MUST READ INFO!
I wanted to create a web site that could help all the users of the Salton Sea, find the information that we need to have a productive trips to the sea.
The Salton Sea is a great resource and needs to be saved i will also have links to information about saving the Sea. additonally i will have links to information about may of the myths about the Sea.
Please check back often to see what is going on with the movement to save the sea. I will post all the real important information here or you can also click on the links to find some real indepth stuff.
Save the Sea Information link.
UP TO DATE "SAVE THE SEA INFO" AND INFORMATION ON THE WATER TRANSFER
July 24, 2002
State resources official ‘came here to learn’ about transfer
By RUDY YNIGUEZ
Staff Writer
IMPERIAL — The state secretary of the Resources Agency visited the Imperial Valley to hear what the community has to say about the pending transfer of water from the Imperial Irrigation District to the San Diego County Water Authority.
“I came here to learn, and not be an advocate to you,” said Secretary Mary Nichols, a Gov. Gray Davis cabinet appointee.
Nichols prefaced her comments and answers to questions by stating she has been in the Imperial Valley several times and is well aware of the Valley’s history of protecting its water rights. She said she did not come here to tell the Imperial Valley what to do with its water. She said her job is to look at the state’s natural resources and the environment, despite working for Davis, who also has an interest in the state’s economic well-being.
Regarding the transfer, Nichols said she understands the Salton Sea was not a factor in the transfer negotiations and that it came up after the fact. She said the state does not expect Imperial County, the Imperial Irrigation District or the other water agencies to bear the brunt of the decisions related to the sea, but the Imperial Valley is involved. She said the Salton Sea issue is still very much under discussion. She said the Davis administration does not want to do anything to worsen the sea or that could worsen the sea in the future.
Nichols said the sea’s burden lies with state and federal governments, but Congress has not shown the needed leadership to forward a long-range plan to save the sea.
On the issue of fallowing farmland to generate water for transfer and to mitigate effects on the sea, Nichols said she is trying to become better informed of the potential impacts of fallowing versus conservation through improved efficiency.
Dilda McFadden, representing the local NAACP chapter, asked Nichols what the consequences would be if the transfer fails.
Nichols said with the transfer being part of the state’s plan on how it will reduce its draw from the Colorado River, there undoubtedly would be those looking into how the water could be taken from the Valley.
“I don’t know what their success would be,” she said, adding there are certain processes the state and federal governments would follow to take the water based on a claim water is being wasted. “That’s a legal proceeding.”
IID Division 2 Director Bruce Kuhn said before any water could be taken from the Valley, there would have to be empty swimming pools in San Diego, golf courses without water in the Coachella Valley and a prohibition on car washes on the coast, among other water-cutting efforts. He said there would have to be emergency state legislation enacted, and then the law of the river would apply. He said not only would IID be affected but so would the Palo Verde Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Yuma Division and the Central Arizona Project.
Kuhn also said IID decades ago gave up half its entitlement to help build the Colorado River’s reservoirs in exchange for its current rights. He said IID once held rights to more than 7 million acre-feet.
“We already gave at the office,” he said.
Kuhn said he supports the water transfer as negotiated, but does not currently support fallowing.
Ken Hollis, director of the county Community and Economic Development Department, asked what economic help could be provided by the state.
Joan Dean, assistant deputy secretary for the state Technology, Trade & Commerce Agency, said it is possible the state could provide enterprise zones, as it did with the Brawley Beef plant, and foreign trade zones. She said the agency was recently approached with the idea of manufacturing ethanol from corn in the Imperial Valley.
Imperial-area farmer Larry Gilbert said more species would be impacted from a loss of farmland through fallowing than would be affected by impacts to the sea. He said many species make habitat out of farmland. He also said fallowing does not make farmers more efficient as required by the state.
Maria Guadalupe Garcia, Republican candidate for the 51st congressional district, asked what plan there is to protect the Imperial Valley from the negative impacts of fallowing.
Nichols replied that a key ingredient is knowing when to end fallowing, which she said should be short-term and not long-term.
Garcia also asked how the state could prevent lawsuits related to environmental impacts of the transfer.
Nichols said that could be accomplished by using the state Water Resources Control Board hearing process, thus putting the state in a position of defending its decision.
Orlando Foote, chairman of the Imperial Valley Economic Development Corp., urged the attending state officials to “remember us,” including the local economic diversity and needs.
Don Cox, a retired Brawley-area farmer and former IID board member, told Nichols fallowing seems to be supplanting the transfer agreement’s on-farm conservation program.
“If you replace on-farm conservation with fallowing you’d be doing all kinds of damage down here,” he said, adding there will not be a solution to the transfer’s effects on the sea until there is a long-term solution to the sea. Cox said he knows of a study with a solution to the sea but he declined to identify the study or who has it.
Nichols said a temporary solution would be to fallow land to generate water for about five years and get the transfer under way until a long-term solution can be developed. She said fallowing is worth exploring, allowing Congress to develop a plan for the sea, while ensuring surplus supplies from the Colorado River are maintained.
