Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
January 16, 2008
5. Agencies, Programs, People
Deal on Dams on Klamath Advances - New Work Times
Groups Offer Plan to Help
Klamath water deal reached; Tribes, farmers and others draw up a plan to remove dams and revive dwindling salmon populations - Los Angeles Times
Tentative Klamath deal reached; But it hinges on removal of four dams by a utility not included in the talks - Sacramento Bee
Klamath River pact out of the gate - Eureka Times Standard
Klamath dams may go; Basin stakeholders reach agreement to remove 4 barriers - Redding Record Searchlight
Supervisors seek funds for levee safety study - Woodland Daily Democrat
County residents educated about Watermaster District - Siskiyou Daily News
Deal on Dams on Klamath Advances
New Work Times – 1/16/08
By Felicity Barringer, staff writer
Bitter opponents over the future of the
The decades-old disputes between advocates for fish and the farmers who are their historic adversaries appeared to dissolve as almost all of 26 user groups, tribes and governments involved backed a plan to allocate the waters of a dam-free river.
But the agreement lacks one vital link: a decision by the dams’ owner, PacifiCorp Power, to agree to their removal.
That decision, a company spokesman said, will not be made unless the financial interests of the company’s customers are safeguarded.
If the dams came down, more than 300 miles of the Klamath, in northern California and southern Oregon, would be open to fish for the first time in more than 90 years.
The removal of the four dams and the restoration efforts would constitute one of the most far-reaching efforts ever to reverse the harm done by human intervention on a river while safeguarding the viability of the towns, industry and agriculture along it.
The agreement envisions “one of the most amazing restoration projects in the world,” said Steve Thompson, a regional director of the federal Fish and Wildlife Service based in
The deal would cost nearly $1 billion over the next decade, federal officials said, but more than half of that could come from money already being spent to mitigate the impact of the dams, which provide enough electricity for about 70,000 households. Arguments remain over who should bear the $120-million cost of taking the dams down — the utility and its 1.6 million customers in six states, or state and federal agencies, or some other entity.
The president of the Klamath Water Users Association, which represents farmers on 220,000 acres in the
The agreement comes as federal energy regulators are considering PacifiCorp Power’s application for a new 50-year license to operate the dams. The license may not be granted unless the requirements of wildlife protection agencies are met, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which protects the sharply reduced salmon populations, has said it will agree to the relicensing only if the company builds fish ladders to allow salmon to reach the waters above the dam.
By two separate estimates, removing the four Klamath dams would be cheaper than modifying them. The company, which disputes these estimates, is negotiating separately with the various interest groups over the fate of the dams.
Paul Vogel, a spokesman for PacifiCorp Power, said, “Fulfilling everyone else’s interests doesn’t protect our customers.”
“What we would not allow,” Mr. Vogel said, “is for the cost of removal and the cost of replacement power to be totally borne by our customers.”
PacifiCorp Power is a subsidiary of Mid-American Energy Holdings Company, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway.
The agreement sets out how water will be allocated in wet and dry years (generally the needs of fish take priority) and how those users with lower priority during droughts (largely farmers) may be given additional supplies and new storage capacity in subsequent years.
Negotiators for the Hupa Indian tribe and for a second group of farmers have not acceded to the plan. Oregon Wild, an environmental group that was not involved, issued a news release condemning the deal as a $1 billion boondoggle. #
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/us/16klamath.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Groups Offer Plan to Help
Associated Press – 1/15/08
By Jeff Barnard, staff writer
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — An ambitious deal calling for the removal of four hydroelectric dams to restore struggling salmon runs has been forged among farmers, Indian tribes, fishermen, conservation groups and government agencies battling over scarce water in the region.
The plan, announced Tuesday, came after two years of closed-door negotiations and resolved long-standing differences over how to divide
The agreement, which would be the largest dam removal project in the nation's history, must be reviewed by federal agencies, including the U.S. Justice Department. The deal would open 300 miles of rivers that have not seen salmon in the past century and restore 60 miles of reservoir to free-flowing river, according to American Rivers, a conservation group.
