Babbitt Deals Setback to MWD

Hoping to avert a water fight pitting cities against farmers, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has rejected a request from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California that he change the 1931 agreement that gives farmers the biggest share of the Colorado River.

Babbitt, who came to Southern California this week after the conflict broke out, said Thursday that he disagrees with the MWD’s contention that he can change the allocation formula under which farmers in sparsely populated desert regions receive three-quarters of the state’s annual share of the Colorado River.

“I don’t buy that,” Babbitt said, “because these agreements and contracts (known collectively as the Law of the River) talk about permanent water service.”

Babbitt spoke to a small group of MWD directors in a closed-door meeting Thursday in Los Angeles after meeting Wednesday with the Imperial Irrigation District board and the Coachella Valley Water District board.

In the Imperial Valley, where water rights are considered an unquestioned legacy handed down from the early pioneers, Babbitt’s comments were cause for rejoicing.

But at the MWD, officials were left to ponder their next move and whether to continue pressing their concerns about alleged inequities in the 1931 agreement as part of the negotiations set for next month in Washington.

The talks concern a sticking point in the historic agreement reached last year that calls for the Imperial Valley to sell water to San Diego, a deal considered key to the state’s water future.

After the Babbitt meeting, the MWD issued a tersely worded statement that its board “is standing firm behind its policy statement” of last week, which said that Babbitt has not been showing enough attention to the water needs of coastal Southern California.

“Metropolitan has conveyed to the secretary our goal to raise questions concerning the waste of Colorado River water [by farmers] and the fair allocation of Colorado River water in California,” said an MWD spokesman, adding that more discussions are planned with Babbitt.

The MWD’s challenge to the fairness and legality of the 1931 allocation formula has brought angry denunciations from the Imperial Irrigation District, the state Farm Bureau and other agricultural interests.

Passions are particularly high in the Imperial Valley, where farmers were diverting the Colorado River for three decades before the federal government tamed the river with Hoover Dam and began distributing its water to seven Western states.

“We’re sitting here with the strongest, oldest water rights in the Southwest because our forefathers had the foresight to obtain those rights,” said Lauren Grizzle, executive director of the Imperial Valley Farm Bureau. “We’re not surprised Metropolitan would like to steal our water, but we will never let it happen.”

MWD asserts that the 1931 agreement is outmoded because the state’s urban and suburban population has mushroomed and the percentage formula is at odds with the philosophy behind the agreement: to provide water for the “highest and most beneficial use.”

Under the 1931 allocation, four agricultural districts with 200,000 residents and 600,000 acres of farmland have traditionally received 75% of the state’s water allocation from the Colorado River. The MWD, which serves 16 million people in six counties, gets about 25%.

In all three of his meetings, Babbitt urged that negotiations continue toward completing the Imperial Valley-San Diego deal. Rather than attempt to reduce water allocations to farmers, Babbitt prefers that agricultural agencies be encouraged to sell some to cities.

Still, even as he assured the Imperial Valley that he does not plan to tinker with its allocation of Colorado River water, Babbitt warned that if the 1931 agreement is challenged in court, there are no assurances it would be upheld, particularly in the face of political pressure.

“There are some risks out there,” he said. “What appears to be solid at one time may not be, particularly when public pressure mounts, particularly when there’s a perception . . . of being unfair in the eyes of an audience of 40 million to 45 million people.”