When it was all over, IID board President Stella Mendoza said Nichols is knowledgeable on the issues, has a level head and a genuine concern to do what’s right for the Imperial Valley. She said she was pleased Nichols came here to learn about local issues instead of arriving with preconceived ideas of what is best for the Valley and how she can help the Valley.
Also attending the luncheon were Thomas M. Hannigan, director of the state Department of Water Resources and Michael Spear, deputy state secretary of land conservation for the Resources Agency.
The workshop was sponsored by Imperial Valley United and the Imperial Valley Economic Development Corp.
July 21, 2002
Authority opposes sea restoration legislation
By RUDY YNIGUEZ
Staff Writer
Federal legislation that would put the burden of restoring the Salton Sea on the backs of federal and state governments, and limit those participating in the transfer of water out of the Imperial Valley to $50 million, is being opposed by the Salton Sea Authority board of directors.
Authority Executive Director Tom Kirk said his board is opposed because “the legislation seems to weaken environmental law in a way that seems to encourage water transfers which would reduce inflows to the Salton Sea significantly.”
Kirk said the authority board has passed a resolution in opposition to any transfers that would have such effects on the sea because of the impacts on the authority’s ability to restore the sea, potential air-quality problems, socioeconomic impacts and environmental impacts.
The legislation was recently introduced by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine. Hunter spokesman Mike Harrison said the legislation reiterates the responsibility to save the sea belongs to the state and federal governments. It also restates that affected agencies, such as the Salton Sea Authority, should expect a reduction of inflows into the sea of 800,000 acre-feet per year as stated in the Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998.
“The legislation protects our farmers by saying they contribute through their water agencies, but the burden is placed where it belongs: on the federal and state governments,” Harrison said.
The legislation lists the Coachella Valley Water District, the Imperial Irrigation District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the San Diego County Water Authority as those water agencies responsible to contribute the $50 million for mitigating the environmental impacts of the water transfers on the Salton Sea.
One transfer would be up to 200,000 acre-feet yearly from the IID to the San Diego County Water Authority. A second transfer would include two 50,000 acre-foot transfers to Coachella and/or MWD.
Three of the four Imperial Valley representatives on the Salton Sea Authority board did not attend the meeting where the legislation was discussed. The fourth could not be reached for comment.
The new legislation absolves the water agencies of further liability for endangered species due to the transfers after the $50 million contribution except under certain circumstances.
The legislation also calls for mitigation of newly exposed shorelines through ground cover, and places limits on judicial or administrative proceedings as a result of the transfers and related actions. It also authorizes $53 million for IID to build reservoirs and associated facilities in the vicinity of the All-American Canal during its lining, and possibly use the new reservoirs as a means to help Mexico, which is concerned about the loss of seepage water from the All-American Canal.
An analysis of the legislation by Salton Sea Authority staff states, despite the water agencies’ $50 million contribution to mitigate transfer impacts and $60 million in additional mitigation funds if a restoration plan is in place by June 31, 2007, reduced inflows have been shown to dramatically increase restoration costs, potentially by more than $2 billion.
July 10, 2002
Sea make-up water from fallowing?
By RUDY YNIGUEZ
Staff Writer
SACRAMENTO — Fallowing will likely be the source of make-up water to the Salton Sea for at least 27 years if the Imperial Irrigation District decides to move forward with a water transfer.
Jesse Silva, IID general manager, said make-up water for the sea also could come from some other sources. For example, the water could be provided by that designated for transfer outside the Imperial Valley.
“One option is to fallow an additional acreage,” he said, adding that fallowing land to generate water for the sea would only occur if fallowing were used to generate water for the transfer.
The issue was brought out at the state Water Resources Control Board hearings here. The state board is tasked with approving the district’s and San Diego County Water Authority petition for transfer.
In addition to the make-up water, Silva said the district committed to holding the rate at which the sea’s salinity rises to the current rate, as if there were no transfer.
Without a transfer, the sea’s salinity is expected to rise to 60 parts per thousand by 2030.
Silva also said the district has committed to maintaining the sea’s current elevation.
“That’s the one that worries me,” he said, adding that to do so would require more water. He said the district is not looking to use mechanical devices. “No dikes, strictly water.”
The issues discussed are those that changed between the draft environmental impact report and the final EIR, certified by the IID on June 28. The IID Board of Directors has not formally decided to transfer any water, nor if it does how that water will be generated.
Another issue was air quality, to which Silva said the district has committed to monitoring air quality and to implement mitigation measures, if needed, but that none would be needed until some time after the district’s commitment to maintain the sea at a constant level is ended and air quality mitigation is needed, expected around 2035.
Tom Kirk, executive director of the Salton Sea Authority, said an important issue raised at the hearing was what is the actual water transfer project and how will it be accomplished. He said the final EIR does not seem to conclude that the transfer will be based on on-farm conservation.
“There continues to be a lot of ambiguity about what the project is,” he said. “This document seems to say the project we’ve done the environmental analysis for is fallowing.”
To support his claim, Kirk referred to a preliminary brief filed by the Imperial County on July 3.
The county argues IID and San Diego should designate the details of the transfer.
