Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Phil Pace <br />January II, 1999 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />Director David Kennedy. If Metropolitan remains unwilling to join in this <br />consensus, it will jeopardize the ability of the stakeholders to reach a consensus <br />solution on Colorado River matters. <br /> <br />Even more important, a resolution of Colorado River matters through <br />consensus is the only way Metropolitan will receive in the foreseeable future any <br />reliable supplies of additional Colorado River water above Metropolitan's priority <br />4 right and its 1988 agreement with Imperial. With state appropriative water <br />rights and a permanent water service contract, Imperial has constitutionally- <br />protected water rights which can nol be simply reallocated via administrative fiat. <br />The Bureau of Reclamation noted in its 1996 Biological Assessment of the Lower <br />Colorado River. <br /> <br />"A water delivery contract with the Secretary secures and <br />protects the entitlement holder as the contract quantifies the <br />amount of Colorado River water the entitlement holder is <br />entitled to beneficially use and stlates the priority of that water <br />use. . . . Secretarial action!3 must not conflict with the <br />contract terms or the mandates of the Court decree (in <br />Arizona v. California) from which the Secretary is severally <br />enjoined. . <br /> <br />Reliance on hoped-for reallocation as identified In the Attachment -- .what <br />water allocations within California are required to best meet the public need" - is <br />a recipe for MWD water shortages, not additional water. <br /> <br />Concerning allegations that Imperial "wastes water", Imperial is confident <br />that its water use will withstand regulatory scrutiny. Lawyers and others who <br />counsel Metropolitan to find additional water in the courtroom or in the hearing <br />room are willing to gamble the Southem California economy on a water use <br />litigation lottery. <br /> <br />Finally, the statement that the Secretary has the authority to institute <br />surplus criteria to keep the Colorado River Aqueduct full for any significant period <br />of time is, at best, wishful thinking. Interestingly. the Attachment does not inform <br />the Metropolitan Board about the Secretary of the Interior's recent actions under <br />applicable federal law. Under the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, the. <br />Secretary has already adopted criteria for the coordinated long-range operation <br />of Colorado River reservoirs, inCluding Lake powell and Lake Mead. The Act <br />authorizes the Secretary to modify the criteria "as a result of actual operating <br />experience or unforeseen circumstances." Just last winter. Secretary Babbitt <br />decided against changing the Long-Term Criteria after concluding the <br />Department of the Interior's most recent 5-year review. At that time, he said that <br />his decision reflects "a careful review of the issues. solicitation of involved <br />parties' responses to Reclamation's analysis. and 'consultation with the <br />Governors' representatives of the seven Basin States." Especially if Metropolitan <br />