HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - July 20, 1983 (45)t Y-~�7�'r�S � '� ;�• � -s, t ` "� .a,1yN`. �ty4 � � :� a5 3,.. `Y
� x.��.J�--+t 7 1 f � M1�{?'�s �•� - f � tk ,tJ'�ai;� �Y'k.� a St' J � t af3f i :�. , i`..{li! r � ,�' tnr'?, ^
iRks
CITY C0UNC1L mm1NG ' ;'-
r
�R °r %.25y
JULY 20 1963
I.E= RDC'D Mayor Olson directed the City Clerk to place the
FRC7M ASSEMBLY- correspondence received from Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg
MAN ISENBERG RE regarding critical problems involving water resources
WA, R RESOURCESfacing Northern California on the agenda for the Au;3ust 3,
Pnrpj EMS IN 1983 Council Meeting.
l � l
California Legisla#urq, J11 IOU Al S 5)9
PHILLIP ISENBERG ALICE M. IRF IMalS=
_ CITY CLERK
I I STATE CAPITOL.
ASSEMBLY
ACRAMENTO %814 UTY Cf L ` PI
(916) 415.1611
July 13, 1983
Dear Friend:
I am writing you about a very critical problem involving water
resources facing Northern California. In my years as an elected
official, I have never encountered a more threatening issue.
As you know, when there is no drinking water, there is no
community. The federal government is now trying to change
California water rights in an effort to vastly improve its water
rights in California at the expense of Northern California. Real
estate values for developed and undeveloped property in parts of
Northern California could fall significantly.
The federal government operates Shasta Dam, Folsom Dam, and
several other it-rge dams in Northern California. Most of the
water from these dens is released down the rivers to the Delta,
where the water is puvAped into a canal for delivery into the San
Joaquin Valley. The state operates Oroville Dam as part of the
State Water Project. Water from this dam is released down the
Feather and SacreLmento Rivers to the Delta where it is shipped by
canal to the San Joaquin Valley and to Southern California. Both
of these projects also export water that flows into the Delta
from other tributaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.
Northern California has long had a fear that these export
projects would deprive Northern California of water. The
implications for community development are obvious.
When these water export projects were authorized in 1933 and
1959,"hlorthern California legislators were able to get protective
laws passed to assure that these projects would not deprive
Northern California communities of water. These protective lags
are. collectively called the "Area of Origin Laws". Essentially,
they establish that Northern California property owners are first
in line'for water during a drought and the export projects are
last in line. For Northern California water users, it is very
comforting to know that the "fella with the huge bucket" is
farther back in the line.
The federal government just filed a major lawsuit in federal
court to overturn the state's Area of Origin Laws.
1 DISTjIICT OFFICE Ll DISTRICT OFFICE 1.1 DISTRICT OFFICE
1215 /STN ST.. STE 102 4 N. HUTCHINS ST. as W. FOURTH ST..110m 5
SACRAMENTO, 95814 Loot, 45240 ANTIOCK 44500
p10 =4-4676 PM SUAW "191.726.4510
.esstr
July 13, 1983
Page 2
If the federal government's lawsuit is successful, water rights
in Northern California are going to be oompletely restructured.
The determining factor on who gets water during a drought would
be based on the: date of application for water rights. The
federal government with its "huge bucket" would move up toward
the front of the line since their applications were filed
beginning in.the 1930'x. Northern California water users would
shift toward the end of the line, where the changes to get water
aren't very good.
The implications for Northern California are staggering. Many
citiea, counties, farms, rural and mountainous areas will find
that the water that runs in the nearby rivers and streams belongs
to the federal government and that the federal government has
contracted to deliver that water to some distant region.
Communities that are growing may not be able to get water.
without the possibility of water, property values will fall.
Property owners who developed their land after the 1930'a may not
have the water that they thought they did. They might lose their
water, or they might have to buy it back from the federal
government.
I would like to encourage you to take whatever steps you can to
put pressure on the federal government to withdraw this lawsuit.