“The county further suggests that the (state Water Resources Control Board) invite the parties ... to enter into structured mediation in an effort to produce a transfer supported by a statewide consensus,” the brief says.
Brendan Fletcher, program associate for Defenders of Wildlife, said the main issue raised at the Monday’s hearing was IID’s lack of a specific transfer program.
“It’s clear IID has redefined the project but it’s not all that clear to us what the project is, to what extent it is on-farm conservation and system improvements and to what extent it is fallowing,” he said. “That’s making it difficult for us to analyze the project.”
Regarding the make-up water, or habitat conservation plan, he said it is not clear if the water will be provided on a one-to-one basis.
Silva said the reason it does not appear to be one-to-one is because it is unknown how other actions will affect the sea’s level, such as if Mexico reduces flows into the New River or a storm dumps water in the sea. Whatever happens, Silva said, the district would adjust the amount supplied to the sea.
Fletcher said the air-quality plan is a step forward but there is no budget for it. He said the costs could be significant.
Meanwhile, Silva said so-called closing arguments on the petition are scheduled for Tuesday here.
The water transfer is for up to 300,000 acre-feet a year. Of that, as much as 200,000 would go to San Diego and 100,000 would go to the Coachella Valley Water District and/or the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
July 04, 2002
S.D. groups voice opposition to water transfer
By RUDY YNIGUEZ, Staff Writer
A large group of San Diego environmentalists and scientists has added members’ names in opposition to the Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water Authority water transfer as proposed.
The Concerned Scientists and Environmentalists of San Diego County adopted a declaration calling for the protection of the natural resources of the Salton Sea basin and San Diego County.
David Younkman, western field office director for the National Wildlife Federation, said the group is one that hasn’t been heard on the issues, although some individually submitted comments on the transfer’s draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement.
“We think it needs to have the details worked out, and assurances the transfer’s not going to harm the Salton Sea or have growth impacts to San Diego,” Younkman said, adding the EIR/EIS ignores growth-inducing impacts in San Diego. “We think that’s an unacceptable finding.”
The declaration was supplied to officials of the IID and SDCWA.
IID board President Stella Mendoza said she has not seen the declaration, while Division 1 Director Andy Horne said he’d received a copy of the document but had no particular comment on it.
Jim Taylor, San Diego County Water Authority assistant general counsel, said the authority does not believe the transferred water will lead to growth in San Diego.
“We don’t see this transfer as a growth issue because it’s not going to result in any additional water above and beyond what we’re getting now,” he said. “We see this as ensuring the reliability of the water we have received in the past.”
Taylor said SDCWA has numerous programs planned and in place and to conserve water, recycle water and develop local supplies.
“We honestly are proud of the work we’re doing to develop local supplies,” he said.
The declaration says the need for a transfer has not been established given the many options available to San Diego County for water reclamation, water conservation, desalination and lower the county’s rate of population growth.
“The water transfer must not result in the significant reduction of inflows to the Salton Sea, must not degrade the air quality in the region surrounding the Salton Sea, must not result in significant adverse socioeconomic impacts and must not undermine efforts or preclude the opportunity to eventually restore the Salton Sea,” it says.
Younkman said it is not the responsibility of the scientists and environmentalists to come up with their own proposal. He said the parties involved in the transfer should take the principles espoused in the declaration and develop a plan based on them. He said a source of replacement water for the Salton Sea must be found, and that fallowing is an idea that should be discussed.
“If you want to uphold those principles (in the declaration), you need to look at fallowing or at least crop rotation,” Younkman said. “I don’t think we would mandate fallowing but to uphold these principles you’ll probably have to look at it.”
IID board certifies water transfer documents
By RUDY YNIGUEZ
Staff Writer 6/30/03
With few comments, other than to say Friday's actions did not mean a water transfer is being formally approved, the Imperial Irrigation District Board of Directors voted to certify final environmental documents associated with the transfer and the agricultural quantification settlement.
The vote to certify both documents was 4-1, with board President Stella Mendoza voting "no" both times.
It is unknown when the board might take formal action on whether to actually undertake the transfer project or cancel the project under any number of so-called off-ramps available to it in the transfer agreement.
At Friday's meeting, Board of Supervisors Chairman Hank Kuiper submitted a letter addressing each environmental impact report/environmental impact statement. The county also submitted a box of comments on each EIR. Each box had the capacity of 5,000 sheets of paper, and each was full.
Kuiper asked the IID board to not certify either EIR.
"Based on what has now been placed in the public record, no question can remain that the present (water transfer) EIR/EIS significantly fails to assess impacts of the currently-proposed transfer on growth in San Diego, air quality in Imperial County and potential land fallowing," one letter says. "The growth-inducing impacts are of great concern to us because failure to assess them means failure to assess and compare alternative means in San Diego of attaining that community's perceived future needs — alternatives that might require less export of water from Imperial Valley, thus serving the needs of both IID and the county of a thriving agricultural economy and stabilized Salton Sea. The air quality impact also greatly concerns us as we cannot support a proposal that would induce unhealthy air quality degradation arising from either an exposed Salton Sea shoreline or a programmatic fallowing of agricultural land. Perhaps more critical is the lack of analysis, definition and/or an acceptable plan for any type of long-term fallowing of agricultural land."
