|
A compilation of recent news articles from various sources
containing the latest news about the San Joaquin River and other water issues.
News on the San Joaquin River
Settlement Agreement
<TOP OF PAGE>
Groups prod Congress
to help bring San Joaquin River back to life
Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday,
September 14, 2007
Sixteen national conservation groups sent a letter Thursday urging Congress to
fund a landmark agreement to bring life back to the dried-up San Joaquin River
and restore its historic salmon run.
The once-mighty river, which literally foamed with spawning salmon back in the
day, was dammed in 1943. Now, during summer months, two long sections of the
river often dry up for more than 60 miles.
Environmentalists have characterized the draining of the San Joaquin as one of
the most egregious examples anywhere of habitat destruction to quench man's
thirst for water.
The agreement, reached a year ago this week, was supposed to end a 19-year
battle among ecologists, federal water regulators and agricultural interests
over what to do about California's second-longest river. The plan was to restore
year-round flows to the San Joaquin and reintroduce salmon, wildlife, riverside
forests and habitat.
But the legislation necessary to pay for the restoration, known as the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, has stalled in House and Senate
committees while supporters search for money in the budget to offset costs.
"We are very concerned that lack of congressional action on the measure could
delay implementation of the settlement and the restoration of flows and fish in
the river," said the letter, signed by wide variety of groups, including the
Sierra Club and Trout Unlimited.
Failure to pass the legislation, which is sponsored by U.S. Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. George Radanovich, R-Fresno, could also jeopardize
more than $100 million pledged from the state of California, the letter stated.
Hal Candee, the lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, the lead
plaintiff in a coalition of parties that sued the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
almost two decades ago, also urged Congress to act. "The federal and state
governments need congressional authorization if the goal of restoring
California's second-longest river and bringing back its salmon fishery is to
become a reality," he said in a statement.
The plan to resuscitate the San Joaquin River is considered one of the most
ambitious environmental restoration projects in California history.
The waterway once supported both a fall run and a spring run of chinook salmon.
Then, in 1942, the giant 319-foot Friant Dam was completed a few miles north of
Fresno, plugging the river gorge and holding back nearly the entire river's
flow.
Starting in the 1950s, the river water was diverted to more than 1 million acres
of desert farmland from Chowchilla to the Tehachapi Mountains. The river flow
was reduced to a seasonal trickle. In the summer, 63 miles of the once-teeming
river became a dry, sandy gravel bed with only lizards and jackrabbits
skittering about.
The salmon, which old-timers say used to splash around on top of one another and
were so plentiful they were scooped up and used as hog feed, were wiped out. The
river is no longer a constant source of freshwater to San Francisco Bay.
The lawsuit was filed by environmentalists in 1988. It was a contentious fight,
as the government and farmers attempted to protect their rights to the water. In
2004, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's operation of Friant Dam violated state fish and game codes by
eliminating the salmon.
The settlement agreement anticipated spending up to $800 million to restore a
150-mile stretch of river. Farmers would pay about $330 million toward the
restoration plan. The rest of the money would come from California bonds and the
federal government. Environmentalists anticipate using Sacramento River salmon
to replace the extinct San Joaquin chinook by 2012.
The agreement is supported by almost every member of the California
congressional delegation, regardless of party affiliation. The delay in
Congress, according to supporters of the bill, is being caused by new Pay as You
Go requirements, meaning the money needed for the restoration has to be offset
somewhere else in the budget. The budget committee has pegged the federal cost
of the project at $240 million over 10 years, said Dan Dooley, the attorney for
the Friant Water Users Authority - the agency that represents the farmers.
Dooley said he is hopeful that there will be some sort of resolution in the next
few weeks.
"I've worked in and around Congress for a
couple of decades now, and I'm never surprised when it takes longer than some
people think it will take for a bill to get through," he said. "It's very
important to get this done and move forward. It has been two decades worth of
fighting and its time to put it to bed and move on."
Article
published Oct 9, 2007
Nunes change is right move
U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes,
R-Visalia, made the smart play last week in dropping his previously vehement
opposition to the San Joaquin River Settlement.
It's a smart play for Nunes
politically. Continuing his stubborn opposition to the settlement not only
alienated him from the state's most powerful politicians, it was freezing him
out of his own congressional delegation.
It's also the smart play for
his constituents. It allows Nunes to push for the mitigation projects he has
said from the beginning are necessary to keep his constituents from a crippling
loss of water.
We applaud Nunes' new
position, especially because it keeps him in the game as a player fighting for
local water interests.
Nunes has been fighting all
along, but fighting all wrong. His condemnation of the San Joaquin Settlement
isolated him from the very important interests in the settlement — the federal
Bureau of Reclamation, the National Resources Defense Council and the Friant
Water Users Authority, who in turn had what it said was unanimous support from
its members.
These three interests last
year agreed, after years of negotiations, to come to an out-of-court settlement
of a lawsuit the NRDC filed in 1988. The environmental group sued the federal
government under the Endangered Species Act, demanding that a salmon fishery be
restored to the San Joaquin
River,
which was interrupted by the Friant dam in 1942.
It was anticipated that a
federal judge would rule in favor of the NRDC. Local water interests figured
they had better get the best settlement they could before that happened.
The three parties agreed to
the settlement a little more than a year ago. Local water interests agreed that
it wasn't perfect — local water users, mostly farmers but including some
municipal users, were bound to lose some water. But they all agreed it was the
best settlement they could get, and better than what they could expect from a
federal judge, who was under no obligation to negotiate.
Settlement provisions
included some restoration of water flow in the San Joaquin River bed, although
there was no guarantee of the restoration of the salmon run. It included a
schedule for returning water to the river, so that salmon could be reintroduced
in 2012. Nothing would change before 2009.
In normal water years, about
225,000 acre-feet would be returned to the river. That total would change in wet
or dry years.
The settlement agreement
also provided for water management projects to minimize the impact on water
users.
That provision was
admittedly vague, because the settlement parties did not want to be tied down,
either to specific projects or the cost.
