|
<br />001586
<br />
<br />942
<br />
<br />ECOLOGY lAW QUARTERLY
<br />
<br />[Vol. 28:903
<br />
<br />~.
<br />
<br />of "beneficial use" requirements in the Imperial Valley.255 Mer a
<br />series of negotiations led by the Department of the Interior, 256
<br />MWD, lID, and CVWD unveiled a draft California Colorado River
<br />Use Plan (known as the "4.4 Plan") under which California would
<br />gradually reduce its water use, from 5.3 maf to 4.7 maf by 2015,
<br />and to 4.4 thereafter.257 Because of the gradual rate of reduction
<br />until 2015 and vague provisions to further reduce water use
<br />thereafter, the other Basin states immediately criticized the plan
<br />as being a "4.7" or "4.8" plan.258 Regardless, the initial agreement
<br />quickly fell apart when CVWD blocked key lID-SDCWA water
<br />transfers. 259 Relations among the major California interests
<br />subsequently deteriorated rapidly. MWD soon alienated the other
<br />water users, California Govemor Gray Davis, and the state
<br />legislature with threats of litigation, and lID boycotted a
<br />Colorado River Board meeting.260
<br />On October 15, 1999, under angry threats from both Babbitt
<br />and Davis, the California parties agreed to the "Key Terms for
<br />Quantification Settlement" (known as the Quantification
<br />Settlement Agreement or "QSA"), which was a major step in
<br />implementing the 4.4 Plan and a significant change in the
<br />priority structure under the Seven Party Agreement. The decision
<br />was reached just a few hours past a midnight deadline and after
<br />three days of intensive negotiatibns.261 An lID spokesperson
<br />described the process as the ''world's longest cliff-hanger. "262 The
<br />QSA set out .'key material terms" (to be bundled into a future
<br />binding agreement) that would significantly alter the priority
<br />structure under the Seven Party Agreement and legitimize a
<br />
<br />i
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />255. See Department of the Interior, Press Release: Babbitt Announces Measures
<br />to Help Ensure Future Lower Colorado River Water Supply, Effective Use (Dec. 19.
<br />1996), available at 1996 WL 928209.
<br />256. See McClurg. supra note 12, at 4.
<br />257. See id. at 8.
<br />258. See id.
<br />259. Seeid. at 10.
<br />260. See generally Steve La Rue, Babbitt TeUs MWD No on Extra Water, SAN DIEGO
<br />UNlON-TRlB., Jan. 23. 1999, at A3; Steve La Rue, Imperial-CoacheUa Pact Gains:
<br />Accord First Step Toward Ending Water Dispute, SAN DIEGO UNlON-TRIB., Jan. 30,
<br />1999, at A3: Steve La Rue, New West Water War Feared by Babbitt, SAN DIEGO UNlON-
<br />TRIB., Feb. 11, 1999, at A3; Michael Gardner. State Gets a Warning on Water
<br />Squabble. SAN DIEGO UNlON~TRIB., March 18, 1999. at A3; More MWD Mischief, SAN
<br />DIEGO UNlON-TRIB.. March 12. 1999, at A3.
<br />261. See Tony Perry, 3 Agencies Reach Truce on Colorado River Water. L.A TIMES,
<br />Aug. 5, 1999, at AI.
<br />262. See Michael Gardner, 3 Agencies Near Deal on Sharing River Water, SAN
<br />DIEGO UNION-TRIa., Oct. 16, 1999, at A3. See also Perry. supra note 261; Michael
<br />Gardner. Colorado River Water Deal Sealed: Agencies Will Divide Supply in Historic
<br />Pact, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, Oct. 19, 1999, at A3.
<br />
|