Norton threatens water shutoff

Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2002 | 11:17 a.m.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton repeated a direct warning to California and other users of Colorado River water Monday: Resolve the issues blocking a multistate agreement on water use or the federal government will cut the flow of water.

Norton's remarks came at the annual conference of the Colorado River Water Users Association being held at Caesars Palace through today.

The secretary said she has ordered a halt to release of the so-called interim surplus as of Jan. 1 if an agreement is not reached. The surplus, currently used only by California and Nevada, provides extra river water above each state's basic annual allotment.

Norton did not settle the issue of whether the threatened reduction to California would include cuts for Nevada's use but said she is "sympathetic" to Nevada's position -- which is essentially as an observer from the sideline as the water deal circles the drain.

She said Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation are working closely with Southern Nevada officials -- but neither she nor Bennett Raley, assistant Interior secretary and the department's point man on water issues, would commit to separating the two states.

Under the terms of the seven-state agreement governing so-called "interim surplus" of Colorado River water, any state now using the surplus will lose it if the terms of an agreement to reduce California's use are not ratified by Dec. 31.

"We decided to stay the course, to follow through with that agreement," which would mean a cutoff of billions of gallons to both states, Norton said. "California will lose access to river surplus beginning New Year's Day. ... As secretary and rivermaster, I must enforce the law of the river. No alternative is permitted by decree of the U.S. Supreme Court."

As rivermaster, Norton may have some flexibility as to whom to penalize. But Interior officials carefully avoided promising that they could return the lost water to Nevada.

"We have not made a decision regarding the application of the suspension of the surplus to Nevada or California," Raley said. "It may be that we apply them differently. ... Making distinctions between the states is not something easily done."

Interior officials worked through this morning trying to resolve the issue. The alternative could be a long and difficult court fight.

Although they agreed on little else, water officials from the West agreed that failure to resolve the issue would likely lead to court battles.

"We will do whatever it takes to protect Nevada's water and control our own water," Southern Nevada Water Authority General Manager Pat Mulroy said.

But officials from the agency that sparked the threatened collapse of the water pact also promised legal action, if necessary, to protect their share of river water. Imperial Irrigation District Director Andy Horne said his agency is ready to do whatever is necessary to ensure farmers in California continue to be the priority users for the lion's share of Colorado River water.

Discussions Monday night and this morning failed to resolve the outstanding issues, and Horne said he believed that California will almost certainly lose access to surplus water Jan. 1.

"I think that's a foregone conclusion," Horne said.

At stake is enough water for millions, mostly in the Golden State.

California uses 800,000 acre-feet of interim surplus a year, about 20 percent of its total draw from the Colorado. Nevada uses far less, about 30,000 acre-feet, or a tenth of the total water used in Clark County.

One acre-foot is about enough water for a typical Las Vegas family for one year, or 326,000 gallons.

Under the broad terms of the threatened agreement, both states would lose all surplus. Norton, however, said she understands the problem ratifying the agreement is in California, not Nevada.

That gave Southern Nevada officials some hope that Nevada would, in some unspecified way, be allowed to continue using the surplus share.

"I wish we had a clear answer," Norton said. "We're trying to see if there is some other way to meet Nevada's needs."

Raley echoed the noncommittal response.

"We do not have concepts that we'd feel comfortable discussing today," he said.

The crux of the problem is the recalcitrance of an agricultural water district in central California, the Imperial Irrigation District, to accept the terms of a 75-year pact to transfer the district's water to urban users in suburban San Diego. District officials say they need guarantees that their economic base of agriculture will not be disrupted under the terms of the deal.

They also grouse that the Imperial Valley farmers will have responsibility for the continued survival of the Salton Sea, an environmental resource that could take billions of gallons yearly to fend off extinction.

The irrigation district board voted 3-2 last week to reject the deal, the first falling domino in a process that would lead to a collapse of California's commitment to cut water use, then of the interstate compact that would govern use of Colorado River surplus.

Under the rules governing water use in California, the Imperial Valley farmers, who produce more than a tenth of the country's fresh winter vegetables, are priority consumers. That means any surplus reduction would impact the farmers far less than it would their urban neighbors in Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego.

"We belive that we're being forced to solve both of California's problems -- urban water users and the Salton Sea," district director Horne said. "It was a mistake, perhaps, to link all these programs."

Horne said his district, which uses about 10 times Southern Nevada's total Colorado River consumption, will continue to talk with the other California water agencies and others affected by the district decision, but he drew a hard line on accepting the pact terms already rejected by his board.

"That's out of our hands," he said. "We would not be willing to enter into a longtime agreement."

Mulroy warned that another looming problem may be bigger, in the long run, than the collapse of the interim surplus guidelines. A three-year drought threatens to take the surplus away anyhow, she said.

"We are in a drought," she said. "It has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with agreements."

Under the terms of existing river law, Interior's Bureau of Reclamation would have to cut Southern Nevada's use of the surplus by half if the level in Lake Mead drops another five feet -- which observers expect to happen by the middle of 2003.

The water authority and Las Vegas Valley Water District, which provides water to about half of Clark County's total population, will next month consider raising rates for high-volume water consumers, Mulroy said.

More stringent, "ugly" steps, including rationing, might be needed if the drought continues and Lake Mead's water level continues to fall, she warned.

"Nevada has to do something because of the drought," Mulroy said.

archive