Removal of the Klamath River dams, perhaps as soon as 2015, depends on agreement from their owner, Portland-based utility PacifiCorp, as well as some $400 million in new spending on salmon restoration, primarily from Congress, for a total of $1 billion over 10 years.
The plan contains no provision for paying the estimated $180 million to remove the dams, leaving that to PacifiCorp.
"What we've come up with is a blueprint for how to solve the Klamath crisis," said Craig Tucker, Klamath Campaign coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, which has been working for years to restore dwindling salmon catches that were once key to members' diet and culture.
"We wanted to put together a plan that keeps fishing communities whole and farm communities whole," he said. "The only thing standing in the way of where we are today and resolution is Warren Buffett's Klamath dams."
PacifiCorp is a unit of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., which is controlled by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
PacifiCorp has previously said it would be willing to remove the dams if its ratepayers don't have to pay. But it has also been pursuing a new 30- or 50-year operating license, which would require it to spend about $300 million to build fish ladders. The dams produce enough power for about 70,000 homes.
"It's worth taking a pretty serious look at it," said PacifiCorp spokesman Paul Vogel. "Not being in the room (during negotiations), we don't know whether anyone has seriously represented our customers on our behalf, because our customers have to be protected in this."
Steve Thompson, director of the California-Nevada office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
Thompson added that he knew of no dam removal project in the country that has restored more habitat or would generate more fish, and characterized the $400 million in new spending as a better investment than past disaster relief to farmers and fishermen.
Luther Horsley, president of the Klamath Water Users Association, which represents the 1,000 farms on the project, said farmers achieved their goals of predictable irrigation deliveries, affordable power for irrigation pumps, and freedom from future lawsuits over endangered species.
Opposition to the agreement is coming from the Hoopa Valley Tribe, based on the
Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild and Robert Hunter of WaterWatch said they were skeptical that the deal could actually produce the extra water salmon need to thrive, or that Congress could come up with the money. They characterized the agreement as a sweetheart deal for the Bush administration to give farmers what they want.
Hoopa Chairman Clifford Marshall said the agreement gives irrigation water priority over the needs of salmon and requires the tribe to waive its water rights on behalf of fish, without any hard assurances the dams would come out.
"Dangling a carrot like this will not work for Hoopa," he said.
The Klamath was once the third most productive salmon river system on the West Coast, but it has declined because of misguided hatchery practices, overfishing, development and the loss of habitat to dams, mining, and logging.
Fish returns have become so small that in 2006 commercial salmon fishing had to be nearly shut down off most of
During a drought in 2001, irrigation was shut off to most of the Klamath Reclamation Project to protect threatened suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, the irrigation project's primary reservoir, and threatened coho salmon in the
When irrigation was restored in 2002, some 70,000 adult Chinook salmon died in the river from diseases caused by low and warm water. After the commercial fishing collapse in 2006, the governors of
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i4HAakwXZYosUwUCFDwwUj6Fp_fQD8U6M9IG1
Klamath water deal reached; Tribes, farmers and others draw up a plan to remove dams and revive dwindling salmon populations
By Eric Bailey, staff writer
The $1-billion plan proposes to end one of the West's fiercest water wars by reviving the Klamath River's flagging salmon population while ensuring irrigation water and cheap power for farmers in the basin, which straddles the Oregon-California state line.
The company that owns the four dams in the basin -- billionaire Warren Buffett's PacifiCorp -- was excluded from negotiations and did not sign on. But participants heralded the hard-fought agreement as a sprawling, basin-wide solution that united factions long at odds over the fate of the troubled river.
"Never has the basin been so unified around the necessity for removal of those dams," said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Assns.
Two environmental groups and a
"The ironic thing is there's not even dam removal in this dam-removal deal," said Bob Hunter of WaterWatch of Oregon, one of the two dissenting environmental groups, both of which were excluded from the negotiations last year.
"It seems they released it now because time is running out for the Bush administration to deliver to its political allies in the Klamath farm community."
PacifiCorp officials also took exception to the proposal.
