[env-trinity] E&E News: Massive Calif. drainage deal sparks power play on Hill

[Tom Stokely]

WESTERN WATER
Massive Calif. drainage deal sparks power play on Hill

Michael Doyle and Jeremy Jacobs, E&E reporters

Published: Friday, November 3, 2017

Lawmakers are attempting to add a controversial irrigation drainage deal involving the country’s largest agricultural water district to must-pass legislation before the end of the year. Westlands Water District

Supporters of a California drainage deal that's sharply divided the state are now maneuvering to stick it on must-pass congressional legislation, starting with an unrelated defense bill.

Resistance from Senate Democrats in recent days appears to have stymied last-minute House efforts to add the Westlands Water District-related drainage agreement to the annual National Defense Authorization Act. This round, though, only foreshadows more to come.

"We're looking at different legislative vehicles to move the settlement agreement forward," Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), a supporter of the deal, said in an interview. "This may not happen in the next week or two, but I am hopeful we can find some vehicle."

Westlands officials acknowledged they are pressing to pass the legislation before a court-mandated deadline of Jan. 15 next year.

"We are looking for any vehicle possible to get the drainage settlement enacted this year," Deputy General Manager Johnny Amaral said in an interview.

Amaral emphasized that the settlement was a priority of the Obama administration and noted that the Trump administration also backs it.

The Capitol Hill maneuvering, in turn, puts opponents of the Westlands irrigation settlement on red alert, as they watch future omnibus spending packages and other popular bills to which the Westlands deal might be attached.

"I am sure, if allowed to go this route, that this will become the go-to strategy for Central Valley water power brokers," Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a deal opponent, said in an interview. "Their bills generally don't look good in the light of a hearing and public scrutiny, so a secretive, must-pass bill is probably a better way to get their agenda."

Whatever happens next, the Westlands settlement is huge — a complicated brew of law, politics, lobbying and environmental cleanup.

It stems from the federal government's failure to complete a promised drainage system that would remove used, tainted irrigation water from some of California's most productive agricultural land.

Clay layers prevent excess irrigation water from draining into the soil. Federal officials proposed a 188-mile San Luis Drain to move subsurface water to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta, but only about 80 miles was finished. The drain ended at Kesterson Reservoir, where the tainted water poisoned waterfowl.

Put simply, the proposed deal would forgive a roughly $375 million debt owed by Westlands for its share of Central Valley Project construction. The CVP's network of reservoirs, canals and pumping plants enabled the Rhode Island-sized Westlands district to flourish (Greenwire<https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045866/>, Nov. 16, 2016).

The deal also would lock in favorable terms on future water contracts and oblige Westlands to retire 100,000 of its 600,000 acres. In return, the deal would relieve the federal government of the obligation to construct irrigation drainage facilities.

Following extended litigation, Westlands and the Obama administration's Justice Department reached a settlement in September 2015. The deal requires legislation, currently drafted as H.R. 1769<https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1769/BILLS-115hr1769rh.pdf>, which passed through the House Natural Resources Committee last April on a 23-16 vote.

"Enactment of this legislation is a positive step in resolving a long-standing drainage dispute and will ultimately save taxpayers billions of dollars that can be better utilized on meaningful water storage projects to increase water deliveries to the Central Valley," Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) said.

A Congressional Budget Office assessment released in July concluded that the bill, by forgiving Westlands' debt, would "reduce offsetting receipts ... by $309 million over the 2017-2027 period."

The CBO also estimated the bill, by relieving the government of its irrigation drainage duty, would reduce potential federal spending "by about $1.5 billion over the next ten years and by $1 billion in later years."

Westlands farmers, represented at the time by attorney David Bernhardt and others, filed a $1 billion lawsuit against the government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2012. Bernhardt is now deputy Interior secretary, and related litigation is on hold until Jan. 15 to give Congress time to act (Greenwire<https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060057527/>, July 18).

Bureau of Reclamation Deputy Commissioner Alan Mikkelsen laid out concerns in letters to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last month.

Mikkelsen said that if Congress does not enact the agreement, Interior will be forced to spend millions on drainage that would otherwise go to other programs in the West, including environmental programs.

"[I]f a legislative solution is not enacted, Reclamation will have to immediately begin expending $30-$80 million annually, if not more," Mikkelsen, who was then acting Bureau commissioner, wrote in the Oct. 20 letters.

The House has not yet approved H.R. 1769, six months after it passed through the House Natural Resources Committee. The committee's report<https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt349/CRPT-115hrpt349.pdf> was published Oct. 17. A companion bill has not been introduced in the Senate.

On the surface, the settlement seemed to be stalled.

But in mid-October, the House and Senate began negotiating a final version of the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. Sprawling across 1,330 pages in its House version, the defense bill includes lots of nooks and crannies.

Valadao and McCarthy advised colleagues of their interest in adding the Westlands settlement bill to the defense package, according to several House members. Huffman added that he "was pleased to hear" from third parties that both of California's Democratic senators, Feinstein and Kamala Harris, "would oppose that on procedural grounds."

Huffman's understanding is consistent with that of others who have been in touch with the senators' offices, which could not be reached for on-the-record comment.

"These are problems that have been brewing on the West Side [of the Valley] for decades," Amaral said. "These consequences are right around the corner, and they are real."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20171103/14508917/attachment.html>