You can do this by writing the President, your Congressman, and
our two U.S. Senators. Resolutions against the lawsuit by
organisations, cities, and counties will also help.
I have introduced a resolutic,:- opposing the lawsuit into the
Legislature. The measure is ksoembly Joint Resolution 65.
Please be assured that I will do all I can to block this
potentially crippling lawsuit. I will also do everything that I
can to assure that Northern water can never be taken away.
If there is anything that I can do to assist you in fighting this
lawsuit, please let me know.
S n erely,
PI:hs
P..IFORNIA LECISL.ATURF-1983-& RECULAh _aSION
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 65
Introduced by Assemblymen Isenberg, Norman Waters,
Klehs, Bates, Agnos, Willie Brown, Campbell, Connelly,
Cortese, Filante, Hannigan, Harris, Hauser, Herger,
Johnston, McAlister, Moorhead, Sher, and Statham
(Coauthors: Senators Doolittle, Garamendi, Leroy Greene,
Johnson, Keene, and Nielsen)
June 28, 1983
Assembly ,joint Resolution No. 65—Relative to the water
rights of areas of origin.
UQUATM COUNBSL'S DW=r
A) R 65, as introduced, Isenberg. Water rights: areas of
origin.
This measure would request the Department of the Interior
to drop its litigation against the State of California which seeks
to invalidate state laws for the protection of the water rights
of areas of origin.
Fiscal committee: no.
1 WHEREAS, The area of origin statutes were
2 established by California to protect the future water
3 needs of the areas where water originates in order to
4 allow development and use of waters temporarily or
b permanently surplus to these areas by distant regions;::
6 and
T WHEN, The area of origin statutes con" of the.
8 1931 County of Origin Law, the 1933 Watershed_
9 Protection. Act, and the 1959 Delta Protection: Act; and
10 WHEREAS, Protections for the areas of origin have
11 been included as conditions in all water rights issued by
iQ the state to the federal Central Valley Project; and
an
AJR 65� —2—
I
2--
1 WHEREAS, The federal government, through the
2 Department of the Interior, is now suing the state seeking
3 to repudiate any obligation of the federal government to
4 comply with the state's County of Origin Law, Watershed
5 Protection Act, Delta Protection Act, and area of origin
6 protections included in water right decisions issued by
7 the state to the federal Central Valley Project; and
8 WHEREAS, The federal government is also suing the
9 state on the legal premise that the state's protections for
10 areas of origin are unconstitutional, in that they violate
11 the requirement in the California Constitution that water
12 be used reasonably and beneficially; and
13 WHEREAS, A successful federal lawsuit to invalidate
14 California's protections for areas of origin will have a
15 devastating effect on the future economies and land
16 values in the areas of origin; and
17 WHEREAS, The federal lawsuit to invalidate the
18 state's protections for the areas of origin will eliminate
19 any support in the areas of origin for the construction of
20 any new federal water projects which propose to export
21 water from the areas of origin; and
22 WHEREAS, The federal lawsuit to invalidate the
23 state's protections for the areas of origin will eliminate
24 any trust in California between the areas of origin and the
25 areas of shortage and will therefore greatly impede any
26 solution to California's long-range water problems; now,
27 therefore, be it
28 Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of
29 California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of
30 California respectfully requests the Department of the
31 Interior to drop its litigation against the State of
32 California which seeks to invalidate the state's area of
33 origin laws; and be it further
34 Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly
35 transmit copies of this resolution to the Prasident and
36 Vice President of the United States, to the Secretary of
37 the Interior, to the Commissioner of Reclamation, to the
38 Attorney Ceneral of the United States, to the Speaker of
39 the House of Representatives, and to each Senator and
40 Representative from California in the Congress of the
N 70
M
N 70
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
• Plaintiff °
'
V.
STATE OF. CALIFORNI71, S'. -ATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTJ40L BOARD, CAROL A. ONORATO, F.R. AWIBURY,
W"UN D. NOTEWARE and KENNETH H. "ILLIS, as
members of the State (tater Resources Control
Board, RL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT and EI.
rORADO COUNTY WATER AG=CY,
Defendant
To the above sastfed Defendant s:
V1 L.
