Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3377 <br /> <br />are done on a 24-hour increment and less than 2% of the deliveries are tenninated early <br />(lID Efficiency Study, 2003. p. 114). <br /> <br />As mentioned above, much of the focus of the lID operating practices has been on the <br />ordering and delivery of water. Other flow measurements within lID that could provide <br />useful data and infOImation for making irrigation water management and operating <br />decisions were previously identified, and in fact ordered by the California State Water <br />Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in Decision 1600, entered in June 1984. (Decision <br />1600 al pp. 36-37). <br /> <br />Decision] 600 resulted from a state administrative proceeding brought by a farmer whose <br />lands were being flooded by the rising level of the Salton Sea as a result oftailwater <br />flows Ii-om liD. The SWRCB, after finding that curtailing excessive tailwater was one of <br />several opportunitIes to conserve, ordered liD to develop a water accounting and <br />monitoring procedure which would result in quantifying the following factors; deliveries <br />to farmers' head gates, tailwater, canal spills, canal seepage and leach water. (Decision <br />1600, p. 68). The SWRCB concluded that "the right to make use of a large quantity oC <br />water canies with it the responsibility to account for its use accurately. "(Decision 1600, <br />p. 37). However, lID has not regularly ma intained an active measurement and <br />monitoring system of all of the factors cited by SWRCB, <br /> <br />This determination is the product of an independent review of current information <br />submitted to and analyzed by Reclamation. We note however, that many of the current <br />concerns regarding use of water within liD are similar to the observations and <br />conclusions of California's State Water Resources Control Board nearly twenty years <br />ago, when water use in lID was considerably less than it " today. <br /> <br />Jensen, in section 6.10.8 of his 1995 report on water use in liD, reported on the efforts of <br />lID to modernize its system of recording water orders by using electronic data recorders <br />that can be downloaded into a computer system directly. This system also provided an <br />opportunity to record the type of crop being grown on individual fields (Jensen 1995 and <br />Jensen/Walter 1997, section 5,1.9). However, in their 2003 Supplement, Jensen/Walter <br />reported that while lID has improved and modernized its sys tem for ordering and <br />distTibuting water for irrigation, such changes to operations and system managemenl had <br />not resulted in conservation of water nor a reduction in diversions (Jensen/Walter <br />Supplement 2003, p. 5). <br /> <br />As noted above, in the June 1984 decision, the SWRCB ordered lID to develop a plan to <br />properly account for all water use components of waler diverted from the Colorado River <br />for lID, Many of these data gathering efforts were initi31ed, and internal lID mles and <br />regulations were enforced, but not for the loug-tenn (MET: Scot!, 2003). For example, <br />with respect to tailwater flowing off liD lands, Scott descnbed periods of active <br />enforcement where rnarked reductions in IID water diversions were achieved (id.). <br />Further, MWD's Amold Dinunitt, in his FebnlalY 2 J Declaration submitted In lID v. <br /> <br />July 2, 2003 <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />Oetenninations and Recommendation" <br />For lID - Calendar Year 2003 <br />