PUB00046

• Year: 2001
• Title: Layprson's Guide to the Colorado River
• CWCB Section: Interstate & Federal
• Author: California Water Education Foundation
• Description: Layprson's Guide to the Colorado River
• Publications - Doc Type: Photos

water under the Seven Party Agreement of 1931.
This includes the two entities with third priority rights:
110 and CVWD. In October 1999. "Key Terms for
Quantification Settlement Among the State of
California. 110. CVWD and MWD" was signed under
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Under the
MOU. 110 agreed to cap its use of water at 3.1 million
acre-feet, however after transfers are made to
CVWD. San Diego and MWD. it will have a net
of 2.7 million acre-feet. CVWD will receive 468,000
acre-feet for its annual allocation. However. an
official contract among the parties has yet to be
signed.

THE CALIFORNIA "4.4 PLAN"

Since 1985. California has been using between
4.5 and 5.2 million acre-feet of Colorado River
water annually: up to 800,000 more acre.feet
than its basic apportionment. Former Secretary
Babbitt again declared a surplus in 1998. 1999
and 2000 (as he had in 1996 and 1997) and urged
California to devise a plan to reduce its water
consumption to its basic entitlement of 4.4 million
acre-feet.

As a result. the Colorado River Board of California
has developed a draft of California's Water Use
Plan for the Colorado River (Water Use Plan) or
"4.4 Plan" - a proposal intended to save up
to 800,000 acre-feet of water through conservation
and water transfers (agricultural to urban),
canal seepage recovery, groundwater banking,
conjunctive use, rsoparation of Lake Mead (surplus
declarations) and possibly desalinization of drainage
water. The plan also will resolve a 16.000 acre-feet
water settlement to the San Luis Rey Indian Tribe
located near San Diego. Three major "linchpins" have
been identified as essential to the implementation
of the plan, all of which are in various states of
completion.

The first of these linchpins is the Interim Surplus
Guidlines. signed by then-Secretary Babbitt
at the end of his term in 2001. The criteria are
designed to allow California water agencies that
draw water from the Colorado River adequate
lime to implement the programs outlined in the
Water Use Plan and gradually reduce their take
without suffering shortages and economic damage.
Though initially the states were split over how best
to implement the criteria, a compromise was
reached in 2000 to allow for a greater drawdown of
Lake Mead - about 1.8 million acre-feet annually or
4.6 percent of the reservoir's total capacity - during
each of the 15 years that California implements
its Water Use Plan. This will help ensure MWD's 1.3
million acre-feet aqueduct will remain full during the
period. Environmental groups have remained
adamant in their criticism of the criteria stating that
it diverts water that would normally flow to the
Colorado River Delta in Mexico (see page 27).
Environmental review on the criteria is expected for
completion in 2001.

The second linchpin of the Water Use Plan requires
quantification of Colorado River water use by the
agricultural entities holding the first three priority
rights to 3.85 million acre-feet of Colorado River

The third linchpin is a proposed water transfer
between 110 and SDCWA. For years, San Diego
relied entirely on MWD lor its imported water
supply. But during the drought years in the late
'80s and early '90s. MWD voted to reduce San
Diego's water supply by up to one. half (it was
actually reduced 31 percent) and since then.
San Diego has been in search of an additional
water supply. In April 1998. 110 and San Diego signed
an agreement in which 110 could lease up to 300.000
acre-feet of conserved water annually to San Diego
for an initial periOd of 45 years (potentially extended
to 75 years).

A major issue in the IID/SDCWA transfer has
been over the money MWD will charge San Diego
to "wheel" the 110 water, through MWD's Colorado
River Aqueduct. to San Diego. However. in
1998, the MWD Board approved an MOU by which
110 would transfer the conserved water to MWD.
which in turn, would deliver the same amount of
water to San Diego. Some parties have been
quick to point out a potential problem with the MWDI
Sand Diego agreement in that the agreement is
for 30 years whereas the initialllD/San Diego agree-
ment is for at least 45 years.

The proverbial elephant in the room remains
the environmental compliance issues involved
with the entire plan. the most difficult of which
may be the Salton Sea (see page 25).
Compliance must be completed to meet state
and federal standards and approval gained from
the secretary of the Interior before fhe transfer is
started. 110 also must determine which land-
owners will volunteer to participate in the
conservation and transfer program. liD and
SDCWA estimate the transfer will begin in two to
three years.

11