|
|
Hearings target cost of ecolaws, but not water subsidies
|
Return to Top |
Maclachlan, Malcolm
Lodi News-Sentinel
|
A subcommittee of the House Committee on Resources chaired by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, is scheduled to hold hearings today on how environmental regulations effect water supplies.
Some environmentalists say the real story is the multibillion-dollar subsidy taxpayers give to farmers in the form of federal water projects.
The Subcommittee on Water and Power hearing, "Environmental Regulations and Water Supply Reliability," was called by committee chair George Radanovich, R-Fresno. There are seven scheduled witnesses, representing agribusiness, water experts and environmental groups.
"Everyone wants to protect endangered species, but we need to improve the way the Endangered Species Act is being carried out," Radanovich said in a press release. "Throughout the West, communities are threatened daily with severe water problems and it's our responsibility to help find solutions."
According to the press release, the federal Bureau of Reclamation spent nearly $84 million to comply with the Endangered Species Act in 2003. This represents nearly 10 percent of its annual budget.
Brian Kennedy, press secretary at the House Resources Committee, cited several examples of why many believe the cost of the Endangered Species Act enforcement has been extreme, such as lost access to water and power on the Colorado, Columbia, Klamath and Rio Grande rivers.
Kennedy said the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal energy agency based in Portland, lost $1.7 billion when it had to open spillways for fish during the 2001 West Coast power crisis.
When the administration couldn't run its dam turbines, it had to buy power at elevated prices from elsewhere in order to serve its customers.
"Water is very important out West, as is the Bureau of Reclamation getting abundant and reliable water to end users," Kennedy said.
However, according to Barry Nelson, senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the numbers cited by the resources committee are dwarfed by the amount taxpayers have given away to farmers in the form of water projects.
One of the prime examples, he said, was California's own Central Valley Project.
This Sacramento River basin water project was established by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in 1935. Under the terms of the original deal, farmers had 50 years to pay off a $1 billion interest-free loan on the federal money used to build the project.
The interest alone amounts to a multibillion-dollar subsidy to farmers, Nelson said, some who are wealthy and receive other subsidies. After nearly 60 years, farmers have paid off only 10 percent of the loan, he added.
"We tell welfare recipients to get off welfare in a couple of years," Nelson said. "I think half a century is long enough for Central Valley farmers to get off welfare, too."
Furthermore, Nelson said, the Central Valley Project operates at a huge loss to taxpayers every year. Farmers use 80 percent of California's water, he said, but the Central Valley Project sells water for a fraction of the market rate.
Typically, these farmers pay $30 for each acre foot, the amount of water that would cover one acre one foot deep, and many pay nothing at all. By contrast, the market rate for an acre foot of agricultural water is $120 to $150.
Residential customers, Nelson said, pay about $1,000 per acre-foot. An acre-foot is 329,250 gallons, the amount of water need to cover an acre of land in a foot of water.
Much of this water is used to support California's major crops of cotton, rice, and the beef and dairy industries. While Nelson said that he agrees that some water subsidies are reasonable, the market is currently glutted with many of these goods.
Meanwhile, he said, decades of dam building have decimated another important industry, California's salmon fisheries, putting thousands out of work.
Nelson said that the annual salmon run in the San Joaquin River has gone from hundreds of thousands of fish each year to zero because of dams.
"Think about the transportation problems California would have if 80 percent of our population paid a nickel a gallon for gas," Nelson said. "That's the situation we have with water." |
|
|
Supreme Court: Farmers can't sue for water rights
|
Return to Top |
Fischer, Douglas
Argus, The
|
Farmers receiving subsidized water from Uncle Sam cannot sue for damages when the government decides some of that water needs to stay in the rivers and streams, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
Two dozen Central Valley farmers wanted $32 million as compensation from the federal government for water they were due under a federal contract. Instead, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation diverted the water into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to protect two threatened fish species.
"This is a dramatic setback for a legal strategy that's really been growing in the last several years," said Barry Nelson, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"This is an attempt to force government to pay for environmental requirements. ... The hope is that by bankrupting those agencies, they can stop environmental protection from happening," he said.
At issue is a 1993 decision by the Bureau of Reclamation to halve the amount of water allocated to the giant Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley, from 900,000 acre-feet promised in a 1963 contract to 450,000. An acre-foot of water is 326,000 gallons, enough for a family of four for one year.
The cut was needed, the agency said, to protect threatened winter-run |
|
|
Court shields U.S. from farmers' lawsuit
|
Return to Top |
Doyle, Michael
Modesto Bee, The
|
Westlands growers wanted $32 million for undelivered water
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday shielded the federal government from a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by dissident Westlands Water District farmers.
In a unanimous ruling whose broader consequences may unfold slowly, the court ruled that sovereign immunity protects the United States from Francis Orff and the other unhappy Westlands farmers.
Essentially, it's up to the federal government to decide when it can be sued.
"We conclude that, in enacting (irrigation law), Congress did not consent to (Orff's) suit," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote.
Orff and about two dozen other Westlands farmers and farming partnerships want the federal government to pay them upward of $32 million for undelivered irrigation water. The Westlands district had filed a similar lawsuit, but dropped the case in 1995.
Orff and his allies, who farm only a small fraction of the Rhode Island-sized Westlands district, have since fought on by themselves.
The court's ruling Thursday means these individual farmers lack the same authority the district had to sue the government.
