WSP12998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\- ~ The squabble is tied to age-old disputes over the Colorado River, which brings water to California and six other states. California had been using more than its lawful share and was under a U.S.-imposed deadline to create a blueprint for curbing its use. The key piece of the blueprint was a plan calling for hnperial's farmers to reduce consumption and sell the savings to the San Diego County Water Authority. The hnperial Irrigation District rejected the water sale in December and California missed the blueprint deadline. Interior Secretary Gale Norton immediately slashed California's share of the river by 800,000 acre-feet. MWD took the brunt of the hit, because it's near the bottom of the pecking order in Colorado River water rights. But in what was seen as a punitive move, Norton also took about 11 percent ofhnperial's water, citing an old water-delivery formula. The irrigation district sued Norton and won; the judge said Norton's move was arbitrary. hnperial got its water back, and MWD's supplies were reduced further. But it wasn't a total victory for hnperial. The judge ordered the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct an evaluation of the irrigation district's water use. While this was going on, the hnperial-San Diego deal was revived. Davis pledged $200 million to minimize environmental harm resulting from the water transfer, alleviating farmers' fears they would get stuck with a big liability bill. (The deal would take water that normally flows to the Salton Sea and divert it to San Diego, drying up the lake). But MWD, whose approval is needed, said it opposed spending those dollars on environmental cleanup. It said the money, part of a voter-approved water bond, is supposed to be spent on water projects in MWD's territory. Yet MWD also seems bothered by the deal itself, which would pay hnperial $2 billion over several decades for water. MWD spokesman Adan Ortega Jr. said hnperial wants to profit from "water they would otherwise be wasting. " hnperial's water consumption has been a point of contention for years. Its farmers use a staggering amount, fully one-fifth of the entire flow of the Colorado River, drawing water from a leaky, unlined canal that wends its way through miles of sand dunes. MWD and other critics say hnperial's water use runs smack into the notion of "beneficial use," a vague legal doctrine at the state and federal level that says anyone who wastes water could lose it. As far back as 1984, a state agency declared that Imperial was wasteful. The irrigation district responded by starting a conservation plan and selling the savings to MWD. But the pressure didn't go away. Last year, as it balked at selling water to San Diego, the irrigation district faced various threats from state and federal officials. Now, as an outgrowth of the lawsuit against Norton, it faces the Bureau of Reclamation's beneficial-use proceeding. Its biggest critic: MWD. In a letter to the Bureau ofRec1amation, MWD argued for taking 22 percent ofhnperial's water. That would leave "more than sufficient" supplies for the farmers, MWD said. hnperial defends its water use, saying it's essential to supporting a $1 billion-a-year agricultural economy that produces much of the nation's winter lettuce and broccoli. hnperial also charges that the evaluation of its water use is a stacked deck. The irrigation district has asked bureau regional director Bob Johnson, who earlier testified there is "evidence of wasteful irrigation practices" in hnperial, to bow out of the proceeding. He refused and is due to release his findings June 23.