Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ent ~y: B111 Swan consulting Servicesj 480 941 8658j <br />The Imperial Valley Press Archives <br /> <br />Dec-23-02 12:28PMj <br /> <br />Page 10/14 <br />rC&~ 1. UJ .I <br /> <br /> <br />=a~'?~=.~- ...... <br /> <br />....1; <br />"'l\ <br />t"urC8 <br />tor 1M <br />lJ,~VaIeY <br /> <br />Online arcbivea from Imperial VaDe)' Press <br /> <br />December 11, 2002 <br /> <br />State declines to review transfer <br /> <br />By RUDY YNIGUFZ, Staff Writer <br /> <br />SACRAMENTO - The state Water Resources Control.Board on Friday ~ down <br />requests tbat it reconsider approval of water transferS between the Imperial Irrigation <br />District and the San Diego County Wa~ Authority and no and the Coachella Valley <br />Water District. <br /> <br />Several environmental organizations and local government agencies requested the state <br />board review its order allowing the transfers to move forward. In its denial the state <br />board said its earlier order, allowing the transfers, wmi"appropriate and proper except <br />that certain clarifying amendments should be made." <br /> <br />The clarifying amendments have to do with the independent authority of the Imperial <br />County Air Pollution Control DistriGt and the South:COast Air Quality Management <br />District. Both agencies had requested such recognition in their petitions for <br />reconsideration. <br /> <br />The environmental groups - National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Defenders of <br />Wildlife and Planning and Conservation League -.argued state board approval ofd1e <br />transfers is not supported by substantial evidence. according to state board documents. <br /> <br />The state board argued a failure to implement the IIDISan Diego transfer and QSA <br />would .'pose a significant risk to California' 5 water :supply and environment" <br /> <br />"In summary, the SWRCB' s finding that the transfer as mitigated will not unreasonably <br />affect fish, wildlife and o1her instream beneficial uses is supported by substantial <br />evidence," the state board's denial states. <br /> <br />Challenges to tbe state board's statement of overriding considerations were turned away- <br />The state board was required to balance the transfer's benefits against its potential <br />environmental impacts and make a statement of overriding considerations if the state <br />board found that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the <br />projed outweighed the potential environmental impaCts. <br /> <br />The state board eventually found the benefits of the transfer and QSA overrode the <br /> <br />http://www .ivpressonline.comfarchiveslindex.inn?loo=det8il&doc=/2002IDecembct'/22-7... 12/23/2002 <br />