Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A-ffI4c.~ IY\ &A ;;(.$' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES <br />500 North Third Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 <br />Telephone 602 417-2410 <br />Fax 602 417-2415 <br />May 6, 2003 <br /> <br /> <br />Sent via e-mail andsiJmedco1JvinU.S.mail <br /> <br />Janet Napolitano <br />Governor <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Mr. Ronald R. Gastelum <br />ChiefExecutiv~ Officer <br />Metropolitan Water District of Southern California <br />P.O, Box 54153, RweminL Annex <br />Los Angeles, CA 90071 <br /> <br />Herbert R. Guenther <br />Director <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Gastelum: <br /> <br />The Arizona Department of Water Resources is currently reviewing the recently proposed California <br />Quantification Agreement (2003 QSA) that was presented to the Colorado River Basin States in March 2003. <br />Weare preparing comments and advice fOr the Secretary of the Interior on the adequacy of the agreement. We <br />left the March meeting very encouraged by the commitment from all the southern California water agencies and <br />the Governor's Cabinet officers to resolve long-standing water rights disagreements, thus removing legal <br />obstacles to the orderly transfer of water from agricultural contractors to the urban water suppliers within the <br />Metropolitan Water District (MWD). We were informed that before the 2003 QSA can be executed, the <br />California Legislature has to appropriate several hundreds of millions of dollars and make changes to the <br />California Endangered Species Act to provide environmental mitigation to the Salton Sea. The solidarity that <br />.was shown by the agencies at the March meeting led us to believe that MWD would assist the Governor by <br />strongly advocating for the appropriations and change in law. However, after reviewing your testimony to the <br />Senate Agricultural and Water Resources Committee on April 29, 2003, I am now troubled that MWD is <br />equivocating about its support for the proposed 2003 QSA and the benefits from the surpluses allowed by the <br />Interim Surplus Guidelines, <br /> <br />At the request of MWD, Arizona invested many years and made many compromises to give the southern <br />California agricultural water agencies time to make orderly, progressive water transfers to MWD. Arizona <br />insisted that such transfers be consistent with the law of the Colorado River and the California Seven-party <br />Agreement. Arizona agreed to allow interim surplus apportionments to California because MWD officials <br />claimed that immediate reductions in Colorado River water use to meet the normal apportionment of 4.4 million <br />acre-feet to California would cause onerous shortages to MWD due to its junior position in the Seven-party <br />Agreement. MWD officials also claimed that the reductions would cause MWD to purchase expensive <br />substitute water supplies resulting in higher water costs and rate shock to its customers, Based on these claims, <br />Arizona agreed to help California create a "soft landing" by providing time and water to implement water use <br />reductions, In retum, Arizona and the other basin states required that California adopt a plan for systematic, <br />measurable and verifiable water use reductions to achieve compliance with California's Colorado River water <br />apportionment. <br /> <br />Your testimony before the Agriculture and Water Resources Committee indicates that interim surpluses are not <br />necessary to avoid water shortages or large rate hikes during the next thirteen years, In addition, your testimony <br />indicates that you view the ISG agreement between Arizona and California as an increased risk to the water <br />. supplies for MWD, From Arizona's perspective, we have offered to waive our rights to surplus water for a <br />time, thereby benefiting MWD, In return for this obvious benefit, Arizona only asks that MWD cover our <br />