fact that the Upper Basin has never <br />used its full apportionment.118 Because water not consumed in <br />the Upper Basin automatically flows to the Lower Basin, Lower <br />Basin states resist allowing the Upper Basin to sell surplus water <br />the Lower Basin presently uses for free. 119 <br />Numerous practical considerations also operate to effectively <br />block transfers of water from some areas. California, for example, <br />is a virtual black hole when it comes to water; even the latest <br />agreement relies on artificial surplus declarations to assure <br />minimum municipal supplies.120 A prospective supplicant for <br />water would have to outbid the municipalities for it - an <br />unrealistic scenario. MWD, for example, is already investing <br />more than $118 million in lID water conseIVation projects; <br />including operational costs, the 106,000 af gained as a result <br />will cost an estimated $128 per acre-foot.l21 Moreover, transfers <br />out of the Imperial Valley region - the largest user of Colorado <br />River water in California - would only exacerbate the critical <br />environmental problems in the Salton Sea, which needs an influx <br />of fresh water to dilute the concentrated brine (already 25 to 30% <br />saltier than the ocean) of salt, toxics; fertilizer, and pesticides <br />that has resulted from evaporation and decreased inflows. 122 <br />Transfers from BOR irrigation projects, which are the largest <br />users of water on the Colorado, may face additional restrictions <br />unique to reclamation law; These restrictions include: provisions <br /> <br />117. See id at 280. <br />118. See generally FINAL EIS, supra note 71. <br />119. See WAHL, supra note 116, at 280. The ill-fated "Galloway Proposal," which. if <br />it overcame the many anti-transfer provisions noted above, was to have leased <br />300,000 af of Colorado State's river water to San Diego, is instructive in this regard. <br />While the proposal would have benefited millions of Southern California consumers, <br />it was opposed by virtually all of the Basin states - including California itself. Even <br />former Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt (now a strong proponent of transfers) was <br />unconditionally opposed, threatening to sue the San Diego water authority if the <br />transfer was attempted. <br />120. See discussion infra Part IV.D. <br />121. See SAX ET AL., supra note 63, at 192. Purchasing from the largest sources of <br />agricultural water, lID and CVWD, could also be unpopular with Mexico. whose <br />support will be needed for a successful Delta transfer. The MWD/IID transfer <br />agreement, which will line the All-American canal, is facing challenges by Mexican <br />groundwater irrigators, who have for many years tapped as much as 100,000 acre- <br />feet of seepage from the canal. Perhaps as many as 700 wells will be cut off by the <br />conservation measures. See also Albert Utton, The Transfer of Water from an <br />International Border Region: A Tale of Six Cities and the AU-American Canal. 16 N.C. J. <br />INT'L L. & COM. REG. 477, 478-479 (1991). <br />122. See McClurg, supra note 12, at 11. <br />