HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 3, 1983 (51)•� y ,• h -ti` d Lr •�" a�* 15.+7
T � i
-
'�.pw`"tr,
00
Sp; Al
i s a �efi }yt�rC,,wti'.'h`ya
. ',. ? `3++.y1Y'�\'`'ii.'9F •t 'ttr" 's�Mj�' Et''' y i
_ .. }c "K,t 'b t 5 .4% ,�'r'r'�4 • ty �, � � �..4 -.�' � �' t 'l
c tf :y���,w•' v c3 i 'S �� �•at 'r}fi) `�`^3- ♦ a m fir' l+r� � T) y � �� i -` t �r i r -h f
4- .+, n t . „ '' i . V.� �€k� 1 .t, +5 •.c. kv'''� '.i tiw Jt ^�' G ,} _ t� ,fi r��,.N .
{fit ft 4�''�k p F! rr .'K� R.St'� y .'�, �1 � r�� `• � � i F. �t 5 a }..' �-4?t ��+^y.��r 4`
`•�``� b t q L 1V• 7
.;. � 'Y� 'trHi��C.. 14 �<Yr'Yr� i � '.;•fir !2 �: 5 F r' Y�1�= L(-rf�' I.
r
AREA OF ORIGIN At the request of Mayor Olson, Council was in receipt of a
LAWS PFUTDCTING letter from Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg regarding a very
WATER RIGHTS critical problem involving water resources facing Northern
California. The letter pointed out that the federal
government is now trying to change California water rights
f in an effort to vastly improve its water rights in
California at the expense of Northern California.
f Protective laws called the "Area of Origin Laws" adopted
many years ago established that Northern California property
owners are first in line for water during a drought and the
export projects are last in line. The federal government
just filed a major lawsuit in federal court to overturn the
State's area of Origin L2ws. If the federal government's
lawsuit is successful, water rights in Northern California
are going to be completely restructured. The determining }
factor on who gets water during a drought would be based on
the date of application for water rights.
Following discussion, on motion of Mayor Olson, Murphy
second, the City Clerk was directed to write letters to the
President of the United States and vario!is legislators;
` regarding the critical problems involving water resources
facing California urging the federal government to withdraw
this lawsuit.
�,.,y .t Sw a i •y.7 .,,t � ,� � ss. .,,F.:i•t � >Y.�,Y4 � 'I � (
s-. 9 a rr^ ,. ..a.i 4 r'�s+b.u' 'r*i:,�R;�f .t.t;�i� y t�2t- �,�•pur ii
z a
.�'•l" � rKel.
�w yy
.d(+
I!� 4
�oY fFp`,4"J :N. �+ S? 'u ♦ �,' ���'4� 344' ��':?,�� .+i; _:,r'#� r 6
F
� 4��FF�`Ti.`-''kx .,,�, �� ,f' r t !'�'-s�•:t �t'+"*a vhw�aq�
—s��i�'�'r'ta�� ��: � 'JR" `*w� 2 �r7y s r�i�`_J�t. ` +d : � ♦ „' 'r 4
r� Fif it r T =g to t—1 av TC +"ti > A
TR
07-4
�, Y� art ���� '3 1` y ,�_ �A•, e.l �,.. a���,.y�'�.`+i <'��r { �R }_r r$'�"rii" �rl�^C? '�. s
.,; r t✓" s'k ;:,;. .:a 'y t88'!t•. r. 7F"� ,.,. T> ai f y ti yat�'�S F •c �, iii cif ,
•'a
r ti a,
a
i•
1:
.t
� �� a � .i 7 } ► � � } a�i�•..� � ��� br i"a rl�� r a Jr� ar
.., i 2 as �, t, r •��yy } `. ��iry -'Y > 1 y 'tib. w
'�
iarX'.R.+'{ >'°r3°h �t"� • r .
tr%.al�pte
4�,.. vy�,� �.� t •c t i . t 2�+, " fi M * S J"�z,y �1� lir R :. R,
.,yew°ate"" t � �'�'�' ~•)a •Y -v`7 •� �� . Z rti. ± . i:F , ..Pc ' *,k1� i�. • a �1. r
IBJ
California Legislature
PHILLIP ISENBERG
ASSEMBLYMAN
STATE CAPITOL. SACRAMENTO 85814
(916) 445-1611
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 e
California water f 9 s In an e ort to vastly improve its water
ri i orn a at the expense of Northern California. _ eal
eQtate 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 large dams in Northern California. Most of the
water from these dams is released down the rivers to the Delta,
where the water is pumped 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 Sacramento Rivers to the Delta where it is shipped by
canal to the San Joaquin Valley and to Southern California. Bath
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-,-Noxthern California rs were able to get protec
laws passed to assure that these ro'ect hat deprive
N _ of wat These pro eve -laws
a o ect vely ca '"'CtI "� rlrinin T&w.rc" 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, 14 is very
comforting to know that the "fella with the huge bucket" is
farther back in the line.
The federal cLove�rnme just filed ma1clr lawsuit in federal.
courto overturn tie state's Area of Origin Laws.
DISTRICT OFFICE DISTRICT OFFICE i : DISTRICT OFFICE
1215 sSTH ST.. STE 102 4 N. HUTCHINS ST. 625 W. FJURTH ST., ROOM 5
SACRAMENTO, 33014 LODE 85240 ANTIOCH. 94509
(916) 324.46-6 (200) 334.4945 (415) 770.4510
-4&ob--
allt]
July 13, 190
Page 2
If the federal governme,,::'o lawsuit is successful, water rights
in Northern California are going to be completely 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's. Northern California water users woald
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
cities, counties, farms, rural and mountainous areas will find
that the water that runs in the nearby rivers and streams belon5 s
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's 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
organizations, cities, and counties will also help.
