Opinion: Making points about the QSA
By: Orbia Hanks

Here we sit still waiting on Judge Roland L. Candee’s final ruling on parts of the QSA and related matters.

a. Temporary ruling on the Salton Sea. (Unconstitutional?)

b. Three or four items remanded to Imperial County courts.

c. Leaving eight or nine items unsettled.

d. About a couple other dozen items, contracts, agreements allegedly uncontested.

e. Apparently the IID can transfer water.

Now at least one of the San Diego news media (S.D. Tribune) and maybe their readers believe that their (SDCWA) money is going to the I.V. farmers. (Union Tribune headline page 1, Jan. 15)

We need more factual information from the IID and I.V. Press instead of biased opinions.

There are remnants of a discussed plan from a 2004-2005 option still around. But it cannot be covered in the five minutes of the IID allocated time frame or the I.V. Press 350-word limit. Time has not yet been obtained to present a complete synopsis to local organizations and committees.

Seven points are:

1. More water stays in the Valley.

2. 80 to 90 percent of SDCWA money is used locally.

3. IID controls water delivery and dispersal of funds.

4. Gaming in the fallowing program is minimized.

5. Labor problems are addressed for Valley labor forces.

6. Voluntary participation.

7. Technical services rewarded for upgrades.

Better a local backup plan than an alternative imposed mitigation program.
- Orbia Hanks, Brawley