Paul Vogel, a PacifiCorp spokesman, said the company initiated the talks as part of its bid for a new federal operating license for the dams. But he said PacifiCorp was "shut out of the room" for most of the last year as the final plan was cobbled together by more than two dozen state, federal and local government agencies, tribes and other groups.
"You really have to question if there's enough substance there to be worth the paper it's printed on," he said.
The federal government's chief negotiator at the talks, Steve Thompson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said he participated free of political influence from the White House and continues to hold out hope that PacifiCorp will sign on to the proposal in coming weeks.
But critics, including Hunter, suggested that the deal could prompt PacifiCorp to lay its money on winning renewal from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The commission is expected to follow the lead of
The
In the drought year of 2001, worries about endangered fish prompted the federal government to cut back water to farmers, igniting a heated summerlong protest.
The next year farmers won more water, but environmentalists blamed a cutback in river flows for the death of 70,000 salmon.
By 2006, the river's chinook salmon population had declined so much that federal officials sharply cut back the commercial fishing season, spreading dismay to coastal communities.
At the same time, those representing the Klamath region's competing interests began trying to settle their differences behind closed doors. Meeting roughly once a month, they quarreled in secret but slowly reached the consensus that yielded the final draft released Tuesday.
Farmers won the three prime concessions they had sought. The agreement establishes water deliveries they can live with: more in wet years, less in dry. It provides $40 million toward subsidized power to run irrigation pumps and develop renewable energy to replace the electricity they now get from PacifiCorp's hydropower dams. And it assuages their concerns that the reappearance of endangered salmon won't end up shutting down farms in the upper basin "if and when the fish get up here," said Greg Addington of the Klamath Water Users Assn.
Steve Rothert of American Rivers, one of several environmental groups that endorsed the deal, said he was confident that even with guaranteed water for farming, the agreement guarantees adequate flows in the river to help salmon rebound.
"We are on the cusp of ending decades-long disputes and charting a better future for farmers, tribes, fishermen and all the communities that depend on a healthy
The dissenting environmental groups disagree, saying the agreement cements promises to farmers that in dry years could rob the river of water needed to sustain the salmon and other fish.
"What began as an effort to help salmon and remove dams has turned into a plan to farm American taxpayers," said Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild, the other dissenting group.
He said the plan also institutionalizes "large-scale commercial agriculture" on 22,000 acres in Klamath wildlife refuges, which his group has fought to see reserved just for birds.
The plan goes far beyond fixing the river. It calls, for instance, for the purchase of a 90,000-acre tract for the Klamath Tribes of Oregon for use as a reservation. #
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath16jan16,1,6366227.story?coll=la-headlines-california
Tentative Klamath deal reached; But it hinges on removal of four dams by a utility not included in the talks
Sacramento
By David Whitney, staff writer
The $950 million deal would double spending on the sick river system over the next decade and give Klamath basin farmers in southern
Advocates said the deal is contingent upon separate negotiations with Portland-based PacifiCorp to dismantle the dams, which would free water to replenish the river system. But the utility could not say how seriously it is considering doing that. Federal regulators are in the last stages of relicensing the dams for another 50 years.
PacifiCorp spokesman Paul Vogel said the company is "negotiating with any number of folks" over the fate of the dams but dismissed Tuesday's announcement because the company was specifically excluded from the negotiations.
"It is difficult to believe that it can be called comprehensive when 700,000 of our customers were not in the room," Vogel said.
Parties to the deal, including farmers, irrigation districts, Indian tribes and fishermen, hope an agreement for removal of the dams can be reached within a month or two to give them time to lobby Congress for final approval.
Participants in the closed talks were largely enthusiastic.
"It's a major step forward on solving some of the most intractable water problems in the West," said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, which represents commercial salmon fishermen. "At no time has there been so much unanimity on the river."
Craig Tucker of
Under the deal, additional water would come into the system through new storage, breaching of some levees, tighter controls on agricultural diversions and retirement of water rights.
But some environmentalists, who also were not part of the 26 parties negotiating the final agreement, called it a "half a deal" that will burden federal taxpayers with millions of dollars for economic assistance unrelated to fish restoration.
