WSP12999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , i ~~?)'B~~~J~~~~~\<~~" < ~ .'~' ~ '. . ' '. . '.'~~":;;"'11ft.~p:.,-.~.;:,,<::'c:. ~ ~. , co LOR ADO R I V E R IS SUE SUP D ATE continued from front page from Imperial Irrigation District (lID) to San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). It also lays out a frame- work for executing a complex settle- ment accord that federal officials say must be completed by December 31 to provide a "soft landing" for California as it gradually reduces its draw on the Colorado River. In announcing the agreement, Hertzberg applauded IID, SDCWA, Metropolitan Water District and Coachella Valley Water District for their determination. "This is how government is supposed to work: in the best interest of the people and all parties involved." Jim Turner, chair of the SDCWA board, called the breakthrough "an historic moment, not only in terms of San Diego County's water reliability, but for the entire state of California. " The parties had been scrambling t9 shore up a strategy for curbing the state's use of Colorado River water and stave off an immediate supply cut. Under pressure from the federal government, California has until December 31 to finalize the single most important element of its strategy - the proposed IID-San Diego trans- fer. If an agreement in not in place by that deadline, Interior Department officials say they will have little choice but to immediately cut the amount of water California draws from the river by 800,000 acre-feet each year. Background First proposed in 1996, the IID- San Diego transfer is the cornerstone of California's strategy for trimming its use of Colorado River water from roughly 5.2 million acre-feet per year (MAF) to its legal entitlement of 4.4 MAF. But with economic and environ- mental hurdles threatening to sink the deal, water officials are racing the clock to fit the puzzle pieces together in time to stave off a crippling blow to the region's water supply and the ripple effect it would have on the rest of the state. "Failure is not an option," Maureen Stapleton, San Diego County Water Authority general manager, told an audience of ACWA members earlier this year. With so much at stake, develop- ments are being closely watched in Sacramento as well as Washington, D.C. State lawmakers set their own . deadline of October 15 for the parties involved to break the impasse, saying the Legislature will convene a special session if necessary to keep the state's water supply intact. The State Water Resources Control Board has issued a draft order approv- ing the transfer, but the issues are far from resolved. Meanwhile, ongoing dry conditions in the Colorado River basin are prompting concerns that California's allotment could be reduced next year even if a transfer agreement is reached. Runoff in 2002 was the lowest on record, and storage in the river's massive reservoir system has dipped to uncomfortable levels. Key reservoirs now hold nearly 9 MAF less than at the same time last year. The U.S. Bureau of Redamation is expected to announce initial forecasts for 2003 deliveries later this year. California's 4.4 Plan and the Quantification Settlement Agreement In late 1996, then-Interior Secre- tary Bruce Babbitt issued a strongly worded directive to California to reduce its over-reliance on the Colo- rado River. Noting that other lower basin states such as Arizona and Nevada would soon be using their full entitlements, Babbitt called on California to come up with a strategy to live within its legal allotment of 4.4 MAF. A framework for that strategy, formally known as Californiis Colo- rado River Water Use Plan, was drafted and released in 1997. The so- called California 4.4 Plan laid out an array of programs and actions to wean California from its reliance on surplus Colorado River water without major disruption to local economies or the state's water supply. Key to the plan is a pivotal agree- ment among California's largest Colorado water users - Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Imperial Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water District - known as the quantification settlement agreement (QSA). Signed in late 1999, the pact calls for the districts to accept less water than they previously re- ceived, pay more for infrastructure to transport that water and refrain from litigation over each district's conserva- tion measures. The QSA has yet to be executed, however, and its outlook had been unclear as conflicts continued over the IID-San Diego transfer and the fate of the Salton Sea, ,which many believe would suffer as a result of the deal. Another critical element of the 4.4 Plan was adoption of new guidelines for allocating surplus Colorado River water to California over the next 15 years. Babbitt signed off on a set of interim surplus guidelines in January 2000 at a ceremony hosted by San Diego County Water Authority on Coronado Island. The guidelines provided for California to continue to receive surplus water from the Colo- rado River while It implements .... Continued on next page