WSP12994

• File Number: 8282.750
• Description: California 4.4 or QSA or Water Plan
• State: CA
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Author: Varied
• Title: California 4.4 Plan / QSA / Water Plan - Testimonies Regarding California Water Plan / QSA
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

JUL-03-03 16:06 FROM:BALCOMB & GREEN PC
. .

10:8708458802

PAGE 23/34

beat around the bush - 110 and the QSA parties have been stiff-armed by Interior in
this process. We have been the victims of a concerted effort by Interior to ignore the
QSA in favor of the 417 proceeding. If noting else comes out of this hearing. it will be a
success if you and others in Congress help us to achieve face-ta-face negotiations
with Interior and others so as to complete the QSA~

Fourth, it is indeed unfortunate that for reasons that are largely unknown Interior
has decided to choose sides in this struggle between the southern California water
agencies. California has not sought to avoid the 4.4 million acre-feet (mat) limitation.
The internal dispute is over how to divide the 4.4 MAF apportionment. Interior has
chosen to side with the junior right holders whose demands for water has increased
with urban sprawl and population growth.

In contrast, it is interesting to note that while the Babbitt Administration took
actions that were contrary to the interests of liD, their representatives also maintained
a measure of risk for the other agencies. As a result, the negotiation playing filed
remained largely level. The Norton Administration, however, has decided to support
the southern California urban interests against liD, and therefore the incentives to
remain at the settlement table have been disrupted. MWD now questions the viability
of the QSA espeqially when Interior seems to be suggesting that it will aid MWD in
trying to take water fr:om liD with no regard for compensation, environmental
compliance, and other important factors. Again, this is where your subcommittee and
the other members of Congress can provide'direction and leadership - the Secretary
is supposed to be a neutral water mast~r, not a spear-carrier for MWD.

Fifth, it is difficult for all of us, including the other basin states, to fully understand
the positions advanced by MWD in recent weeks and months. For example, I suggest
you put yourself in the pOSition of another basin state who was told a few years ago '
that MWD desperately needed the Interim Surplus Guidelines (ISG) water over the
fifteen year 4.4 California water-diet transition period, only to be told recently by MWD
that the IS'G water is really of very little importance. Similarly, others of us are trying to
make sense out of MWD's current passion for protecting the fiscal well being of the
State of California.

!n the end 110 suggests that t.his subcommittee and'other interested parties
should be more focused on the State of California. The 4.4 MAF is California's
apportionment to the river, and therefore the state has strongly stepped forward in
recent months to protect the overall interests of its citizens. The state has repeatedly
emphasized the statewide importance of the QSA, the importance of peace among the
agencies, and the importance of the reinstatement of the ISG special surplus water.
As I emphasized above, this is a situation where leadership will be critical and it is
liD's view that the combined leadership of this subcommittee, other members of
Congress, and the State of California will cause the QSA to be implemented in the
end, with the cooperation of MWD.

3