[Water_news] 1. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS - Top Items for 5/4/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment

 

May 4, 2007

 

1.  Top Items

 

River restoration plan is ambitious, uncertain - Sacramento Bee

 

Backers push plan to revive S.J. River; Project outlined at congressional hearing in D.C. - Stockton Record

 

 

River restoration plan is ambitious, uncertain

Sacramento Bee – 5/4/07

By Michael Doyle, staff writer

 

WASHINGTON -- Some San Joaquin River solutions remain as slippery as salmon.

 

A bill to restore the river is caught in a budget snag. The final price tag is elusive. Farmer protections remain ambiguous. And Thursday, even a key supporter of restoring the river conceded success cannot be guaranteed.

 

"To take a river that's been dry for 40 years, or 60 years ... it will be interesting to see if we can get a viable fishery there," Interior Department official Mark Limbaugh told a Senate panel when asked about the prospects for success.

 

The Interior Department's assistant secretary for water and science, Limbaugh cautioned that the Bush administration "is not willing to commit to seeking any particular level of funding" until more studies are done on the San Joaquin River. He acknowledged concern over cost uncertainties.

 

All the same, Limbaugh joined seven other witnesses Thursday in supporting the San Joaquin River restoration bill. It is one of the year's most ambitious and vexing environmental proposals.

 

The legislation would help settle a lawsuit filed in 1988 over operations of Friant Dam. Diversion of irrigation water to farmers dried up a river channel once teeming with salmon. Farmers and environmentalists agreed last year to send more San Joaquin River water downstream from the dam.

 

Under the plan, farmers on the San Joaquin Valley's east side would lose about 15 percent of irrigation deliveries. The legislation, written by Republican Rep. George Radanovich of Mariposa and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, would authorize projects implementing the river settlement.

 

"A lot of the fish agencies and the fishery scientists think this may be one of the best chances we have to bring back the (salmon) population," said Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney Hal Candee. "We're optimistic."

 

Tulare County Supervisor Allen Ishida is not. Ishida warned Thursday that "we may have to explore" the possibility of a lawsuit if the San Joaquin River bill doesn't address local concerns about lost jobs and water. He was in a distinct minority Thursday.

 

Feinstein told the Senate water and power subcommittee that if her legislation is not passed, a federal judge would take over and "demand that far more water be released." Sacramento-based U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton already has ruled the San Joaquin River needs more water for salmon.

 

Karlton let environmentalists and the Friant Water Users Authority work out a final deal, dependent on Congress acting.

 

Senators at Thursday's hearing sounded sympathetic. Still, several questions were left unresolved:

 

• How will the bill be paid for? The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill's overall federal cost at $500 million.

 

Under new House rules, about half of this must be offset with new savings or revenues. Negotiators haven't yet nailed down how they can do this.

 

• How much will full river restoration cost? Estimates range widely, going as high as $1.2 billion. In particular, a 22-mile stretch of the river channel northeast of Los Banos will need considerable work; the bill simply calls for more study.

 

• The legislation does not specify how farmers' water supplies might be protected -- for instance, by recirculating river water for irrigation use once it has reached the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Ishida insisted the legislation needs "concrete assurances" that water loss will be mitigated.

 

Dan Dooley, an attorney representing Friant farmers, said negotiators are trying to craft financing solutions to lower the price tag, which must be offset under so-called "pay-go" budget rules to avoid raising the deficit.

 

"Until the pay-go issues are resolved, we can't move it," Radanovich said of his bill. #

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/166957.html

 

 

Backers push plan to revive S.J. River; Project outlined at congressional hearing in D.C.

Stockton Record – 5/4/07

By Alex Breitler, staff writer

 

Supporters of a plan to resurrect the San Joaquin River urged members of Congress on Thursday to pass legislation to finish the deal - and supply a good chunk of the money needed to pay for it.

 

The plan has been heralded as a landmark agreement between groups that have warred over San Joaquin flows for 18 years.

 

Under a settlement reached last year, the cost to bring the river back to life was estimated at $250 million to $800 million.

 

There are a few question marks to go along with all those dollar signs.

 

Where will all the money come from? The federal legislation discussed Thursday would allocate $250 million; a recent Congressional Budget Office estimate says the federal share may total $500 million.

 

Uncertainty over costs is a worry, U.S. Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary Mark Limbaugh told senators in a subcommittee hearing. The legislation, if passed, is not a blank check from the federal government, Limbaugh warned.

 

And yet supporters say the entire cost of the project won't be known until more planning has been done.

 

That's why it's important to press on, they said.

 

"All these interests and society itself will be far better served by this settlement than by Congress rejecting it," said Dan Dooley, an attorney who represents farmers who may lose water in the deal.

 

For decades, San Joaquin River flows have been diverted at Friant Dam, near Fresno, and sent to 15,000 farms. Most years, a 60-mile stretch of the downstream channel has gone dry as a result.

 

Under the plan, full flows must return to the river by 2014. Salmon will be reintroduced.

 

Farmers would lose about 15 percent of their supply, but officials hope to regain at least some of it through groundwater, recirculation and other strategies.

 

Citrus farmer and Tulare County Supervisor Allen Ishida told senators Thursday that groundwater levels would drop and pumping costs would rise under the agreement.

 

He wants the legislation to contain "concrete" plans to offset farmers' losses.

 

"The legislation being debated today represents a significant departure from the 70 years of public policy that created the most productive agricultural region in the world," he said.

 

Hal Candee, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said farmers as far north as Stockton will see improvements in water supply and water quality. The Delta will receive a "life-giving infusion," he said.

 

Some planning work is already under way. Joe Grindstaff, director of the California Bay-Delta Authority, said the state allocated $1.5 million toward river restoration this year and has proposed $18.3 million next year from the voter-approved Proposition 84.

 

The federal bill is the "critical missing piece" to put the plan into full action, he said.

 

Lawyers had originally hoped to have this piece in place by late last year. Concerns from districts not party to the plan, but that rely on San Joaquin water, delayed the process.

 

The parties to the lawsuit could back out without passage of the two identical bills in the House and Senate. And further delays could postpone some of the early environmental work.

 

"If we do not pass this legislation, and the settlement is not enacted, then the future of the San Joaquin won't be charted by the people who use its water," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, sponsor of the restoration bill. "It will be decided by a judge who will demand that far more water be released" than required by the settlement. #

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/A_NEWS/705040321

####