Laserfiche WebLink
<br />pose of the 1934 agreement was to recognize IID's prior right over Coachella to third and sixth priority water. <br />Another Supreme Court case (Bryant v. Yellen) (1980) held that the federal government obligations "are to <br />be interpreted in the light of state law." The actions of the Bureau of Reclamation have favored transfers of <br />conserved water pursuant to California law. <br />CVWD has claimed that lID can use its water only within district boundaries. But CVWD has confused the <br />description of a water rightwith a restriction on its use. Appropriated water rights always relate to a specified <br />place of use. Yet California law has long recognized an appropriator's right to change the purpose and <br />place of use. <br />Coachella does not have any rights to water that would be conserved by IID and transferred to the Authority <br />because, but for the conservation, that water would not be available to Coachella anyway. Whether IID conserva- <br />tion takes place through an agreement such as that proposed with San Diego or through other actions of lID water <br />users, IID has the right to use the conserved water for its own purposes. <br />While CVWD cites Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 as prohibiting water transfers, that section has <br />been interpreted by the Supreme Court not as a restriction but as an affirmation of private ownership of water <br />rights. Under both state and federal law, lID has the right to change its use of water. Indeed, the federal <br />government long has permitted and approved transfer of federal reclamation water. <br />Federal law generally does not govern water use within any state. In unmistakable language, the U.S. Su- <br />preme Court (California v U.S.)(1978) has upheld the tenet that state law controls the use of water within state <br />borders unless such control would be inconsistent with federal objectives. <br />Water Code Sections 1011 and 1012 make it abundantly clear that lID may transfer conserved water and that <br />"no forfeiture, diminution or impairment" of lID's right to the water shall occur. Chapter 10.5, Article 4 of the <br />Water Code authorizes transfers of water by a water supplier to any other "water supplier or users inside <br />or outside the service area of the water supplier." <br />There are no legal issues that would inhibit a transfer transaction. Rather the issues are practical: who will <br />pay, what will they pay and for how much conserved water? CVWD apparently believes that somebody else <br />should pay to conserve water which would then become available for free to Coachella Valley as a windfall de- <br />rived from the investments of others. <br /> <br />Coachella Valley Water Management <br />Imperial Valley has developed one of the nation's most sophisticated agricultural irrigation systems. In the <br />meantime, Coachella Valley Water District board and management have mismanaged both water and opportunities <br />to ensure their valley's water future. Instead CVWD isdemanding free water and accusing IID of mismanaging <br />water resources. Such a water grab would amount to no less than "water welfare." Consider the following facts: <br />1. In the late 1 920s, CVWD refused to join IID, gaining equal water rights in perpetuity. <br />2. CVWD again refused to join lID in 1934, instead agreeing by contract that CVWD water rights would have a <br />lower priority than those of IID. <br />3. Coachella Valley has allowed the development of significant additional acreage for agricultural use when <br />CVWD knows it doesn't have the water resources to handle the growth. <br />4. CVWD continues to seriously overdraft its groundwater supplies, endangering Coachella Valley residents and <br />businesses. <br />5. CVWD water use efficiency has stagnated while lID's has significantly improved. CVWD annually delivers 7 <br />acre-feet of water per acre while lID delivers only 5.8 acre-feet per acre. <br />6. CVWD terminated discussions on possible agreements with lID in three separate protracted negotiations since <br />1991 that would have supplied Coachella Valley as much as 400,000 AFlyr of water at exactly the same low price <br />paid by lID's agricultural customers. <br /> <br />Facin~ the Future <br />CVWD should do what all forward-looking utilities are doing: recognize the reality of the new water market- <br />place and work with other districts - including IID -- on equitable water solutions that are good for its valley, the <br />rest of Southern California and all Colorado River water users. IID stands ready to participate in discussions with <br />all water users that lead to collaborative ways to face the future's challenges. <br /> <br />### <br /> <br />4 <br />