Laserfiche WebLink
<br />U-, f'l', C; () 5 <br />u.lvO <br /> <br />2002] <br /> <br />THE lAST GREEN lAGOON <br /> <br />941 <br /> <br />conservation in Imperial Valley, immediately provoked a lawsuit <br />from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), which claimed <br />first right to any water not used by lID under the rules of the <br />Seven party Agreement. Z48. In 1997, SDCW A and lID reached a <br />draft agreement that gave San Diego 300,000 af conserved on lID <br />farrhS.249 MWD responded by proposing high rates to deliver the <br />water through the California aqueduct, rates that SDCW A <br />considered unacceptable.250 So long as the surplus continued to <br />flow, this stalemate could continue. <br />With the Arizona Water Bank in operation, in 1996 both <br />Arizona and Nevada used nearly their full apportionments.251 <br />With the Lower Basin surplus suddenly exhausted, California <br />had to rely on the Secretary of the Interior's annual surplus <br />determinations to prevent the loss of a significant portion. of <br />Southem California's municipal water.252 As a result, then- <br />Secretary Babbitt suddenly found himself in control of a <br />significant portion of Southern California's municipal water <br />supply. Unfortunately (at least from Southern California's <br />perspective), this control rested iIi the hands of a man who had <br />once referred to the sacred BOR as the "Bureau of Wreck and <br />Lamentation. "253 After years of trying to get California to be more <br />"judiciouS in its lise," Babbitt saw an opportunity to use his new <br />leverage to re-shape and rationalize water use in Southern <br />California.254 <br />Babbitt quickly forced the major California water interests to <br />the negotiating table to devise a plan to reduce California's <br />consumption of Colorado River water, using three key threats for <br />leverage: (1) new surplus criteria that would unilaterally reduce <br />California's access to surplus water; (2) interstate water banking <br />regulations that would allow Nevada and Arizona to completely <br />utilize their share of the Colorado; and (3) potential enforcement <br /> <br />248. See NATIONAL REsEARCH COUNCIL, supra note 70, at 242-243. <br />249. See Tony Perry. Key Deal Near on Shift of Water to Cittes From Farms Policy: <br />In Accord Hailed as National Model, San Diego Could Make Cheaper Purchases from <br />Imperial Valley Instead oj MWD, L.A. TIMES, Dec. 12. 1997, at AI, available at 1997 <br />WL 14009335. <br />250. See Sudman, supra note 246, at 3. <br />251. See McClurg, supranote 12, at 7. <br />252. See id. <br />253. Gail Diane Cox, Status Quo is Threatened on Nation's Most-UtigatedRiver, <br />THE NATIONAL LAw JOURNAL, Sept. 13, 1993, at 1. <br />254. Tony Perry, Babbitt Praises California Jor Water Policy Progress Resources: <br />Citing Conservation. He Tells Other States TItat Use Colorado River Water TItat They <br />Have Reason to Trust Their Big Neighbor, L.A. TIMES, Dec. 18. 1999, at A28, available <br />at 1999 WL 26206737 [hereinafter Babbitt Praises]. <br />