What apportionment has been assigned to agricultural water users in the coming year and on what method is the apportionment based?
IID is proposing to use the straight-line method of water apportionment identified in the Hanemann and Brooks equitable distribution study and adopted by action of the board in November 2006. The straight-line approach was chosen because it is the fairest and most flexible among all those considered by Hanemann and Brooks.
For 2008, the apportionment for all agricultural water users would be 5.13 acre-feet per acre. When access to a district-controlled supply of last resort is factored in on a pro rata basis, this individual apportionment becomes 5.26 acre-feet per acre. Compare this figure to the historical average of 5.95 acre-feet per acre.
In addition to the IID-managed supply of last resort, this system of water apportionment also includes an internal exchange - or water bank - that will facilitate the movement of water between and among farm units.
What is the difference between the supply of last resort and the internal water exchange?
The supply of last resort represents the 2 percent of the district's 3.1 million acre-foot cap, or about 10 percent of its consumptive use in the crucial October-December time period. It is distinguished from the internal water exchange by the fact that IID administers this block of water, and all agricultural water users have access to it based on their eligibility to receive water from the district.
Eligibility is met in the following ways: being current in paying all water availability charges and having the physical capacity to receive water delivered by IID.
The internal water exchange, by contrast, allows agricultural users to buy and sell water according to the demands of the marketplace. IID's role would be limited to coordinating these transactions; it would not have any administrative responsibility other than that of recording and delivering the water to be bought and sold.
Does this mean the internal water exchange will be solely market-driven? If so, how will IID control for water hoarding, price-gouging and/or speculation?
The supply of last resort that is actively managed by IID should act as a natural buffer against these practices within the context of the internal water exchange. Every eligible acre has a pro rata right to request and receive water from the district's supply of last resort. This should become a source of price competition that would promote market honesty and integrity.
In addition, there would be a take-or-pay obligation that applies to all participants in the equitable distribution program. If an apportionment is not used, it may be returned to IID for a rebate of the water rate paid; similarly, any water apportioned (and paid for) through the program that is neither used nor returned to the district by a defined date must be conveyed through the internal water exchange.
IID would not set the price of any transactions between willing buyers and sellers in the internal water exchange; it will provide to its agricultural water customers - based on the same straight-line apportionment - access to water from the supply of last resort.
How will the internal water exchange be established?
IID will create an internal exchange bulletin board in which buyers and sellers of water may negotiate prices, terms and conditions their transactions. While an administrative fee would be imposed on these private water sales to cover the district's costs, IID would have no other role in their execution.
All transactions of this type would be reported to IID through this mechanism to ensure that water use conforms to accepted program standards. Even though market forces are to prevail in setting financial terms, IID would reserve the right to sell any unused supply of last resort water into the internal water exchange.
How will IID address municipal and industrial water users under equitable distribution?
All municipal and industrial water users enjoy preferred status under the apportionment model adopted by the IID board. This means that their needs have been assigned a higher priority than those of agricultural water users. As such, the needs of cities, businesses and industrial water users will come first.
Under equitable distribution, this class of users is afforded its historical usage. In other words, municipal and industrial water users will be provided an apportionment based on meeting their reasonable and beneficial needs. In the event that this quantified amount is exceeded, a fee will be imposed to recover the cost of the resulting overrun.
It is important to note, that this category only represents 3 percent of the district's total annual usage, which is why it is not included in either the supply of last resort or internal water exchange.
When will IID convene the 15-member citizens' panel to review its equitable distribution model? Why hasn't the panel met prior to the development of this model?
Now that a pilot program has been created in draft form, public input and commentary are both appropriate and essential to a positive outcome. Thus, the 15-member panel, which is made up of five representatives of the Imperial County Farm Bureau, five from the Water Conservation Advisory Board and five citizens named by the IID board, will begin meeting in order to comment on the proposed system of apportionment.
What would be a positive outcome of this proposed equitable distribution plan?
The goal of equitable distribution is to ensure an adequate supply of water to sustain the vitality of the agricultural industry while maintaining the economic viability of the region as a whole. These are not incompatible objectives, but they do present IID with a difficult resource management dilemma.
That's why it is important that the system of apportionment IID implements on January 1, 2008 be presented as a pilot project that can be turned off as easily as it was turned on, that is, by action of the board. At the same time, any single element of the plan that isn't satisfying the needs of the district's water users will be modified or discarded in favor of one that does.
The key will be in emphasizing the plan's basic fairness and flexibility and approaching its initial implementation as an excercise in adaptive management.
What are the next steps for IID and its water users?
IID will solicit public input and feedback, and will incorporate those suggested changes that make sense into the draft proposal. The District will also move ahead with the customized computer software needed to account for equitable distribution and the specific rules that must be in place to guide its implementation. The district's water customers, too, especially agricultural water users, will want to plan ahead for the changed circumstances inherent in the SDI designation in 2008. None of the changes envisioned are sweeping; in fact, the water apportionment model being proposed by IID was selected because it would require only modest changes on the part of all water users rather than more wide-ranging ones among a particular class or category of user.
The era of limits on the Colorado River system has brought with it a corresponding era of accountability within the IID service area. Water apportionment is an idea whose time has come, and equitable distribution is the fairest and most flexible way to put it into practice.
