Ridenbaugh Press/Water Rights

Georgia State Representatives Tom McCall (R-Elberton), Alan Powell (D-Hartwell) and Michael Harden (R-Toccoa), along with other Northeast Georgia State Representatives, announced on March 18 the filing of House Bill 1301, the River Basin Protection Act. This legislation requires a permit for interbasin water transfers.

“Interbasin transfers that are used to supplement systems that haven’t taken care of the water resources within their own basins are not in the best interest of any part of Georgia, especially the donor basin,” said Representative Tom McCall, sponsor of HB 1301 and chairman of the Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee. “This bill simply puts into place requirements more stringent than a simple ad in the paper and a public hearing. The most important aspect of HB 1301 is the requirement to consider the effects on the donor basin and its economy and ecology.”

HB 1301 requires any person or entity seeking an interbasin transfer of more than 100,000 gallons of water per day to request a permit from the director of the Department of Natural Resources’ Environmental Protection Division (EPD). In order to obtain a permit, water users must implement water conservation practices and demonstrate that there are no cost effective alternatives available other than an interbasin transfer. If these standards are met, interbasin transfer permits can only be issued for a term less than ten years and must be evaluated at the end of the fifth year. The EPD director must also indicate various terms and conditions in each permit to ensure the protection of both the donor and the receiving river basins.
HB 1301 also requires the EPD director to notify city and county governments, including public utilities in each county that is entirely or partially located within the donor and receiving river basins, which could be affected by a requested permit. The EPD director must also provide public notification in the newspaper of general circulation in each affected community.

“As Georgians work together to secure a sufficient and sustainable water supply, it is important that we carefully monitor our river basins,” said Representative Powell. “HB 1301 ensures the security of Georgia’s existing river basins and requires that any potential interbasin transfers are done in the most efficient manner possible. This legislation will also provide citizens with the knowledge they deserve concerning their local water supply.”

Currently, about 25 Georgia communities have interbasin transfers, and approximately 10 of those transfer more than a million gallons a day. Governor Perdue’s Water Contingency Task Force considers interbasin transfers a possible, yet expensive, alternative source for Atlanta’s water supply. However, under current state law, the Metro North Georgia Water Planning District, which includes Atlanta and its surrounding counties, is prohibited from importing water from outside its boundaries.

“This legislation will protect Georgia river basins from the harmful effects of interbasin transfers, such as irreversible alterations to natural water flow, threats to a stream’s ability to assimilate pollutants, and flooding in receiving basins,” said Representative Harden.

House Bill 1301 has been assigned to the House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment.

The Texas Commission on Enviuronmental Quality on June 29 granted an approval for a petroleum coke power plant in Corpus Christi, operated by Las Brisas Energy Center LLC, an extension to correct defects in its original application for an operating permit. Eventual approval of the permit is expected.

The less obvious end result may be a much stronger draw on the Colorado River (the Texas stream) than at present, by the city of Corpus Christi.

The city already draws from the Colorado. Because of an agreement worked out more than a decade ago with an irrigation district in the basin, Corpus Christi has the right to use as much as 68 billion gallons. (Much of it comes from the Choke Canyon Reservoir, Lake Corpus Christi and Lake Texana.)

At present, it only actually uses about 42 billion, but planners have been looking at major expansions. If the coal plant starts operation, it may need five billion gallons, which it would get from Corpus Christi. which in turn it would get from the Colorado basin.

The water is transmitted more than 100 miles from the river basin the city to the south through a large pipeline.

Las Brisas also reportedly is considering developing three more power plants in Texas, at least one of which also might draw water from the Colorado.

Upwards of 1,600 people are reported to have added their names to a protest of prospective water draws from the Snake River valley, which crosses the Utah-Nevada border, south toward Las Vegas.

The Southern Nevada Water Authority has been seeking water from about 130 wells in the generally dry Snake Valley country. But that would remove water resources used by farmers, wildlife and others.

Susan Lynn of the Great Basin Water Network told the Deseret News (Salt Lake City) that “This outpouring of protests from such a large number and broad range of organizations and individuals shows just how united and strong the opposition to this misguided project has become.”

A Colorado measure aimed at mandating water mitigation when it is transferred from one community to another, died on February 5 in the Colorado House.

House Bill 1159 was killed on the floor 23-36.

The Pueblo Chieftain reported that “Pace hurried the bill along this week. He wanted it to move quickly because he said he was losing votes with each passing day as metropolitan water interests lobbied lawmakers against it.”

Pace wrote in a January blog post that “I am proud that the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Trout Unlimited and the Colorado Environmental Coalition support HB 1159. However, not surprisingly, my bill is facing stiff opposition from metro water providers – even those who have secured enough water rights for any potential future growth. Over twenty former legislators, including Congressmen John Salazar and Scott McInnis have proposed similar bills in Colorado’s history. So, I’m well aware of what I’m up against. Metropolitan area water providers argue that this policy will make their life more difficult and add to their costs. The reality is that those metro leaders aren’t listening to their constituents. According to a Ciruli & Associates poll, Coloradans in every county agree that they don’t want to see future sprawl at the expense of rural communities. In this matter I think that the citizens of Colorado are correct and the special-interest metro-area developers are dead wrong!”

[see also Pueblo (CO) Chieftain, February 5]

Impact on the environment and other considerations should be added into the mix of considerations when water judges review whether to allow interbasin water transfers in Colorado, a state legislator is arguing.