264
CIVIL AC7toN FILE No
SUKMONS
.e
you ere batby wain and required to scree upas .
STUART L. SO!lACH
Attorney, Dopartment of Justice : Land and Natural P.esources Div.
3305 Federal building, 650 Capitol Hall
Sacramento, California 95014
0100tin Mama ..~boss addmcn (see above)
aA mw` to the oaa pwnt w%kh h herewith tcmd. upon You. within 20 dais afar suits of this
suftwmw »pot+ you. awe of the day of my m. It you tail to do so. Jud jmed " by ief=11", wo .be
taken ap lam YOU tot the "w demanded in the compwint. .
A�tip A .
_ Be WN�LEY : a�
Seat of �Olilt�
BAR x1:
OTE:•-T1t� ww�Al s A I�wN/ tN�w.M �w flab .A .U. T -A-09 *-I--@
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
t
9
10
tt
12
13
14
15
16
17
46
Board.
39. The United States is informed and believes that the
Board intends to issue. water rights permits to E1 Dorado for the
paropased SWAR project which will grant i right to El Dorado Whirh
purports to be senior to the rights of the United States;
and that El Dorado will accept those permits and plan for and
operate the k•, -,,posed SOFAR project pursuant to that grant.
40. This threatened and unlawful action by the Bc&rd and El
Dorado unless and.until enjoined and restrained by order of this
(Court will cause great and irreparable injury to the United
!States by diminishing the amount of water and power* available to
the Central Valley Project for Congressionally authorised purposes.
41, The United States has no adequate remedy at law for the
injuries which are being threatened through issuance of permits
to '91 Dorado because it ii impossible for the United States to
determine the precise amount of damage which it and all people
dependent upon the firm yield of the Central Valley Project will
'u suf%r if these permits are issued= 'nor is it certain Oat *tie
damage which will be suffered by the United States and all popple
20 dependent upon the firm yield of the CVP are reparable gi%,tn the
21 total reliance that is placed upon the continued availability of
CVP water.
VNZRZF E, the United States prays for judgment as folly►
1. ON THE FIRST CAUSS OF ACTION a declaratoryindgment that;
!�(a) The conclusions reached by the Board in prior decisions,
and In Decision 1587 on the Mlicability of the county,&ad
- w2tershed protection statutes to the Unmated States, are void as
boinq inconsistent with the Congressional authoriaation.of. th!
I
3
4
_S
s
T
I
Central Valley Project,
Lb) _)the application of Water Code sections 10505, 10505.5_
11228, 11460-11063 to the United States Central Valley Project is
I;mconsistent with the Congressional authorization of said project,
(c) the provisions of Water Code sections 10505, 10505.5,
11128, 11460-11463, as interpreted by the don -a, violate the
provisions of Article X, section 2 of the California State
Constitution, and
�d`� the Board's ieliance, in Prior decisions and Decision
1587 upon the substantive -provisions of water code 1112 8 i
unconstitutional since that section wAs adopted after the issuance'
of pexmits to the United States.
12. ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION preliminary and permanent
injunctive*relief prohibiting the Board. items _agents and employees
Immmommemommmmm_�..._mb
fry issuing Water Righte Orders; Decisions or granting permits
or licenses which apply the provisions of Water Code sections
10505, 10505.5, 11128, 11460-11463 to the United States:
1. ON IMX SECOND CAUSE OS' ACTYON for a declaratory judgment that
Board Decision 1587 is null and void to the extent it purports to
grant rights to El Dorado senior to the rights of the United r
States.
4. ON TSE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION for prelinknary and permanent .
Injunctive relief prohibiting the Board from issuing permits to Z1
Dorado which grant E1 Dorado a water right senior to those of the
United States.
S. ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION for preliminay and permanent
injunctive relief prohibiting Zi Dorado from planning for or
operating the proposed SOFAR project based upon the prs=Ls* that
17