"There is some good stuff in here for the river," said Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild. "But this is a lot of money – $1 billion for every special interest in the Klamath basin."
Some participants, including the Hoopa tribe, were balking at the deal. Other participants are public agencies that will have to hold public hearings before casting a vote on the deal. Tuesday's announcement makes the agreement public so that those public discussions can begin. #
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/637676.html
By John Driscoll, staff writer
A diverse group of fishermen, farmers, tribes, agencies and environmental groups have announced a tentative agreement to remove dams on the
It would be the biggest dam removal project in history and one of the most ambitious fisheries restoration efforts ever.
The pact calls for removing four dams on the Klamath, securing water and power for farms, and restoring salmon runs.
The deal struck by 26 groups and aired Tuesday has yet to be endorsed by their governing bodies, and negotiations are needed with dam owner Pacificorp regarding the removal of the dams.
While huge hurdles remain, notably finding hundreds of millions of dollars to put the agreement in place, the negotiations represent a watershed in compromise between once-bitter opponents.
On a conference call with the groups, Craig Tucker with the Karuk Tribe said that the parties agreed to civil talks when it was clear that the resources of the river would have to be shared. He called the settlement a means to do that.
”I call it the fish and chips settlement,” Tucker said, referring to potato farming in the basin. “We can have both.”
The plan calls for support of a separate agreement to remove Iron Gate, J.C. Boyle, Copco 1 and Copco 2 dams, which cut off about 300 miles of salmon spawning habitat in the upper
The announcement comes nearly seven years after the federal government cut off water to many farms around
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is currently considering Pacificorp's request for a new license for the dams, which could last 30 to 50 years. Commission staff have recommended keeping the dams in place, and trucking fish around the dams in a effort to restore fisheries. The settlement could supplant the commission process.
Pacificorp has reached settlement agreements in other watersheds, and has said it is interested in settling on the Klamath if it's feasible and economical. A proposal has been pitched to Pacificorp, said Chuck Bonham with Trout Unlimited, but its contents are confidential.
The proposal looks for $985 million over the next decade, not including another $150 million expected to be needed for dam removal. Some of that money can be found be reallocating funds from existing state and federal programs, according to the settlement group. Dam removal may need to be covered by Pacificorp's ratepayers and could be cheaper than putting fish passage provisions in place on the existing dams, Bonham said.
A permanent increase in the amount of water available to fish would be secured as part of a long-term plan drafted by a group of irrigation districts in the
A drought plan and an investigation into how climate change will affect fish and communities in the river basin would be authorized, as well as a monitoring effort to track populations of fish. The groups agreed to a permanent limitation on the amount of water taken from Upper Klamath Lake, and crafted assurances to irrigators using a variety of approaches including increased efficiency, land and water acquisitions and water storage projects.
Greg Addington with the Klamath Water Users Association, which represents farmers that use the federal irrigation project in the upper basin, said the settlement stakes out a huge amount of middle ground and has provided an opportunity to gain some certainty. The status quo is a frightening place to be for irrigators in the
”We live here, we live with the results, with the resource,” Addington said. “We're dependent on it -- we want healthy communities.”
Substantial details need to be worked out, said Erica Terence with the
”It represents an incremental step in the right direction,” Terence said.
Costs are enormous, she said, and until the separate but integral hydropower agreement is solidified, it would be premature for the center to sign off on the plan.
Water supply and regulatory certainty that would be provided to farmers in the upper basin are critical areas that Terence said would require the center to conduct a thorough legal review.
Other environmental groups no longer part of the talks criticized the agreement as lacking guarantees for dam removal and water for fish, and for securing farming on wildlife refuges in the upper basin.
”While the package has important fisheries restoration components that are needed in the basin, the total package is so loaded up with special interest giveaways to agribusiness that it is hard to see how it could credibly move through congress,” said Bob Hunter with the group WaterWatch in a statement.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional director Steve Thompson said that while the Bush administration hasn't reviewed the details of the plan, it has been supportive of his efforts in the basin talks.
