|
<br />However, California Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA)
<br />and 18 House members supported the Conference
<br />agreement, along with the Metropolitan Water District
<br />of Southern California (serving 15 million people), the
<br />Cities of Eureka, Oakland and San Francisco, the
<br />Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the Western
<br />Urban Water Coalition, several water districts, various
<br />environmental organizations, and many businesses.
<br />Supporters estimate potential lost gross farm income
<br />of $262M, and a potential loss of 570,000 acres of
<br />land, mostly low or medium-value crops, including
<br />cotton, alfalfa, hay, rice and wheat. California's
<br />estimated 1992 economic product is projected to be
<br />$752B, with agriculture accounting for about $16B,
<br />while uSing 80-85% of the available water supply,
<br />
<br />With respect to states' rights issues. Senator Bill
<br />Bradley (D-NJ) declared, 'My fundamental objective in
<br />sponsoring CVP reform legislation has been to
<br />eliminate or modify federal policies and practices
<br />which have left the Central Valley Project strikingly out
<br />of step with California water law and policy.... It has
<br />become like some sort of federal preserve, insulated
<br />against state law.... The clearest case of federal
<br />interference in California affairs can be seen
<br />in...lnterior's ongoing effort to renew CVP contracts for
<br />another 40 years..,[and] lock all of the CVP's flaws
<br />into place.... Those water contracts parcel out 20%
<br />of California's water supply to several thousand lucky
<br />landholders, who are largely out of the reach of state
<br />regulators or policy makers, ' Senator Bradley added,
<br />"It is a question of whether the water of the Central
<br />Valley should be for the many, or for the few."
<br />
<br />Senator Bradley also projected what might be on
<br />the horizon if the bill is not passed, or if it is vetoed.
<br />He suggested the Delta smeit could become to
<br />California what the spotted owl has become to
<br />Oregon and Washington, and state and federal courts
<br />would soon be running the Central Valley Project, the
<br />State Water Project, and San Francisco's water
<br />system. "California cities unable to get ready access
<br />to new water through voluntary transfer will...spend
<br />billions of dollars on polluting expensive desalination
<br />plants, or,..the construction of the Peripheral Canal or
<br />the Auburn Dam, or diversion of wild north coast
<br />rivers." He also suggested, "To the extent California
<br />is unable to use its own water to meet its growing
<br />urban needs...the state will be obliged to try to find
<br />water somewhere...from Arizona, Coiorado, Wyoming,
<br />Utah, New Mexico, and elsewhere...."
<br />
<br />WATER RESOURCES/WATER RIGHTS
<br />
<br />Washingtol1/Trust Water Rights .
<br />
<br />Last month, the State of Washington issued
<br />guidelines for its Trust Water Rights Program. In
<br />1989, the legislature passed the Yakima Basin Trust
<br />Water Rights Act, and in 1991 instructed the
<br />Department of Ecology to develop a program in
<br />response to "the need to develop and test means to
<br />facilitate the voluntary transfer of water and water
<br />rights, including conserved water, to provide water for
<br />presently unmet and emerging needs.' The state's
<br />new guidelines apply to two regional pilot planning
<br />areas and up to eight water resource inventory areas
<br />identified as having critical water supply problems,
<br />Historically in Washington, as in other western states,
<br />appropriated water which became excess to the users
<br />needs through conservation, was returned to the
<br />stream for use by junior appropriators or future uses.
<br />While avoiding injury to other water rights or
<br />expanding a water right, the new program allows
<br />some excess water to be allocated to other uses.
<br />
<br />Trust water rights can only be acquired by the
<br />state through voluntary transfers or agreements, either
<br />through state or federally funded conservation
<br />measures that make water available for other uses .
<br />without injury to existing rights, or through the lease,
<br />donation, or purchase of an existing water right.
<br />Trust water thus voluntarily transferred to the state of
<br />Washington in the Trust Water Rights Program can be
<br />reallocated to either instream or offstream uses, under
<br />certain limitations. The amount of water previously
<br />beneficially used is the basis from which a trust water
<br />right is created, with the same priority date. Water
<br />which has been beneficially used and then transferred
<br />to the trust program is not subject to relinquishment.
<br />
<br />The legislation provides broad latitude regarding
<br />the types of possible transfers, Including dry year
<br />lease options, temporary or permanent changes in
<br />the place or type of use of a water right, water
<br />banking managed by the state, the transfer of water
<br />conserved by a water conservation project, or by
<br />gifts. The guidelines provide general guidance, but
<br />recognize the need for flexibility. It is expected that
<br />implementation of the program in the pilot planning
<br />areas will result in a better understanding of the
<br />issues and mechanics of applying trust water
<br />concepts and improvements to the overall program.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors .
<br />of member'states - Alaska, Arizona, Calnornia, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North '
<br />Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and associate member state Oklahoma
<br />
|