Water supply gets less (and more) secure

By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer
Judge's ruling favors fish over SoCal supplies, but Colorado River deal would protect region's water | Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:08 PM PST

A federal judge's latest ruling means that Southern California's water supplies from the north are still threatened with a 30 percent cut, but a historic new deal will safeguard the region's Colorado River supplies, officials said Wednesday.

To protect an endangered fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger ruled in August and again late Tuesday that the state will have to cut back pumping water from Northern California.

State and regional water officials said Wednesday that they would need more time to review the latest ruling, but that it could still cut Southern California's supplies of Northern California rainfall and snowmelt by up to 30 percent. The judge's ruling could become final next week.

Meanwhile, water officials from three states were flocking to Las Vegas this week to sign a first drought-allocation plan for the Colorado River. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne is scheduled to sign the deal in Las Vegas today.

The accord would all but guarantee that Southern California's Colorado River supplies won't be cut through 2026, even if the river's eight-year drought continues, according to Metropolitan Water District officials.

The new accord is an agreement among three Western states -- California, Arizona and Nevada -- that will create federal guidelines for how the states would "share the pain" if the river's drought continued to the point that the Interior Department would require water rationing.

The agreement would also eventually allow Metropolitan, Southern California's main water supplier, to store water in Nevada's mammoth Lake Mead as a hedge against future supply shortages.

It took 2 1/2 years for the states to negotiate the deal, and is expected to ward off lawsuits that could come as fast-growing states fight over the river's supplies in increasingly dry times.

Metropolitan Assistant Manager Roger Patterson said Tuesday that under the terms of the agreement, Arizona and Nevada would take the first cuts in supplies if water levels in Lake Mead shrink another 36 feet from its already depleted levels. Lake Mead is the largest man-made reservoir in the United States.

Patterson said California's supplies could eventually be cut, but it would be unlikely because Mead's levels would have to shrink to extremely low levels.

"There is no trigger point for California unless you had a very unusual drought," he said.

Meanwhile, Metropolitan and state Department of Water Resources officials said they were not surprised by the judge's draft ruling.

Water agencies and the Natural Resources Defense Council have been waiting for Wanger's written decision since he gave them a verbal ruling in August. The defense council is the environmental group that sued the state to protect the delta smelt. The smelt is the endangered fish that was being killed, in part, by the massive, state-operated delta pumps that send water to Central and Southern California.

Defense council officials said Wednesday that they would not comment on the draft ruling.

Metropolitan's general manager, Jeff Kightlinger -- one of the many water leaders who was headed to Nevada for the Colorado River deal signing -- issued a written statement Wednesday. It said the ruling would mean that Southern Californians would have to continue to cut their water use to stretch supplies.

The judge's ruling could mean less than a 30 percent cut of Southern California's supplies, said Jerry Johns, deputy director of the department of water resources. But he said it would depend on how much rain and snow Northern California and the Sierras get this winter.

"The order he (Wanger) gave us is still going to have a pretty significant impact, depending upon how much water is in the system," he said.

-- Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com.

Next Previous
7 comment(s)[-]Go to Top

Avg Joe wrote on Dec 13, 2007 6:42 AM:Let's see, with rapid growth running away for the last twenty years, political leaders are just now wondering what to do?

Don't Worry wrote on Dec 13, 2007 8:38 AM:Why is our government/Bush allowing so many to enter the US through work visas, not building a fence etc when lack of water is an issue? He/they are setting the stage for why we must have a North American Union. Canada has lots of water.

Mike wrote on Dec 13, 2007 10:58 AM:Avg Joe, you answered your own question. MWD exists to perpetuate that growth, on the backs of the consumers. Now, when a crisis is happening, they don't know what to do. The knee jerk response is to conserve, which is blaming the consumer for using to much...bottom line, it's mismanagement of the resource. Hopefully this issue will surface during local elections throughout the state next year.

Waterwatcher wrote on Dec 13, 2007 11:47 AM:Make new development pay the full cost of the additional demant its putting on our water supply system. Include the cost of installing water conservation measures in existing customers homes and companies to fully offset the additional demand in water service connection fees for new development projects.

Patriot wrote on Dec 13, 2007 1:01 PM:To Dont Worry: You should think a little harder at what you just said. By forming a North American Union, which thus far does not have Congressional support, our Constitution is meaningless & our borders are gone. Please watch the following video and decide for yourself ...

Steve wrote on Dec 13, 2007 4:44 PM:Somewhere I read that 70% of the water that California takes from the Colorado River is spent on agriculture in the Imperial Valley.

anotherview wrote on Dec 13, 2007 9:41 PM:Statewide, farmers overuse and waste water. Farming activity now consumes about 85 percent of the available state water supply. Households use about 5 percent. The rest goes to government, industrial, and commercial. Simple math shows that forcing farmers statewide to lower their water use by only 5.88 percent would equal the amount of water households use. Further, about 30 percent of farm irrigation water goes to waste in runoff from the land. Via political pressure, however, farmers resist (1) improving their farm irrigation practices and (2) recycling farm water runoff. The Golden State has plenty of water available, but the distribution and use of this water does not happen rationally. Farmers grab most of the water, and then waste nearly a third of it. So any fair and sound solution to the water supply problem must require farmers statewide to stop using and wasting so much water. Then others will have enough water.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.

Submit Comment[-]

(optional)
   

Advertisement

Videos