That is where Nunes jumped
ship. Every other California
legislator agreed to the settlement but Nunes, who proceeded with whatever
measures he could to block the settlement.
To be fair, no other
California legislator's constituents stood to lose as much water as Nunes'
constituents. His opposition was understandable for that reason, except that if
the settlement is upset, his constituents would probably suffer even more.
Nunes has identified 28
water projects he insists need to be built to offset the water losses to Friant
users. They would cost $2 billion. That is about four times previous estimates
for mitigation projects. U.S. Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, is sponsoring
legislation for $500 million in projects.
Radanovich's bill has some
chance of passage; Nunes', not so much. However, he needs to get it on the table
and keep pushing the projects. It allows him to work for his constituents and
support the settlement.
The bottom line is that
Nunes' support is important for the settlement and for this area. To be
realistic, the settlement is virtually a done deal with no opposition,
especially now that Nunes has dropped his. The important thing now is to work
within the settlement to get the best deal possible.
This might seem to local
residents like some distant and arcane game being played on a theoretical
chessboard in Washington, D.C., but it's not. Remember the guiding principle of
California
water policy: A transfer of water from one place to another means somebody loses
water. When anybody in our area loses water, that loss must be made up somehow.
When surface water is lost, the deficit is made up by pumping groundwater. That
lowers the water table on which we all depend for survival.
It matters.
Nunes'
move is a smart play, because now he gets to keep playing.
Lawmaker
seeks consensus on river
Rep. Jim Costa
urges irrigation districts to have coherent voice.
By Tim Sheehan /
The Fresno
Bee
12/07/07 23:11:03
VISALIA
-- Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, urged Valley irrigation districts that receive
water from the San Joaquin River to reach concurrence on legislation to settle a
19-year-old lawsuit over restoring historic salmon runs that disappeared after
Friant Dam was built.
Costa and Sen.
Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., are sponsoring bills in Congress to enable
additional water to flow from Millerton Lake to revive an often-dry stretch of
the river downstream.
"We need to have
some level of consensus," Costa said Friday morning at a Visalia meeting of
nearly 100 people -- mostly Valley farmers who also serve on the boards of 22
irrigation districts in the Friant Water Users Authority. "It's the only way
we're going to successfully move forward."
The legislation
is key to a settlement negotiated last year between the Friant association and
the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The settlement
calls for hundreds of millions of dollars in channel improvements and other
changes needed to support the flow of more water. By 2013, salmon would be
reintroduced.
But if the
agreement is torn asunder -- as infighting among water districts and discord
among legislators threaten to do -- the suit could be revived and the river's
future would be in the hands of U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton in
Sacramento. Water officials say they believe even more irrigation water could be
lost.
"You've got two
options that are real," Costa told the water leaders. "You can support the
implementation of the settlement through legislation, or you can let the judge
decide."
A majority of
the Friant districts agreed to the terms of the settlement when it was reached
last year, even as they grumbled about the losses of between 247,000 and 555,000
acre-feet of water a year depending on water availability.
In Congress, the
big hangup is how to pay for the improvements, Costa said.
In the meantime,
support for the restoration agreement appears to be softening among Valley
farmers.
"We're not
fighting with 'environmentalists,' we're fighting anti-capitalists," said Rick
Cosyns, a
Madera
farmer and member of the Madera Irrigation District, "and they're creating
economic chaos in this Valley."
Cosyns backed
ditching the settlement and going to court.
"Let's go ahead
and fall on the sword," Cosyns said. "I want the judge to make the decision ...
and when he dries up this valley, then maybe we'll have something the Supreme
Court can address."
Costa said he
and Feinstein would continue their legislative efforts "if a majority of the 22
districts want to."
But, he added,
he and Feinstein both agree "that if you change your mind ... you can take your
chances with the judge."
Costa urged
members "to be mindful of the cards we have in our hands ... and I believe our
options are limited based on those cards."
The Bee's
Washington bureau
contributed to this report.The reporter can be reachedat
tsheehan@fresnobee.com
or (559) 622-2410.
Talks
continue on San Joaquin River settlement
12/07/07 14:29:13
Related Content
Congressional
lawmakers and officials from 22
Central Valley
water districts are meeting to flesh out a compromise on a bill to restore
salmon to the San Joaquin River.
Federal
legislation is needed to implement the river restoration project, which resulted
from a court settlement reached by the water districts and environmentalists a
year ago.
But questions
over how the project will be funded and whether it would really bring salmon
back have hampered the bill's approval.
Farmers say the
plan outlined in the measure sponsored by Fresno congressman Jim Costa would not
leave enough water for irrigation. Costa says he hopes Friday's meeting would
help reduce some of the controversy and get the $500 billion measure moving
forward.
Information from: The
Fresno Bee,
http://www.fresnobee.com
|
|
|
CHRIS ACREE: We must be good stewards of San Joaquin
By Chris Acree
07/14/07
04:24:04
The
San Joaquin
River is the most important geographic and economic feature of the San
Joaquin Valley. Its flows have been coined as "the hardest working water
in the world," since they provide hydroelectric power, drinking water
for cities, recreation and irrigation for the world's most productive
agricultural lands.
In all
this utility, however, we have neglected our responsibilities of
resource stewardship, and we have lost the river itself. We seem to have
forgotten the value that a healthy, functioning river can provide as a
public resource. Just as forestry has evolved to manage logging,
wildlife habitat and recreation simultaneously, we must also learn to
manage our rivers for their many beneficial uses.
The San
Joaquin River has been diverted and re-arranged primarily to meet
agricultural irrigation needs. The plentiful water from the
San Joaquin watershed winds its way down the Sierra
and finishes its course just below
Fresno at
Gravelly Ford, where the river runs dry in all but the wettest years. In
the early 1900s, you could find
Fresno
mayors arguing for "permanent navigation," as diversion dams
increasingly impeded access of riverboats traveling from the San
Francisco Bay to the trading ports near
Fresno.
