[env-trinity] SF Chronicle- Court says program for exports relied on inadequate data

[tstokely at trinityalps.net]

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

COURTS 
Ruling says delta water plan flawed 
Court says program for exports relied on inadequate data 
- Glen Martin, Chronicle Environment Writer
Tuesday, October 18, 2005 

A recent state court ruling could derail a program that would allow greater
water exports from the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers to
Southern California farms and cities. 

But the decision probably doesn't affect long-term federal water deliveries
to large San Joaquin Valley farms -- a major bugbear of environmentalists. 

In its decision this month, the Court of Appeal for the Third District, in
Sacramento, ruled that CalFed -- a joint state and federal agency empowered
with settling disputes in California's endless legal water wars -- relied
on inadequate environmental analyses in administering its water exports
from the delta. 

The court said the agency didn't adequately consider reducing water
deliveries to ensure the environmental health of the delta. 

A CalFed spokesman said the agency plans to appeal. 

But because the decision was issued by a state court and specifically
addressed CalFed's policies, it has no bearing on another major water
issue: the renewal of long-term federal water contracts to Central Valley
farmers. 

Environmentalists say the Bush administration is fast-tracking the
contracts -- some of which could last 50 years -- for water from the huge
Central Valley Project, the federal program that delivers water from
Northern California and Sierra reservoirs and rivers to Central Valley
farms and some California cities. 

So far, about 200 federal contracts have been approved, and about 80 are
pending. 

The court ruling, however, could affect the so-called Napa Agreement, an
accord among state and federal governments and water contractors that would
result in greater water exports from the delta to Southern California. 

Conservationists say the agreement was a closed-door deal that illegally
appropriated water from the delta for the benefit of corporate farmers and
south state municipalities. 

The result of such exports, claimed conservationists, would be widespread
environmental degradation through the delta and San Francisco Bay. 

Proponents of the agreement said the deal would merely allow greater
flexibility in water deliveries by coordinating state and federal pumping
schedules. Environmental effects of any increased exports would be minimal,
they say, because pumping generally would occur in the winter, when
freshwater flows in the delta are high. 

Environmentalists hailed the ruling by a panel of judges as a significant
victory. 

Barry Nelson, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council,
said the ruling could be a monkey wrench in the implementation of the Napa
Agreement. 

"What the court has made clear is that CalFed must honestly evaluate
reduced delta diversions as an alternative, something they consistently
have refused to do," he said. 

Keith Coolidge, a spokesman for CalFed, said agency lawyers were examining
the decision to determine its significance to current programs. 

Coolidge said it is not clear if the ruling could apply directly to the
Napa Agreement. 

"The decision doesn't address specific projects," he said. "(CalFed
directors) did meet (last week) and agreed unanimously to recommend for a
rehearing in the Court of Appeals, and to petition the state Supreme Court
for review if necessary," he said. 

Tim Quinn, the vice president of state water project resources for the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said the ultimate
impact of the ruling will not be known for some time. 

"Short term, it will probably have no effect," said Quinn. "Long term, who
knows? We use a variety of water sources for our needs, so the impact to us
probably will not be significant, no matter how it turns out." 

The district, which serves about 18 million customers in Southern
California, is a major contractor for state project water. 

Nelson said the lawsuit that engendered the ruling could now serve as a
blueprint for challenges against any state decision involving increased
water exports from the delta. He also said the decision could have some
bearing on federal plans to export water south. 

Environmentalists are currently litigating against the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's approval of long-term federal water contracts to Central
Valley farmers. 

Both the state and federal governments pump water from the delta. The
federal Central Valley Project pumps about 7 million acre-feet in average
years, and the state pumps about 6 million acre-feet. An acre-foot of water
is the amount of water necessary to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. It
comes to about 326,000 gallons, or enough water for about two households
annually. 

But Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Westlands Water District, a defendant
in the case along with other water districts and CalFed, said the ruling
doesn't affect his district directly. 

At 600,000 acres, Westlands is the biggest agricultural irrigation district
in the country. It has a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for
about 1.2 million acre-feet of water annually. 

"We're looking at the decision, but generally speaking, if an environmental
impact statement is found deficient, the remedy is to go back, fix the
deficit and move on," Hull said. "That could be possible in this case." 

E-mail Glen Martin at glenmartin at sfchronicle.com. 

Page B - 8 
URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/18/BAGN2F9TG71.DTL 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .