San Diego gets a large portion of its water from the Colorado River, and that supply appears to be safe under the sweeping 10-year plan recently released by the federal government to address the river\u2019s drastically decreasing flows.<\/p>\n
At least for now.<\/p>\n
The plan calls for the federal government to reassess the cuts every two years. Meanwhile, important details related to the document are expected in a matter of days, which would start shaping how the immediate reductions affecting California, Arizona and Nevada may play out.<\/p>\n
The near-term cuts were essentially what those Colorado River Lower Basin states proposed<\/a> a few months ago and were adopted by the federal government. Much worse reductions could have been imposed, and still may be in the future.<\/p>\n Soon there will be negotiations over how California water agencies will divvy up responsibility for the state\u2019s reduced Colorado River take.<\/p>\n Historic water rights, which give some districts greater legal priority than others, likely will help guide those negotiations, but the goal is to achieve a voluntary resolution.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t expect it to impact us,\u201d said Tina Shields, water department manager for the Imperial Irrigation District. \u201cWe have very senior water rights.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s an important perspective locally, given the IID in Imperial County provides the San Diego County Water Authority with its Colorado River water \u2014 200,000 acre-feet annually gained through conservation measures via a 2003 landmark agreement<\/a>.<\/p>\n An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons of water, or the amount that would cover 1 acre of land, 1-foot deep.<\/p>\n That\u2019s not to say the IID won\u2019t be involved in trade-offs and sharing water, particularly given its growing conservation efforts. But attempts to force the IID to do anything it believes would cause undue harm to its farmers could get bogged down in a quagmire of legal and political hurdles.<\/p>\n \u201cThe whole point of voluntary agreements is to avoid litigation,\u201d Shields said.<\/p>\n The Imperial Valley produces as much as two-thirds to 90 percent of the nation\u2019s winter vegetables, according to IID. The district is the largest user of Colorado River water, a supply long envied by others.<\/p>\n \u201cWe always have concerns,\u201d Shields said. \u201cWe have a very large target on our backs.\u201d<\/p>\n Should the Imperial County agency face future cuts, say around 10 percent, it could pass on a pro-rata reduction to the San Diego County Water Authority.<\/p>\n Odds are the local agency and its members could absorb that without affecting water availability for customers. The SDCWA is in the rare position of having more water than it needs \u2014 in part because of a costly overbuilding of its supply \u2014 and is working to sell considerable amounts to other districts.<\/p>\n The federal plan may not have been universally cheered, but it likely was received with a sigh of relief by some water officials in the lower basin states. Still, some of them weren\u2019t happy that they\u2019re burdened with all the reductions, while the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming face none.<\/p>\n The plan, which was laid out in the U.S. Department of the Interior\u2019s Final Environmental Impact Statement on the river, allows for steeper water cuts if they\u2019re deemed necessary. That could require California, Arizona and Nevada to cut up to 3 million acre-feet per year \u2014 as much as 40 percent of the combined allotments, according<\/a> to the Los Angeles Times.<\/p>\n For the first two years, those states must reduce their river water by about half that amount \u2014 3.2 million acre-feet between now and the end of 2028. Officials told the Times that California will cut its use of Colorado River water by about 12 percent through 2028, Arizona will take about 31 percent less and Nevada 28 percent less.<\/p>\n Lakes Mead and Powell on the Colorado River \u2014 the largest man-made reservoirs in the United States \u2014 are experiencing historically low water levels. If the equation doesn\u2019t change, that result could be water shortages throughout the region and reduced or halted flows that power hydroelectric plants.<\/p>\n The river basin already was in the throes of yearslong drought conditions when the Rocky Mountains recorded the worst snowpack on record this past winter.<\/p>\n \u201cHydrology. Just when you think it can\u2019t get worse, it does,\u201d Shields said.<\/p>\n Seven U.S. states, Mexico and several Native American tribes depend on the Colorado River, which supplies water to more than 35 million people and irrigates about 5 million acres of farmland.<\/p>\n San Diego County Water Authority officials have predicted for some time that the county likely would experience little or no effect<\/a> from the upcoming river reductions because of IID\u2019s water rights.<\/p>\n Most immediately, authority board member Jim Madaffer expressed concern over whether the mechanisms of the Colorado River plan would be welcoming to San Diego\u2019s push for water transfer sales<\/a> in a unique effort to create an \u201cexchange marketplace.\u201d<\/p>\n Water laws, legal disputes and other restrictions made such transfers nearly impossible, but much has changed. The water authority has completed water sales to small Southern California districts, which San Diego officials said helped them lower planned rate increases that have skyrocketed in recent years.<\/p>\n But their big deal is more conceptual \u2014 potential agreements to sell water to Arizona and Nevada.<\/p>\n In a paper transaction, the authority would \u201csell\u201d water from the Carlsbad desalination plant, but keep that water here while giving those states an equal amount from San Diego\u2019s Colorado River water \u2014 at the higher desalination cost.<\/p>\n