Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OD'!.O(Q <br /> <br />the prospect of forced trades. I briefly discuss this prospect in two likely scenarios: (1) <br /> <br />regulatory review of agricultural water use (e.g. California's State Water ReSources Control <br /> <br /> <br />Board concludilig that the Imperial Irrigation District wastes water); and (2) consideration of <br /> <br />. .water trading alternatives in environmental review of water right proceedings (e.g. consideration <br /> <br /> <br />of water trade possibilities for alternative sources of supply to increased diversions from <br /> <br />California's Bay-Delta, and Denver's Two Forks project). <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />In its decision D-l600, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) reached its <br />decision without regard to the economic circumstances of water use in the Imperial Valley. <br />Moreover, as already discussed, the SWRCB issued an order which placed great regulatory <br />pressure for lID to enter into an agreement within four months or face the prospect of <br />forfeiting its rights. During this time, MWD brandished a legal theory, based on a doctrine of <br />physical necessity, which would justify MWD simply entering the Imperial Valley, undertaking <br />the projects, paying the costs, and using the conserved water. In effect, lID faced a new <br />. doctrine of western water law -- "trade it or lose it." <br /> <br />A similar problem may arise from any environmental assessment that identifies water <br /> <br />trading as preferable to an exercise of an existing water right or development of a proposed <br /> <br />water source. For example, suppose that the Bay-Delta proceedings in California concludes <br /> <br />that state and fCderal project diversions should remain at their 1985 levels, and that exports to <br /> <br /> <br />the south could only be increased through the acquisition of conserved water from Central <br /> <br />14 <br />