River Report Winter 2005-2006

• Year: 2006
• Title: River Report
• Author: Colorado River Project
• Description: A Project of the Water Education Foundation; Winter 2005-2006
• Publications - Doc Type: Other

Legal Actions, Disputes Cloud QSA Transfer
By Glenn Totten
Just two years after some of Californias
biggest water interests agreed to the
Quantification Settlement Agreement
(QSA), legal challenges and other forces
are chipping away at the QSAs foundations.
While observers don't see serious
problems for the agreement yet, they say
there is cause for concern. Two lawsuits
that involve the QSA are pending in the
courts, and two big parties to the QSA —
Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and
San Diego County Water Authority
(SDCWA) — are dueling over the
socioeconomic effects of a long -term
water transfer from IID to SDCWA.
One lawsuit has two parts, a claim by
Imperial County that provisions of the
QSA to mitigate socioeconomic impacts
violate the Water Code and the Califor-
nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and a second part in which a group of
IID farmers claims the IID board of
directors illegally authorized the water
transfer to San Diego without approval
of the district's membership. No
substantive ruling has been issued in
the case, and a state appeals court earlier
this year put the case on hold.
Meanwhile, in Nevada federal court,
a Mexican business and civic group,
Economic Development Council of
Mexicali (CDEM), and two U.S.
environmental groups has sued, chal-
lenging a piece of the QSA that calls for
building a 23 -mile parallel section of the
All- American Canal that would be lined
to reduce seepage. Some of the water
conserved by lining, 77,000 acre -feet per
year, would be transferred to SDCWA,
and about 16,000 acre -feet per year
would go to settle a water rights dispute
with the San Luis Rey Indian Tribes in
the San Diego area. The lawsuit alleges
that the lining project requires an
updated environmental impact state-
ment and that it would infringe on
Mexican rights to pump groundwater
that seeps from the unlined canal and
recharges the Mexicali aquifer. IID,
SDCWA and the U.S. Department
of the Interior are opposing the suit.
Malissa Hathaway McKeith, attorney
for CDEM and the environmental
groups called it a `myth" that the All -
American Canal lawsuit would under-
mine the QSA or the Interim Surplus
Guidelines. But Dan Hentschke, general
counsel for SDCWA, said the water to
be conserved by the lining project is a
key part of San Diego's water reliability
program for the future, as is its water
transfer agreement with IID.
But IID lately is showing signs of
concern over water transfers. In a
resolution adopted in early November,
the district's board said IID won't
approve any additional water transfer
agreements and "intends to move away
from fallowing as a means of developing
conserved water" for future transfers.
And IID and SDCWA are involved in
an ongoing dispute over whether water
transferred so far under their agreement
has caused economic harm to the
Imperial Valley.
Under the IID -SDCWA agreement,
IID will transfer up to 200,000 acre -feet
of water per year to SDCWA for 45
years with an option to renew the
agreement for another 30 years. The full
10 • COLORADO RIVER PROJECT • RIVER REPORT • WINTER 2005 -2006
200,000 acre -feet per year rate won't be
reached until 2021, but by then water
from the IID transfer and the canal -
lining project are expected to account
for 30 percent of San Diego's water
supply. This year, 30,000 acre -feet of
water is expected to be transferred from
IID to San Diego.
Under the QSA, SDCWA was to pay
$10 million during the first four years
of the agreement to mitigate socioeco-
nomic impacts of land fallowing on the
Imperial Valley. John Liarakos, a
spokesman for SDCWA, said the first $2
million has been paid. A panel of three
economists determined in a December
2004 report that SDCWAs payments for
transferred water more than offset actual
impacts. IID directors disagree with that
finding, and the dispute was referred to
an administrative committee made up of
representatives from IID and SDCWA,
Liarakos said. The committee's report
was due Nov. 18. If the administrative
committee is unable to reach accord, the
impacts question would go to another
committee that includes agency board
members, and if that panel is unable to
reach agreement, issues would be
submitted to arbitration.
The litigation, and the dispute
between IID and SDCWA, are all signs
that bear watching for the future of
the QSA, said Antonio Rossman, an
attorney who represents Imperial
County. "Imperial County has been a
cautious supporter of the QSA," he said,
but he noted there is growing sentiment
within the county questioning whether
to continue with it. •