UWM Plan - Municipal Water District of Orange County

Section 3
Water Sources and Supply Reliability
• When the U.S. Secretary of the Interior makes available either or both:
o Surplus water, and
o Water apportioned to, but unused by, Arizona and/or Nevada
Background on CRA Supplies
Historically, Metropolitan’s fifth priority rights under the Seven Party Agreement were
satisfied with water allocated to Arizona and Nevada that these states did not use.
Beginning in 1985, with the commencement of Colorado River water deliveries to the
Central Arizona Project, year-to-year availability of Colorado River water to
Metropolitan became uncertain. The Secretary of the Interior asserted that California’s
users of Colorado River water had to limit their use to a total of 4.4 MAF per year, plus
any available surplus water. Under the auspices of the State’s Colorado River Board,
these users developed a draft plan to resolve the problems, which was known as
“California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan” (California Plan).
The California Plan characterized how California would develop a combination of
programs to allow the state to limit its annual use of Colorado River water to 4.4 MAF
per year plus any available surplus water. The 2003 Quantification Settlement
Agreement (QSA) among Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD), and Metropolitan is a critical component of this plan. It established a
baseline water use for each of these agencies and facilitates the transfer of water from
agricultural agencies to urban uses, and specifies that IID, CVWD, and Metropolitan
would forbear use of water to permit the Secretary of the Interior to satisfy the uses of the
non-encompassed present perfected rights (PPRs). The PPR holders include certain
Indian reservation, federal wildlife refuges, and other users, some but not all of which are
encompassed by the Seven Party Agreement.
Current Conditions on CRA
On November 5, 2003, IID filed a validation action in Imperial County Superior Court,
seeking a judicial determination that thirteen agreements associated with the IID/San
Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) water transfer and the QSA are valid, legal
and binding. Other lawsuits also were filed challenging the execution, approval and
subsequent implementation of the QSA on various grounds. One of the key issues was
the constitutionality of the QSA Joint Powers Authority Agreement, pursuant to which
IID, CVWD, and SDCWA agreed to commit $133 million toward certain mitigation costs
associated with implementation of the transfer of 300 TAF of water conserved by IID
pursuant to the QSA, and the State agreed to be responsible for any mitigation costs
exceeding this amount. A final judgment was issued on February 11, 2010, holding that
the State’s commitment was unconditional in nature and, as such, violated the State’s
debt limitation under the California Constitution, and that eleven other agreements,
including the QSA, also are invalid because they are inextricably interrelated with the
Municipal Water District of Orange County
2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan
Final
3-7