BOARD01417

• Board Meeting Date: 5/24/1999
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Upper Colorado River Commissioner's Report - Historic and Continuing Interest of the Upper Basin in Preserving Secure Interstate Allocations
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

e

e

e

The states applauded burgeoning negotiations within California to transfer water from agricultural to
municipal uses.

The MWDIIID Agreement - At the time, the Imperial Irrigation District and Met had
negotiated an agreement for the transfer of conserved water from lID to Met. One of the primary factors
in precipitating the shift from agricultural to urban uses in California involved legal action commenced
in 1980 by the California Department of Water Resources and the Water Resources Control Board to
enjoin wasteful irrigation practices by the Imperial Irrigation District. 58 The Board ordered Imperial to
undertake various measures to stop the loss of water from sources such as canal spill, which resulted in
losses of 53,000 to 135,000 afper year, and excessive tailwater, which resulted in 312,000 to 559,000 at
ofJosses per year." Of course, the other precipitating factor was Metropolitan's desire to firm up its
Colorado River water supply.

Met and lID entered into an historic agreement pursuant to which Metropolitan agreed to fund
the necessary water conservation improvements in the Imperial system, such as lining of existing canals,
constructing local reservoirs and spill interceptor canals, installing non-leak gates and automation
equipment, and instituting distribution system and on-farm management activities. Imperial agreed that
its diversions from the Colorado River would be reduced in an amount equal to the water saved. Thus,
through this arrangement, Met was able to increase its firm water supply from the Colorado River by one
acre foot for every acre foot saved, Imperial was able to have funded for it the improvements ordered by
the Water Resources Control Board, and no irrigated acreage would be lost in the Imperial Valley. The
agreement was expected to yield a total of 106,110 afper year upon full implementation.60 The
agreement did not cover all of the possible areas of conserved water. Therefore, Met and lID began
negotiations on a phase II agreement which would ,ave an additional 150,000 af per year.61 Other
measures were contemplated to allow Metropolitan a larger firm yield within California's basic
apportionment. All-American Canal and Coachella Branch lining was estimated to yield 100,000 afper
year, and land-faJlowing programs will result in additional yield."

The California Water Bank Proposal- In August 1991, California formally presented its
"Conceptual Approach" in response to the Torrence meeting. The approach contained a number of
proposals that are relevant to current discussions and issues among the states. The principle elements
were as follows:

I. California would undertake a program tltat would result in Met receiving a full supply of
Colorado River water within California's overall 4.4 maf limitation.

58Imperial Irrigation District v. State Water Resources Control Board, 275 Ca!. Rptr. 250 (1991); Imperial
Irrigation District v. State Water Resources Control Board, 231 Ca!. Rptr. 283 (1986).

59275 Ca!. Rptr. at 255.

(fJThe Regional Urban Water Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
November 1990, Page 58.

61ld., at Page 62.

621d., at Pages 62-63. In 1992, Met entered into a pilot land fallowing program with the Palo Verde Irrigation
District. This agreement demonstrated the feasibility of land fallowing programs in California.