The IID board did not delay certification as requested by Kuiper.
Regarding the impacts of the transfer of water from the Imperial Irrigation District to the San Diego County Water Authority, the IID board was told by the consultant who performed the EIR/EIS that significant unavoidable impacts include water quality, agricultural resources and air quality.
Laura Harnish, EIR/EIS project manager for CH2M Hill, said the water quality impacts come down to an increase in selenium concentrations in drains into the Alamo and New river and into the Salton Sea.
Air quality impacts are related to the potential for wind blown dust from an exposed Salton Sea shoreline. Under a Salton Sea habitat conservation strategy that uses fallowing to mitigate impacts, the dust is not expected to result until 2035 on 16,000 acres of land. The strategy would provide water to the sea until 2030 which is considered the date when salinity would rise to 60 parts per thousand, a point at which tilapia are thought to not be able to reproduce.
Regarding agricultural resources, Harnish said significant unavoidable impacts result if nonrotational fallowing is implemented to generate water for transfer or for Salton Sea mitigation.
San Diego County Water Authority liaison to the Imperial Valley, Rick Strobel, read a letter describing the San Diego County Water Authority as an IID partner committed to the original transfer agreement, and that the SDCWA supports state Senate Bill 482, a bill the IID board says will force the Imperial Valley to fallow land.
After the votes, Division 1 Director Andy Horne said the certification of the environmental documents does not mean a transfer project was approved.
Division 3 Director Lloyd Allen agreed.
Division 2 Director Bruce Kuhn, referring to comments that the documents be changed, said neither of the documents are perfect.
"We cannot meet the requests of every person out there," he said.
In a related matter, IID Chief Counsel John Penn Carter informed the board that the San Diego County Water Authority has requested the IID grant a fourth extension to the transfer agreement requirement that San Diego obtain a method for transporting the transferred water for the initial term of the agreement, 45 years. To date San Diego has a 30-year agreement with MWD. The only way to get Colorado River water to San Diego is through MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct. The current extension runs out today. The transfer agreement is for 75 years.
A vote to certify the environmental documents means the document complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
>> Staff Writer Rudy Yniguez can be reached at 337-3440.
Union-Tribune Editorial
Water impasse
A question of conservation or fallowing
June 30, 2002
All major roadblocks have been cleared for the San Diego County-Imperial Valley water transfer and the deal for California to live within its Colorado River water allotment. All major roadblocks except one, that is. And it's the biggest.
Last week, a committee of the California Legislature unanimously passed a bill that removes most environmental hurdles to the transfer, which would bring San Diego County about 200,000 acre-feet of water a year from the Imperial Valley. The county currently uses about 600,000 acre-feet.
This transfer also is critical to a plan for California to live within its annual allotment of 4.4 million acre-feet a year of Colorado River water, down from the current 5.2 million. California must reduce its intake within 15 years, but if we miss some pressing deadlines later this year, the federal government might be forced to cut the state's water supply by 800,000 acre-feet next year. That would be catastrophic.
All the parties involved have now certified environmental documents for both the water transfer and the California 4.4 plan. However, Imperial officials haven't decided how they're going to supply the water to San Diego. Originally, the idea was for farmers to conserve the 200,000 acre-feet.
But a month ago, state and federal wildlife officials said Imperial Valley farmers couldn't conserve because that would hurt endangered birds and fish in the Salton Sea, a body of water expected to go hyper-saline - to die, that is - in a decade or two anyway.
Fallowing farmland was left as the only other option. But Imperial Irrigation District officials and many valley residents are vehemently opposed to fallowing. They say if anybody tries to force them to fallow, the whole transfer deal is off and they'll sue everybody in sight. And they suggest that if they were ever to fallow, somebody would have to bear the economic costs, which officials there estimate at $1.6 billion - a fantastic sum that nobody's going to pay.
Forcing the Imperial Valley to fallow land instead of conserving water to protect the Salton Sea is unfair and counter-intuitive. Sacrificing crops and jobs for a dying sea is absurd. But the importance of the water transfer and the California 4.4 plan is paramount. This impasse must be broken, and we don't have much time. There are basically two ways out - either Imperial Valley agrees to a fallowing plan, or state and federal wildlife officials support a conservation-based plan.
Within the last week, an idea has been revived by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, to build low-salinity ponds along the shores of the Salton Sea. Those ponds would help preserve the endangered fish and birds, allowing conservation instead of fallowing.
State and federal wildlife officials have no idea whether such a plan would pass environmental muster, but they're studying it. They should study it very hard. It could be the way out of this mess.
If not, and if state and federal officials forbid Imperial Valley farmers from conserving water, as foolish as that may be, we need to know soon. Fallowing, plus compensation for the losses it creates, will be the only option.
Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Beneficial threat hangs over IID
By RUDY YNIGUEZ
Staff Writer
The Department of the Interior has weighed in on the issue of fallowing and reiterated the possibility that water could be taken from the Imperial Valley without compensation by claiming the water is not being used beneficially.
