Laserfiche WebLink
<br />UU'::J\lU <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Prohibit lID from entering into any existing or ne?! contracts that would allow them to <br />receive more than 2.6 million acre-feet per year of Colorado River water. <br />Make lID liable for mitigating any environmental impacts associated with its use of <br />Colorado River water. <br />The bill's operative language would sunset when lID agrees to the water transfer under <br />the QSA and when the Interim Surplus Guidelines have been reinstated by the Secretary <br />of the Department of the Interior. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />California Congressional Letter to Secretary Norton <br /> <br />On December 19th, 22 members of California's Congressional Delegation wrote a letter to <br />Secretary Norton concerning the Department of the Interior's (DOl) leadership responsibilities under <br />federal law regarding the Salton Sea and the impact it is having on the QSA. In it, the delegation <br />noted that "The single greatest obstacle to successful implementation of the QSA is the uncertainty <br />over the scope and cost of efforts to protect and restore the Salton Sea". The letter noted that the <br />California State Legislature had allocated nearly $300 million in state funds to QSA related water <br />conveyance and environmental costs, and amendments to stringent environmental laws to allow the <br />proposed water transfer to proceed. The letter concluded that "this continued uncertainty is the direct <br />result of DOl's failure to carry out the provisions of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act of1998". <br /> <br />Salton Sea Coalilion Letter to Secretaries Nortoft & Nichols <br /> <br />On December 16,2002, the Salton Sea Coalition sent a letter to Secretary ofthe Interior Gale <br />Norton, and California Secretary of Resources Mary Nichols. The letter requested that <br />environmental and conselVation organizations be permitted to participate in the negotiation process <br />related to the QSA and the Salton Sea. Additionally, the Coalition requested that they be allowed <br />to participate in the analysis of alternatives related to Salton Sea restoration. I have included a copy <br />of the Coalition's letter in your handout materials. <br /> <br />State Water Resources Control Board's Petition Order 2002-0013 <br /> <br />The California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) held a final hearing in <br />Sacramento on December 20, 2002. The State Board received oral and written testimony and <br />comments related to the proposed order regarding the IID-SDCW A transfer. Upon consideration <br />ofthe comments and other relevant information, the State Board approved the Order contingent upon <br />execution of the QSA as defined in Senate Bill 482. Without execution of the QSA, the State <br />Board's Order is held in abeyance. <br /> <br />Imperia/Irrigation District VS. United States of America; Gale Norton, et a/. <br /> <br />On January 10, 2003, lID filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern <br />District of California. In the lawsuit, lID alleges that the United States cannot unilaterally reduce <br />the 2003 water delivery to the District, and then make some of the water available to Coachella <br />Valley Water District and The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The complaint <br />alleges that the government used "strong-arm" tactics to attempt to force lID to execute the QSA, <br /> <br />7 <br />