[env-trinity] Fresno Bee CVP Facilities Transfer Feb 17 2007

[Byron]

Water facilities transfer isn't easy

Cleaning up drainage raises complex tangle of legal, finance issues.

By Michael Doyle and Mark Grossi / The Fresno Bee

02/17/07 03:46:27





Serious political and pragmatic obstacles block a new proposal to shift vast
San Joaquin Valley irrigation facilities into farmers' hands. 

Capitol Hill skeptics hold key leadership positions. Congress is already
booked up with another big Valley water plan to restore the San Joaquin
River. Technical solutions are complicated. 

And history, if it's any guide, suggests it's extremely hard to transfer
federal water projects -- especially ones serving California. 

"A proposal like this will always face challenges," Rep. Jim Costa,
D-Fresno, conceded Friday. "This is not a unanimous consent item." 

Costa, nonetheless, said he finds promise in the new notion to deliver into
local control the San Luis Reservoir and more than 100 miles of canals and
associated pumping plants. He represents much of the 600,000-acre Westlands
Water District. 

Under the proposal, Westlands would join with the San Luis Water District
and other districts in taking over the federal facilities. 

The state of California also would play a role. 

The water districts would become responsible for resolving the irrigation
drainage problems now afflicting almost 400,000 acres of the Valley's west
side. 

In exchange, the federal government would forgive the districts' $489.6
million construction debt. 

"This is an attempt, I think, to think out of the box," Costa said. 

Supporters consider the proposal aired this week better than other drainage
options estimated to cost as much as $2.6 billion. The government's
preferred drainage option was supposed to be announced Friday, but officials
delayed it to discuss the new proposal. 

Environmental critics question whether the new idea will really save
taxpayer money. If the government remains liable for drainage, irrigation
districts would eventually have to repay the federal Bureau of Reclamation
for a drainage fix. 

Bureau spokesman Jeff McCracken responded that taxpayers still would be
providing the upfront funds. The government would allow interest-free
payback over 50 years. This amounts to a taxpayer subsidy. 

"The reimbursement wouldn't begin until after the facilities for drainage
are complete," McCracken added. 

But even the 20-page conceptual paper now circulating on Capitol Hill
acknowledges numerous difficulties. 

Area lawmakers like Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, still must get their
potential concerns addressed. 

The feds and the farmers, for instance, concede they don't yet agree on the
"full scope" of how the government might be shielded from future lawsuits.
The farmers originally sued over the government's failure to provide
promised drainage. 

Without drainage, selenium-tainted farm runoff has accumulated -- most
infamously during the 1980s in the poisoned Kesterson Reservoir in western
Merced County. 

The written proposal acknowledges other uncertainties, including: 

Efforts to understand the financial implications of the transfer are
"ongoing," while identifying the dollar value of the water and facilities is
"a difficult question to answer." 

Farmers and federal officials disagree over the "outstanding" issue of who
is responsible for dam safety. 

The potential effect on California bond and credit ratings "has not yet been
addressed." 

Impacts on pumping plant operations are "highly dependent" upon final
negotiations. 

And then there's the salt. 

Many millions of tons of salt have come to the western San Joaquin Valley in
irrigation water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is where the
ocean meets the state's two longest rivers. 

"Where will all this salt go?" asked Clovis resident Lloyd Carter, an
attorney and environmentalist. 

The salt will eventually damage the land unless there is some way to remove
it, experts say. 

Simply changing the owner won't remove the salt. 

"Is this new plan really in the best interest of the taxpayers?" asked Rep.
George Miller, D-Martinez. 

Miller's skepticism is telling. He is one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
chief lieutenants. Her chief of staff, John Lawrence, formerly handled
Western water issues for Miller. Her chief administrative officer, Dan
Beard, likewise worked for Miller and then ran the Bureau of Reclamation
during the Clinton administration. 

All were around the last time California farmers and their congressional
allies tried to seize the Central Valley Project. 

In 1995, lawmakers led by Rep. John Doolittle, R-Granite Bay, sought to sell
the CVP as part of a larger budget bill. That proposal to sell off the
entire Redding-to-Bakersfield water network was far more ambitious than the
new idea. Still, its fate is instructive. 

One of the big proponents of the 1995 sell-the-CVP idea was Jason Peltier,
then representing Central Valley Project customers. 

Peltier now is a senior official in the Interior Department, which helped
craft this week's proposal. 

The 1995 idea eventually died, with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein
cautioning then that "there are a lot of points that I think need a major
hearing." This week, Feinstein said she needs time to analyze the new
proposal. 

Congress this year is already being asked to approve an ambitious plan to
restore the San Joaquin River, raising questions of how much California
water out-of-state lawmakers are prepared to deal with. 

Michael Doyle reports from The Bee's Washington Bureau. The reporters can be
reached at mdoyle at mcclatchydc.com and (202) 383-0006, and
<mailto:mgrossi at fresnobee.com%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%3C!--/STORYBODY--%
3E%3C!--ENDCONTENT--%3E%20%20%20%20%20%3C/div%3E%20%20%20%20%20%3C!--%20END%
20leftColumnStory%20--%3E%20%20%20%20%20%3Cdiv%20class=> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20070217/a3857723/attachment.html>