The appellate court in Sacramento heard both sides of the debate on the quantification settlement agreement Monday. (Elizabeth Varin) |
SACRAMENTO — For nearly two hours, lawyers from both sides of the nation’s largest agriculture-to-urban water transfer gave their case before a group of judges, a crowd of Imperial Valley residents, and other interested parties.
Now all there is to do is wait to see how the three third district appellate court judges decide about the fate of selling the Imperial Valley’s water.
The Quantification Settlement Agreement, a set of agreements that send a portion of the 4.1 million acre-feet of Imperial Irrigation District entitlement water to urban areas like Los Angeles and San Diego, was heard before the Sacramento-based state appellate court Monday with a decision pending in the next few months.
The case is on appeal after Sacramento Superior Court Judge Roland Candee ruled the QSA unconstitutional and invalidated the set of agreements based on the requirement for the state to pay Salton Sea mitigation costs that exceed the more than $350 million the Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles and San Diego County Water Authority had agreed to set aside for mitigation measures. The sea restoration plan the state adopted under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had a $9 billion price tag, and little progress has been made since 2007.
Appellate court judges had also asked for reasons why they should or should not take up the California Environmental Quality Act issues from the QSA case.
The lawsuits have been ongoing for years, nearly since the QSA was signed in October 2003.
The soft shuffling of papers Monday accompanied the highly-technical talk from lawyers citing past and present court cases and judicial precedent.
The county and air pollution officials, parties in the lawsuit that are against the QSA continuing, said they wanted to end the water transfer for public health reasons.
The Salton Sea is a volcano, ready to erupt, said Antonio Rossmann, a San Francisco environmental attorney representing Imperial County. People can’t keep holding off on a decision, because the sea doesn’t have time.
The constitutionality question goes back to who should be burdened with paying to fix the continuously-depleting Salton Sea, he said, to which the Acting Presiding Judge Ronald B. Robie responded, “I can’t tell you the Legislature will appropriate money, but you, Mr. Rossmann, cannot tell me they won’t.”
Robie was the only vocal one of the three appellate judges, continuously questioning the side wanting to end the QSA.
Rossmann continued, telling the judges that the environmental issues really need to be looked at. If a state appellate court can hear a case about an environmental issue for a downtown football stadium in Los Angeles, shouldn’t the Colorado River be important enough to look at, he asked the judges in closing remarks. The environmental issues should have been decided on a long time before now.
Statements Rossmann made echo those that Malissa McKeith, a Los Angeles lawyer representing Imperial Valley landowners challenging the agreement, said earlier in the hearing.
“The sea is on life support,” she said, adding that the IID, as trustees of the Valley’s water, have failed to protect its interests.
The presiding judge responded, “I don’t think anyone is arguing that the sea is going to die. We’re arguing the constitutionality (of the QSA).”
In opposition to the Salton Sea discussion, David Osias, a water rights attorney in San Diego representing the Imperial Irrigation District, said there is no proof that the QSA caused the distress the Salton Sea is facing. He further argued that the QSA is not unconstitutional because while it calls for the state to pay mitigation costs should the water districts’ funds not be sufficient, it doesn’t require the state Legislature to set aside funding if it’s not needed, which would take it away from other uses.
“It is the state’s contingent promise to pay for environmental mitigation costs should they become more than what the three water district’s put in,” he said.
However, he added, at the time the agreement was signed the costs were not known to be extensively above the amount that the three water agencies had agreed to pay. The agreement isn’t requiring the state Legislature to appropriate funds.
The water transfer provides a series of benefits that would stop if the transfer were to stop, Osias said.
Every year the transfer exists, it reduces the water Southern California cities need to take from the Bay-Delta, he said. The State Water Resources Control Board has said it is a substantial benefit to California and the Bay-Delta. It also keeps California at the 4.1 million acre-feet level for entitlement water from the Colorado River.
Based on the judges and attorneys’ remarks at the hearing, it looks positive that the QSA would be upheld and allowed to continue, referencing Judge Robie's continual questioning of the respondents to IID's appeal, said Stella Mendoza, president of the IID Board of Directors who was at Monday’s hearing.
“It’s not over till it’s over, so we just have to wait,” she said.
IID officials have said they hope for a ruling before the end of the year, but the court has until early next year to make a decision.
It will all come down to the judges’ ruling, said County Counsel Michael Rood. No matter the outcome, everyone’s going to have to work together from here.
“This is a historical time in Imperial County, and it’s a very important decision,” he said. “A lot of the future in the Imperial Valley depends on this decision, so we have to hope the appellate court makes the right decision.”
