WATER IN THE U.S. WEST: WHO SHOULD GET IT AND WHY? 1

The California 4.4 Plan

California is part of what the compact defined as the lower basin, along with Arizona and Nevada. The compact allotted those states 7.5 MAF of Colorado River water, 4.4 MAF of which was for California.

The Colorado River stakeholders in California include the Imperial Irrigation District(IID), Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD),Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) and the city and county of San Diego. In 1931, the parties agreed on a plan to distribute Colorado River among themselves. The lion's share - 3.85 MAF - went to irrigation districts for agricultural uses.

Over the years, California has relied on surplus unused river water from Arizona and Nevada to augment its apportionment. However, the other lower basin states are now requiring more water, putting more pressure on the system.

At the same time, salinity and environmental issues have emerged which may also require additional water apportionments.

In July 1996, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt called upon California to reduce its reliance on that surplus and develop a plan to live within its 4.4 MAF entitlement before Interior moves forward with criteria governing future long-term use of surplus Colorado River water. California's Colorado River stakeholders have since been in negotiations to come up with a plan, known as the California 4.4 Plan, on how to live within the 4.4 MAF entitlement."

This case is about the dispute over water between California and the neighboring states of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. A number of non-state players – Native American tribal groups, agribusiness, environmentalists, urban planners, politicians and others – also carry strong stakes in water-related concerns in the region. A Boston Globe article published in May of 2000 described how neighboring states threatened to cut off water supply from the Colorado River if California did not develop a water conservation policy. Today the Colorado River accounts for roughly 40% of the water consumed in southern California!

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt is the Watermaster for the Colorado.

"Watermaster for the southwest, Babbitt had been leading negotiations on the California 4.4 Plan but stepped back from those negotiations to allow the California parties to work the issues out among themselves. The agencies' agreements, announced in fall 1999, will reduce California's over-reliance on Colorado River water. As of June 2000, the parties are still finalizing language on California cutting back its use of the Colorado within 15 years. If progress is not made, cutoff of California's Colorado River supply could come immediately."

You will deal with this case in a number of different aspects 2:

1) Write a policy analysis of the issue using the policy analysis chart we gave you at the beginning of class in which you outline the issues and their history, the stakeholders, the options, and a strategy for dealing with it. Due in class on October 11; up to 10 pages.

2) You will be assigned a role from the following list, and will be required to write a position paper to your supervisor telling him/her how you will approach the negotiations, your positions, your BATNA, where you can make compromises, etc. Due in class on October 18, up to 3 pages.

The roles for this case are:

  1. Native American Representative: You are representing the rights of the Nations to water from the Colorado and, specifically, looking to maximize the benefits that the Nations can received from those rights.
  2. CalAgroInc: One of the largest agricultural corporations in the US with operations throughout the world. CalAgroInc has, through skill and political connections, is receiving irrigation water at a "favorable" rate and would like to expand its operations in California.
  3. The Imperial Irrigation District: A long-term beneficiary of California and US water policy. Increasingly the smaller farmers that the district represents see the value of the water to be greater for urban use than for continued agriculture.
  4. The City of Los Diego: Situated in Southern California, Los Diego sits on what would be a desert were it not for imported water from the Colorado and other projects within California. The city leaders see significant growth in water as essential to continued growth. The concept that the waters of the Colorado should go anywhere but to the richly urban areas (read high value) of Southern California is anathema to the city fathers.
  5. The Office of the Governor of California: The Governor, Hillary Wilson, is a born and bred Californian from a farming family in the Sacramento Valley. She is strongly pro water but politically cautious on her commitments to water on behalf of the citizens of all of California not just those in the "Sponge" of Southern California. She supports the negotiation and is actively looking for a politically safe outcome.
  6. The Upper Colorado Basin States represented by Colorado: Because the Colorado River is co-named with the State, Colorado feels it should receive a significant amount of the benefits of the water.
  7. The Lower Colorado Basin States represented by Arizona: Arizona is facing a water shortage on an annual basis and is concerned that the Central Arizona Project to should be able to fulfill its original promise despite any earlier agreements to which it, Arizona, was a party.
  8. The Colorado Watershed Collaborative: The CWC is an aggregation of the environmental groups from the Basin as well as those such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club. The CWC is strongly opposed to any agreements that do not provide for massive / extensive water conservation for Southwest consumers. While focused on Southern California, they have made their views known to the politicians in all of the Basin States.
  9. The Corps of Engineers: The Corps, supported extensively by the firm of Pechson Constructors and Engineers has entered the fray with a strong bid to build the ultimate project supported under the acronym of NAWAPA (the North American Water and Power Alliance) which would provide for a diversion the full length of the Western US. Both the Corps and Pechson have tremendous political and economic incentives. The Corps to save its existence. Pechson to engineer, build and, possibly trade, in water.

3) You will negotiate both in class and out with your group to reach (if possible) an agreement. This agreement (with any dissenting opinions) will then be written jointly by your group and is due in class on October 25.

4) You will make your arguments for the solution before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) appointed by Babbitt in class on October 25 and 27.

5) You will write a memo to your supervisor telling him/her how you fared in the negotiations and agreement. Due in class on October 30.

To get started read the following in Marc Reisner's "Cadillac Desert" (Penguin Books, 1986):

Some useful websites:

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/ConservationIsKey.html

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/WaterConsTransfersReclam.html

For some history:

http://www.lib.ttu.edu/playa/rights/r995-07.htm

http://www.acwanet.com/waterfacts/colorado.html

http://crwua.mwd.dst.ca.us/

For an interesting framing of the problem, and range of stakeholders, see:

http://crwua.mwd.dst.ca.us/news/babbitt.htm

Comprehensive review and policy proposal:

http://www.den.doi.gov/wwprac/reports/west.htm

and you will find many links from these.

Footnotes:

1. Arthur Steinberg and Richard Tabors, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Technology and Policy Program. October 2000.

2. NOTE: The assignment dates included are different from those in the original syllabus.