|
<br />Colorado River Transfers
<br />
<br />
<br />Although the advantages and disadvantages of water
<br />marketing continue to be debated, large-scale, long-
<br />term transfer agreements have gone forward. Though
<br />many ot these transfers have been ag-to-ag, an
<br />increasing number of transfers are ag-to-urban and
<br />are primarily the result of water conservation efforts
<br />on the part of the agricultural entity to free up water
<br />for transfer.
<br />
<br />A 1998 agreement negotiated between SDCWA and
<br />110, a producfive agricultural region in the south-
<br />eastern corner of the state that irrigates nearly
<br />500,000 acres with Colorado River water, is a prime
<br />example of a proposed ag-to-urban transfer. As part
<br />of California's plan to reduce the amount of water it
<br />takes annually from the Colorado River (see sidebar),
<br />110 has agreed to conserve up to 200,000 acre.feet
<br />of water a year and sell it to San Diego. Although
<br />some pre.conditions of the transfer (including state
<br />and federal environmental review) have yet to occur,
<br />the framework is in place. Initially, concern arose from
<br />MWD over wheeling rates for use of its aqueduct.
<br />Additional complaints arose from Coachella Valley
<br />Water District (CVWD) over priority rights to the water
<br />that 110 planned to transfer to San Diego. In 1999,
<br />the state of California, 110, CVWD and MWD signed
<br />key terms allowing the transfer to move towards
<br />reality.
<br />
<br />,~,,\1~~' ~
<br />lN~'~~'~~' ~,
<br />1'-'~ ("". t Jo
<br />1 L.'. -> ji. ~r.?iu ~ I.t: ~- ;1
<br />,'J~":' J~!~'~,,,-l~{' ,
<br />I' ~ \'-'):~ '., ' , '<)0"'-'
<br />, ~}d. .,\'l. ~\:;, \. .f';: :,,,,
<br />;~~~ ~'<Il.. ~~. ,'+' ..,~",
<br />
<br />lID has been conserving water for MWD under
<br />agreements signed in 1988 and 1989. The program,
<br />like the IID/SDCWA agreement, is new water
<br />conserved from improvements to liD's distribution
<br />system via canal lining and better on-farm manage-
<br />ment of water. This ag-urban agreement stemmed
<br />from charges of wasting water leveled against 110 in
<br />the early 1980s that alleged liD's unregulated
<br />reservoirs and excessive deliveries to growers
<br />created wasteful amounts of return flow that ran to
<br />the Salton Sea, causing flooding. The waste claim
<br />highlighted the potential of this area as a source of
<br />additional water for urban use.
<br />
<br />The State Board investigated the charge of liD's
<br />unreasonable water use and concluded that more
<br />than 400,000 acre-feet of water could be conserved
<br />annually. As a result, 110 was ordered to conserve a
<br />minimum of 100,000 acre. feet annually. Subse'
<br />quently, MWD agreed to pay an estimated $235
<br />million for conservation measures to improve liD's
<br />water distribution system and on-farm management
<br />of water. In return, MWD receives the conserved
<br />water - nearly 110,000 acre.feet a year - for 35
<br />years.
<br />
<br />The agreement has been perceived as a major
<br />success. but a study by the Bureau, Water Use
<br />
<br />.~
<br />ill
<br />~
<br />
<br />'"'
<br />
<br />:;l
<br />
<br />
<br />~.~:.
<br />Hi
<br />~
<br />
<br />l"
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />\
<br />\'
<br />
<br />.,.
<br />~
<br />--
<br />
<br />~~ ~'
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />~
<br />.... .
<br />
|