Editorial: Water plan should be signed now

Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2002 | 8:55 a.m.

Southern California's Imperial Irrigation District is balking at a conservation agreement that would gradually relieve Western water worries but require some self-sacrifice and financial risk. If it ultimately rejects the agreement, Southern Nevada could be a big loser, as well as other Southern California water districts. Imperial's board of directors should give in and sign by the agreement's Dec. 31 deadline. They wouldn't be giving in to the Interior Department, or the other six states that share Colorado River water. They would simply be giving in to reality.

In opposing the agreement, the district is looking out for the interests of those who farm its million acres and provide vegetables and grains year-round for the whole country. It has grown accustomed to using surplus water from the Colorado River and the agreement would eventually lead to an end of that practice. Like all the users of Colorado River water, California agreed to a limit. In 1929, it agreed to draw a maximum of 4.4 million acre feet a year. Over the years, however, the state received permission to draw water above that amount from surpluses generated by other states that were not using their full allotments. Times were relatively good then. Populations were lower, reservoirs were full and rain was dependable.

Then came the 1990s, which brought severe drought and a huge population burst. The reservoirs began emptying and states began using their full allotments. Yet California continued to draw "surplus" water -- last year, for example, it used a total of 5.2 million acre feet. Bruce Babbitt, interior secretary under President Clinton, foresaw a water crisis and forged an agreement among the river users. The agreement centered on California and required a water conservation plan returning the state to its original allotment by 2015.

California had two choices. It could adopt the plan by Dec. 31, 2002, and have a 15-year grace period, during which it could still draw surplus water. Or it could not adopt a plan, in which case the Department of Interior would begin shutting off access to the surplus as of Jan. 1, 2003. California did come up with a plan, but it required approval by Imperial, which uses about 75 percent of the state's Colorado River allotment. Under the 75-year plan, the irrigation district would agree to take agricultural lands out of production and sell water to three other municipal water districts, using the proceeds to compensate farmers. But when it came to signing the plan approved by its staff, the irrigation district's board of directors balked, foreseeing vast financial complications. To the north of the irrigation district is the Salton Sea, a state treasure that is home to hundreds of year-round and migratory bird species. The sea's water comes from farm runoff, and among the di! strict's worries is that it will begin drying under the conservation plan and that the district will be held financially responsible for reclamation.

We understand the irrigation district's reluctance to sign, as the agreement does contain some financial risk and will force major changes in the lives of its residents. But the agreement contains protective wording, limiting the liability of the district as conservation brings its inevitable changes. And at least it provides a way to adjust to the changes gradually, rather than all at once. In Las Vegas this week, Interior Secretary Gale Norton made it clear that California's Dec. 31 deadline will not be extended. The concern for Nevada is that we, too, draw surplus water -- about 30,000 acre feet a year. It appears, however unfairly, that any immediate hard line against the use of surplus water will apply here as well. The bottom line is that we can begin conserving voluntarily, under plans that spread out the pain, or we will have conservation imposed o n us by the Interior Department -- and the reality of continued drought and growth.

archive