Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Vote threatens share of Nevada’s water allotment

SUN STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

California's largest agricultural district rejected a water-use plan Monday night, moving the Golden State and Nevada a step closer to mandatory water cutbacks that federal authorities have warned could come next month.

The Imperial Irrigation District board, meeting in El Centro, Calif., refused to endorse a plan that would have sent about 200,000 acre-feet of water a year from its sparsely populated, agriculturally rich county to fast-growing San Diego. The water transfer was the linchpin of a plan that would have reduced California's dependence on Colorado River water over the next 75 years.

Interior Department and Bureau of Reclamation officials had warned that if the plan was rejected, federal officials would have to cut as much as 800,000 acre-feet from California's take from the river and 30,000 acre-feet from consumers in Southern Nevada.

The water, termed "interim surplus," is part of the river allotment not used by states in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The surplus is a fraction of the total used by both states.

California uses a total of 5.2 million acre-feet from Lake Mead annually, three-quarters of it going to agriculture. Southern Nevada uses roughly 330,000 acre-feet, all of it for urban uses.

The 30,000-acre foot interim surplus is about 10 percent of Southern Nevada's annual use. One acre-foot, or 326,000 gallons, is about what an average family uses in a year.

Southern Nevada's chief water official said her agency is beginning a process that would cut the ties between the two states.

"We can amend the interim surplus agreement and sever Nevada," Southern Nevada Water Authority General Manager Pat Mulroy said Tuesday. "Our water use is insignificant compared to California's. We are not the culprit. We have not reneged. ... Nevada should not be punished for the actions of California.

"At this point, California is just going to have to suffer the consequences. It is not going to be pretty."

Mulroy said she is confident that a new agreement with Colorado River states, minus California, can be worked out by the summer, which is when Nevada could start to suffer from the Bureau of Reclamation's reduction of water supplies.

"All the shortage will be borne by California," she said. "Sixteen million people (in Southern California) will experience a water shortage so we can continue to grow alfalfa in the Imperial Valley."

But Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who had last month authorized the additional allotment of Colorado River water for drought-stricken agricultural areas in California, warned that Dec. 31 is the deadline to strike a deal.

"We are now only one month plus one week away from mandatory action and there are no time-outs left," Norton said last month.

But officials with California's largest water agencies said they are optimistic their state will be able to avoid the federally mandated reduction.

"The clock has not struck midnight. We have not yet turned into mice and pumpkins," Dennis Cushman, assistant general manager of the San Diego County Water Authority, said.

In voting 3-2 Monday night to reject the proposal, the Imperial Irrigation District Board of Directors complained they were being pressured to accept something that asked too much of them.

"It's ending up being a deal where we were threatened with our very existence in order to get us to sign it," said Andy Horne, one of the three board members who voted no. "I did not see the justice in that."

The plan rejected by Imperial Valley Monday was the cornerstone of a broader seven-state agreement meant to reduce California's reliance on other Western states' unused Colorado River surpluses.

It would have included the transfer of nearly 500,000 acre-feet of water a year -- enough for 1 million households -- to districts across Southern California.

The largest single portion, about 200,000 acre-feet, would have been sent from the Imperial Valley to San Diego County and would have covered one-third of the region's need.

The three board members who voted against the plan said they realized they would eventually have to agree to some sort of water transfer.

"But it has to be on our terms," said Stella Mendoza, the board's most outspoken opponent of the plan.

Mulroy said the board's action undermines months of negotiations by the irrigation district's staff.

"They've embarrassed the state of California, and they look like fools," she said. "Nobody's going to deal with them in negotiations."

"What they are trying to do is extort more water," Mulroy said. "They are trying to push this as far as they possibly can to see how much they can extract."

She called the district "the most arrogant of all users" of Colorado River water.

Board member Bruce Kuhn, who also voted against the proposal, offered a compromise that would hand over the same amount of water, but only commit the district to three to five years, not the 75 the plan called for. The board decided to have its staff study his suggestion.

Meanwhile, representatives of the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District said they were optimistic a deal could still be reached by Dec. 31.

And if it can't, MWD officials said, they would still have adequate supplies for at least the next two years, and would consider instituting additional conservation measures.

"Because of the investments urban Southern California has made over the past decade to diversify and stretch its portfolio of water management options, Metropolitan expects to meet all of its demands for imported water in 2003 and 2004," MWD Chairman Phillip J. Pace said in a statement.

But officials with the Coachella Valley Water District, which would have received 100,000 acre-feet of water a year from the Imperial Valley, were clearly unhappy with the vote. The district's general manager, Tom Levy, said state and federal officials must examine what he called the Imperial Irrigation District's "waste of water."

The five members of the Imperial Valley board -- two real-estate agents, a farmer, a former hydropower plant operator and the owner of a land-leveling business -- found themselves torn between the interests of their rural neighbors and the increasingly urban state.

Their vote came after about 90 minutes of testimony from more than two dozen area residents, almost all of whom denounced the deal as a water giveaway. Many who spoke were Imperial County farmers, including some who appeared to have arrived straight from their fields, with mud still on their boots.

Since the 1930s Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and California have had an agreement on how much each state receives. California has used 800,000 acre-feet more than its fair share for years because the other states didn't use all of their allotments. Decades of growth and three years of drought have made Colorado River water more precious than ever.

Mulroy said the continuing drought, which has reduced snowfall in the Rockies that feeds the river, could spell the end of interim-surplus water for all users within a few years.

archive