"It doesn't surprise me, actually," Westlands attorney Stuart Somach said. "This works well for us."
Ruling's implications wide
Thomas' 2,100-word opinion was short, fairly technical and entirely free of the passion found in some higher-profile court cases.
Its implications, though, may resonate well beyond the Westlands district, which had joined the U.S. government in trying to fend off the Orff lawsuit.
"I think it's going to apply to a lot of districts and a lot of farmers," said William Smiland, the Los Angeles-based attorney for Orff.
Somach noted that the decision will "vindicate the ability of a water district's board of directors to make decisions for the district."
Other applications, though, are not yet apparent. The decision gives Westlands what it wanted in this specific case. But the reasoning, Somach suggested, might also preclude some water districts from filing their own lawsuits in the future.
Environmentalists, who had been closely following the case and filing friend-of-the-court briefs, voiced relief.
"Had the Westlands farmers been permitted to sue, it would have opened the floodgates of litigation throughout the American West," said Lloyd Carter, director of the environmental group Revive the San Joaquin River.
Carter, whose group seeks restoration of the river's fishery flows, specifically warned of lawsuits that might have occurred "every time the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation attempted to repair some of the environmental damage it has done to Western rivers or endangered species by cutting back on irrigation deliveries."
Water diversion hurt farmers
The original lawsuits followed federal efforts to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and other damaged waterways. Under a 1992 law, more than 1million acre-feet of water was steered away from farms for environmental purposes.
The diversions helped protect the Sacramento winter-run Chinook salmon and other species, but they hurt the farmers, who were only receiving about half of the water promised by their federal contracts.
The farmers contended that as "intended third-party beneficiaries" of the original 1963 water contracts, they had the same right to sue as the water district. The district's right to sue was spelled out in the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act.
Thomas, though, reasoned that the 1982 law only permitted plaintiffs to add the United States to lawsuits involving other parties; for instance, a lawsuit filed by one water district against another, or a lawsuit filed by individual farmers against their own water district.
"It does not permit a plaintiff to sue the United States alone," Thomas wrote.
Smiland said it's possible Orff and the other farmers might consider taking another route now, by seeking compensation through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. During oral arguments in February, Supreme Court justices brought up that possibility several times. |
|
|
Balancing act at Friant Dam
|
Return to Top |
Marcum, Diana
Fresno Bee, The
|
As cool water cascades over the top, experts monitor the river's flow to prevent any flooding.
FRIANT — Even the guy with one of the most stressful jobs in the region couldn't resist the mesmerizing pull of falling water when Millerton Lake spilled over on Thursday.
Tony Buelna, supervisor of Friant Dam for the Bureau of Reclamation, makes the decisions about how much water to let out of the dam, and when. If he lets too much out into the San Joaquin River at one time, there's flooding. If he doesn't keep enough water in the lake, there's less water available for farmers and development and a usually struggling river.
The dam is a balancing act on the front line of a war of conflicting water needs.
But on Thursday, when the water went over the top, the dam turned into a waterfall, a wall of frothy white icing melting down the sides of the world's biggest wedding cake, an avalanche as solid white as if it really were snow instead of water.
And Buelna, like everyone else, watched.
"It really makes you focus and relax at the same time. I've found myself staring into it for 20 minutes," said Buelna, who's described by co-workers as someone who never slows down. "Compare this to Niagara Falls — Niagara is a 60-foot drop. This is 300. This is Friant Falls."
Buelna says water comes over the top of the dam about three times in every 10 years. The last spillovers were in June 2000 and June 2003. Officials had predicted Millerton Lake would go over the top on July 8.
In May, all four giant valves at the bottom of the dam were opened for the first time since 1998. On Thursday, only two valves were open so officials could gather data about the gates on top of the dam when the water spills over them.
At the bottom of the dam, water rushed through the valves at 125 cubic feet per second, forming 8-foot walls of swirling forces. Spikes of mist sprayed 30 feet straight into the air. A rainbow stretched the length of the waterway. Cool air blew over the parking lot for yards with the force of an air conditioner.
On top of the dam, Michael Wolfe, a hydrologic technician, said he usually has to look down 20 feet to see the lake. But on Thursday the lake was about even with the top of the dam, with a half-foot going over the spillway.
Between the water spilling over and the water rushing through the valves, there was 4,200 cubic square feet of water per second going into the river. Buelna said that's about enough to meet the needs of a community of 10,000 people for one year.
Big fish were hanging out at the top of the dam, just below the spillover's edge, watching tiny feeder fish wash over them. Egrets and eagles sat in green, well-watered trees 150 feet below the dam.
"How often do you get to look down on eagles?" said Wolfe from his perch.
Lately he's worked a lot of nights, monitoring water levels every two hours as this season's deep snowpack melts and makes its way into the already rain-filled reservoir.
"When the water's at this level, it's real critical. If we had a sudden spike when no one was here, it could get ugly," Wolfe said.
At night he notices a bobcat family lurking in some nearby bushes and a giant white spider that hangs out on the gate to the dam.
In the day he watches the fish and the eagles.
But it's the water that he notices the most. Wolfe said there's just something about watching moving water.
"The main thing is seeing water in the river. It's usually nothing but sand, but it's a live river now. You see birds and ducks where usually there's just a couple of chukars," he said.
"Everything is different when there's water." |
|