A May 31 letter from Bennett W. Raley, assistant secretary of the Interior for water and science, says, "Any wasteful water use practices within California would undoubtedly come under extraordinary scrutiny from all parties.
"And as you know, because no water user has the right to waste water, the enforcement of beneficial-use requirements would clearly not require compensation," Raley wrote.
Imperial Irrigation District board President Stella Mendoza disagreed IID is wasting water. "The IID is one of the most efficient irrigation districts in the state of California, and are more efficient than the state when it comes to reasonable and beneficial use of water," she said. Raley's letter also discusses fallowing. "Interior is fully supportive of ... efforts to engage IID in a discussion of workable conservation-based alternatives, and in the absence of such alternatives, to focus on a workable fallowing approach, which should include provisions to provide an appropriate means to compensate those who bear its impacts," it says.
The only thing Mendoza would agree with in Raley's letter is the seriousness of the issue. "The district is doing its part to facilitate the process. However, I am not willing to sacrifice the quality of life and the economic viability of the Imperial Valley to quench the never-ending thirst of both San Diego and Los Angeles," she said. IID Division 1 Director Andy Horne said Raley's position is inconsistent with that expressed at an October 2001 meeting, "that if we came up with a plan and $60 million, that he could get the plan accepted and get the Fish & Wildlife Service to issue the take permits," Horne said.
The plan — for addressing impacts to the Salton Sea — was the so-called habitat conservation plan approach No. 1 in the water transfer draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement. The money was to come from federal legislation introduced by two members of the House of Representatives. The take permits would have allowed the incidental takings of endangered species as a result of a conservation-based water transfer.
"Now we're being told we're in jeopardy because of his inability to deliver," Horne said. "I find that rather ironic."
Raley this morning said no such assurances were given. "Absolutely not," he said. "That is not something that is within my authority. I would never say such a thing."
Raley said the issuance of such taking permits are within the purview of Fish & Wildlife and it would be illegal and improper for him to make such a promise. When asked if the federal government would only approve a transfer based on fallowing, Raley said he would defer to his letter, adding further positions would likely be forthcoming, but said he would not elaborate. He said he is hopeful the issues can be worked out and he understands the difficulty facing all parties.
Meanwhile, under HCP approach No. 1, IID would construct a hatchery to ensure continued availability of tilapia as a forage base for piscivorous birds. Hatchery operations would be located near the Salton Sea on land not under cultivation. A second component of the approach would be initiated if a long-term restoration project was not implemented before the sea could no longer support fish. Under this component, IID would create 5,000 acres of ponds near the sea to support fish and provide the forage base.
The remaining HCP — approach No. 2 — would provide make-up water for the sea through any means available, including fallowing, on-farm conservation or system savings. The draft EIR says if fallowing were used to generate water for transfer, it would require 50,000 acres. An additional 25,000 acres would be fallowed to generate water for the sea and 9,800 acres would be needed in case of inadvertent overrun.
It was reported last week to the Imperial Irrigation District Board of Directors that the California Department of Fish and Game will not issue required permits under approach No. 1, and Horne said the expected letter will also be signed by Fish & Wildlife. Horne said the new position by Raley is "somewhat duplicitous."
He said the $60 million could have been a down payment for a Salton Sea restoration plan.
Division 3 Director Lloyd Allen said he's read the letter but has not discussed it with anyone yet. Raley's letter addresses the potential impacts should the state fail to meet the conditions precedent of the Quantification Settlement Agreement by the end of the year. The declaration of surplus criteria on the Colorado River, by Interior, to a certain degree, depend on the QSA requirements being in place. Should they not be, it is possible the other basin states will pressure Interior to cease such declarations. Under the surplus criteria guidelines, California is expected to make certain reductions from 5.2 million acre-feet yearly from the Colorado, to its legal, normal flow year apportionment, of 4.4 million acre-feet.
The first milestone, however, is already in place. That is the conservation of 106,000 acre-feet yearly, which is being transferred to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California under a 1988 agreement with IID.
Raley states what might actually happen if the QSA is not wrapped up in time is still unknown. "The department has not made a final decision regarding the exact nature and timing of actions or combinations of actions that it will take regarding the IID's use of Colorado River water in the event the guidelines are suspended," he wrote.
>> Staff Writer Rudy Yniguez can be reached at 337-3440.
Hot water
Seth Lubove,
Vivendi finds itself in the middle of one of the biggest water wars in the long history of California's water wars.
Jean-Marie Messier has offices in both Paris and Manhattan, the better to oversee the glittering transatlantic array of assets held by his Vivendi Universal. Among them Universal Studios, USA Networks and such music acts as Luciano Pavarotti and Sting. Maybe the Frenchman should also get a place in Imperial County, California, where Vivendi has a valuable, much fought-over asset: water rights.
The Imperial Valley is about as far as you can get from the glitz of Hollywood and Paris. Located on the Mexican border east of San Diego, the 12,000-square-kilometer desert county has only one Starbucks. Cattle graze lazily under the blistering midday sun in the dust-choked fields. Highlights of the year include the Holtville Carrot Festival and the Brawley Cattle Call.
