Message

Arizona's largest water supplier has approved a plan that would transfer 1.25
million acre-feet of the state's Colorado River water to Nevada, a reserve
large enough to supply Southern Nevada for four years.
In exchange, Arizona would get $330 million and Nevada's support as it seeks
to change a decades-old agreement that forces Arizona to absorb the largest
share of any shortage on the Colorado River.
The deal, approved Thursday by the Central Arizona Project board, essentially
turns a 3-year-old promise to Nevada into a guarantee.
Under a 2001 water-banking agreement, Arizona pledged its "best efforts" to
set aside up to 1.25 million acre-feet of water for Nevada during the next two
decades. The amended deal approved by the CAP board would ensure that the full
1.25 acre-feet is made available to shore up Southern Nevada's water supply.
The deal still requires approval from the Arizona Water Banking Authority.
That is scheduled for Thursday.
If approved, the agreement will come before the Southern Nevada Water
Authority board for approval on Dec. 16.
"It's a guaranteed water supply," said Kay Brothers, deputy general manager
for the Southern Nevada Water Authority. "It's essentially another 40,000
acre-feet a year we could use if we need to."
To make a withdrawal from its bank in Arizona, the Southern Nevada Water
Authority would take water from Lake Mead that normally would be released
downstream for delivery to Arizona.
The amended banking agreement allows Nevada to withdraw up to 20,000
acre-feet a year in 2007 and 2008, up to 30,000 acre-feet a year in 2009 and 2010, and
up to 40,000 acre-feet each year after that until the bank is empty.
There are 325,851 gallons in an acre-foot. According to water authority
figures, the average Las Vegas household consumes about 230,000 gallons of water
each year, less than three-quarters of an acre-foot.
Nevada also would be allowed to use its Arizona account to cover any
shortages should the drought prompt the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to temporarily
reduce the state's annual share of the Colorado River.
"In essence, it buffers us against shortage," Brothers said.
A so-called "shortage condition" on the river also would reduce Arizona's
share. Nevada has agreed to cut its withdrawals from the bank to keep such a
shortage from impacting Arizona cities.
"To have this sort of shared-shortage agreement across state lines is his
toric," water authority general manager Pat Mulroy said. "This has never happened
before."
The deal calls for the water authority to make an initial payment of $100
million to Arizona in 2005. The rest of the $330 million would be paid in annual,
$23 million installments starting in 2009.
Under the original agreement from 2001, the water authority has accumulated
110,000 acre-feet of credits in Arizona's groundwater bank. Another 10,000
acre-feet is expected to go into the bank by the end of the year.
Nevada has yet to tap the reserve, and Brothers doesn't expect that to happen
anytime soon.
Despite its growing population, Southern Nevada has reduced its water use in
each of the last two years.
The state's annual share of the Colorado River is 300,000 acre-feet. Southern
Nevada consumed about 272,000 acre-feet of water in 2003 and remains on pace
to use even less this year.
"Our conservation efforts have been great," she said. "We might not need to
take any (banked) water in 2007."
If the amended deal is approved, Nevada would have until 2060 to withdraw the
full 1.25 million acre-feet from the bank.
The water authority's $330 million payment to Arizona is expected to come
from bond revenue, federal grant money, connection charges paid by new customers,
and from a fund set aside for capital improvements and major construction.
"We do not anticipate it impacting water rates," water authority spokesman
Vince Alberta said.
Nevada currently pays the federal government about 50 cents per acre-foot for
the water it gets from Lake Mead.
Southern Nevada's payment to Arizona is $330 million for 1.25 million
acre-feet of water, minus the 120,000 acre-feet already banked. That translates to
about $292 per acre-foot.
"Therein lies why everyone loves their traditional Colorado River allocation.
It's a very, very cheap resource," Alberta said.
But CAP board member Grady Gammage insists the water deal would provide
Arizona with a lot more than just money.
"The reason to do this is because it's good water management," Gammage said.
"This is a giant game of diplomacy; and when you can gain an ally without
hurting yourself, you should do it."