The groups vowed to turn over every stone to find the political and financial support needed to make the deal happen. Troy Fletcher, a policy analyst for the Yurok Tribe, said the settlement has the potential to manage the watershed holistically and provide more than the minimum needs of fish on a year-to-year basis. The agreement only works if the four dams are removed, he said.
”We're prepared to do our part, roll our sleeves up and get to work on restoring fish in the basin,” Fletcher said.
California Sen. Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa -- “I want to congratulate the members of the Klamath Settlement Group. This agreement represents their hard work and best efforts to put aside one of the most contentious and bitter wars over water.”
Luther Horsley, president, Klamath Water Users Association -- “We look forward to working together with the entire watershed.”
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena -- “I'm especially pleased that their solution includes taking down all the dams.
I've said since the beginning that it's both the best thing for the river and the most cost-effective solution. But we can't move forward until Pacificorp comes to the table and is ready to do what's best for the environment and our local economy by taking down the dams.”
Steve Rothert,
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_7984769
Klamath dams may go; Basin stakeholders reach agreement to remove 4 barriers
Redding Record Searchlight – 1/16/08
By Dylan Darling, staff writer
After years of disputes and lawsuits, those often at odds over water in the
In a historic proposal announced Tuesday, salmon and steelhead would return with the removal of four hydroelectric dams on the
"This agreement only works with the removal of four dams," said Troy Fletcher, a consultant, and former executive director for the Yurok Tribe, which has a reservation near the river's mouth on the north coast.
Removing the dams -- Iron Gate, J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1 and Copco No. 2 -- would open up an estimated 300 miles of habitat for salmon and steelhead. Stakeholders involved with the agreement include federal and state agencies, environmental organizations, grower groups and fishing interests.
But Portland, Ore.-based PacifiCorp is working with the federal government toward keeping the dams in the river and producing power, said company spokesman Paul Vogel.
"Kind of makes me question what was settled," he said.
And not all Klamath stakeholders agree there is an agreement.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe, whose reservation flanks the lower stretch of the
"The terms of this so-called restoration agreement make the right to divert water for irrigation the top priority, trumping salmon water needs and the best available science on the river," said Clifford Marshall, tribal chairman.
The 26 groups who crafted the 256-page agreement after 2½ years of closed-door talks said it could squelch the embers of dispute remaining from the summers of 2001 and 2002.
In 2001, the federal government cut off the usual supply of water to growers in the Klamath Reclamation Project -- which straddles the California-Oregon border -- because of water requirements for fish protected by the Endangered Species Act.
It sparked a water war that drew national media attention. The following summer, the regular supply of water again flowed into the irrigation canals and more than 30,000 salmon died downstream in the
Along the river, PacifiCorp has a string of power dams, which produce about 150 megawatts of power, or enough to power about 70,000 homes, that are up for a new federal license. Because of the negotiations involved with the relicensing process, the different groups started a dialog that became the agreement talks, Vogel said.
The company, which is owned by billionaire Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, pulled out of the talks "several months ago" when a pillar of it became the removal of the dams, he said.
Although PacifiCorp wasn't involved with the talks, Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association, said he recently called the company's official heading up the relicensing to tell him the agreement was coming
"They certainly should have known we were getting close," he said. #
http://www.redding.com/news/2008/jan/16/klamath-dams-may-go/
Supervisors seek funds for levee safety study
Woodland Daily Democrat – 1/16/08
Only a few weeks after storm-swollen water tore a hole through an earthen levee in
Supervisors approved the measure unanimously on Tuesday. The letter, addressed to Lester Snow, executive director of the state's Water Resources Department, requests an evaluation of non-urban levees along the 200 miles of state levees countywide.
According to a staff report prepared by the county's water and Conservation Program Manger Julia Mciver, there will be no money spent from the general fund. The county is, however, seeking the information to "generate needed data to in form the county's flood management strategies and better position the county for grant and bond funding for levee repairs."