It's an unlikely place to find a slick global outfit, yet Vivendi is the largest landowner in the county. Vivendi Environnement, its 63%-owned water and sewer subsidiary, has 18,000 hectares. This places Vivendi squarely in the middle of an ugly water war whose outcome could decide how much San Diego and the rest of Southern California can grow.
The story begins in the mid-1990s when the billionaire Bass brothers quietly bought up land in Imperial County. The parched soil would be of little value, except that it comes with the rights to nearly 3.1 billion hectoliters of Imperial County's annual draw on the Colorado River. The quirks of history and politics mean that the thinly populated rump county takes as much as 38 billion hectoliters a year from the river. That allotment is as much as Arizona's and Nevada's combined and six times the allotment to the Los Angeles area.
The water is almost free, since it travels mostly by gravity down from the Colorado to Imperial. Farmers there pay $1.26 per thousand hectoliters, compared with as much as $35 paid by urban water agencies in Southern California, where the water has to be pumped over mountains before it can fill all the hot tubs and swimming pools.
The Bass brothers wanted to let their land go fallow and resell the water to thirsty San Diego for whatever the traffic would bear. But there was a little hitch. In some sense the water is "owned" not by the farmers who have rights to it but by the Imperial Irrigation District, which operates the canal system.
The Basses abandoned the plan after it fanned a firestorm among the locals and pitted various water agencies against each other. True to form, the brothers cleaned up anyway after flipping the land in 1997 to U.S. Filter for the equivalent of $220 million in stock, three times what they reportedly paid for the property.
Now Vivendi Environnement--which bought U.S. Filter in 1999--has stepped up to the bargaining table. After years of delays, hearings began this April before California's Water Resources Control Board, the bureaucracy that has to approve any transfers. San Diego has agreed to pay 20 cents per thousand liters for U.S.-government subsidized water that Imperial County gets for free.
Vivendi has wisely kept a low profile in the dispute, which has reached a boiling point in recent months, with the locals denouncing the strong-arm attempts by outsiders to hijack their precious water. "Can you imagine the target they would be?" says Larry Grogan, the mayor of Imperial's largest town, El Centro. "A foreign company taking our livelihood and selling it to San Diego? You probably couldn't warm up the tar fast enough."
Agreed, says Stephen Stanczak, the executive vice president and general counsel of Vivendi's U.S. Filter unit. "We've taken a passive approach because of the sense that U.S. Filter, as the successor to the Bass brothers, was a lightning rod." Instead, the company is quietly working the statehouse and holding on to the land because, Stanczak says, it's "inevitable" that agricultural water will eventually have to be sold to urban areas.
One big new complication is the fate of the grandly named Salton Sea, a 950-square-kilometer lake that subsists entirely on the agricultural runoff from Imperial County. If you divert the excess water from Imperial County, you starve the sea, and with it go the millions of transitory birds that have adopted the murky water as a flyway. That, at least, is the theory. So the birds, or the groups that represent them, are already demanding costly mitigation efforts. It will help Vivendi's case that other landowners in Imperial don't want to make any sacrifices for the Salton Sea. The suggestion that they let their farmland lie fallow to conserve water for the sea is met with more howls of protest.
Adding to the urgency is another wrinkle. California has habitually exceeded its legal allotment of 54 billion hectoliters of water from the Colorado. That wasn't a problem so long as Arizona and Nevada drained less water than they were permitted. That is no longer true, so California has until the end of the year to come up with a plan to live within its means or face a potentially drastic cutoff. The solution to the crisis depends on Imperial County's shipping its excess water to the thirsty city slickers.
Good luck. Susan Giller, a spokeswoman for the Imperial Irrigation District, says with a smile, "We don't have to share it with anybody."