I have introduced a resolution opposing the lawsuit into the
Legislature. The measure is Assembly Joint Resolution 65.
Please be assured that I will do all I can to block this
potentially :rippling 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, release let me know.
Sin erely,
PI:hs
WAV
CALIFORNIA LECISLA7URE-1983-84 REGULAR SESSION
K3
Assemble Joint Resolution No. 65
Introduced by Assemblymen Isenberg, Norman Waters,
lUchs, 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.
LEGISLATIVE OOUNSEUS DICFST
AIR 65, as introduced, Isenberg. Water rights: areas of
o.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 vocect the future water
3 needs of the areas where water originates in order to
4 allow development and use of waters temporarily or
5 permanently surplus to these areas by distant regions;
6 and
7 WHEREAS, The area of origin statutes consist of the
8 1931 County of Origin Law, the 1933 Watershed
9 Protection Act, and the 1959 Delta Protectioi. Act; and ,
10 WHEREAS, Protections for the areas of origin have .
11 been included as conditions in all water rights issued by
12 the state to the federal Central Valley Project; and
" N
90 70
AJR 65 —2-
2-
1
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 9nd 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 Serrate 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 President and
36
Vice President of the United States, to the Secretary of
37
the Interior, to the Commissioner of Reclamation, to the
38
Attorney General 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
90 70
E
1 United States.
—3—
U
AaR ss
0 70
C
ol
at7MAi6NS iN A Civil ACTiQy U%' /lrcr. is�oit
� , �•
nffzb ��s D 15f `d TnL4.i t ::
.ir4
FO R TN E 1^ A �.—
'�
wUVJ-0�� �6 4
Civet. ACTION FILE NO�
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Phinti.`f
StIMMONS
V.
ST?kTr OF CAL'IFOWIIA, STATE WATER RESOURCES
CON' cOL. BOARD. CAROL A. ONORATO , F.K. ALJ I BURY ,
VAr XN D. NOTEWA.RE , and KENNETH t•I. WILLIS, asp
mei betra of the Stete Water Resources Control
St srd, ELDOR JDO IRRIGATION DISTRICT and EL
DORADO COUNTY WAn- R AGENCY,
Defendant
,..:; To the above gamed Defendant a:
You are hereby sutmmned and required to carve upon
STUART L. SOMACH
Attorney, Department of Justice Land and Natural P.esources 7iv.
3305 Federal Building, 650 Capitol Mall
Sacramanto, California 93814
pla!ntifrs attorney whose address ( see above)
ant answer to the comphaint which is herewith served upon you. M-ithin 20 days after smict of this
summons upon you. exclusive of the day of service. It you fail to do so. judgment by defauh wM .be
taken sjainst you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
J. GRIN MrAFF
Ott* cu" 00wil.
S. WHALEY
&.0„v Cktr.
Date:a R ,Seg of CMM)
%0TIE:.—This wonmee/ k ka.w! AYPtYrn, /A Ant. 0 wI ./.. r.A.. V A../M .►I i'i.n 1/►w..A N... ... _._......
0
9
10
17
19
20
21
22
??
24
25
?6
27
2t
34. The i'nited States is informed and believes that the
Board intends to issue water rights permits to El Dorado for the
proposed SWAR project which will grant a right to T1 Dorado which
purports to be senior to the rights of the United Stntesj
and that E1 Dorado will accept those permits and plan for and
operate 'c`•* z-•roposed SOFAR project pursuant to that grant.
40. This threatened and unlawful action by the Board and E=
�I
Dorado unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of th±s
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 authorized purposes.
41. The United States has no adequate remed7 at law for the
injuries which are being threatened through issuance of permits
to E1 Doredo because it is 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
suffer if these permits are issued] nor is it certain that the
damage which will be suffered by the United States and all people
dependent upon the firm yield of the CVF are reparable given the
total reliance that is placed upon the continued availability of
CVP water.
WHEREFORE, the United States prays for judgment as folipws:
1. ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF 1AC1`ION a declaratory judIment that:
(a) The conclusions reached by the Boar& in prior decisions,
and in Decision 1587 on the applic-ability of the county and
watershed Protection atstutes to the Urited States, are void as
being inconsistent with the Congreesional authorization of the
:f 6
i
r
Central VRlley Project,
(b) the application of Water Code sections 10505, 10505.5,
=' 3
11128, 11460-11463 tc the United States Central Valley Project is
i*nconsistent with Iche Congressional authorization of said Project,
6 (c) the pr, -)visions of Water Code sections 10505, 10505.5,
11128, 11460-11463, as interrreted by the Board, violate the
provisions of Article X, section 2 of the California State
S Constitution, and
(d) the Board's reliance, in Prior decisions and Decision
10 1587 upon the substantive provisions of water code 11126 is
�l unconstitutional since that section was adopted after the issuance
12 of mmits to the United States.
9' 2. ON THE FIRST CAUSE IM ACTIONrelimina
p ry and permanent
°. 14 injunctive relief prohibiting the Board, its agents and emplo ees
15 from issuing Water Rights Orders, Decisions or grantin
Q prrmita
�8 or licenses which apply the provisions of Water Code sections
17 10505, 10505.5, 11128, 11460-11463 to the United State,.
3. CM THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION for a declaratory judgmnt that
Board Decision 1587 is null and void to the extent it purports to
20
grant rights to E1 Dorado senior to the rights of the United
21 States.
22
4. ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTXON for prelimitary and permanent
23 injunctive relief prohibiting the Board from issuingp+armits to 81
24 Dorado which grant E1 Dorado a water right senior to those of the
2 United States. -
26 S. ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION for preliminav and permanent
27 injunctive relief prohibitinq E1 Dorado from planning for or
20 operating the proposed SOFAR projoct bas4d upon the premises that