Prosperity project
In 1933,
the California Legislature narrowly approved the Central Valley Project
"despite the unfortunate shortsighted and bitter antagonism of interests
and persons who have not hesitated to distort the facts regarding this
great 'prosperity project,' " as Gov. James Rolph described the battle.
With California unable to raise the money to finance the project during
the Great Depression, the federal government took over in 1935, and two
years later, construction began.
At
mid-century, the completion of Friant Dam marked the end of much of the
downstream river habitat, including a vibrant annual run of an estimated
100,000 Chinook salmon. As water stopped flowing to the San Joaquin, it
didn't take long for downstream users to realize that Friant Dam had
failed to produce the water and electricity promised by the federal
government.
Today
the focus is on improving water delivery, restoring the San Joaquin
River habitat and solving the problems of a dying Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta ecosystem.
Muddy
management
The
management of the
San Joaquin
River as a public resource is muddy, to say the least. Currently the
river is managed by no less than 10 different federal and state
agencies, each with a different mission and often holding competing
interests. Furthermore, the lack of an integrated local or regional
management plan for the river has kept local citizens and politicians
divided, and kept the fate of the river largely out of our hands.
In 2006,
a tenuous legal settlement ended an 18-year lawsuit between
environmental groups, water users and government agencies operating
Friant Dam. This marked the beginning of a restoration effort that may
revive the once-mighty San Joaquin. The broad support of the agreement
shows an unprecedented effort by Valley stakeholders, agencies and
legislators to come together in the reworking of a struggling water
management system.
Creative ideas
Talk of
how to best achieve restoration is just beginning, and already some
creative ideas have emerged as to how we might come together as a region
to solve our current water problems. This could create new opportunities
for improved habitat and fisheries, increased recreation, improved water
deliveries, increased capacity from existing storage, additional
groundwater storage on the Valley floor and maybe even a restored Tulare
Lake.
On June
13, I attended a meeting with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a handful
of environmental and river interest groups to discuss water needs for
California. The governor promoted his Strategic Action Plan, which would
provide new surface storage options for
California.
The river groups promoted increased water conservation and alternate
solutions to better manage a water system that provides for the diverse
needs of California and its people. A new dialogue is a good first step.
Unproven solution
I
support the governor's new Delta Vision task force and involvement in
the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. However, a proposal to spend
state funds on a dam above
Millerton
Lake at Temperance Flat is premature, as the federal site feasibility
study and environmental documents will not be completed until mid-2009.
We cannot afford to spend billions of dollars now on an unproven
solution that would take well over a decade to complete. We have the
tools today to meet the same water management goals much earlier and at
a fraction of the cost.
A
unified vision of water management from the San Joaquin Valley has been
the missing link during the past century of California water planning. I
am encouraged to see that conservation, restoration and cooperation may
play an increased role in solving California's water problems. Let's
once again become stewards of the San Joaquin River and help rebuild the
natural and cultural heritage that has been lost.
Chris Acree of
Fresno is
executive director of Revive the
San Joaquin.
|
|
Congressman Jim Costa
Date:
11/19/2007
River settlement must be moved forward
On Thursday, the House of Representative's Natural Resources
Committee approved legislation implementing the settlement of
the
San
Joaquin River restoration lawsuit.
Approval of HR 4074 by the Natural Resources Committee, of
which I am the only Valley member, is the first of several
legislative hurdles that this important water legislation must
clear, and it is the culmination of two years of bipartisan
legislative discussions that included Sen. Dianne Feinstein and
my fellow House colleagues, George Radanovich, Dennis Cardoza
and Devin Nunes.
The actual San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement ended 18
years of litigation between the National Resources Defense
Council, Friant waters users, and the federal Department of the
Interior over the use of
San
Joaquin River water. While the settlement reduces the amount of
water available to Friant water users, it has resolved the
expensive and contentious litigation and brought far greater
certainty regarding future water supplies for the region.
HR 4074 is legislation I introduced to implement that
settlement and includes changes to the original bipartisan
legislative agreement introduced earlier this year by Sen.
Feinstein and Rep. Radanovich.
As critics have noted, HR 4074 is far from perfect; however,
moving the legislation through the committee process in a timely
manner is a reflection of our sincere commitment to solving the
issues that still surround the settlement.
The main difference between the two bills is that HR 4074
incorporates an important budget-balancing reform instituted by
the Democratic majority known as Pay-As-You-Go or PAYGO. This
reform requires that any new spending must be offset by equal
increases in revenue or reductions in spending from programs
within the committee originating the new spending. It is this
commitment to fiscal responsibility that has greatly complicated
the
San
Joaquin River settlement.
The legislation approved by the committee on Thursday contains
an offset to cover the federal contribution by assessing a fee
on nonproducing oil and natural gas leases on the Outer
Continental Shelf, mainly in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Use of this fee as a budget offset has drawn criticism; however,
is a temporary solution that permits the committee to meet its
PAYGO obligation and allows the bill to be considered by the
full House of Representatives.
Despite bipartisan negotiations, the committee had very few
viable options that would have generated the $170 million called
for by the provisions of the settlement. To their credit, Friant
water users had already taken additional steps that reduced the
budget impact by approximately $70 million and this provision is
included in HR 4074. During committee debate, I pledged that the
fee will be dropped later in the legislative process and that a
permanent offset all of us can support will be found.
In addition, I have initiated with my colleagues a pledge to
strengthen the bill's water management goals. The water
management provisions are a means to identify and mitigate
potential adverse impacts on users.
Simply stated, we need to look at all the water management
tools available to us to make up the lost water that has been
reallocated as a result of the settlement agreement. These
efforts would include studies and projects to enhance the
recapture, recirculation and reuse of water, explore expansion
of water supplies, conveyance capacity and groundwater banking.
These are essential to the complete implementation of the
settlement, making sure that our Valley's long term water needs
are secure.
I do not believe anyone genuinely wants a protracted, partisan
dispute over the settlement legislation. It is vital that
legislation be enacted and we move forward in achieving the
restoration and the water mitigation plans. No one wins when
either side seeks political advantage in this matter. That is a
lose-lose proposition and will slow down what has already taken
too long to implement.
