My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05791
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05791
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:19:53 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:17:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8054.100
Description
Water Salvage - Water Salvage Study - HB 91-1154
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
12/6/1990
Author
Natural Resources La
Title
Background Documents and Information 1991 - Discussion Papers on Irrigation Water Supply Organizations
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />OIHOt.5 <br /> <br />The above factors were responsible for the demise of the first Memorandum of <br /> <br />Understanding reached between Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the Metropolitan Water <br /> <br />District of Southern California (MWD).5 While lID and MWD reached an agreement in late <br /> <br />1988, this should not be viewed as an exemplary example of a voluntary water trade. In <br /> <br />September 1988, after IID had exhausted all avenues of legal appeal of an earlier board order <br /> <br />(D-l600) holding that IID wastes water, the State Water Resources Control Board required IID <br /> <br />. to come up with a "written plan and definite implementation schedule" (which must detail how <br /> <br />.conservation projects would be financed) to conserve at least 100,000 af/yr by January 1, 1994. <br /> <br />The agreement beat the deadline by nine days.6 <br /> <br />In 1990, the Imperial Valley is still politically divided by the first IID/MWD agreement, <br /> <br />and the wisdom of entering into subsequent agreements. Since negotiations began in the early <br /> <br />. 1980s, only one board member has been re-elected (he has not been a member of any of the <br /> <br />many negotiating teams on which some board members have served). All others have been <br /> <br />defeated by challengers interested in exerting leadership on the transfer issue. These' <br /> <br />challengers, in turn, have served four years before being replaced by yet other individuals. <br /> <br />The regular defeat of incumbents in Imperial Valley is not a rejection of trading. To <br /> <br />date, challengers have simply questioned whether better deals could be made which provide <br /> <br />something for water users and the local economy of Imperial Valley. <br /> <br />5 See Smith and Vaughan, "Taking Water to Market," Civil Engineering 70-73 (March <br />1987). <br /> <br />6 See id for a discussion of the agreement. See also. "Let's Make a Deal: The IID/MWD <br />Water Conservation Agreement," Water Strategist 5, 15 (Jan. 1989). <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.