Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MWD to invest in groundwater recharge facilities within the Coachella Valley, to store <br />its wet-year water. <br /> <br />MWD was not a party to this agreement, and expressed a number of serious concerns, including <br />the transfer of lID water to Coachella, and the fact that MWD would have to give up its rights to <br />challenge beneficial use (waste) of water in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. <br /> <br />Second, Secretary Babbitt turned to interim surplus criteria. The Secretary stated his desire to <br />move forward with the development of interim criteria through an "open public process." Although he . <br />noted the six state proposal and urged the states to reach agreement, he stated that if the states do not <br />reach agreement, he would move unilaterally after the six month period, giving "due regard" to the views <br />of the states. Significantly, he also seemed to accept the California proposal that it reduce its use of <br />water only halfway to 4.4 mafby the year 2015 - as opposed to all the way as proposed by the six <br />states. This is troublesome, especially in light of the "peace agreement" proposed in the <br />IID/Coachella/Interior MOD. This would leave it to the other states to make beneficial use challenges to <br />California, with California still 400,000 af short of its goal. <br /> <br />Third, the Secretary referred to the current deadlock with Arizona over the proposed Lower <br />Basin banking regulations. Finalization of these regulations is being held up because of a disagreement <br />between Interior and Arizona over whether the Arizona water bank must enter into a new, separate <br />contact with the Secretary, or whether the existing agreement with the Central Arizona Water <br />Conservancy District, which runs the Central Arizona Project, will suffice. The Secretary stated that if <br />these regulations are not finalized, he will look at "other possibilities" to meet the needs of Nevada. This <br />sounded a bit ominous, and the Secretary offered no details. <br /> <br />Finally, the Secretary reported on the status of the Salton Sea. He noted the passage of the <br />Salton Sea Reclamation Act, and reminded the audience that implementing water conservation in the <br />Imperial Valley in a way that resolves the environmental problems in the Salton Sea will be difficult. <br /> <br />After the Secretary's speech, Met went public with its concerns, and engaged in a vitriolic letter <br />writing campaign with lID and the Department of the Interior. Principally, Met raised two fundamental <br />questions about the "peace accord" between lID, Coachella and Interior: <br /> <br />. Should Metropolitan's Member Agencies be required to give up water and reasonable <br />use claims and the right to pursue a more appropriate allocation of Colorado River water <br />in order to secure the IID/SDCW A transfer and surplus criteria to assure a full aqueduct; <br />and <br /> <br />. Should the Secretary allocate publically subsidized water to agricultural users for resale <br />to urban users at a markup?'1 <br /> <br />'ILetter dated February 8,1999 from Phillip J. Pace, Chairman of the Board of Met to Secretary Bruce <br />Babbitt. <br />