Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
March 23, 2007
1. Top Item
Report tallies costs of river plan
Some skeptical that the
By Michael Doyle
Restoring the
Ground-water levels would fall. Pumping prices would rise. Hydroelectric power production would drop and local produce quality could suffer, the analysis contends. The consequences, moreover, would extend beyond farming.
"Changes in agricultural production have impacts on many businesses and industries throughout the larger region," noted study author Robert McKusick, a consultant with the Vancouver-based firm Northwest Economic Associates, which specializes in natural resource issues.
McKusick's 189-page study and a 58-page supplement -- completed in September 2005 but only made public this week -- is apparently the first to estimate the concrete consequences of restoring the
The study came to light through the efforts of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, who has been critical of the restoration plan's possible effect on farmers.
Nunes' staff began asking about six months ago for any studies that had been conducted on the water losses and economic effects. Following a House subcommittee hearing several weeks ago, Nunes obtained the study and supplement, although he said he was furious about the long delay.
Water districts representing Valley farmers had commissioned the study as part of trial preparations for a lawsuit filed by environmentalists, but it was unclear why the study was not released earlier.
"They know I've been asking for this information," Nunes said angrily. "Why have they been hiding it?"
The study appears as Congress considers a $250 million river restoration bill. The legislation would help settle the 18-year-old lawsuit. Now that Nunes has the study, he hopes to use it to slow down the legislation so that it can be modified to address his concerns about its impact on farmers.
Environmental groups successfully argued that construction of Friant Dam half a century ago dried up a river that once pulsed with salmon. Facing a judge's potentially harsh order, farmers negotiated a deal that would release restoration water from Friant -- but not as much as the judge might have ordered.
Farm water officials and environmentalists have said they could soften the blow on the farm economy with various strategies, including recapturing the extra water for irrigation after it has passed through the river.
Skeptics think McKusick's conclusions are too grim. A
Others say the McKusick study does not fully account for the benefits of restoring a river where salmon are to be introduced by 2013.
"The San Joaquin River will once again become a living river, flowing as nature intended, from its headwaters in the High Sierra all the way to San Francisco Bay," Nancy Saracino, chief deputy director of the California Department of Water Resources, told a House panel this month.
As they work on the river legislation, lawmakers are well aware of farmer anxiety.
"Hard-working farm families who depend on the
Radanovich, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and most of the Valley's congressional delegation back the legislation.
Nunes, the most vocal holdout, has maintained that giving up irrigation water would hurt many of his farmer constituents.
"This is what I have been trying to get people to realize," Nunes said of the McKusick study. "This has been my point all along." #
http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/36982.html
No comments:
Post a Comment