Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
May 9, 2007
1. Top Items
Water authority OKs larger payment; Millions will go to Imperial Valley - San Diego Union Tribune
Water Authority agrees to pay $40 million to Imperial Valley - North
IID approves $50 million deal -
Water authority OKs larger payment; Millions will go to Imperial Valley
By Michael Gardner, staff writer
In return, the water authority avoids writing even larger economic aid checks in the future and can exit from the politically touchy talks over who in the
“When you look at the totality of the transfer, and what it means for our community, it's a manageable number,” said Mark Watton, a water authority director.
The additional $29.5 million, which will be paid out over the next 10 years, is not expected to lead to sharp rate increases, Watton said.
“Those pennies add up quick, but it's just pennies on the water bill,” he said.
Ed McGrew, who has farmed in the valley for 45 years, welcomed the settlement announced yesterday by
“This $40 million will be helpful to us – no question – depending on how it's disbursed,” he said.
As part of a broader seven-state pact to share shrinking
Originally, the water authority accepted allocating up to $20 million to help offset any downturns as farmers leave fields unplanted to free up water for sale. About half of that $20 million, however, was a credit toward future water purchases.
Watton said the water authority chose to settle rather than risk having arbiters order larger mitigation payments.
“It's a reasonable settlement considering what we felt our financial exposure was,” he said.
Arbitration proceedings will be dropped, and the Imperial district will contribute $10 million to the overall $50 million aid package, under the agreement. That package is in addition to the millions
“Some people will say
The
“The market is better than it's been in years,” McGrew said. “But that's just a coincidence. The water transfer will hurt us.” #
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070509/news_7m9water.html
Water Authority agrees to pay $40 million to
By Gig Conaughton, staff writer
SAN DIEGO -- San Diego County water leaders have agreed to pay the Imperial Valley $40 million, ending a long-running dispute over whether the county's historic 2003 water transfer deal, to buy billions of gallons of water from valley farmers, had hurt Imperial Valley, officials said Tuesday.
Under the settlement agreement's general terms, the San Diego County Water Authority would pay the Imperial Irrigation District $40 million over the next 10 years.
The irrigation district agreed to chip in $10 million to cover economic harm felt by farmers and the agricultural industry, and to take future responsibility for any additional harm.
| |
Water Authority and irrigation district officials have been arguing without resolution over the issue for two years. Irrigation district officials said the Water Authority should have to pay up to $170 million for economic harm created by farmers having to take farmland out of production. An independent 2004 economic study disputed that notion.
The two agencies began formal arbitration hearings in court last week, but chose to settle at the eleventh hour instead.
Water Authority board Vice Chairman Mark Watton said the $40 million settlement would have negligible effect on local water rates and would end a dispute that has rankled both sides of a county-valley partnership expected to run for 40 more years.
Watton and Water Authority General Manager Maureen Stapleton also said the settlement wasn't influenced by upcoming negotiations over the water transfer deal.
The Water Authority and irrigation district signed their deal in 2003, promising that Imperial Valley farmers would sell up to 65 billion gallons of water a year to
After the deal's fifth year, this year, the irrigation district has a right to renegotiate the price it charges for the water. By 2020, 1 out of every 5 glasses of water in
Watton and Stapleton rejected the suggestion that if irrigation district officials lost in arbitration it could harden feelings and prompt the irrigation district to hold out for higher water prices.
"I think they were two separate things," Stapleton said. "We're in a long-term partnership with the irrigation district, and I think both parties wanted to figure out how to resolve this (economic harm issue) so that each and every year we wouldn't have to address it."
Irrigation district leaders could not be reached for comment.
However, irrigation district General Manager Charles Hosken said in a written statement, "There is no doubt that fallowing (taking farmland out of production) has hurt many in the agricultural services and farm labor segments of the economy. This is a compromise whose time has come."
Irrigation district officials have argued almost since the water transfer deal was struck that it would hurt the valley and its people economically -- because some farmers had to fallow land to come up with the water in the deal's first 15 years -- and that
The Water Authority, citing a 2004 independent study created by a panel of three economists chosen by both sides, disputed that, and said the transfer had created a $1.1 million windfall in the valley.
Watton said the Water Authority was confident that its position was right, but did not trust the uncertainty of the legal process. He said irrigation district officials proposed a settlement, and the two sides agreed quickly.
"We felt, obviously, that our case was well-founded," Watton said. "But when judges render decisions, you sometimes get surprised.
"When you get to the courthouse steps," he said, "if we could strike a deal that serves the purposes of all the parties, it seemed like the prudent thing to do."
Although the Water Authority agreed to pay $40 million over 10 years, it has already paid the irrigation district $10.48 million, money that was intended to be returned.
As a result, the irrigation district will keep the $10.48 million, and the Water Authority will pay an additional $29.52 million in equal yearly payments over the next 10 years.
For its part, the irrigation district agreed to pitch in $10 million of its own to help cover the economic pain felt by valley farmers and farm-related industries and workers. The irrigation district also agreed to take full responsibility for any future economic harm. Finally, the agreement ensures that the economic panel that was created to measure the water transfer's effects -- the same panel that created the disputed 2004 study -- will no longer be used. #
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/05/09/news/top_stories/12_44_535_8_07.txt
IID approves $50 million deal
By Darren Simon, staff writer
Imperial Valley farm labor groups and agriculture service providers hurt by a water transfer farm fallowing program may finally see some financial relief — up to $50 million worth.
That comes as the Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego County Water Authority on Tuesday announced a settlement to the ongoing dispute over the economic harm a fallowing program has caused the Valley.
The settlement calls on SDCWA to pay $40 million to offset any harmful effects caused by taking farmland out of production. IID will pay $10 million as part of the settlement.
A portion of those funds will go to those companies that provide services to Valley farmers. A smaller portion will go toward training programs to help farm laborers.
IID officials have said those two segments of the Valley have been hurt the worst as farmland has been left barren to conserve water.
While the $50 million may prove a benefit, in the larger sense the settlement likely could prove a critical step in ending the controversial fallowing program before its 2017 scheduled end.
“This settlement allows IID to move ahead with its planned transition from fallowing to efficiency-based water conservation,” IID General Manager Charles Hosken said.
“At the same time we remove those final barriers to mitigating the socioeconomic impacts of fallowing in
At the center of the issue has been a two-year dispute between two of
IID agreed to transfer up to 200,000 acre feet of water, enough to serve hundreds of thousands of homes, to San Diego as part of a much larger water pact known as the Quantification Settlement Agreement.
As part of the transfer pact, IID said it would fallow farmland for the first 15 years of the transfer as a way to conserve water for
But a dispute arose as the two water agencies clashed on the impacts of fallowing on the Valley.
SDCWA contended the Valley had seen a financial gain from fallowing farmland; IID disputed that as farm service providers have seen their contracts dwindle as farmers have idled their land.
The impact has spread to farm laborers, who have lost work.
IID and SDCWA recently started arbitration hearings to have state mediators resolve the dispute but at the same time the two water agencies met to try and settle their dispute separate from the arbitration process.
The $50 million will be divided between agriculture service providers and the farm labor industry. The funds will be distributed annually through 2017.
Hosken said it is time to get funds to those who have had to wait to long for relief.
“The resolution of this dispute will go a long way toward remedying this situation, finally, for those who need it the most,” Hosken said.
http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2007/05/09/news/news05.txt
No comments:
Post a Comment