Staff Writer Elizabeth Varin can be reached at evarin@ivpressonline.com or 760-337-3441.
Now all there is to do is wait to see how the three third district appellate court judges decide about the fate of selling the Imperial Valley’s water.
The Quantification Settlement Agreement, a set of agreements that send a portion of the 4.1 million acre-feet of Imperial Irrigation District entitlement water to urban areas like Los Angeles and San Diego, was heard before the Sacramento-based state appellate court Monday with a decision pending in the next few months.
The case is on appeal after Sacramento Superior Court Judge Roland Candee ruled the QSA unconstitutional and invalidated the set of agreements based on the requirement for the state to pay Salton Sea mitigation costs that exceed the more than $350 million the Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles and San Diego County Water Authority had agreed to set aside for mitigation measures. The sea restoration plan the state adopted under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had a $9 billion price tag, and little progress has been made since 2007.
Appellate court judges had also asked for reasons why they should or should not take up the California Environmental Quality Act issues from the QSA case.
The lawsuits have been ongoing for years, nearly since the QSA was signed in October 2003.
The soft shuffling of papers Monday accompanied the highly-technical talk from lawyers citing past and present court cases and judicial precedent.
The county and air pollution officials, parties in the lawsuit that are against the QSA continuing, said they wanted to end the water transfer for public health reasons.
The Salton Sea is a volcano, ready to erupt, said Antonio Rossmann, a San Francisco environmental attorney representing Imperial County. People can’t keep holding off on a decision, because the sea doesn’t have time.
The constitutionality question goes back to who should be burdened with paying to fix the continuously-depleting Salton Sea, he said, to which the Acting Presiding Judge Ronald B. Robie responded, “I can’t tell you the Legislature will appropriate money, but you, Mr. Rossmann, cannot tell me they won’t.”
Robie was the only vocal one of the three appellate judges, continuously questioning the side wanting to end the QSA.
Rossmann continued, telling the judges that the environmental issues really need to be looked at. If a state appellate court can hear a case about an environmental issue for a downtown football stadium in Los Angeles, shouldn’t the Colorado River be important enough to look at, he asked the judges in closing remarks. The environmental issues should have been decided on a long time before now.
Statements Rossmann made echo those that Malissa McKeith, a Los Angeles lawyer representing Imperial Valley landowners challenging the agreement, said earlier in the hearing.
“The sea is on life support,” she said, adding that the IID, as trustees of the Valley’s water, have failed to protect its interests.
The presiding judge responded, “I don’t think anyone is arguing that the sea is going to die. We’re arguing the constitutionality (of the QSA).”
In opposition to the Salton Sea discussion, David Osias, a water rights attorney in San Diego representing the Imperial Irrigation District, said there is no proof that the QSA caused the distress the Salton Sea is facing. He further argued that the QSA is not unconstitutional because while it calls for the state to pay mitigation costs should the water districts’ funds not be sufficient, it doesn’t require the state Legislature to set aside funding if it’s not needed, which would take it away from other uses.
“It is the state’s contingent promise to pay for environmental mitigation costs should they become more than what the three water district’s put in,” he said.
However, he added, at the time the agreement was signed the costs were not known to be extensively above the amount that the three water agencies had agreed to pay. The agreement isn’t requiring the state Legislature to appropriate funds.
The water transfer provides a series of benefits that would stop if the transfer were to stop, Osias said.
Every year the transfer exists, it reduces the water Southern California cities need to take from the Bay-Delta, he said. The State Water Resources Control Board has said it is a substantial benefit to California and the Bay-Delta. It also keeps California at the 4.1 million acre-feet level for entitlement water from the Colorado River.
Based on the judges and attorneys’ remarks at the hearing, it looks positive that the QSA would be upheld and allowed to continue, referencing Judge Robie's continual questioning of the respondents to IID's appeal, said Stella Mendoza, president of the IID Board of Directors who was at Monday’s hearing.
“It’s not over till it’s over, so we just have to wait,” she said.
IID officials have said they hope for a ruling before the end of the year, but the court has until early next year to make a decision.
It will all come down to the judges’ ruling, said County Counsel Michael Rood. No matter the outcome, everyone’s going to have to work together from here.
“This is a historical time in Imperial County, and it’s a very important decision,” he said. “A lot of the future in the Imperial Valley depends on this decision, so we have to hope the appellate court makes the right decision.”
Staff Writer Elizabeth Varin can be reached at evarin@ivpressonline.com or 760-337-3441.