This is not a new argument, but there’s additional substantive push behind the effort made by Representative Sal Pace, D-Pueblo. In past sessions, cities and other large units which have been receiving water through transfers have been able to derail such proposals, in favor of the existing standard that relies mostly on seniority of water rights and owner prerogatives in assigning them.

The Pueblo Chieftain said that Pace “pointed to Crowley County’s meager average annual household income for a family of four – $18,000 – as an example of the aftermath of water transfers conducted without regard to economic or ecological impact on a region. Generally, he said, urban centers are sated at the expense of rural areas by benefiting from the transfers. Consequently, Pace’s proposed legislation would require water divisions seeking to receive transfers to reach economic and ecological mitigation agreements with the originating communities before the transfers could be approved in Water Court.”

State Senator Dan Gibbs is backing the measure in the Senate.

There is some limitation on transfers crossing the continental divide, provided through the Conservancy District Act of 1937. But other sorts of transfers have few fewer restrictions.

Bill Ritter

In the never-ending effort to balance water flows between major needy regions – the lightly-populated but dry western slope and the fast-growing and heavily-populated front range – Colorado Governor Bill Ritter said his policy would be simple: Limit inter-basin transfers to use as a last resort.

Water-sharing efforts and conservation should come first, he said.

Ritter was quoted in the September 30 Durango Herald as saying, “Our thought is we should never do that unless we find some win-win-win situation. It’s really pitted two different parts of the state against each other. We know we have to address it, but we’re going to address it in a way that ensures we’re thinking about all parts of the state.”

The paper also noted, “Ritter is likely to face a Western Slope Republican in next year’s election. The leading GOP candidates are former Congressman Scott McInnis and State Sen. Josh Penry.”

The “Kickin’ up dust” blog by the Nevada Farm Bureau raised concerns about interstate water purchases with a post on September 12. it suggested that the University of Nevada is looking at buying California as well as Nevada water rights for storage in Walker Lake, which does not have an outlet and is intended as a future resource.

From the blog:

Up until now the water acquisition program has dealt with just Nevada water right owners in the Walker Basin. The legislation that is being worked on to move another pot of money into water right buyouts (no longer needing to hide behind the cover of the University of Nevada System) doesn’t have the word “Nevada” in the portions of where water might be purchased. Needless to say the folks on the California side of the border took notice and have started sounding the alarm about Senator Reid now looking to send his water right shoppers to see California water right owners too.

From the account we received from Sanford, Mono County Board of Supervisors (Mono County is a California County for our readers who might not be from around here) unanimously (5-0) adopted a formal resolution opposing “the expansion of the Walker River Basin Acquisition Program into the California portions of the Walker River Basin” and opposing “the inclusion of the California portions of the Walker River Basin in a water leasing demonstration project as proposed by H.R. 3183 at this time”.

These county leaders have good cause to take serious exception to now being included in the cross-hairs of Senator Reid’s desire to use the unlimited funding of the federal government in order to take productive use of water out of a local economy and put it into a dead-end lake for evaporation.

Another one of the comments we received came from a local Walker Basin area reader who noted their concerns over trusting the new addition of the National Wildlife Foundation being named as the purchaser and water right owner for acquired water rights — possibly (and probably) even those purchased by the University of Nevada System. Again, the mistrust of how this entire project is playing itself out is more than justified.

The Reno Gazette Journal on September 11 also noted, however, that Nevada Farm Bureau President James “Hank” Combs on August 14 wrote university Chancellor Dan Klaich that “By utilizing the lease partnership approach, to more effectively spend the $56 million to benefit Walker Lake, the goodwill towards the University would be greater than purchasing the water rights and negatively impacting the agricultural communities where the purchases are made. Adopting this approach that accomplishes more positive outcomes in these targeted areas is an advantage for the University system and will likely reduce the current negative public opinion. . . . Improved goodwill and an enhanced belief of cooperation could also reduce the level of possible challenges associated with the water right transfers process while getting water into Walker Lake quicker.”

The Las Vegas Sun has out today an extensive overview of the battle between Las Vegas water interests, spearheaded by the Souther Nevada Water Authority, and resident of eastern Nevada, where some of the targeted water is located.

The article was spun around an August 20 hearing on the most recent pipeline proposal. It said that:

Facing scores of angry eastern Nevadans saying their way of life was being placed in jeopardy, the water authority’s board of directors instructed its staff on Thursday to continue working on permits to build a 300-plus-mile pipeline so water from the Great Basin can be drawn south.

The vote and the four-hour hearing that accompanied it were unnecessary. But it was a public demonstration that the water authority’s general manager, Pat Mulroy, had gathered a formidable posse — one with the political clout and financial backing to counter the mounting opposition to her proposed pipeline from White Pine County.

The Army Corps of Engineers has launched – triggered by a proposal, but not a specific plan for activity – a study of a proposed water transfer, running 400 miles, from the Flaming Gorge area in Wyoming to the Fort Collins area in Colorado.

The proposal came from Aaron Million, a businessman at Fort Collins, who envisions using the water for Colorado Front Range development. The cost of piping and launching the project, estimated at $3 billion, can be raised privately, he has indicated.

Legal and regulatory issues involved with such a transfer at less clear, however.

The Corps said it has not started its own study because it expects the proposal to happen, or because it approves, but because Million’s inquiry triggered standard requirements. The study may last five years.
(Forbes, April 12]