It is the people who receive water from the Quantification Settlement Agreement who should pick up the tab for environmental impacts, says Citizens for a Reliable Water Supply.
CRWS is the Valley organization that filed an amicus brief to help stop implementation of the QSA. It maintains it is San Diego and other urban beneficiaries who should bear the burden of replenishing the Salton Sea with water and other environmental mitigation.
An amicus brief is filed by an outside party with an interest in a lawsuit, who is not party to the action. The QSA is a water pact that sells conserved water to San Diego and Coachella. But the transfer creates environmental impairment and must be alleviated by the Imperial Irrigation District.
The QSA was invalidated by Superior Court Judge Roland Candee in February 2010, but the case is on appeal and can be implemented until a ruling is made. The QSA requires California to pay for environmental costs once the IID exhausts its impact fund, Ralph Menvielle, CRWS representative said.
“The judge said the QSA is unconstitutional,” Menvielle said. “If that’s the case, why is it the people who receive the water don’t pay for it? That’s basically the argument.”
Charles DuMars, CRWS attorney, said Candee’s ruling objected to California “writing a blank check” for any environmental cost overruns IID may incur.
In other countries where he has worked on water issues for the World Bank, no one would ever suggest transferring conserved water to urban centers instead of using it for food production, DuMars said.
This could be the start of a trend and if it continues, the U.S. could become a net food importer. Eventually a water shortage, similar to oil shortages of the 1970s, may develop, he said.
Every year the quantity of water stored in reservoirs is on a declining trend and any water managers along the Colorado River would agree, DuMars, said. The decline in water could be because of global warming or a cyclical change in weather patterns, but whatever the cause, there is an increasing competition between agriculture and urban demand, he said.
Claims that California will pay for mitigation is all speculation, said IID attorney David Osias. Also, the Legislature capped the amount IID has to pay at $387 million, shared among Imperial, Coachella and San Diego. A ruling is expected by the end of the year, he said.
Staff Writer William Roller can be reached at 760-337-33435 or wroller@ivpressonline.com
CRWS is the Valley organization that filed an amicus brief to help stop implementation of the QSA. It maintains it is San Diego and other urban beneficiaries who should bear the burden of replenishing the Salton Sea with water and other environmental mitigation.
An amicus brief is filed by an outside party with an interest in a lawsuit, who is not party to the action. The QSA is a water pact that sells conserved water to San Diego and Coachella. But the transfer creates environmental impairment and must be alleviated by the Imperial Irrigation District.
The QSA was invalidated by Superior Court Judge Roland Candee in February 2010, but the case is on appeal and can be implemented until a ruling is made. The QSA requires California to pay for environmental costs once the IID exhausts its impact fund, Ralph Menvielle, CRWS representative said.
“The judge said the QSA is unconstitutional,” Menvielle said. “If that’s the case, why is it the people who receive the water don’t pay for it? That’s basically the argument.”
Charles DuMars, CRWS attorney, said Candee’s ruling objected to California “writing a blank check” for any environmental cost overruns IID may incur.
In other countries where he has worked on water issues for the World Bank, no one would ever suggest transferring conserved water to urban centers instead of using it for food production, DuMars said.
This could be the start of a trend and if it continues, the U.S. could become a net food importer. Eventually a water shortage, similar to oil shortages of the 1970s, may develop, he said.
Every year the quantity of water stored in reservoirs is on a declining trend and any water managers along the Colorado River would agree, DuMars, said. The decline in water could be because of global warming or a cyclical change in weather patterns, but whatever the cause, there is an increasing competition between agriculture and urban demand, he said.
Claims that California will pay for mitigation is all speculation, said IID attorney David Osias. Also, the Legislature capped the amount IID has to pay at $387 million, shared among Imperial, Coachella and San Diego. A ruling is expected by the end of the year, he said.
Staff Writer William Roller can be reached at 760-337-33435 or wroller@ivpressonline.com
