Another water crisis for California may be looming in Sacramento. This time it's not a river delta, but in a Sacramento County Superior courtroom.

Potentially at stake: The future of restoration efforts at the dying Salton Sea, and water supplies relied upon by millions of Southern Californians.

After years of legal wrangling and the consolidation of more than a dozen lawsuits, a trial is set to begin today to consider the legality of a 2003 agreement between the federal government, California and four Southern California water agencies.

The Quantification Settlement Agreement was designed to keep the state within its 4.4million acre-feet annual allotment of Colorado River water, and set up the largest agriculture-to-urban water transfer in U.S. history.

Under the deal, the Imperial Irrigation District agreed to send up to 300,000 acre-feet of river water per year for 75 years to the San Diego County Water Authority, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Coachella Valley Water District.

The settlement agreement also outlined limits on the participating water agencies for paying for Salton Sea restoration and mitigating environmental problems at the sea that could be heightened by the water transfer.

IID sought to “validate” the water deal through a lawsuit designed to protect the agency from future legal challenges. Litigants including Imperial County farmers, water agencies, Imperial County government and its air pollution control district have since joined in with various legal challenges and defenses.

“This water transfer has been fraught with controversy, and it remains controversial to this day,” IID spokesman Kevin Kelley said. “It's been actively litigated by all sides, and now we're on the eve of a decision.”

The state is siding with the water agencies, urging the court to validate the water transfer agreements.

Judge Roland L. Candee's rulings on the various legal challenges will have statewide impact.

“If the QSA were to be ruled invalid, California's water crisis would be exponentially more severe,” Kelley said. “The alternative to the QSA is chaos.”

Multiple issues

Among the issues before the court:

Did the water agencies have the legal authority to enter into the QSA and transfer water?

Were all of the appropriate agencies involved in forging the agreement?

Were proper environmental studies done on the impacts of the water deal on the Salton Sea and surrounding area?

Does the QSA violate the California Constitution?

A group of Imperial County farmers involved in the lawsuit argues that the QSA violates Article 16, Section 1, of the state constitution, which prohibits the state from taking on unfunded debts or liabilities in excess of $300,000.

“Salton Sea funding, including environmental mitigation and restoration costs, was a linchpin issue in finalizing the QSA agreements,” attorneys for a group of Imperial farmers state in their lawsuit brief.

“Now, faced with the prospect of that ‘open-ended' commitment being deemed unconstitutional, the state wants to rewrite the contract.”

The farmers' attorneys further assert that it was clear at the time of the QSA ratification that the ultimate sea restoration and environmental costs would exceed the cap set for the water agencies and fall to the state.

Both IID and the Coachella Valley Water District have sided with the state, arguing that the QSA did not commit the state to a Salton Sea fix.

It's an awkward position for the two water agencies, who are both members of the Salton Sea Authority, a regional organization promoting sea restoration and pushing the state to fund it.

The legal position also appears to counter a Sept. 24, 2003, press release by Coachella Valley Water District announcing its approval of the QSA, which stated in part, “A significant element of recent action by state lawmakers is committing California to Salton Sea restoration.”

It's a position the water agencies have to take in order to attempt to save the QSA, said Craig Morgan, a water resources engineer who's following the case and who has in the past worked as a consultant for litigating Imperial farmers.

“They realize that if it becomes clear to the judge that this contract violates the state constitutional debt limitation, it's over. The contract is null and void,” Morgan said. “They're very worried about it, and they ought to be.”

Whether California is on the hook for Salton Sea restoration is a potentially multi-billion-dollar issue for the state. An $8.9 billion preferred alternative for sea restoration was chosen by state Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman last spring and submitted to the Legislature.

But the proposal promptly stalled in Sacramento amid budget crises and costly issues with the other major water source for California, the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta.

If the judge determines the QSA does not obligate the state to fix the sea, some environmentalists and local residents worry state officials could use the court ruling as an excuse to stay on the sidelines as much as it can in the costly restoration project.

There's room for nuance between desiring the state to take on Salton Sea restoration and saying the QSA commits the state to it, water officials said.

“No one would have signed the QSA if that committed them to full restoration of the Salton Sea,” Coachella Valley Water District general manager Steve Robbins said. “That would have killed any deal immediately.”

Water pressure

The court case in Sacramento is expected to stretch on well into 2010.

Southern California water officials will be watching closely.

“The Metropolitan Water District has 18 million customers,” Kelley said. “San Diego County Water Authority is its largest single member agency.

“If the QSA were to go away, setting aside the chaos that would ensue here in the Imperial Valley, how does San Diego and Metropolitan make up that water?”

As drought persists in the west and water supplies face greater pressure, the QSA case has bigger ramifications, said Barbara Cosens, an associate professor at the University of Idaho College of Law.

“I think the significance lies not so much in the questions concerning specific legal issues, but in whether this type of ag-to-urban transfer can clear all of the many hurdles to moving water from one place to another,” she said.

“For California, this is a key step in its multi-decade effort to live within its Colorado River allocation.”