River Water Use Must Be Cut, Official Says

With much of the Western U.S. suffering a severe drought, a top Bush administration official gently but firmly warned California on Wednesday to fulfill its promises to use less water from the Colorado River or suffer a mandatory cutback in the near future.

The call by Assistant Interior Secretary Bennett Raley was backed by representatives of six other states that depend on the Colorado River and are eager for California to stop using more than its share.

But while issuing his warning, Raley also offered a possible solution that would have water from the Imperial Valley sold to San Diego but that could affect the future of the Salton Sea.

Raley announced that federal agencies began working this week on a plan that would reduce the amount of costly environmental protection that California must provide to protect endangered birds and plants at the Salton Sea. That action could, in turn, clear the way for one of the state’s most ambitious water-conservation deals.

Under that plan, Imperial Valley farmers would cut their water usage, and their local water district would sell surplus water to San Diego. But the deal has been held up, in part, because runoff from those farms keeps the Salton Sea alive.

Farmers in the Imperial Valley have been hesitant to cut their usage, saying they could one day be accused of depleting the sea and stuck with a $1-billion bill for reducing salinity and preserving various endangered birds.

Raley’s proposal would ease the way for the water swap by holding the state to less-than-the-most-stringent environmental standards for the Salton Sea.

A similar plan to ease state environmental protections is being sponsored by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica). The bill has passed the Senate and is pending in the Assembly.

The Imperial Valley plans would go a long way toward reducing the state’s overuse of the Colorado River. The plan to cut Imperial Valley agricultural use could take the state 25% of the way toward living within its legal limit.

Raley made his remarks in a meeting before a roomful of water officials, meeting at Metropolitan Water District of Southern California headquarters in Los Angeles.

But Kuehl and Raley’s separate proposals to lessen protections for the sea were denounced by some environmental groups.

Kevin Doyle, director of habitat conservation programs for the National Wildlife Federation, said Raley’s plan, which would allow voluntary compliance with environmental protections, seems to blame environmentalists for the state’s inability to curb its water use.

Doyle said Raley’s idea is “not a solution palatable to the environmental community in terms of protecting the Salton Sea’s ... incredible biodiversity.”

But Raley said he cannot allow California to continue receiving surplus water from the river unless it delivers on its promises, including those cutting agricultural use in the Imperial Valley.

“I have a hard time seeing a defensible rationale that there is surplus water in the system” without California reducing its take, Raley said.

That message was reinforced by a number of representatives from states bordering the Colorado River. They said they are worried about an apparent lack of progress in California. “We trusted California to live up to its word,” said Pat Mulroy of Nevada.

In warning California of impending cutbacks, Raley is following a pattern started in the Clinton administration by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

After eight years of cajoling and threatening, Babbitt won an agreement from California to reduce its use of water and also persuaded the six other Colorado River states to give California a grace period of 15 years of surplus water.

But with drought, and a Dec. 31 deadline approaching for two conservation plans involving the Imperial Valley and the Salton Sea, the other states are becoming nervous.Raley said that pressure from other states to suspend the surplus provisions if California does not meet the deadline “is increasing every day of the drought.”

David “Sid” Wilson Jr., general manager with the Central Arizona Project, said other states are “deadly serious” about weaning California away from surplus water. “And we expect California to be deadly serious.” The Central Arizona Project carries Colorado River water to several Arizona counties.

“You raised significant expectations,” said Wayne Cook, executive director of the Upper Colorado River Commission.

Under laws governing distribution of the river, California is entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet, more than any other state. But 75% of California’s share goes to three irrigation districts that support desert farming.

To support growing coastal areas, Southern California has been receiving an additional 800,000 acre-feet of surplus water each year, enough for 1.6 million families. The proposed sale of water from Imperial Valley to San Diego is 200,000 acre-feet, a quarter of the amount the state needs to reduce.

The Colorado River is the major source of imported water for coastal Southern California.

If California were to lose the entire excess allotment, it would represent about a 30% annual reduction in imported water.

For areas such as San Diego County, which is nearly devoid of local water sources, the cut could be ruinous; even for Los Angeles, which gets water from the Owens Valley, the Colorado River reduction would present difficulties.

Mike Spear, deputy secretary for the California Resources Agency, said, “To our friends in the other states: You all realize our situation here. We have a lot of different laws and interested parties that have to come together in a delicate balance.”