[Water_news] 1. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS - Top Item for 3/22/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment

 

March 22, 2007

 

1.  Top Item

 

Court hears QSA arguments

Imperial Valley Press – 3/22/07

By Darren Simon, staff writer

 

SACRAMENTO — For the first time in two years, there are signs of movement in a legal battle over a controversial 75-year water pact signed by the Imperial Irrigation District in 2003.

Oral arguments were made Wednesday to the state appellate court in Sacramento in a lawsuit Imperial County filed against IID, the San Diego County Water Authority and the state Water Resources Control Board.

What made the hearing significant were not the legal arguments but what the hearing will mean to the consolidated Quantification Settlement Agreement cases

IID officials have called the hearing a breakthrough in that it represents the first step toward the end of a two-year delay in the QSA cases.

“It’s important that the consolidated cases move forward as fast as possible so resolutions can be reached,” IID board President Stella Mendoza said.

 

 

If the delay ends, it means the courts will once again have a chance to decide the future of the Valley’s water rights, which the district now holds in trust.

Local farmers have challenged those water rights as part of the consolidated QSA cases.

AT ISSUE

At the center of the issue is the QSA, a water pact signed by California water agencies in 2003 that has reduced California’s supply of Colorado River water.

The QSA includes a large waster transfer — enough to quench the thirst of hundreds of thousands of homes in San Diego — between IID and SDCWA.

IID officials who have backed the QSA have said it was a necessary step to protect the Valley’s water rights.

IID, in the wake of its 2003 signing of the QSA, sought court validation of the water pact.

But others filed lawsuits to challenge the QSA and the water transfer to San Diego.

Environmental groups also have challenged the QSA.

Local farmers and landowners, who are part of the Imperial Group, filed their own lawsuit challenging the district’s authority over water rights and IID’s authority to sign the QSA.

Imperial County also filed two lawsuits against the QSA and the water transfer.

All the QSA cases were eventually coordinated into what has become known as the consolidated QSA cases.

But the county’s cases, which challenged the state water board’s approval of the IID/SDCWA transfer and challenged the transfer’s environmental documents, were dismissed.

THE APPEAL

The county responded by filing an appeal and when it did so and the case was moved to the state appellate court two years ago, the Superior Court case was stayed and has remained on hold since.

In listening to oral arguments Wednesday, the court took the first step toward lifting the stay as in the next 90 days it will issue its judgment on the county case.

Whatever that judgment is, the case will be returned to the state Superior Court and the consolidated QSA cases will move forward, said David Osias, an IID water attorney. But, he said depending on the appellate court’s decisions both the county and IID have the right to further appeal to the state Supreme Court. #

http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2007/03/22/news/news03.txt

#####