Arizona will need all the allies it can get if it hopes to reverse a
decades-old rule of the river that gives junior rights status to CAP's network of
canals, which delivers water 350 miles from the Colorado to Phoenix, Tucson and
farmland in between.
The rule states that if a shortage is declared on the river, California is
allowed to take its full allocation of 4.4 million acre-feet before CAP can take
any of its share. With Nevada's help, Arizona water officials want to change
the rule so all river users share shortages equally.
"California needs to come to the table," Mulroy said. "As I told the board in
Arizona (Thursday), you can't fix 100 percent of a shortage with 50 percent
of the supply."

What on Earth is Janet thinking ... does she really think that selling our
water for a mess of pottage is a good idea?
Does she think selling Our Children's water, (not her Children's... as we
know she has no experience here) is a better way, before the next election to
balance her half Billion Dollar Budget Deficit than simply tightening our fiscal
belt?
Here are some questions Janet and her board (made up of Gubernatorial
appointees) need to answer:
1. Will the 100 million dollars be used to buy up farms and send their water
to Nevada ... or just to drain our "Water bank" where we have been saving
Arizona water for an Arizona emergency?
2. Why doesn't this agreement require Nevada to support Arizona's on going
effort to change the Federal law to improve Arizona's water priority during an
Arizona drought?
3. What accountability do we have in place for our water agencies in this
State? What ability do they have to obligate the State, and why is there no
oversight like almost every other State agency? Why don't we force them to bring
this contract to the Joint Legislative Budget committee or the Joint
Committee on Capital Review before the State could be held Liable for this Boondoggle!
( Legislators are you getting any ideas?)
4. If you are going to sell this water, shouldn't it be at fair market
value? During the 90's when Del Web purchased the water for the Anthem development,
they paid $1,500.00 per acre foot. 3 decades ago Peabody coal signed a
contract for water at Black Mesa costing $1,000.00 per acre foot ... This deal sells
Arizona's most valuable resource to Nevada, in the middle of a drought, for
less than three hundred dollars per acre foot!? If for no other reason, we
should kill this deal till we get a fair price!
5. Why has the CAP never been Audited? Good business practices would
dictate that this contract for 1.2 million acre feet of water should be split into
at least 3 smaller contracts, to minimize the risk of default. Once we sign
this Turkey, if we don't deliver the entire amount we will be sued for the whole
$330 million ... No water and no money!!! That giant sucking sound is our
water and money going to Nevada, and we didn't even get the enjoyment of pulling
the arm on a one armed bandit!
6. If this deal goes through, nothing will stop the Gila River Tribe from
selling their (our) water directly to Nevada ... Remember when our Delegation
assured us that giving all our CAP water to the Indians was O.K., because after
all, the only thing they could do with it was sell it back to us and make a
little money off the transaction? Ouch!
7. With all this talk about how hard up Nevada is for water ... they still
have not been willing to pass there version of the 1980 groundwater code that
would mandate conservation and promote safe yield. I guess it would be hard to
justify putting in Venetian canals and cement ponds the size of the state
fair grounds if you were forced to juggle that against your voters drinking water?
8. Why doesn't the agreement promote (let alone require) Conservation
measures with the public in either Nevada or Arizona?
9. Finally, if this is just a crass attempt to sell our most precious
resource for the promise of a hand full of poker chips ... shouldn't the public at
least get a say in how the money is spent? It should be put on the ballot and
see if the voters want full day Kindergarten and baby sitting, to pay off our
unconstitutional debt or at least to keep the Department of Water Quality from
raising the taxes on boaters and other water users to pay for the
Environmental restoration plan on the river (their current plan as soon as they can find
a legislator dumb enough to carry a tax increase bill for the Department and
the administration)?
the Water Bank will be making the final decision with their vote on the 330
million deal on Thursday Dec 9th at 10 AM at DWR office on 3rd floor. The draft
agenda is attached.
GET OFF YOUR BACKSIDE AND DO SOMETHING! Jeff