All of the affected and interested parties to the settlement
continue to meet and negotiate on the remaining issues, and I
will continue to work with my House and Senate colleagues to
fashion bipartisan legislation to implement the settlement. The
stakes are too high for our Valley to do anything other than
utilize a consensus approach. The need to pass this settlement
has never been greater, and I look forward to working with my
friends on legislation that everyone can support.
Because of the nature of the settlement agreement between
affected parties with regard to the judge's ruling, if we fail
to implement the enabling legislation that was negotiated in
Sen. Feinstein's office, the judge will end up becoming the
water master of the San Joaquin River, and we will inevitably
lose far more water from the 22 water districts than has been
negotiated in the agreement. As Sergeant Joe Friday once said,
"Those are the facts, ma'am."
Jim Costa of
Fresno represents the 20th Congressional District.
Steve Haze, CALFED
Date:
10/6/2007
Watching water down to last drop
Just as it started the conversation on air quality, The Bee is
to be congratulated for establishing a dialogue regarding the
multitude of water issues that the
San
Joaquin Valley -- and California as a whole -- is being
confronted with. Like the "last gasp" when it comes to air
quality, we are now realizing that there has to be a better way
to manage this precious resource down to the last drop.
I am about to begin my seventh year as the program coordinator
managing water resource challenges in the upper San Joaquin
River called the Millerton Area Watershed Coalition program.
This program has been funded by grants from the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, California Department of Water Resources and the
California State Water Resources Control Board.
The amount spent is nearly $500,000. Almost all of the funds
were secured through a statewide competitive grant process under
the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta Watershed Program. These funds have been
used to encourage the participation of private landowners and
engage communities in gaining a better understanding and
appreciation of our surface and groundwater resources.
Working forum
Interestingly, the various local, state and federal agencies
had decided to participate in a unique role. They became a
technical advisory committee, known as a TAC. Cal-Fed allowed
for the community to operate around the Millerton area watershed
as a coalition -- or collaboration between varied stakeholder
interests such as the farming, building and environmental
communities as well as the public at large. Cal-Fed helped
establish a working forum in our local foothill communities to
identify and recommend solutions to pressing problems.
The Bee seems to be quite keen about the necessity of
additional surface storage in the upper
San
Joaquin River called Temperance Flat. A number of those same
stakeholders have participated in the upper San Joaquin River
Basin Storage Investigation -- including me, as a member of one
of their working groups. I have taken agency administrators and
their staff members, such as the former Bureau of Reclamation
Commissioner John Keyes, by boat to proposed sites on Finegold
Creek and the Temperance area.
The storage investigation is still in the feasibility study
phase -- and in 2005/2006 a newsletter was published by the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources
under the Cal-Fed program that made five critical statements.
With that in mind, I would like to share some key information
about the storage investigation as somewhat of an insider:
First, there are six storage alternatives still to be studied.
Second, the preliminary cost of each of the alternatives ranges
from as little as $220 million dollars to more than $1 billion.
Third, the feasibility study for each of the six alternatives
will not be completed until mid-2009.
Fourth, the loss of clean energy ranges from "no loss" up to
216 gigawatt hours per year, with three of the six alternatives
not evaluated at time of publication.
Fifth, and most important, the amount of additional water
captured on average would range from as little as 25,000 acre
feet per year, with a possible range of up to 165,000 to 183,000
acre feet of water per year. That means that the most additional
water under ideal conditions and every politician's "dam dream"
maxes out in very short order at less than a 10% increase in
supply. And then that's it! Sounds like it could be a "dam
nightmare" for taxpayers.
Unfortunately, The Bee does not seem aware of this vast
disparity of possible outcomes -- the wide and not fully nailed
down range of construction costs; an extremely finite water
supply possibly realized; the very real possibility of losing an
important and significant source of clean renewable electrical
power in a smog-prone area that has a higher than average asthma
rate.
The next essential step
Need more be said to declare a state of fiscal prudence and a
strong dose of "steady as we go" rather than political
expediency?
There seems to be an attraction for a number of the politicians
to engage in a rush to judgment and the nearly $6 billion to $9
billion commitment of precious few dollars -- before any of us
even know what the feasibility study's outcome and consequences
will be. I would suggest that we carefully calculate what each
and every precious penny will buy the taxpayers.
The Bee can take the next essential step by creating a forum
for everyone to talk about the future of the
San
Joaquin Valley and the role water will play toward a sustainable
future -- down to the last drop.
Steve Haze of Auberry is the program coordinator managing water
resource challenges in the upper
San
Joaquin River called the Millerton Area Watershed Coalition
program.
Congressman George
Radanovich
Date:
11/14/2007
Partisan politics hurt river settlement
Nearly two years ago, I walked across the Capitol to meet with
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in a bipartisan manner, intent on
restarting settlement negotiations in the litigation between the
National Resources Defense Council, Friant Water Users Authority
and the Department of the Interior regarding the
San
Joaquin River.
Federal Court Judge Lawrence Karlton was poised to rule on the
case and gave every indication that his ruling would be a
disaster to the Friant Water Users.
Without the settlement, it is estimated that water users stand
to lose at least 35% of their water -- or 452,000 acre feet.
For two years, I worked tirelessly to make the settlement a
bipartisan issue, being sure to include every party with a
vested interest in the river in the decision-making process.
Through these efforts in the 109th Congress, nearly all of the
California delegation, on both sides of the aisle, supported the
settlement legislation. When the Democrats took control of this
Congress, I reintroduced the same piece of legislation, with the
same bipartisan support.
Recognizing the change in the majority of the Congress, I have
long been resigned to the fact that the bill I introduced would
not be passed, but rather the same legislation sponsored by a
Democrat. Unfortunately, the bipartisanship that once existed on
this issue has vanished due to foolish political games by the
Democrat majority.
Rep. Jim Costa introduced a version of the San Joaquin River
Settlement, originally scheduled for markup Monday, which has
bitterly pitted Republicans against Democrats on an issue that
they once agreed on. Through partisan procedural gamesmanship,
which has become a staple of this majority, and a PAYGO
provision intentionally designed to repulse Republicans,
partisanship now exists where it should not.
