Laserfiche WebLink
<br />from the transfer. The Authority has offered to cover these costs, but the process for <br />identifying the costs and distributing funds is still developing. A related question is <br />raised concerning ~ policy on mitigation of third-partY im,pacts. What is the <br />state's policy? If significant state money is requested to make the QSA work, what <br />criteria should the state use to rationalize these expenditures given the many other <br />state priorities that exist? <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />A~ lon.$-as the Interim S-W:PlY~ QuL4liines are link~ to thf1 QS~, the Department of <br />the Interior and the ,pther ~asin -States have a le~itiml'lh> nght to pa<;;<;; judgment on !]le <br />< terms of the QSA. Thus, the complexity of California's own internal decision- <br />making process of dividing the waters is subject to many ~her decision makers who <br />do not necessarily understand or share California's views~n the state's Colorado <br />River water. We are still evaluating what impact the litigation between lID and the <br />Department of the Interior will have on not only the QSA, but also a broad range of <br />complex legal issues that affect other interests throughout the Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />Metropolitan's Perspective <br /> <br />1. Our goal is to make an informed business decision consistent with our Integrated <br />Resources Plan, the regional planning guide we have developed with our 26 member <br />public agencies. That plan seeks to identify a diverse set of long-term investments <br />Metropolitan will make in coordination with our member agencies to meet projected <br />regional water supply demand. Currently, that plan assumes the execution of a OSA and <br />continued availability of the water supply provided by the Interim Surplus Guidelines. <br />The plan is, however, designed to provide alternatives for meeting demand given the <br />inherent uncertainty ofIong-term planning and the development of water supplies in <br />California. <br /> <br />2. Our interests are not limited to water supply. We are equally, if not more interested, in <br />water ~ity. <br /> <br />3. From our perspective, the value of the Interim Surplus Guidelines for the next 10-15 <br />years is the flexibility that surplus Colorado River water gives us to manage the high <br />~ concentrations of naturally ~,.Ql1rri~ m:~anics periodically present in our State Water <br />J2.oiect supplies. Chlorine, used for disinfection purposes, combined with such organics <br />from the Delta, produces by-products that are regulated by federal drinking water <br />standards. Colorado River water has comparatively low levels of these constituents, but <br />is otherwise unde,sirable from a water quality perspective because of its high salinity <br />~ntept .and.per<<hlorate contamina1i9n. A bl~n~ of the two source waters is preferred to <br />deal with these operational challenges. Planne investments in new treatment processes <br />at Metropolitan's treatment plants will reduce our dependence on Colorado Rive.r water, <br />but the required majoI-construction could tl'llcp up to IOyears. <br /> <br />4. We share lID's concern over the potential that environmental ~ costs~o <br />the SaltoILSea will rise well beyond current estimates. We, however, do not agree with <br />no thl'lt t.b.~ir vTillingness to pa'( f..9J.: rel'l~onable conservation~d l'lsso~ed <br />~ e!!Y!J:.oumentl'l1 costs limits their conservation obligation under state and federal law. We <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />~ <br />~-tJ/j <br />~ <br /> <br />wQ <br />ftJO~(p.)- I <br />~~v+u <br />f~t 1.# uJe J <br />~ L'D 'J 1.tvl <br />~ ~.): "v^- , <br />...y.r~ <br />~\'-~ <br />, <br />