[env-trinity] Water Contracts

[Patrick Truman]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/13/BAGPI8O2V01.DTL

      CENTRAL VALLEY 
      Bush's water contracts criticized 
      Opponents say feds failed to follow environmental law 

      Glen Martin, Chronicle Environment Writer 
      Monday, September 13, 2004

        

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
     


      The Bush administration is negotiating 40-year federal water contracts to Central Valley farmers without producing environmental impact documents for public review -- a move, say critics, that undermines landmark legislation designed to end California's water wars. 

      Led by Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, several congressmen have petitioned the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to reopen and extend public comment periods for a large number of pending water contracts. 

      The contracts cover deliveries from the Central Valley Project, a huge federal and state water diversion system that delivers water to farmers and cities in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. Santa Clara County also receives water from the CVP. 

      The problem, say the bureau's critics, is that the official public comment period closed on contracts for about 150 Sacramento Valley rice growers without the environmental documents in hand. This, they claim, is a violation of the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act, federal legislation that redistributed CVP water to ensure that wildlife and fisheries got a bigger share. 

      "Basically, they put the cart before the horse," said Barry Nelson, a senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

      The 1992 act, Nelson said, requires that "a draft environmental impact statement and draft statements on potential impacts to salmon must be made available for public review during the comment period." 

      "They have not been made available," he continued. "The bureau can now make its decision on renewing these contracts without the public knowing the environmental costs." 

      Frank Michny, a Northern California regional environmental officer for the Bureau of Reclamation, said there had been unexpected delays in compiling the environmental documents. 

      "We have received the requests from Miller (and others) to reopen and extend the comment periods," Michny said. "Those requests are now under active consideration, though no final decision has been made." 

      The project transports as much as 7 million acre-feet of water a year -- mainly to agriculture, which receives 90 percent of the deliveries. The contracts in dispute, which are administered by the federal government and won't come up for renewal for 40 years, account for more than 2 million acre- feet of water. Other pending contracts are for 25-year periods. 

      Michny said no contracts will be approved until the public has had a chance to review draft environmental documents. 

      But the form such review takes is critical, said Tom Kiley, a spokesman for Miller. 

      "It's one thing if it's part of the formal comment that makes it into the public record -- that has a bearing on the final decision," Kiley said. "To simply 'make the documents available' in an informal way after the comment period closes isn't enough." 

      The only documents that were available during the comment period, said Nelson, were those that pertained to the mechanics of the water contracts -- details such as delivery dates and the amounts and prices of the water. 

      But even there, said Kiley, troubling questions remain. 

      "A lot of these contracts say the obligation of the (farmer) to pay has been waived because of 'payment capacity analysis,' " Kiley said. "We can't tell what these analyses are. We've asked, but we haven't gotten a response." 

      The bottom line, said Kiley, is that in those cases the water is free to the farmers. That, he said, is a direct violation of the 1992 act, "which states that beneficiaries must pay for their water." 

      Bureau spokesman Jeff McCracken said water prices are somewhat flexible, with farmers paying what they can afford. 

      "This ability to pay (clause) is part of congressional law," McCracken said. 

      Those demanding that the public comment period be reopened also note that when farmers get a deal on their water, they are not encouraged to conserve one of the state's most precious resources. 

      And if the farmers get a break on what they pay for their water, as the critics contend, that slows down the rate at which the government gets repaid the cost of building the system. The farmers and other water users are to pay back a little more than a third of that cost -- but although the first water was delivered in 1939, $1.2 billion is still owed. 

      McCracken said that commitment will be honored. 

      "Congress has told us the (CVP) must be paid for by 2030, and paid for by the beneficiaries," he said. "We will make sure that is done." 

      In a letter sent to Miller on Wednesday, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner John Keys wrote that CVP water rates to farmers were "adjusted annually based upon operation and maintenance cost." 

      Nevertheless, wrote Keys, the bureau expects the project to be paid for by the 2030 deadline. 

      Keys defended the bureau's pricing policies, noting that the project's wholesale water prices to irrigation districts ranged from $14 to $44 an acre- foot. 

      "CVP water is some of the most expensive water in the state today," Keys wrote. 

      Kiley challenged Keys' claims that the water is sold at a premium. 

      "Even at $44 an acre-foot, it's incredibly cheap," Kiley said. "In Southern California, cities are paying close to $900 an acre-foot. That's a whole order of magnitude higher." 

      E-mail Glen Martin at glenmartin at sfchronicle.com. 
     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040913/da7f7509/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clear.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040913/da7f7509/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chronicle_logo.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1013 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040913/da7f7509/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chronicle_sections.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 290 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040913/da7f7509/attachment-0002.gif>