Imperial Farmers Should Get Less Water, U.S. Report Says

A federal agency with authority over the Colorado River ruled Thursday that Imperial Valley farmers are guilty of wasting water and should have their mammoth allocation of the river reduced by 9%.

The ruling by Robert Johnson, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Lower Colorado regional director, was immediately denounced by farmers and officials of the Imperial Irrigation District who vowed to fight any reduction to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I don’t believe for a moment that this will hold up in court, which is exactly where we are headed,” said Imperial official Andy Horne. “This is a nation of laws, and there are property laws to protect people. We’re not going to put up with this punitive agenda.”

The standoff between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Imperial Irrigation District is another sign that Western water issues are increasingly mired in litigation and political accusations.

Although the argument centers on farming practices and irrigation, the outcome could affect the ability of water agencies in urban and suburban Southern California to meet future needs.

Johnson’s ruling, which can be appealed to his boss, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, comes just months after the Bush administration tried unsuccessfully to cut Imperial’s allocation by about 10% only to have the move overturned in court.

“They tried to cut us 10%, now it’s only 9%,” said Imperial Irrigation District board member Stella Mendoza. “Wow, how generous.”

Johnson’s ruling, made after months of scientific review of the Imperial Valley’s farming and irrigation practices, was based on a determination that farmers have not used the kind of water-saving methods -- such as drip irrigation -- favored by farmers in regions where water is not as plentiful.

“Many of these practices are commonplace throughout the West and could be of great benefit to the [Imperial] district and its customers,” Johnson said.

Johnson called his agency’s review “a thorough and fair analysis.”

Horne called it a “kangaroo court.”

The “beneficial use” review was prompted by the district’s lawsuit, which sought to block the Department of Interior’s proposed 10% reduction. In that lawsuit, Imperial asserted that the government was overstepping its authority under the laws that govern the operation of Hoover Dam.

Norton ordered the reduction in January after the Imperial Irrigation District governing board refused to agree to a federally endorsed plan whereby Imperial would sell water to San Diego County, part of a larger plan to reduce California’s consumption from the Colorado River.

The district board refused to accept the deal because, among other things, officials thought that the Imperial Valley could later be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to repair the Salton Sea, a body of water that survives on agricultural runoff.

If water is sold to San Diego, the sea’s already rising salinity could escalate, causing a host of environmental problems.

Although U.S. District Judge Thomas Whelan in March agreed with Imperial and restored the cuts, he ordered a beneficial-use study by the Bureau of Reclamation. Such reviews are authorized by federal law governing the dam and the government’s allocation of water to states below the dam, including California.

The Imperial Irrigation District had sought to have Johnson removed as an arbiter on the issue on the grounds that, as a subordinate of Norton’s, he has a conflict of interest. Whelan rejected that argument.

Whelan will review Johnson’s decision before making a final ruling. Armed with the Bureau of Reclamation study, he could reverse his earlier leaning and decide that the government was justified.

When Whelan ordered that Imperial’s full allocation be restored, that water was taken from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Coachella Valley Water District.

Those agencies then filed documents with the Bureau of Reclamation supporting the contention that Imperial is wasteful.

Though the beneficial-use provision has been part of federal law for decades, federal water officials had never before attempted such a comprehensive review of water usage in a Colorado River beneficiary.

Because farmers in the Imperial Valley laid claim to the Colorado River more than 100 years ago, their descendants have long enjoyed more water from the river than any other area in the seven states that depend on the river. In Western water law, the dominating principle has been “first in time, first in right.”

At stake in the confrontation between Imperial and the Bureau of Reclamation is whether that principle must be tempered in cases where farmers are lavish in water use as other water users are faced with shortages.

With 150,000 residents and 500,000 acres of farmland, the district receives more than 3 million acre-feet of water a year -- five times the assured allocation received by MWD, which serves 18 million customers in six counties.

But water officials outside the Imperial Valley -- and a long list of coastal politicians -- have long groused that Imperial Valley farmers waste water and, because the water is free and virtually unlimited, have no incentive to install modern irrigation methods or to line the canals that crisscross the valley to prevent seepage.

Twice in the last two decades, the Imperial Irrigation District has felt its water rights threatened. In one case, it fought to the U.S. Supreme Court and won; in another, the district decided to negotiate and, in effect, sell some of its water.

The district fought successfully in the early 1980s to overturn a federal Bureau of Reclamation decision to limit water from some federal water projects to farms no bigger than 160 acres.

But several years later, when -- in a ruling similar to that made Thursday by Johnson -- state officials declared that not all of the Imperial Valley’s use of water was “beneficial,” the district decided to settle rather than sue.

The district signed an agreement with Metropolitan to shift some of its water to that agency in return for assistance in improving the canal system.

However, in a turn of events that illustrates the complexity of water law and water policy, the Imperial Irrigation District in succeeding years actually used more water from the Colorado River, not less; the state decided not to pursue the issue.

As Johnson’s ruling was anticipated, Imperial Irrigation District officials and the valley’s longtime farmers said there is little choice but to continue to resist the federal government.

“The deck is stacked against us,” said John Pierre Menvielle, a third-generation farmer.

“Metropolitan, Coachella and the Bureau [of Reclamation] are all against us because they want our water without having to pay for it,” he said. “But we’re going to see this thing to the end. We have to.”