ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE & MALLORY LLP DAVID L. OSIAS (BAR NO

120 Pages·2002·0.64 MB·English

1 ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE & MALLORY LLP
DAVID L. OSIAS (BAR NO. 091287)
2 MARK J. HATTAM (BAR NO. 173667)
501 West Broadway, Ninth Floor
3 San Diego, California 92101-3577
Phone: [phone]
4 Fax: [phone]

5 HORTON, KNOX, CARTER & FOOTE
JOHN PENN CARTER
6 895 Broadway, Suite 101
El Centro, CA 92243
7 Telephone [phone]

8 Attorneys for Petitioner
Imperial Irrigation District
9

10 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
13 and SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY,
14

CLOSING BRIEF BY PETITIONER
Petitioners.
15 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT

IN SUPPORT OF FURTHER FINDINGS

16 UNDER THE SWRCB'S RETAINED

JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO DECISION
17 1600 AND ORDER 88-20, AND IN
SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AND APPROVAL
18 OF CHANGE PETITION AND LONG-TERM
TRANSFER OF CONSERVED WATER
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
560547.01/SD
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I. INTRODUCTION .......................................1
4 II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY ......................7
5 A. The History Behind This Proceeding ..................7
6 B. IID's Request To The SWRCB.........................10
7 1. Reasonable And Beneficial Use Finding
And Conclusion................................10
8
2. Statutory Findings............................10
9
3. Necessary Findings To Preserve
10 Settlement....................................11
11 C. The On-Farm Conservation Agreements With
Farmers Will Follow SWRCB Approval .................16
12
D. Summary Of Evidence................................17
13
1. IID's State And Federal Water Right Was
14 Uncontested...................................17
15 2. IID Is Reasonably And Beneficially Using
Its Water.....................................17
16
3. The Benefits Of The Transfer And
17 Settlement....................................20
18 4. Environmental Impacts.........................23
19 III. WHY THE REQUESTED FINDINGS AND APPROVAL ARE
WARRANTED .........................................25
20
A. All Statutory Requirements Are Met .................25
21
1. No Substantial Injury To Other Legal
22 Users Of Water................................25
23 2. No Unreasonable Effects On Fish,
Wildlife, Or Other Instream Beneficial
24 Uses .........................................29
25 a. "Other Instream Beneficial Uses"..........29
26 b. "Unreasonable Effects" ...................30
27 B. The Proposed Transfer's Benefits Must Be
Considered To Determine Unreasonableness............31
28
1. Benefits To California ........................31
560547.01/SD
(i)
1 Page
2 2. Benefits To San Diego.........................33
3 3. Benefits To IID...............................34
4 a. Reduced Flooding Risk ....................34
5 b. Efficiency Conservation Is An
Economic Benefit To The Imperial
6 Valley...................................37
7 c. Efficiency Conservation Reduces The
Risk Of Litigation With Junior
8 Water Right Holders ......................38
9 d. Efficiency Conservation Reduces The
Need For Further SWRCB Supervision........38
10
C. The Petition Is Made In Compliance With Past
11 SWRCB Recommendations..............................39
12 IV. THE ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIONS ARE EITHER NOT
MERITED OR ARE MITIGABLE...........................39
13
A. The Environmental Objections .......................39
14
1. Impacts On The Salton Sea .....................40
15
a. Congress Intended That The Salton
16 Sea Restoration Act Not Hold
Conservation Transfers Hostage............43
17
b. California Should Not Wait To See
18 If Some Day Someone Will Pay For
Salton Sea Restoration ...................44
19
c. The Salton Sea Will Become Hyper-
20 Saline Irrespective Of The Proposed
Transfer.................................45
21
d. The Public Trust Doctrine Does Not
22 Support Preserving The Salton Sea.........51
23 e. The Fallowing Non-Alternative ............51
24 2. Air Impacts Related To The Salton Sea..........55
25 3. The Colorado River............................57
26 4. The San Diego Area............................59
27 B. The "Deal Point" Objections Should Be Ignored.......59
28 C. The Impacts On Fish, Wildlife, And Instream
Beneficial Uses Are Not "Unreasonable" .............60
560547.01/SD
(ii)
1 Page
2 V. ALLEGED TECHNICAL CEQA OBJECTIONS DO NOT
WARRANT DISAPPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER AND
3 SETTLEMENT ........................................62
4 A. CEQA Does Not Mandate A Delay Or Denial Of
The Petition. .....................................62
5
1. IID's Certification Of The Final EIR In
6 Advance Of Project Approval Is Legal And
Appropriate...................................63
7
2. CEQA Allows A Responsible Agency To
8 Issue A Project-Related Approval Prior
To The Lead Agency's Project Approval..........65
9
3. The Project Description Satisfies CEQA
10 And Is Sufficient For SWRCB Action.............67
11 4. CEQA Accommodates Post-Certification
Project Changes...............................72
12
5. The SWRCB Is Not Required To Resolve All
13 Allegations Regarding EIR Deficiencies.........73
14 6. By Approving the Transfer and Settlement
The SWRCB Will Not Become The Principal
15 Defendant In A CEQA Action. ...................75
16 B. CEQA Does Not Require Recirculation Of The
Final EIR. ........................................77
17
C. Use Of A Modeled Baseline To Assess Potential
18 Project Impacts On The Salton Sea Is
Appropriate Under CEQA.............................79
19
VI. THE SWRCB'S SPECIFIC INQUIRIES .....................84
20
VII. PROPOSED FINDINGS.................................103
21
VIII. CONCLUSION .......................................107
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
560547.01/SD
(iii)
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 Cases
4 Arizona v. California (1963) 373 U.S. 546, 584 ........... 90, 91
5 Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo
(1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180.............................. 77
6
Bryant v. Yellen (1980) 447 U.S. 352, 370-371 ................ 91
7
California v. United States (1978) 438 U.S. 645, 675...... 87, 92
8
Central Arizona Irr. and Drainage Dist. v. Lujan
9 (D.Ariz. 1991) 764 F.Supp. 582.......................... 88
10 Citizens Task Force on Sohio v. Board of Harbor
Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach (1979) 23
11 Cal.3d 812, 814 ........................................ 76
12 Colberg, Inc. v. State of California (1967) 67 Cal.2d
408, 416 ............................................... 51
13
County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency
