Shotgun Wedding: The Imperial Irrigation District-Metropolitan Water District Water Conservation Agreement

Metropolitan Water District - MWD Wholesale water agency Established in 1928 Distributes water to 27 member agencies All water comes from Colorado River and State Water project

Palo Verde Irrigation District - PVID Began operations in 1925 Half of the acreage produces Alfalfa, then Cotton Alfalfa shipped west to feed livestock

Imperial Irrigation District - IID Organized in 1911 Service territory – 1 million acres Serves Water and Energy 6 th largest electric utility in CA Power dept has twice the assets and generates 4times the income compared to water

Coachella Valley Water District - CVWD Formed in 1918 Total service area 638,000 Acres Only 3% of acreage grows Alfalfa 60% produce fruit 31% vegetables

Water Rights 1931 Seven party agreement governs the use of Colorado water California is guaranteed 4.4 maf/year of Colorado River water

4 Agricultural agencies share the first three entitlements of CAs Portion PVID- Palo Verde Irrigation District IID- Imperial Irrigation District CVWD- Coachella Valley Water District Yuma Project of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

#1 PVID #1Order of entitlement Thomas Blythes 1877 broad request for appropriate water Use as much water as needed to irrigate 104,500 acres PVIDs right is unquantified First priority

#2 Yuma Project Reservation Entitled to such water as required for beneficial use on a maximum of 25,000 acres Average consumption of 70,000 af/year consumed 92,000 af/year

3 rd priority is shared by IID, CVWD, PVID IID consumes 2.8 maf/year CVWD – 350,000 af/year PVID doesnt use river water 1934 Agreement of Compromise= IID gets first priority to water within the All-American Canal A max of 3.85 maf for first three priorities

Water Rights Cont. 4th and 5th priorities held by MWD Total maf/year 6 th priority shared by IID, CVWD and PVID For use on Mesa Lands 0.3 maf/year A 7 th priority Agricultural use in Colorado River Basin

The IID – MWD Negotiations Water conservation pressure on IID coupled with MWDs inability to secure rights from N. CA

The First attempt at a Conservation/Transfer agreement 1985 – After 18 months of negotiations 40 year program MWD to pay $100/af for ten years IID to make 40 year commitment to transfer 100,000 af/year Rejected by 3-2 vote by IID board of directors

events continued negotiations SWRCBs Order Required IID to submit specific plans to conserve 100,000 af/year by 1/1/04 Penalty for non- compliance=intervention in IID management by SWRCB In 1988 a reshuffling of the board of directors Board now had enough votes to pass the water transfer agreement

Second agreement,Reactions, and Revisions Implementing 16 conservation measures to conserve 100,000 af/year MWD reimburse IID for Capital expenditures estimated at $98 Million Operating Expenses 5 annual Payments of $4.6 Million – Indirect Costs 6 th year- MWD could collect Water conserved IID still in control

National Acclaim as well as Local Opposition 1989 Water Conservation Award 1990 National water award Clair A. Hill Agency award IID-MWD agreement example of successful water market transaction CVWD had two concerns #1 As third priority, they were next in line to receive water conserved #2 The agreement had the potential to reduce CVWDs right to Colorado water 1989 CVWD filed lawsuit

Subsequent Agreements #1 Approval Agreement Rather than transferring the conserved water that is priority 3, IID is not using all of its 3 rd priority water and leaving it in river CVWD and PVID agree not to use it unless a dry year. MWD may then use water still remaining a 4 th and 5 th priority The building of a 340 af reservoir and pumping station Lining of a two mile section of canal with a savings of 6,110 af/year IID to repay those expenditures instead of MWD for allowing the agreement to give water to CVWD on dry years- Concession

Effects of the Agreement Local Effects Reduced flooding to land Ground water lowered IID $100 Million infrastructure upgrade Covered canals IID kept its right to manage itself Non Local effects- San Diego

Report Card: How well did the Agreements mitigate water transfer risks? A+ Although the IID-MWD agreement is hailed as an example of a water market transaction…with substantial risks to both sides…Ultimately no water rights transfer occurred. One senior appropriator is simply reducing its water use of the Colorado River and a subsequent appropriators use in increasing.