The PAYGO provision included in the legislation attacks a
domestic oil and gas production program, making it nearly
impossible for any Republican, including me, to support it.
Further, the same program has already been used by the Democrats
three separate times this Congress as a PAYGO provision, showing
their determination to destroy domestic oil and gas production
-- virtually ensuring a presidential veto if passed.
Moreover, Republicans were not given the opportunity to see the
revised legislation until the day before the scheduled markup --
once again, breaking a promise of the Democrat leadership and
Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall to move all bills through
regular order.
Whether for personal edification or political gain, Democrats
have needlessly divided the support of this legislation,
throwing two years of bipartisan efforts down the drain in one
fell swoop.
The Democrat leadership is either purposefully subverting the
legislation to promote partisan goals, or they are grossly
ignorant of the political consequences of their actions.
This legislation has gone from having the support of
congressional Democrats and Republicans, settling parties and
third parties, and the administration, to solitary partisan
Democrat support.
What happened to the bipartisan pledge of this majority?
The need to pass this settlement has never been greater. I urge
my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop the
partisanship and start working on a settlement that everyone can
support.
Republican Rep. George Radanovich of Mariposa represents the
19th District in Congress.
|
ALAN AUTRY: Water
solutions require teamwork
By Alan Autry
12/04/07
22:38:15
I thought the settlement of a costly 18-year-old lawsuit and
restoration of the
San Joaquin
River would allow our region to move forward. We were one step closer to
being able to focus on improving
California's
water supply and an aged water delivery structure. California was
getting back on track, and our economy was sure to follow.
Then we
had a new federal court ruling in a separate lawsuit that will result in
the reduction of Delta water supplies to protect the endangered Delta
smelt. This ruling increases the challenges we face and having the
Natural Resource Defense Council, a partner in the river settlement, at
the center of the Delta smelt litigation is not viewed as being helpful.
Despite
the challenges and ever-changing landscape of California water issues,
our Valley congressional delegation and senators have hung in there in a
bipartisan effort to have the San Joaquin River settlement advance. We
all know resolving
California's
water crisis will take multiple approaches in the coming years.
There is
no one clearly marked solution, only a very clear problem. We are living
in a state with an aging water-delivery system, an increasing population
and a stretched water supply. Unresolved and unnecessary lawsuits and
unimplemented settlement agreements that continue to place our water
supply debate in courtrooms only further compound our water crisis.
It is
irresponsible for policymakers to let this issue go back to the judge so
he can decide how much water is needed to restore the river.
The
final settlement of the
San Joaquin
River lawsuit took an important step in the past weeks when the House
Resources Committee approved the legislation that is necessary to
implement the settlement.
There
has been a considerable amount of effort made by all parties involved to
get it this far, but there remains a lot of work to be done. I am sure
our congressional representatives from the Valley, as well as Sens.
Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are up to their task, as the
settlement agreement winds its way through Congress.
I
recognize it remains a work in progress, and we need to be engaged with
its development. There are concerns about how the plan will be paid for.
The congressional mandate that all legislation must meet pay-as-you-go
rules will be difficult to mitigate, but it is a necessary step if we
are going to move forward.
I feel
confident we are pursuing the best option for our communities. When we
complete this first step and finalize the San Joaquin River settlement
with federal authorizing legislation, we can move forward.
Our next
step must be the authorization of specific water management and water
supply projects and programs. We cannot meet the needs of our growing
population, the environment and our growing economy without the creation
of additional water resources that will include new reservoirs, local
water-management projects and continued water-conservation practices.
The
development of our water system has made California the leader it is
today, the seventh largest economy in the world and a dynamic state we
all call home. We cannot continue to grow as a state and be the leader
we are expected to be if we do not preserve and cultivate our natural
resources, as well as our economy.
We are
all in this together -- from the barber in downtown Lindsay to the
citrus grower or worker in Orange Cove to our politicians on both sides
of the aisle. Court rulings seldom provide what everyone wants, but
working together, we can get what we all need -- a water policy that
protects both the environment and the economy for all Californians,
while securing a future for our children and grandchildren.
A
nonprofit organization, the Valley Water Alliance's board of directors
is committed to making sure the economic impacts of any restoration
strategy are taken into consideration. The board includes elected
officials, business owners and labor interests from
Merced
to Kern counties, who recognize that our water is our future.
Alan Autry is the mayor of
Fresno and
chairman of the Valley Water
Alliance’s
board of directors.
KOLE
UPTON:
Congress should lead way to solution
12/04/07 00:00:00
Restore the
San
Joaquin River? Who can be against reviving a lost treasure teeming
with salmon? Before you load up the truck with fishing gear, let us
review history and see what is really proposed.
Sixty
years ago, Congress dried up a portion of the river. The stored
water from Friant Dam was used conjunctively with underground water
to successfully sustain East Side communities and farms.
In 1988,
the Natural Resources Defense Council and 13 other environmental
plaintiffs sued. On their seventh amended complaint, they hit pay
dirt and the judge ruled that when the federal government built
Friant Dam, it violated California Law 5937, which calls for a
viable fishery below every dam. The judge agreed that the current
40-mile fishery was not sufficient to meet the law, and his solution
was to re-establish a self-sustaining salmon fishery.
After
several failed settlement attempts, the case was scheduled for
trial. However, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and Rep. George Radanovich,
R-Mariposa, asked the parties to try once more to settle. The
current settlement was reached in September 2006, but its
implementation has been delayed.
The
settlement agreement contained two goals of equal standing and
importance, river restoration and water management. The
water-management goal's purpose was to "cap" water and financial
costs for current users and mitigate their losses.
NRDC in
another water case (the delta smelt case with federal Judge Oliver
Wanger) submitted testimony indicating
West Side losses could be mitigated by water transferred
from Friant. The judge's decision in that case, unfortunately,
eliminated one of the key provisions essential to the achievement of
the water management goal. The result is that only the restoration
goal and its provisions remain unaffected after the intervening
events since September 2006.
