County Water Board Sues U.S. in Dispute Over Colorado River
Farmers in Southern California who use most of the state's disputed
supply of Colorado River water have struck back at the federal government
for taking some of it away.
County Water Board Sues U.S. in Dispute Over Colorado River
By DEAN E. MURPHY

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 11 — Farmers in Southern California who use most of
the state's disputed supply of Colorado River water have struck back at
the federal government for taking some of it away.
The Imperial Irrigation District, which provides the farmers with
irrigation water, has asked a federal judge to block a decision by the
secretary of the interior that reduces the district's allocation from the
river. Imperial officials said a lawsuit was filed on Friday in federal
court in San Diego.
The interior secretary, Gale A. Norton, last month ordered a reduction of
about 7 percent in Imperial's water after a deal collapsed that would
have transferred a similar amount of water from the Imperial Valley to
neighboring San Diego County. In her legal capacity as "master of the
river," Ms. Norton also reduced some of the water requested by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the big urban
supplier in Los Angeles.
In a letter sent to Ms. Norton, the Imperial district's recently named
board president, Lloyd Allen, sounded a bitter and defiant tone.
"Simply stated, the action of your department is misguided, unjustified,
unsupported by the law or the facts," Mr. Allen wrote, "and is an example
of heavy-handed and unwarranted federal interference with intrastate
water allocation matters."
"Our forefathers worked too hard to create the most productive farm
region in the world," the letter continued. "While I.I.D. would prefer to
have consensual agreements, we will not retreat from litigation to
protect the lifeblood of our community."
Ms. Norton's top water official, Bennett W. Raley, said today that he had
not seen the lawsuit but that the Interior Department had been
anticipating the legal challenge.
"This was something that we expected and are fully prepared for," said
Mr. Raley, an assistant secretary. "I don't think it is helpful, but we
respect entities' ability to litigate if they are unhappy with government
actions."
An agreement to transfer some of the Imperial district's water to San
Diego was supposed to signal a turning point in the long history of
fighting over water from the Colorado River. It was a requirement of an
accord reached two years ago among the seven states that draw water from
the Colorado. But since the negotiations failed on Dec. 31, tensions have
grown among the various groups in California and positions have hardened.
On Monday, the board of the Metropolitan district, which is involved in
the talks, directed negotiators "to make no commitments" to the Imperial
district beyond those made in October, which the Imperial board voted
last month to reject. Also this week, two state legislators said they
were considering legislation that would further cut the Imperial
district's water allotment.
"The dynamic certainly has shifted," Mr. Raley said. "I think people are
dealing with a new reality. It will be at least a matter of months before
we can assess what direction California wants to go with respect to
Colorado River water."
Mr. Allen, in his letter to Ms. Norton, blamed the government for the
unraveling of negotiations. "Instead of government neutrality in the face
of disagreements among the southern California water agencies, your
department utilized heavy-handed tactics and threats against I.I.D.," he
wrote. "Frankly, your actions are in stark contrast to the principles of
the Bush administration." In a First, U.S. Puts Limits on California's
Thirst (January 5, 2003)
Failed Deal in California Cuts Water for Nevada (January 2, 2003)
U.S. Approves Water Plan in California, but
Environmental Opposition Remains (August 31, 2002)
Study Discounts Halting Irrigation to Protect Fish (February 5, 2002)