Laserfiche WebLink
<br />February 28, 2003 <br /> <br />Imperial Irri2ation District Briefin2 Paper - QSA back2round and current status <br /> <br />Introduction - A significant milepost Was passed on December 3 I, 2002 when the <br />Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) was not brought to fruition. Although the <br />QSA was approved and executed by the Imperial Irrigation District (lID), for a variety of <br />reasons the QSA was not approved by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and the <br />Coachella Valley Water District (Coachella). Failure to have an effective QSA by the end <br />of the year has resulted in a number of water supply related actions that are of great <br />importance to the State of California and to the water agencies in southern California that <br />use Colorado River water. This is also a matter of concern to the other six basin states, <br />and those states will likely be involved when there is an attempt to reinstate surplus water <br />deliveries to southern California if a restructured QSA can be developed and executed in <br />2003. The purpose of this paper is to briefly explain some of the concepts/involved with <br />the QSA and the special surplus water deliveries so as to better understand what is <br />currently underway within California to develop a restructured QSA. <br /> <br />A. Interim Surplus Guideline water - In the mid 1990's the other six basin states and the <br />Department of the Interior jointly informed California of the need for California to end <br />it's reliance on Colorado River water in excess of California's normal year apportionment <br />of 4.4 million acre feet (mat). For many years California was legally able to use up to <br />800,000 afper year in excess of its entitlement due to the availability of unused water <br />from Arizona and Nevada, or the availability of surplus water due to full reservoirs. This <br />excess water was used by MWD and Coachella, the junior priority users on the California <br />side of the river. However, in the years 1999 and 2000 it became clear that California <br />would be required to cut back its usage, and therefore it would be necessary to put in <br />place a variety of actions that would allow California to live within its 4.4 maf <br />apportionment - hence the development of the QSA Key Terms in December of2000. <br /> <br />In order to transition to reliance on different water supplies it was' recognized that <br />California would need a period of time within which to implement water transfers and <br />other related actions (all set forth in a draft 4.4 Plan for California). As a result, in <br />January of2001 Secretary Babbitt adopted special Interim Surplus Guidelines (IS G) <br />designed to govern the operation of Lake Mead for a period of fifteen years. The ISG <br />were tied to reservoir elevations and provided for the release of special surplus water to <br />the urban areas of southern California and southern Nevada during the interim period. <br />The ISG did not guarantee the delivery of water, but merely provided for releases in <br />specific amounts tied to certain reservoir levels. The logic behind the ISG was that the <br />system reservoirs were full enough to justify the release of special surplus water, during <br />the interim period, as long as inflows remained close to normal and sufficient reservoir <br />levels were maintained. <br /> <br />The ISG also provided that the special surplus releases could be suspended if certain <br />goals were not reached. The first goal was execution of the QSA by December 31, 2002. <br />