There
are also funding problems. When the Democrats took over Congress,
they instituted a "pay as you go" system. Friant users are being
asked to rearrange their payments to help solve this challenge.
However, none of the settlement's funding is guaranteed for
implementation of the water management goal.
Supporters of the current settlement claim that there are only two
options. One is to accept the current, degraded settlement. The
other is to return to federal court in Sacramento. The cost of the
current settlement could be a billion dollars with an average loss
of 225,000 acre-feet per year of water currently being used
beneficially by communities and farms.
But why
are these the only options? Congressional leaders insist there is
not the "political will" to offer compromise legislation to solve
the problems with the current settlement. Rather, society must defer
to the wishes of an unelected interest group that is expected to win
the court case.
Congress
should consider the option of extending the current fishery to Sack
Dam near Los Banos with a flow of 50 cubic feet per second reaching
that location daily. Experts say this would result in a cold water
fishery near Friant and several other fish habitats as the water
flows to Sack Dam. No funding by Congress would be required, and no
extensive water management projects would be needed.
Is there
a model for this approach? Yes, the successful Lower Owens River
Project settlement, which is re-watering 67 miles of river that has
been dry for decades with a constant flow of 40 cfs. Closer to home,
there is the highly acclaimed Kings River settlement, which is
delighting fishermen and recreation enthusiasts.
The
Congressional Research Service observed that the San Joaquin River
is on the periphery of salmon viability. NRDC's own publication (In
Hot Water) indicates that southern cold-water fisheries will have a
more difficult time surviving due to global warming. Does it make
sense to spend a billion dollars and lose 225,000 acre-feet a year
for an experiment that appears doomed from the start?
Would it
not be better to do a compromise solution now, and defer the
decision about a salmon fishery until we have proof that salmon will
survive the warm water of the San Joaquin? Society would have its
live river, and some of the money saved could be used to enhance
salmon fisheries in other areas.
I hope
society is not doomed to two unpleasant choices because
congressional leaders defer the authority to make this decision to
an unelected interest group based in San Francisco, and a federal
judge, who has decried the lack of tools available to him to craft a
responsible solution.
If
Congress did make a mistake, it should take the lead in offering a
reasonable solution.
Kole Upton of Chowchilla is a farmer, a
director of the Chowchilla Water District and chairman of the Friant
Water Users Authority.
12/24/07 22:53:08
The Dec. 16 article by Michael Doyle on restoring the
San Joaquin River contains a brief but good summary of the current
situation.
Based on
my 40 years of experience in water projects, including 10 years in
charge of Friant Dam, I offer the following suggestions for an
orderly procedure, which will begin to produce immediate benefits
and be less costly in the long run, because the final decisions can
be made on observed facts:
Assign
the Bureau of Reclamation the responsibility for providing a minimum
surface stream of 50 cubic feet per second from Friant to the Delta,
starting in April 2008.
Obtain
federal legislation authorizing such a program and declaring the
intention to implement the river restoration plan, including the
return of salmon to the river.
Obtain
state legislation endorsing the plan and agreeing not to issue any
new water rights for diversions from the San Joaquin River.
It
appears to me the course now being followed is an attempt to resolve
everything now. The course I have suggested would protect the
long-term interests of all concerned, would provide immediate
benefits and would allow sounder decisions based on better
information than is now available on channel conditions.
Edwin F.
Sullivan
Visalia
'Misleading claim'
12/05/07
15:19:45
It is disappointing that The Bee repeated a misleading claim that
Congress is considering a fee on the nuclear industry to pay for
San Joaquin
River restoration ("River bill taps nuclear money," Nov. 20). In fact,
the issues are quite separate.
San Joaquin
River
legislation in the House would finance the river accord from a new fund
that combines payments Friant water users have paid for years. Not one
penny would come from nuclear cleanup fees. A separate Senate bill to
extend a soon-to-expire fee on utilities to pay for the cleanup of old
nuclear plants makes no mention of the river accord and would only fund
that nuclear cleanup.
It is
possible the Senate may combine these two proposals into one bill, to
build political momentum and to overcome complicated procedural hurdles.
But there would be no commingling of funds. Such a law would comply with
the Budget Act and make clear that the industry fee would go to nuclear
cleanup, whereas the river settlement's costs would come from the
separate settlement fund. If Sen. Dianne Feinstein can deliver this
two-for-one deal, she deserves extra thanks from the taxpayers of
California.
Chris
Acree
Executive Director
Revive
the San Joaquin
Fresno
Bill to restore river clears House panel
Measure to help San Joaquin still faces hurdles.
By David Whitney / Bee
Washington Bureau
11/15/07 23:33:45
WASHINGTON -- Legislation to restore the
San Joaquin
River cleared the House Natural Resources Committee by a 25-15 vote
Thursday, winning cheers from environmentalists but not a single
Republican vote.
"We've
waited a year for this, and now we have it," said Hamilton Candee, a
senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This
sends an important signal back to the state that this river
restoration is going to happen."
The
restoration would send water down about 27 miles of the river that
often is dry as a result of irrigation and construction of Friant
Dam six decades ago. But the plan is a long way from being a done
deal.
Republicans balked in unison because the plan would meet tough House
budget rules by balancing $170 million in federal costs with a new
tax on nonproducing oil and gas leases in the
Gulf of Mexico. The bill's champion, Rep. Jim Costa,
D-Fresno, promised that provision would be changed before the
measure hits the House floor.
The
legislation writes into federal law a settlement reached last year
in an 18-year-old lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense
Council over the degradation of the river.
The goal
is to restore the river and a once-thriving spring salmon run, but
there are doubts about whether the long-lost run can be rebuilt.
Costa
said the settlement envisions a future salmon run of 10,000 fish.
But he said there also are many other benefits to
Central California.
"Regardless of whether restoration of the run happens, there are
important water-quality and flow benefits," he said. "While the goal
is a spring run, the water users' goal is certainty of supply."
