Shotgun Wedding :

1. Shotgun Wedding: The Imperial Irrigation District-Metropolitan Water District Water Conservation Agreement

2. Metropolitan Water District - MWD • Wholesale water agency • Established in 1928 • Distributes water to 27 member agencies • All water comes from Colorado River and State Water project

3. Palo Verde Irrigation District - PVID • Began operations in 1925 • Half of the acreage produces Alfalfa, then Cotton • Alfalfa shipped west to feed livestock

4. Imperial Irrigation District - IID • Organized in 1911 • Service territory – 1 million acres • Serves Water and Energy • 6th largest electric utility in CA • Power dept has twice the assets and generates 4times the income compared to water

5. Coachella Valley Water District - CVWD • Formed in 1918 • Total service area 638,000 Acres • Only 3% of acreage grows Alfalfa • 60% produce fruit • 31% vegetables

6. Water Rights • 1931 Seven party agreement governs the use of Colorado water • California is guaranteed 4.4 maf/year of Colorado River water

7. 4 Agricultural agencies share the first three entitlements of CA’s Portion • PVID- Palo Verde Irrigation District • IID- Imperial Irrigation District • CVWD- Coachella Valley Water District • Yuma Project of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

8. #1 PVID #1Order of entitlement • Thomas Blythe’s 1877 broad request for appropriate water • Use as much water as needed to irrigate 104,500 acres • PVID’s right is unquantified • First priority

9. #2 Yuma Project Reservation • Entitled to such water as required for beneficial use on a maximum of 25,000 acres • Average consumption of 70,000 af/year • 1989- consumed 92,000 af/year

10. 3rd priority is shared by IID, CVWD, PVID • IID consumes 2.8 maf/year • CVWD – 350,000 af/year • PVID doesn’t use river water • 1934 Agreement of Compromise= IID gets first priority to water within the All-American Canal • A max of 3.85 maf for first three priorities

11. 4th and 5th priorities held by MWD Total 1.212 maf/year 6th priority shared by IID, CVWD and PVID For use on Mesa Lands 0.3 maf/year A 7th priority Agricultural use in Colorado River Basin Water Rights Cont.

12. The IID – MWD Negotiations Water conservation pressure on IID coupled with MWD’s inability to secure rights from N. CA

13. The First attempt at a Conservation/Transfer agreement • 1985 – After 18 months of negotiations • 40 year program • MWD to pay $100/af for ten years • IID to make 40 year commitment to transfer 100,000 af/year • Rejected by 3-2 vote by IID board of directors

14. SWRCB’s Order 88-20 Required IID to submit specific plans to conserve 100,000 af/year by 1/1/04 Penalty for non-compliance=intervention in IID management by SWRCB In 1988 a reshuffling of the board of directors Board now had enough votes to pass the water transfer agreement 1988- 2 events continued negotiations

15. Second agreement,Reactions, and Revisions • Implementing 16 conservation measures to conserve 100,000 af/year • MWD reimburse IID for Capital expenditures estimated at $98 Million • Operating Expenses • 5 annual Payments of $4.6 Million – Indirect Costs • 6th year- MWD could collect Water conserved • IID still in control

16. 1989 Water Conservation Award 1990 National water award Clair A. Hill Agency award IID-MWD agreement example of successful water market transaction CVWD had two concerns #1 As third priority, they were next in line to receive water conserved #2 The agreement had the potential to reduce CVWD’s right to Colorado water 1989 CVWD filed lawsuit National Acclaim as well as Local Opposition

17. #1 Approval Agreement Rather than transferring the conserved water that is priority 3, IID is not using all of its 3rd priority water and leaving it in river CVWD and PVID agree not to use it unless a dry year. MWD may then use water still remaining a 4th and 5th priority The building of a 340 af reservoir and pumping station Lining of a two mile section of canal with a savings of 6,110 af/year IID to repay those expenditures instead of MWD for allowing the agreement to give water to CVWD on dry years- Concession Subsequent Agreements

18. Effects of the Agreement • Local Effects • Reduced flooding to land • Ground water lowered • IID $100 Million infrastructure upgrade • Covered canals • IID kept its right to manage itself • Non Local effects- San Diego

19. Report Card: How well did the Agreements mitigate water transfer risks? A+ Although the IID-MWD agreement is hailed as an example of a water market transaction…with substantial risks to both sides…Ultimately no water rights transfer occurred. One senior appropriator is simply reducing its water use of the Colorado River and a subsequent appropriator’s use in increasing.