California’s snub clouds valley water allotment

Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 | 11:33 a.m.

Officials from four water agencies including the Southern Nevada Water Authority charged Thursday that Southern California's Metropolitan Water District is threatening to scuttle negotiations, which could put Southern Nevada's future water supply in doubt.

The negotiations in Sacramento were designed to settle long-standing divisions on how to share water among California agencies and complete a deal with the federal government on the use of so-called "interim surplus" from the Colorado River.

On Wednesday Metropolitan rejected the latest proposal, leaving water officials around the West looking for a new deal Thursday. Three water districts in Southern California covering the Coachella Valley, Imperial Valley and San Diego County, and officials from Arizona and Southern Nevada said in a statement Thursday that they were searching for a solution without Metropolitan's participation.

Pat Mulroy, Southern Nevada Water Authority general manager, said in an interview that Metropolitan's last minute rejection of a water-sharing accord means that Nevada will probably have to negotiate with the other five states along the Colorado River for access to the surplus.

The rejection, if it stands, would invalidate nearly a decade of negotiations between seven states, four water agencies in Southern California, the federal government, several tribal groups and the Water Authority.

The Water Authority has a back-up plan to ask the other states of the Colorado River basin for the right to draw off surplus water, which is actually unused allocations from Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, for another 15 years. The federal government has indicated support for the back-up plan, but the rights to use that water would still have to be supported by the other states.

Talks could begin next week on the alternative plan, Mulroy said. It is not clear when -- or if -- the other states would support the alternative. Mulroy said she is still hopeful that Nevada can recover surplus water this year.

The surplus is a critical element in the local agency's plan to fulfill water needs before other big water-supply projects come on line a decade or more from now.

Mulroy said negotiators from all the states will meet in Sacramento for a final attempt to resolve the differences Monday.

"You never say it's dead," she said of the talks.

But she sharply criticized her water colleagues in the Golden State.

"I'm just so disgusted with Metropolitan I can't see straight," Mulroy said Thursday. "They've lost credibility with the basin states. Metropolitan is so dysfunctional that they think they don't have a problem."

Mulroy was joined in her criticism by officials from Arizona and three California water agencies serving San Diego and the agricultural communities in the Coachella and Imperial valleys.

Metropolitan officials said they rejected the complex deal -- which would move millions of acre-feet of water from agricultural uses to urban needs in Southern California -- because of the threat to the surplus posed by more than four years of intense drought in the Rocky Mountains.

The threat to the long-term availability to the surplus is what killed the deal for Metropolitan, but officials from Southern California said they still tried to resolve the issues.

"We tried to make this deal work without this surplus being available," Adan Ortega, Metropolitan vice president of external affairs, said.

That drought has the level of Lake Mead plummeting. Under Interior Department rules, the surplus use would first be cut in half, and later potentially eliminated, if the lake levels continue to fall.

But with the drought threatening access to the surplus anyway, the accord, which would also cost Metropolitan more than $80 million, doesn't make sense, Ortega said.

"The degree of disagreement is proportional to the level of desperation," he said.

Ortega said he "empathized with communities that do not have diverse sources," but Metropolitan could not make a deal only to rescue water agencies that "put all their eggs in one basket."

The Southern Nevada Water Authority provides nearly everyone in Clark County with drinking water. About 90 percent of that water comes from Lake Mead.

Ortega said the criticism from other water agencies will not change Metropolitan's position.

"Withstanding their criticism is preferable to explaining to 18 million people why they are paying $82 million for nothing," he said.

Metropolitan's short-term plans include going to central and northern California for water, de-emphasizing the agency's dependence on Lake Mead.

Mulroy said the agency in Southern California would likely inherit problems with supply and enmity from other states and agencies if the accord isn't reached within a few days.

"They think they can do it all themselves and they can't," she said.

This year Southern Nevada asked for 30,000 acre-feet of water in addition to the base allocation. Because Nevada and California are legally linked under multi-state water pacts, the water was denied after California failed to sign a water-sharing accord.

Mulroy hopes to open access to at least some of the surplus water next year and next, although the amount available, if available at all, would be affected by the ongoing drought.

Top officials from the U.S. Interior Department, which serves as the rivermaster for allocations from Lake Mead and the river, have indicated they will support separating Nevada and California's water future. Both states lost access to the surplus when California's agencies failed to reach an accord.

Other states, realizing that Nevada is not the obstacle to a larger water deal, are likely to support the Water Authority's proposal to separate California and Nevada's water future.