14 (1999), 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 955......................... 83
15 Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist. (2001) 94
Cal.App.4th 1092, 1099.............................. 75, 76
16
Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999)
17 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 29........................... 69, 70, 71
18 Elmore v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1984)
159 Cal.App.3d 185 ..................................... 35
19
Environmental Defense Fund v. East Bay Mun. Utility
20 Dist. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 183, 192......................... 88
21 Fat v. County of Sacramento (2002), 2002 Cal.App.
LEXIS 3679 ............................................. 83
22
Friends of Cuyamaca Valley v. Lake Cuyamaca Recreation
23 and Park District (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 419, 429......... 76
24 Imperial Irrigation Dist. v. State Wat. Resources
Control Bd. (1990) 186 Cal.App.3d 1160 .................. 36
25
Imperial Irrigation Dist. v. State Wat. Resources
26 Control Bd. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 548 ................... 36
27 Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of
Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1125-26 ..................... 73
28
Lindsay v. King (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 333 .................... 40
560547.01/SD
(iv)
1 Page(s)
2 Mayer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (1973) 10
Cal.3d 222, 230 ........................................ 29
3
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine
4 County (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 433 ........................ 51
5 Peacock v. Payne (1934) 1 Cal.2d 104, 109 .................... 94
6 Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th
1428................................................... 71
7
Rundle v. The Delaware and Raritan Canal Co. (1852) 55
8 U.S. 80 ................................................ 94
9 Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.
(1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914............................... 36
10
Save Our Bay, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist.
11 (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 686............................... 76
12 Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board
of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99 ............. 82, 83
13
Stevens v. Oakdale Irr. Dist. (1934) 13 Cal.2d 343............ 40
14
Tulare Irrig. Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrig. Dist.
15 (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489 .................................... 18
16 U.S. v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Co. (9th Cir. 1989)
878 F.2d 1217, 1223 .................................... 88
17
U.S. v. Imperial Irr. District (S.D.Cal. 1992) 799
18 F.Supp. 1052 ....................................... 35, 36
19 U.S. v. SWRCB (9th Cir. 1982) 694 F.2d 1171, 1177 ............ 87
20
Statutes
21
43 U.S.C. 617e .............................................. 90
22
43 U.S.C. 617q .............................................. 91
23
California Code of Civil Procedure section 389(a) ............ 76
24
California Constitution article X, section 2 ............. 15, 17
25
Government Code section 11425.10(a)(7) ....................... 13
26
Public Resources Code section 21081.......................... 64
27
Public Resources Code section 21167(c)....................... 75
28
Water Code section 100 .................................. 15, 17
560547.01/SD
(v)
1 Page(s)
2 Water Code section 100.5 .................................... 18
3 Water Code section 1011 ......................... 10, 87, 89, 93
4 Water Code section 1011(a)................................... 10
5 Water Code section 1012 ................................. 10, 87
6 Water Code section 1014 ............................. 10, 11, 87
7 Water Code section 1017 ............................. 10, 11, 87
8 Water Code section 109 ...................................... 15
9 Water Code section 1701.3.................................... 29
10 Water Code section 1736 ................................. passim
11
SWRCB Orders & Decisions
12
SWRCB Decision 1600 ..................................... passim
13
SWRCB Decision 1632 ......................................... 66
14
SWRCB Decision 1638 ......................................... 18
15
SWRCB Decision 1641 ......................................... 26
16
SWRCB Decision 1641 (Revised March 15, 2000) ................. 59
17
SWRCB Order 2001-05-CWP ..................................... 13
18
SWRCB Order 2001-07 ......................................... 13
19
SWRCB Order 2002 – 0008 ..................................... 66
20
SWRCB Order 84-12 ................................ 7, 39, 42, 51
21
SWRCB Order 88-12 ........................................... 66
22
SWRCB Order 88-20 ................................ 7, 15, 39, 42
23
SWRCB Order 91-05 ........................................... 61
24
SWRCB Order 94-4 ............................................ 61
25
SWRCB Order 95-9 ............................................ 95
26
SWRCB Order 96-1 ............................................ 13
27
SWRCB Order 98-01 ........................................... 26
28
SWRCB Order 99-002 .......................................... 26
560547.01/SD
(vi)
1 Page(s)
2 Other
3 CEQA Guidelines section 15003(c)............................. 69
4 CEQA Guidelines section 15004(a)............................. 64
5 CEQA Guidelines section 15052................................ 74
6 CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.............................. 77
7 CEQA Guidelines section 15090(a)............................. 64
8 CEQA Guidelines section 15091................................ 64
9 CEQA Guidelines section 15092................................ 75
10 CEQA Guidelines section 15092(a)............................. 64
11 CEQA Guidelines section 15096(a)............................. 65
12 CEQA Guidelines section 15096(d)............................. 74
13 CEQA Guidelines section 15096(f)............................. 73
14 CEQA Guidelines section 15096(g)(1).......................... 74
15 CEQA Guidelines section 15096(g)(2).......................... 66
16 CEQA Guidelines section 15124................................ 69
17 CEQA Guidelines section 15125................................ 83
18 CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a)............................. 80
19 CEQA Guidelines section 15151................................ 83
20 CEQA Guidelines section 15162........................ 67, 72, 73
21 CEQA Guidelines section 15163................................ 73
22 CEQA Guidelines section 15164................................ 73
23 Salton Sea Restoration Act of 1998........................... 43
24