Without
the settlement, Costa said, decisions about how to restore the river
would be thrust into the hands of federal judges.
Ronald
Jacobsma, general manager of the Friant Water Users Authority, said
that "it's good to see it's moving."
To
restore the river, however, water users in the congressional
district of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, would take a big hit. Nunes
sought to speak before the committee Thursday but was turned down.
In an
interview, Nunes said the water losses would be so severe that "all
of the cities and counties in my district are opposed" because of
severely restricted water allocations.
"Some
districts will lose 90% of their water," he said. "The city of
Lindsay could lose 70% of its water. It amazes me that they continue
to move forward on this and pretend it's not controversial."
But
while Republican members raised some concern about the impact on
Nunes' constituents, the budget issue dominated the debate. Except
for that, the legislation won praise from many Republicans.
Some
offered their own alternatives.
Rep.
Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., offered an amendment to charge San Francisco
more annually for the use of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite
National Park, which supplies the city with much of its drinking
water. But that was voted down 24-15 along party lines.
Until
last week, the restoration bill was bipartisan, with Rep. George
Radanovich, R-Mariposa, as a co-author. Radanovich broke with Costa
over the budget issue.
But in
an interview Thursday, Radanovich said that other than the budget
issue, he was pleased by the committee's action.
"This is
a real positive step," he said. "There is still work to be done, but
it keeps this moving."
It's
unclear where the bill goes now, or how fast.
Costa
promised it would not go to the House floor without changes to the
budget provision, but several Republicans said they were aware of an
effort to bundle the measure with a must-pass spending bill and send
it to the House floor for passage this year.
Costa
said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., hopes to move a Senate bill in
early February and is looking at alternatives to the oil and gas
tax.
The reporter can be reached at
dwhitney@mcclatchydc.com or (202) 383-0004.
River deal gets a bit wobbly in Congress
Historic settlement might land in judge's hands again.
11/11/07 00:00:00
An essential piece of legislation to advance the plan to
restore water to the
San Joaquin
River appears to be floundering in Congress. If the House of
Representatives can't come up with a bill, the whole issue could be
right back where it started 18 years ago: in federal court. And that
might be bad news for just about everyone involved.
The
legislation is needed to authorize -- and help pay for -- a number
of projects that are necessary before additional water can be
allowed to flow down the river from behind Friant Dam. That restored
flow is part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed by environmentalists
in 1988. The historic agreement would take as much as 19% of annual
irrigation deliveries from farmers on the Valley's east side to
re-water a once-mighty river that now runs dry much of the year
before it reaches San Francisco Bay and the sea.
Farmers
and environmentalists alike compromised on the settlement for fear
that federal Judge Lawrence Karlton would rule against them. Better
to take a deal that isn't perfect, each side reasoned, than to risk
losing big time in the judge's ruling.
The
settlement also calls for the re-introduction of salmon to the
river, beginning in 2013. The original salmon runs were destroyed
when Friant Dam was built.
The
House legislation was first proposed by Rep. George Radanovich,
R-Mariposa, in January. It has gone through many convolutions,
including being replaced by a bill from Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno.
Costa has a seat on the House Resources Committee, which must
approve any river legislation.
The
legislation must "offset" at least half of its estimated $500
million cost by either finding new revenues or stripping money from
something else. Costa's bill would accelerate payments from Friant
farmers for federal dam construction debt. It also contains a
"conservation of resources" fee on some oil-and-gas leases in the
Gulf of Mexico, which has the oil industry mobilizing
against it.
Radanovich isn't happy with some of the changes Costa has made,
which further complicates matters. And Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia,
has kept up a steady stream of criticism of the whole idea of the
settlement.
Some
observers in Washington believe Radanovich's support for the
settlement may be waning, under pressure from farmers who don't like
the deal.
"I'm
disappointed that it's become incredibly partisan," Radanovich said
Wednesday. "It's turned into a very divisive issue now, and I regret
that." That sounds to some like Radanovich is positioning himself to
back away from the issue.
That
would be too bad. Radanovich may have reason to criticize some of
the elements Costa has introduced into the legislation -- he's not
alone in that -- but the bill is still evolving. It would be more
useful to remain as part of that process than to back away
altogether.
Both
parties to the settlement -- the Friant Water Users Authority and
the National Resource Defense Council -- have the right to void the
agreement if Congress can't pass the enabling legislation. That
would send the issue back into mediation, and ultimately into
Karlton's hands again.
There's
no guarantee how the judge will rule. He could take even more water
from farmers, which would be a painful irony if opposition from
those in agriculture causes the legislation and the settlement to
fail.
We
should know soon. Lawmakers have given themselves one more week to
sort things out with the legislation. If that doesn't work, hold
your breath. There is no telling what might happen next.
River bill hits rapids in D.C.
Costa-designed plan sees oil, gas producers paying to restore the
San Joaquin.
By Michael Doyle / Bee
Washington Bureau
11/08/07 00:00:00
WASHINGTON -- Oil and gas producers working in the
Gulf of Mexico
would pay to help restore the
San Joaquin
River under a bill that encountered new difficulties Wednesday amid
growing debate.
With the
oil and gas industry mobilizing against the bill -- and San Joaquin
Valley lawmakers arguing about it -- a key House committee canceled
plans to approve it Wednesday morning. Lawmakers have given
themselves one more week to salvage the legislation, which has
struggled all year.
"We're
still trying to work out some of the issues," said Rep. Jim Costa,
D-Fresno.
The
still-evolving bill would authorize levees, channel improvements and
other work needed to allow more
San Joaquin
River water to flow below Friant Dam. With the river revived, salmon
would be reintroduced by 2013.
The plan
settles a lawsuit filed in 1988 by environmentalists unhappy over
the river's decline. Although the settlement could reduce irrigation
deliveries by 19% annually, Friant-area irrigation districts
endorsed it rather than let a federal judge allocate the water.
Ever
since Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, introduced the first
version of the bill in January, backers have sought ways to offset
roughly half of its $500 million price tag to comply with House
rules. The offsets can come either from new revenues or money
diverted from other projects.
