Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />, <br /> <br />DWR personnel negotiated the purchase contracts, monitored compliance with <br />those contracts, obtained SWRCB approval where needed,'" and coordinated deliveries <br />of water to the purchasers. The DWR also committed SWP funds to cover purchases of <br />water not sold to other entities, with that water to be held as carryover storage in SWP <br />facilities to provide insurance against continuation of the drought. <br />Membership in the water bank as a prospective buyer was open to any <br />corporation, mutual water company or public agency (other than DWR) that had <br />responsibility to supply water for agricultural, municipal and industrial, fish and wildlife, <br />or other uses in California."15 Water purchased was to be allocated to the members on <br />the basis of their estimated "critical needs". To qualify as having critical needs, municipal <br />and industrial suppliers had to demonstrate full utilization of normal sources of supply <br />(allowing for prudent canyover storage of surface water), maximum practical use of <br />groundwater, reclaimed water and local water exchange opportunities and total water <br />supplies less than 75 percent of normal water demand (equivalent to water use in 1986, <br />adjusted for population growth). Estimated critical needs for agricultural use were to be <br />based on water required for the survival of trees, vines and other high valued crops after <br />full utilization of all other available supplies. The criteria for fish, wildlife and other <br />critical needs were maximum use of all available supplies and case-by-case review by <br />DWR."16 <br />The rules of the bank specified that the available water was to be allocated first to <br />"extreme critical needs" as determined by DWR (drinking water, health, sanitation and <br /> <br />""In fact, of the 351 transfers to the 1991 Bank, the SWRCB asserted jurisdiction over only two. This may <br />be partly accounted for by the fact that the majority of fallowing contracts involved riparian rights that do not <br />fall under the Board's jurisdiction, but it also appears that the Board waived review of many transfers to the <br />Bank over which it appeared to have statutory jurisdiction. This lack of review raised concerns about possible <br />inadequate attention to impacts on affected interests. Gray, Brian E., 1994. 'The Market and the Community: <br />Lessons From California's Drought Water Bank,' West-Notthwest JOU17Ull of Environmental Law, Polky, <br />ThoughL 1, #1: 17-47. <br /> <br />"'Howitt, Richard, Nancy Moore and Rodney T. Smith, 1992. A Retrospective on California's 1991 <br />Emergency Drought Water Bank, Report prepared for the California Department of Water Resources. <br /> <br />"'Iei. <br /> <br />2-27 <br />