May 16, 2002: IID puts water agencies on notice
By RUDY YNIGUEZ
Staff Writer
The Imperial Irrigation District Board of Directors voted 4-1 to send a letter informing the western water world it will not exceed its monetary limit for environmental mitigation associated with the water transfer. "If they don't come up with the funding, then the transfer is over," said IID Division 2 Director Bruce Kuhn. "The onus is on them." Kuhn introduced the motion to send the letter to the San Diego County Water Authority informing it that IID will exercise its option to not spend more than $15 million for environmental impacts caused by the transfer of 300,000 acre-feet out of the Imperial Valley. Voting with Kuhn were directors Andy Horne, Stella Mendoza and Rudy Maldonado, who seconded the motion. Division 3 Director Lloyd Allen voted "no." Allen said there are indications the environmental cap will be exceeded but a response process exists for dealing with it. "We haven't reached that point yet," he said after the meeting, adding San Diego was already put on notice with a previous letter. San Diego County Water Authority General Manager Maureen Stapleton could not be reached for comment this morning. IID Chief Counsel John Penn Carter said the actual cost of mitigation will not be known until IID, along with state Fish & Game and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, settle on a mitigation plan. He said mitigation is required for the sea, the district's service area and air- quality impacts. He said discussions on the issue continue. He added, however, that it is appropriate for the IID board to send the message to San Diego and he will draw up the letter as directed. Carter said IID spent about $6 million for the draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement related to the transfer, as well as an unknown amount on legal fees. He said in his opinion those costs are part of the district's cost cap. San Diego covers about 35 percent of those costs. The right of IID — and San Diego — to reject exceeding the environmental cap is only one of several so-called off-ramps in the transfer agreement. The agreement does, however, require IID provide San Diego with the opportunity to pay for any amount of environmental mitigation in excess of IID's cap. It's also acceptable for one of the other water agencies, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or Coachella Valley Water District, to come up with the money, as well as state and federal governments. San Diego's environmental cost ceiling is $1 million. The IID/San Diego transfer is considered the linchpin to the state's dependence on Colorado River water. The coastal areas are using about 800,000 acre-feet more than the state's legal apportionment of 4.4 million during normal flow years on the river. Meanwhile, Kuhn said it is well known the transfer's mitigation costs will exceed the cap by a significant amount and that there are some estimates that exceed $1 billion. "I have no objections where that money comes from as long as it doesn't come from the pockets of the hard-working people of the Imperial Valley," Kuhn said. After the vote, Kuhn said the board's action does not kill the transfer bur opens the door for others to step up with their checkbooks. "We still stand here ready to spend $15 million," he said. "It simply puts them on notice." Kuhn said the action is not in response to the Gov. Gray Davis's order that IID use fallowing to generate water to transfer and save the Salton Sea because of fears of lawsuits from environmental organizations. The governor's order was addressed at the end of the board meeting, during board comments. Allen and Horne are the district's negotiators, and were present at the meeting with Davis's cabinet secretary, who relayed Davis's message. Maldonado said after Davis's Cabinet Secretary Susan Kennedy discussed fallowing, that IID's water partners, San Diego, Coachella and MWD, went into a feeding frenzy on the same issue that showed their true colors after years of building trust. "Now I'm having second thoughts about the transfer," he said. Kuhn said the transfer was begun in the spirit of cooperation to help get water to the coast, with the specific agreement that fallowing would not be used, but it has now at the point where the district is being pressured to fallow despite spending millions of dollars locally to develop a plan based on conservation. "They've turned on us like a pack of God-damned dogs," he said. "If this transfer dies, it will not be at the hands of the IID. It'll be at the hands of those who fail to come up with the money to backfill." Horne said there was no "order" that IID fallow. Rather, he said, it was "strongly suggested." He said he and Allen were told if IID were to fallow the state would be willing to do something for IID. "We told them we couldn't do that," he said. He also said Davis wants the transfer to move forward, but doesn't care how the water is generated. Mendoza said she has always been opposed to the water transfer, and never thought a majority of the board would reach this point. "I will not support anything that will negatively impact the Imperial Valley," she said.
By RUDY YNIGUEZ
Staff Writer
Response to the Imperial Irrigation District's notice that it will not exceed its water transfer environmental mitigation cap is that it was not unexpected. Tom Levy, Coachella Valley Water District general manager/chief engineer, said he has not seen the letter but has known for about a year that the environmental costs would exceed the IID's $15 million environmental cost cap. He said that knowledge is one reason the water agencies have been seeking state and federal funding for mitigation costs. The IID Board of Directors has put Southern California water agencies, the state and federal governments on notice it will not exceed its environmental cap. The water transfer agreement allows for the San Diego County Water Authority to cover those costs should its board choose to do so. Without money to pay for environmental expenses that exceed the $15 million IID cap, the 300,000 acre-foot transfer would die. Of that amount, between 130,000 and 200,000 is slated for San Diego, while two 50,000 acre-foot transfers would go to Coachella and/or the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. IID board President Stella Mendoza said the letter, addressed to all three water agencies, was sent out this morning. The letter states: "Although the environmental decision date ... has not yet been reached, the IID has determined that the cost of all environmental mitigation measures for which the IID will be responsible if the activities described in the (transfer) agreement are implemented will likely exceed the IID environmental cost ceiling." Maureen Stapleton, general manager of the San Diego County Water Authority, also said she has not seen the letter, but it has been known for many months that the IID's environmental cap would be exceeded, and the four water agencies are seeking sources of funds for environmental mitigation. She said the environmental costs are one of the obstacles to the transfer's success, and that the agencies are continuing to work with state Fish & Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife to develop the best potential environmental mitigation plan. "We just don't know what the cost is going to be," she said, adding the agencies are expending considerable staff time to develop a plan. Stapleton said the IID's position related to the cost cap has been consistent and the letter reiterates what is already known, and the result will be a doubling of the effort to make the water transfer work. Dennis Underwood, MWD vice president for Colorado River resources, said it would be difficult to comment on the IID board action without seeing the letter. "We all know this is not an easy task," he said, adding he is not surprised IID would issue such a letter. Meanwhile, Levy said one issue remaining to be resolved is how IID will generate the water for transfer. He said if IID were to fallow farmland, environmental costs would be reduced dramatically. The IID board has formally adopted a resolution against fallowing, and the transfer agreement states the "IID covenants and agrees that fallowing will not be a permitted water-conservation effort under its contracts with its contracting landowners." The agreement also requires that a minimum of 130,000 acre-feet of water to be transferred be from on-farm conservation. Farmers will be asked to formally commit to participate in the transfer within 120 days after the certification of the transfer's final environmental impact report/environmental impact statement, expected in late June.
