[Water_news] 3. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: WATERSHEDS - 7/18/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

July 18, 2007

 

3. Watersheds

 

County loses QSA appeal

Imperial Valley Press – 7/17/07

By Darren Simon, staff writer

 

Imperial County has been thrown a third strike in its legal challenge of a 75-year water pact that could worsen the Valley’s air quality.

Two years ago a county lawsuit against the pact known as the Quantification Settlement Agreement was dismissed by a state court in Sacramento.

The county appealed the decision and a month ago a state appellate court in Sacramento denied that appeal.

Late last week, Imperial Irrigation District officials have announced, the county’s request for the appellate court to rehear the matter was denied.

Now the county is considering its options, County Counsel Ralph Cordova said Tuesday. He said one option is for the county to petition the state Supreme Court to hear the matter.

 

 

But, he said that petition would have to be filed by Tuesday.

At this point, the appellate court’s action, in essence, means a two-year delay in all QSA cases — collectively known as the coordinated QSA lawsuits — could soon end.

That means the appellate court could free up the Superior Court in Sacramento to finally make a decision on the fate of one of the most controversial water pacts IID has ever signed.

At issue is the QSA, which was adopted in 2003 as a means of preventing future water wars as states that depend on the Colorado River sought to have California live within a 4.4 million acre-feet river use cap.

But as soon as it was adopted and signed by IID, other water entities and the federal government, lawsuits were brought to bear on the water pact.

The county filed its case challenging the environmental documents upon which the QSA was based, stating there were not sufficient air-quality mitigations in place.

The county’s concern is that as the QSA impacts the Salton Sea and more shoreline is exposed, the county will face new air-quality concerns unless mitigation steps are taken.

“Our primary reason is for air mitigation measures,” county Supervisor Wally Leimgruber said. “We do not want to have our air basin impacted.”

In a county that already has failing air quality grades and has one of the highest percentage rates of asthma among children, officials have said the county cannot afford more impacts to the air quality.

The county’s case was initially dismissed by the state court two years ago on the grounds the county had not named all the parties involved in the QSA.

The appellate court, in both denying the appeal and the request for a rehearing, has upheld the Superior Court ruling.

There was no information on when the coordinated QSA cases, which include lawsuits filed by environmental groups and local farmers, will again be taken up by the Superior Court. #

http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2007/07/18/news/news02.txt

####