U.S. Water News Online
LOS ANGELES -- Imperial Valley water officials have found themselves caught between state and local interests as they struggle to decide whether to approve a billion dollar water transfer from desert farms to fast growing San Diego.
The agriculture-to-urban transfer is key to ending decades of dispute over the Colorado River. It also is the cornerstone of a water plan California must present to the federal government by Dec. 31 -- or face a drastic, immediate cut to its river supply by the Department of the Interior.
California has used more than its share of Colorado River water for years, but until recently it didn't matter because the other states didn't use all of their allotments.
The deal calls for farmer to implement more efficient farming techniques to conserve water and for farmers to receive money in exchange for fallowing some of their land. Imperial Valley business leaders and farm workers fear the plan will crush the agriculture dependent region in southeastern California. The proposed fallowing is difficult for many to accept in Imperial Valley, a region that is proud of its nearly 100-year farming tradition.
``It's a situation of damned if we do, damned if we don't,'' said Imperial Irrigation District board member Andy Horne.
The five-member board tentatively agreed to the transfer in October, along with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Palo Verde Irrigation District and the San Diego County Water Authority. All the other water district boards already have ratified the water transfer agreement.
The agreement includes the transfer of up to 500,000 acre feet of water a year. The largest single portion, 200,000 acre feet, would go to San Diego. One acre foot is enough to cover one acre of land with one foot of water, an amount equivalent to about 326,000 gallons.
The Imperial Valley board likely will not vote until December, after it holds more public forums and its staff finalizes the terms of the agreement.
Some board members only agreed to the initial deal after Assembly Speaker Emeritus Robert Hertzberg -- who moderated the negotiations -- threatened them, Horne said.
``I remember him talking about sending people to follow our farmers and essentially putting them out of business if we didn't do this deal,'' Horne said.
Horne said Hertzberg talked about stirring up farmworker unions over labor conditions and even legislating the water board out of existence.
Hertzberg said he was simply conveying ideas that were floating around the state Legislature.
``There were public statements by others, and I was simply referring to those,'' Hertzberg said. ``I was just giving them my best advice.''
On the other side of the debate, community members at a public forum demanded board members oppose the deal.
``We elect officials to make decisions, popular or unpopular,'' El Centro resident Jaime Gonzalez was quoted as saying in the Imperial Valley Press.
``There comes a time for elected officials to listen to the people. If the people don't want it, don't do it,'' he said.
The transfer touches only a fraction of the more than 3 million acre feet Imperial Valley farms receive from the Colorado River each year, but community members fear it is only the first of water grabs by coastal cities.
Bruce Kuhn, considered a swing vote on the board, said he is most concerned about the district's responsibility to the Salton Sea, a nearby inland body of water that serves as a rest stop to hundreds of thousands of migratory birds.
The sea survives on farm runoff.
Under the 75-year deal, Imperial Valley would transfer less water during the first 15 years to protect the fragile sea. Farmers also would fallow an average of 20,000 acres of land a year, out of the 400,000 acres in production, to ensure that enough water runs into the sea.
Officials, however, have yet to come up with a plan for long-term protection of the sea. It likely will become too salty for wildlife to survive in the next two decades unless measures are taken.
Kuhn questioned the value of continuing to feed the sea if state and federal officials still don't have a plan for its long-term protection.
``This transfer is not a done deal,'' Kuhn said.
Return to the U.S. Water News Archives page Or Return to the U.S. Water News Homepage
Editor@uswaternews.com
*Your Name:
*Your Email:
*Friend's Email:
Use a comma to separate e-mail addresses:
*Your Comments:
Hi, I thought you might like to read this article.
*Required Fields