Update 5/23/02
By RUDY YNIGUEZ
Staff Writer
If the Imperial Irrigation District Board of Directors refuses to fallow land to generate water for transfer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., says the federal government will simply take the water and not pay for it.
"It is very critical that IID make a decision and agree to a form of fallowing that best meets the needs of the district," Feinstein says in a letter written Tuesday. "If Imperial does not decide to fallow, there is a serious risk the Department of Interior will have no alternative but to suspend the (Colorado River) interim surplus guidelines. If this were to happen, then Interior could be forced to initiate proceedings to take the water IID had planned to transfer and there would not be any compensation."
The letter is addressed to IID board President Stella Mendoza.
"I strongly disagree with Sen. Feinstein's opinion that the only workable alternative is fallowing," Mendoza said. "The senator doesn't live in the Imperial Valley and she would not be affected by the negative economic impacts of fallowing, and unless she comes up with the appropriate funds to mitigate the negative impacts — and that amount has not been determined yet — she can take a hike."
Feinstein could not immediately be reached for comment this morning.
Her letter also alludes to the possibility the county could receive federal funding for economic development in exchange for fallowing, but Feinstein writes she must be provided with the county's economic needs within two weeks or she will not be able to help in time for the next budget cycle, but "getting additional economic assistance (is) contingent on the district deciding to fallow."
IID Division 1 Director Andy Horne said it is possible Feinstein could have been misinformed by the Bureau of Reclamation regarding the IID's use of water.
"I don't believe that Sen. Feinstein fully appreciates the complexities of what she's asking us to do," Horne said, adding the economic impacts of fallowing cannot be adequately addressed through a bill in Congress and it seems unlikely Congress would somehow take care of the district at some time in the future. "I'm not real enthusiastic about the letter."
Horne also disagreed with Feinstein's threat to just take the water without paying for it.
"Just let'em try," he said. "I don't believe the government can take something from you without compensation, which is what she intimates in her letter."
Feinstein's letter also says IID representatives met with her six weeks ago and "a proposal for evapotranspiration fallowing was put forth to solve the impasse over the quantification settlement agreement."
IID's water negotiators, Horne and Division 3 Director Lloyd Allen, both deny attending such a meeting.
"I wasn't there," Allen said.
Horne said no one is authorized to propose fallowing, as the IID board is formally against it.
"That baffles me," Horne said.
The economic impacts of fallowing have been estimated in the millions of dollars and as many as 2,100 local jobs.
The transfer would include up to 200,000 acre-feet yearly to the San Diego County Water Authority and two 50,000 acre-foot transfers yearly to the Coachella Valley Water District and/or the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Changes sought in Salton Sea bill
By LAURA MITCHELL
Staff Writer
After discussion in a closed session Tuesday, the county Board of Supervisors directed its legal representative to suggest changes to legislation that proposes to protect the Salton Sea and the endangered species that live there.
The reason the item was discussed in closed session is not clear.
The law dictating the rules for government agencies on open meetings, the Ralph M. Brown Act, states legitimate reasons for closed session discussion include litigation, potential litigation, personnel and public safety issues.
The legislation and proposed rewording are not directly connected in litigation with the county, County Counsel Ralph Cordova Jr. said. The legislation, Senate Bill 482, was addressed in closed session as potential litigation related to water transfer issues, Cordova said.
The bill, the California Endangered Species Act Expansion by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, proposes to protect the Salton Sea and redefine sections of the state Fish and Game Code. The code changes would give more protection to endangered species and species that are candidates for the endangered species list.
The board wrote a letter in April to Assemblyman Joe Canciamila, chairman of the Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife opposing the bill.
The board’s letter stated the county is concerned about impacts to the Salton Sea that could occur under the terms of the proposed Colorado River water transfer. The letter stated the county supports any legislation that would protect or restore the Salton Sea.
County Planning Director Jurg Heuberger said the county’s opposition to the legislation would drop if new language on fallowing, or idling farmland, is accepted into the bill. But Heuberger said Kuehl might not accept the changes.
The county wants its attorney to suggest the following changes in the bill’s language:
“Fallowing shall not be recognized as a land- or water-conservation measure unless both the board of supervisors of the county in which the fallowing is to take place, and the (State Water Resources Control) Board, determine that the fallowing together with enforceable mitigation measures will not produce unreasonable environmental and economic effects in that county.”
Cordova said the supervisors have nothing to hide regarding S.B. 482. He said the board had the discussion in closed session because of potential county litigation on the water transfer, which led to the discussion on S.B. 482.
Cordova could not comment on the county’s potential involvement in a lawsuit related to the water transfer
>> Staff Writer Laura Mitchell can be reached at 337-3452 or lauramitchell9@yahoo.com