"The state's policy of evaluating urban project levees immediately will yield this information for urban areas in the near future, but evaluations of rural areas, containing communities such as Knight's Landing and Clarksburg, are far less certain," Mciver's staff report states. "Thus, the county has great need of the information that will be developed by DWR in its rural levee evaluations, and the sooner this information is available the better the county will be able to respond appropriately."
The letter to Snow notes that to show its good faith
Levees throughout the
The 31-mile canal near Fernley was administered by the Newlands Reclamation Project and was built in 1903 when the area was largely rural, to move water from the
A large section of the dirt canal's embankment gave way at the beginning of this year, flooding a majority of homes in Fernley, which now has a population of around 20,000.
Damage estimates were placed at more than $4 million, and the area was declared a disaster area by state and federal officials. #
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_7987022
County residents educated about Watermaster District
Siskiyou Daily News – 1/15/08
By Jamie Gentner, staff writer
To achieve that, they gathered in Yreka and
About 150 people attended the meeting at the Yreka Community Theater at 10 a.m., and about 85 residents showed up at the
Attendees heard from Save Our Shasta and Scott Valleys Coalition (SOSS) Executive Director Ernie Wilkinson; SOSS Director and
First, Krum explained the background of watermaster service in the area and a preliminary budget for local service.
In the 2002-2004 tax years, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) received about $170,000 for watermaster service - half from the water users and half from the state.
But in 2004, state law was changed so that the state would no longer pay for half of the bill, and the cost of service went up to just under $400,000.
When people from
The DWR was also able to secure a grant from the Bureau of Reclamation to cover extra costs, so the water users’ costs haven’t gone up.
But now, the cost is over half a million dollars, and the state will no longer pick up half the cost, especially with their own budget crisis.
’You’ve dodged the bullet the past couple of years in this part of the state,’ LaMalfa said during his speech. ’But that won’t happen forever. The state budget is crumbling before our eyes. We’re fighting as hard as we can in the Legislature, but, ultimately, this is just crumbs in the budget.’
Bill Mendenhall, a supervising engineer with DWR present at the Yreka meeting, said the costs have been increasing because, in the past, DWR was making up for the excess amount through local assistance programs no longer available.
The costs were there, he said, but water users were not seeing them.
Krum finished by telling the crowd that if they stayed with watermaster service at the state level, they would be looking at a six-fold increase in costs, whereas it has been estimated that the local district could provide watermaster service for around $200,000.
Francois spoke next about the experience
’The people here locally can do this based on their true costs. There will be no state entity trying to cover their overhead,’ LaMalfa said when he took the stage next. ’I can live with that, and that’s why I’m here to help with whatever can move this process along.’
Bailey said Aanestad jumped at the opportunity to help
’The bill puts this issue in your back yard so you don’t have to drive to Sacramento and be one of a million people asking something of the government,’ Bailey said. ’You’ll be working with locals, and the senator encourages you to look hard at how to make that work.’
Part of the process of making that work is petitioning the court to make the special district the watermaster service provider.
’The legislation created the district, but you, as water right holders, decide if you want the district to be the watermaster,’ Francois said.
The watermaster is a court official that is responsible for ensuring that water rights are enforced. If the district were given this power, they would be held to the same laws as other districts - holding open meetings, providing an agenda before the meeting, etc.
The special district would be governed by seven board members, which the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors will appoint.
They are currently advertising the positions and will likely make their appointments at their Feb. 5 meeting, Francois said.
To petition the court, Borden explained, 15 percent of diversion owners must submit a representation agreement to Ellison, Schneider & Harris, LLP - the law firm hired by the CFBF to take their case to court.
Agreements were handed out to those at the meetings, and Borden explained how to fill them out and submit them.
All diversion owners in the valleys will receive a copy of the petition, and Borden said all petitions should be returned by Feb. 1.
But while 15 percent is the number that is legally required, the officials speaking at the meeting said they want more.
’We’re not looking for just 15 percent,’ said Jack Cowley, a former SOSS director and current
To see the bill, visit LaMalfa’s Web site: #www.assembly.ca.gov/La_Malfa.
DWR's California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader's services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news. DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of
No comments:
Post a Comment