WSP12983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . 6. State statutes like California Water Code Sections 1011 and 1012 authorize, rather than limit. lID's riqht to transfer conserved water. A complete reading of Water Code Sections 1011 and 1012 makes it abundantly clear that lID may transfer conserved water and that "no forfeiture, diminution, or impairment" of lID's right to the water shall occur. It also bears noting that Sections 1011 and 1012 are not the only provisions in California law authorizing the transfer of conserved water. For example, Chapter 10.5, Article 4, of the California Water Code, authorizes transfers of water by a water supplier to any other "water supplier or users inside or outside the service area of the water supplier." Finally, California common law has long recognized and authorized transfers. 7 . Reclamation policy and actions evidence an intent to favor transfers of conserved water pursuant to California law. In addition to the mandate that the Secretary respect present perfected rights, the Secretary's past actions indicated that he deferred to, or at least was guided by, each state's recommendations as to the allocation of their apportionments. In California, the Secretary accepted the allocations and priorities agreed to by the seven major California users. More recently, after the Supreme Court clarified the role of the federal government in the management and control of proj ect water, the Secretary's contracts have deferred to state law. For example, a provision in the Central Arizona Project contract states that "all uses of project water and return flow shall be consistent with Arizona water law unless such law is inconsistent with the Congressional directives applicable to the Central Arizona Project." It also appears that Reclamation deferred to California's Water Resources Control Board in its proceeding concerning reasonable use within lID, and Reclamation has not required lID to prepare a water conservation plan separate from the one prepared under state law. In outlining Reclamation policy developed after enactment of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, the Commissioner of Reclamation said: In those states, such as Arizona and California, that have active water conservation programs, we will consider district water conservation plans that are approved by the state to satisfy our requirements for water conservation under the Reclamation Reform Act Development of an effective working relationship with the states is mandatory since federal policy recognizes state control of water rights. 6