Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . <br /> <br />f <br /> <br />Most recently, Reclamation has adopted guidelines which <br />encourage water conservation and transfer agreements pursuant to <br />state law. And in 1986, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Interior <br />for Water and Science wrote a letter outlining Interior policy <br />concerning the transfer of conserved water by districts such as <br />lID. A portion of that letter states: <br /> <br />This administration's policy firmly establishes that the <br />primacy of water allocation, management, and utilization <br />rests with the states. Determination of beneficial use <br />of water is also based on state law... [and] it should <br />be noted that state water law provides procedures for the <br />protection of third party interests. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />Is there anything in the Boulder Canyon Project Act and other <br />Congressional directives which prevents lID from implementing state <br />policy by conserving and transferring water to the Authority? In <br />my opinion, there is not. No Congressional directives would forbid <br />lID's actions; no federal policies are opposed to the state policy; <br />the administration of the Colorado River by Reclamation is in no <br />way hampered by the lease of conserved water. In fact, <br />Reclamation's own actions clearly indicate an intent to defer to <br />state law and favor water marketing. <br /> <br />There just are no legal issues that would inhibit a transfer <br />from lID to the Authority. The real issues boil down to a <br />practical one: Who will pay, and how much will be paid, for water <br />conserved in lID? Since 1991, lID has spent thousands of hours <br />discussing with Coachella the transfer of conserved water to <br />Coachella. On three separate occasions, Coachella has unilaterally <br />terminated the negotiations, claiming that they shouldn't have to <br />pay anything for conserved water. They also claim that if someone <br />else pays for conservation in lID, the conserved water should be <br />available for free to Coachella. As stated before, Coachella fails <br />to recognize that, but for the conservation, the water would have <br />been used in lID and not available to Coachella. Additionally, <br />water conserved within lID, even if not transferred, is not <br />automatically available to Coachella or other junior rightholders <br />because factors such as market conditions, weather, changes in <br />cropping, could require, consistent with lID's prior rights, use of <br />the conserved water within lID. <br /> <br />7 <br />