[Water_news] 1. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS - Top Items for 5/18/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

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

 

May 18, 2007

 

1.  Top Items

 

House approves bill including river restoration; Money set aside for San Joaquin just a beginning - Fresno Bee (this article also appeared in today’s Modesto Bee)

 

Editorial: Not going with the flow - Stockton Record

 

 

House approves bill including river restoration; Money set aside for San Joaquin just a beginning

Fresno Bee (this article also appeared in today’s Modesto Bee) – 5/18/07

By Michael Doyle, staff writer

 

The House on Thursday approved a budget bill that sets aside money for an ambitious San Joaquin River restoration effort.

 

It's a technical but crucial step forward -- and a sign the river plan has some friends in high places. Even so, river restoration proponents are scrambling for the dollars needed to pay for the actual work. Some new ideas are being floated.

 

Legislation to restore the river below Friant Dam has an estimated $500 million federal price tag. The money would pay for making improvements to increase water flow so that salmon could be returned by the year 2013. The legislation marks an agreement between farmers and environmentalists, who fought in court for 18 years before settling.

 

Before the river bill moves, though, lawmakers must identify how it will be funded. That's where the House budget resolution approved Thursday afternoon comes in. As part of the $2.9 trillion resolution, lawmakers set aside a small reserve fund for San Joaquin River restoration.

 

The San Joaquin River reserve fund isn't a real pot of money. It can't be cashed, and it doesn't even have a specific dollar amount attached. Instead, it's more an accounting procedure. But lawmakers said it's an important one.

 

"It's a good sign that the bill has good, strong support," said Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa. "If this didn't have the support of House and Senate leaders, it wouldn't have been included."

 

Lawmakers usually must offset the cost of new projects by cuts in related projects. Politically, this becomes difficult. The reserve fund approved Thursday eases this burden by allowing San Joaquin River restoration cost offsets to come from any source.

 

This means, for instance, that unrelated defense or health-care or education programs might be tapped to offset the cost of returning salmon to the San Joaquin River.

 

"This opens up the opportunity to take money from other people," said Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia. "But the big question is, they'll still have to come up with the $500 million."

 

The San Joaquin River restoration language was added in at the last minute by congressional leaders, with Nunes attributing the work to Rep. George Miller, D-Concord. Miller is a close ally of both environmentalists and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. He could not be reached to comment Thursday.

 

Nunes opposes the San Joaquin River bill, charging it will drive farmers out of business and undermine the region's water supplies. Under the restoration plan, farmers on the San Joaquin Valley's east side would lose about 15% of their irrigation supply during a typical year.

 

In hopes of reducing federal costs, proponents are searching for additional revenue sources or cost-cutting techniques.

 

In theory, several possibilities exist.

 

Previously, for instance, Congress has funded environmental work with surcharges. That's what happened in 1992, when Congress imposed an environmental surcharge on the Friant-area farmers. So far, though, negotiators have declined to discuss publicly what new funding options they are considering.

 

"The alternative that we're looking at hasn't been vetted yet by everyone," said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno. #

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/48507.html

 

 

Editorial: Not going with the flow

Stockton Record – 5/18/07

 

When a federal judge ruled last summer that a federal agency was wrong 65 years ago to dam the San Joaquin River, it made sense that the federal government would be primarily responsible for restoring northward flows.

 

In water and politics, however, the obvious isn't always what it appears to be.

 

Congress has yet to allocate funds necessary to meet restoration goals established by U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton, who wants a healthy volume of water returned and salmon reintroduced.

 

More than 90 percent of the river's water has been diverted just below Friant Dam near Fresno to 15,000 agricultural operations at the south and east ends of the San Joaquin Valley.

 

That has resulted in a 36-mile stretch of dry riverbed near Los Banos.

 

The only funding so far has been the $1.5 million provided by the state of California.

 

By some estimates, it could cost as much as $1.2 billion to restore the river.

 

Two identical authorization bills in the U.S. House and Senate need to pass - and quickly.

 

Further funding delays could postpone or invalidate 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 River won't be charted by the people who use its water," said a frustrated Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. "It will be decided by a judge who will demand that far more water be released."

 

The settlement represents a compromise designed to balance agricultural, environmental and recreational needs.

 

It - and the San Joaquin's waters - will remain stagnant as long as the federal government fails to meet obligations ordered by one of its judges who ruled against one of its agencies. #

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070518/A_OPINION01/705180311/-1/A_OPINION

####