This
week, Costa replaced Radanovich's bill with his own.
Radanovich's staff first saw the new bill language Tuesday, and the
seemingly abrupt maneuver infuriated the Republican.
"I'm
disappointed that it's become incredibly partisan," Radanovich said
Wednesday. "It's turned into a very divisive issue now, and I regret
that."
Costa,
in turn, stressed that he has "worked with George for two years on
this." Costa added, however, that his Resources Committee seat
enables him to move the bill through the Democratic-controlled
panel.
Costa's
new bill called for some of the river restoration money to come from
Friant-area farmers repaying their federal dam construction debt
more quickly.
The new
bill also levies a "conservation of resources" fee on certain
oil-and-gas leases in the
Gulf of Mexico.
For
every acre that isn't currently producing oil or gas, the companies
holding the lease would pay $3.75. This raises the current fees by
between 40% and 60%.
Costa
called the oil-and-gas fee a "temporary" solution, a placeholder
designed to get the bill through committee. He indicated it probably
would be replaced later by money from a nuclear energy industry
cleanup fund.
The
explanation did not mollify oil-and-gas lobbyists or Radanovich, who
said the proposal "severely impacts" his support for the overall
bill.
"I
understand what the goal is," said Erik Milito, American Petroleum
Institute spokesman and senior attorney. "We just oppose this fee
they're trying to impose."
Joined
by companies like Shell Oil Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp., the American
Petroleum Institute frantically lobbied against the new bill this
week.
The
lobbyists charged that the new fee would violate existing contracts
and deter necessary energy production.
The
arguments resonated among Republicans, who were upset the new bill
was sprung on them shortly before they were expected to vote.
"They
really complicated it when they put this tax increase there," said
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia. "We barely had time to look at it."
Radanovich further complained about Costa "virtually shutting me out
of all conversations" regarding the new bill.
Feeling
the pressure, committee leaders Wednesday morning canceled the
markup about two hours before the panel was scheduled to start
working. A makeup session has been set for Nov. 15, when Radanovich
acknowledged committee Democrats could still "ram through" the
measure on a party line vote.
"All of
us have become frustrated with the lack of movement," Costa said.
The reporter can be reached at
mdoyle@mcclatchydc.com or (202) 383-0006.
Posted on Fri, Dec. 07, 2007
San Joaquin River bill
up for debate
By MICHAEL DOYLE
BEE WASHINGTON BUREAU
last updated: December 07, 2007 04:16:25
AM
WASHINGTON -- An
ambitious San Joaquin River restoration bill came bawling into the
world one year ago Thursday. Some still hope it never grows up.
Today, lawmakers and
irrigation district officials meet to consider the legislation
returning water and salmon to the river below Friant Dam. The
Visalia meeting comes amid progress and rancor, private maneuvers
and public campaigns.
"We're having ongoing
discussions, and I think those discussions have been pro- ductive,"
said Ron Jacobsma, general manager of the Fri- ant Water Users
Authority. "We're feeling optimistic."
The Friant group
represents 22 water districts serving the San Joaquin Valley's east
side. Friant districts want legislation passed and the river
restored to settle a 1988 lawsuit filed by environmentalists.
Farmers lost the lawsuit and fear that without a compromise
settlement, a federal judge will give fish more river water.
Nonetheless, the bill
that backers once optimistically hoped could be finished by Dec. 31,
2006, also remains shackled by politics growing more complex by the
day.
Supporters and
opponents alike have run
San Joaquin
Valley
radio ads, using KMJ airwaves to debate the river plan. Three of
Friant's 22-member water districts are raising doubts about the
evolving proposal. Friant chairman Kole Upton, once a public
supporter, now is urging a much more modest effort.
"Would it not be
better to do a compromise solution now, and defer the decision about
a salmon fishery until we have proof that salmon will survive the
warm water of the San Joaquin?" Upton wrote in The Fresno Bee this
week.
Even the original
House author of the river bill, Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa,
is joining other lawmakers in denouncing a leading proposal to pay
for the river restoration.
"It's no longer just
Nunes out there by himself," said Rep. Devin Nunes, a Visalia
Republican who consistently has criticized the river bill.
Bee Washington Bureau
reporter Michael Doyle can be reached atmdoyle@mcclatchy.com
or 202-383-0006.
Compromise is urged on river restoration
bill
By Michael Doyle / Bee
Washington Bureau
12/06/07 22:57:59
WASHINGTON -- An ambitious San Joaquin River restoration bill came
bawling into the world one year ago Thursday. Some still hope it
never grows up.
Lawmakers and irrigation district officials are meeting today to
discuss the legislation, which would return water and salmon to the
river below Friant Dam. The Visalia meeting comes amid fierce debate
over issues such as how to pay for the project, and whether it would
really help the salmon.
Water
districts represented by the Friant Water Users Authority want
legislation passed and the river restored to settle a 1988 lawsuit
filed by environmentalists. Farmers lost the lawsuit and fear that
without a compromise settlement, a federal judge would give fish
more river water.
"We're
having ongoing discussions, and I think those discussions have been
productive," said Ron Jacobsma, general manager of the authority,
which represents 22 water districts serving the San Joaquin Valley's
east side. "We're feeling optimistic."
Nonetheless, the bill that backers once optimistically hoped could
be finished by
Dec. 31, 2006, remains shackled by politics growing
more complex by the day.
Supporters and opponents alike have run San Joaquin Valley radio
ads, using KMJ airwaves to debate the river plan. Three of Friant's
water districts are raising doubts about the evolving proposal.
Friant chairman Kole Upton, once a public supporter, is now urging a
much more modest effort.
"Would
it not be better to do a compromise solution now, and defer the
decision about a salmon fishery until we have proof that salmon will
survive the warm water of the San Joaquin?" Upton wrote in The
Fresno Bee this week.
Even the
original House author of the river bill, Rep. George Radanovich,
R-Mariposa, is joining other lawmakers in denouncing a leading
proposal to pay | |