25
26
27
28
560547.01/SD
(vii)
1 Page(s)
2
3 Publications
4 CEB, Practice Under CEQA, § 23.15............................ 76
5 Kostka, Stephen L. and Michael H. Zischke, 2002,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
6 § 12.16, updated January 2002, p. 489 ................... 81
7 Remy, Michael H. et al., Guide to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 10th ed., 1999,
8 p. 165................................................. 81

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
560547.01/SD
(viii)
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 The Imperial Irrigation District ("IID") comes before the
3 State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") for approval of a
4 conserved-water transfer to other urban water districts in
5 Southern California that will be hugely beneficial to the entire
6 state. The IID holds one of the oldest and largest Colorado
7 River water rights in California, established under state law
8 before the start of the 20th Century, and modified by a contract
9 with the Secretary of the Interior in the early 1930's. With
10 such water right, IID has supported the development of an
11 agricultural-based economy in rural Imperial County that produces
12 agricultural products of approximately $1 billion per year.
13 IID's irrigation water-use efficiency is among the highest in
14 California, but it can become even more efficient with further
15 costly improvements that can be funded by the transferees of the
16 conserved water.
17 In 1988, per instructions from the SWRCB in Order 88-20 to
18 seek conservation funding from urban areas, IID and the
19 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD")
20 entered into a conservation agreement by which approximately
21 108,000 acre-feet per year ("AFY") of water has been conserved in
22 IID and transferred to MWD.
23 Consistent with recommendations to consider additional
24 conservation and "ag-to-urban" water transfers contained in
25 previous decisions and orders from the SWRCB, such as in
26 Decision 1600 and Orders 84-12 and 88-20, IID negotiated the
27 proposed conserved-water transfer of 130,000 to 200,000 AFY (the
28 "Transfer") to the San Diego County Water Authority ("SDCWA").
560547.01/SD
-