 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Watering Crops or Cul de Sacs?
The paving of prime farmland is just one of the dire consequences that opponents predict will result from the South San Joaquin Irrigation District's (SSJID) plan to transfer 40,000 acre-feet of so-called "excess water" from the Stanislaus River to the cities of Tracy, Escalon, Lathrop and Manteca. What's more, they claim the transfer represents the tip of an iceberg that could ultimately sink CALFED's efforts to acquire water for environmental restoration.
A coalition of groups, including the Sierra Club, DeltaKeeper, the Audubon Society and the California Sport Fishing Protection Alliance, is preparing to file suit to prevent the transfer, which was approved by the irrigation district's board at the end of May. The coalition claims, among other things, that the transfer will fuel growth in the four cities - growth that will pave tens of thousands of acres of farmland and wildlife habitat and may compromise water quality. "The EIR tries to make the argument that if SSJID does not give the cities the water to grow, they'll get it somewhere else," says the Sierra Club's Eric Parfrey. "The reality is that this is by far the best option the cities have - it's really the whole ball game." Parfrey says the transfer - together with another recently approved transfer to Stockton - will move about 75,000 acre-feet, enough for roughly 125,000 homes. "They are literally talking about water supply for the whole next wave of suburban sprawl over the next 20 years," he says.
SSJID's Grant Kreinberg says the transfers are not to blame for growth. "We are simply accommodating growth that the cities have approved in their general plans and have written a CEQA document for," he says.
Parfrey says that the two transfers will cut the river's flow significantly during critical periods, further degrading the already poor water quality downstream, where high salinity is a particular problem. These water quality concerns are leading the South Delta Water Agency to oppose the transfer, although it is unclear whether the agency will join the suit. "The net effect is that we would be suing jurisdictions within our area," says South Delta's John Herrick. "We would rather work with communities on area-wide problems."
Both Herrick and Parfrey say the controversy over this and other transfers could ultimately force new case law on water rights. "The issue of who owns 'excess water' is a huge legal question," says Parfrey. SSJID argues that it is entitled to up to 300,000 acre-feet per year from New Melones under its original settlement with BurRec, to use or sell as it sees fit. "Because cities use less water than the crops that used to be there, we've got an excess," says Kreinberg, who also notes that the agency has undertaken conservation measures in recent years. "If agencies can't put their conserved water to use, what's the point of conserving?" he asks. Others say that in today's water universe if water is not needed for agriculture, it's needed instream for water quality and fish protection. "Our position is that there is no surplus water to be purchased for any purpose," says Herrick. "Only in excessive flood years is there unused water in the San Joaquin system; normally, all the water is put to beneficial use and everyone's return flows provide necessary benefits to downstream beneficial uses. 'Conserving water' simply means that an upstream party is decreasing the amount available to downstream uses at one time and supplying it for use at another time. It's a zero sum game and can only result in redirected impacts."
Parfrey acknowledges that there is a certain irony in his organization's opposition to the transfer, since environmentalists have long called for more water transfers as an alternative to new water storage and conveyance facilities. "We are certainly not opposed to the ag to ag transfers, which are needed all the time. Where we get scared is when we see very large water transfers from ag to urban districts, and where we get freaked out is when we see big ag to urban water transfers out of basin. We've got to look at the nitty gritty of each one very carefully."
Parfrey is also worried about the cumulative effect of water transfers on CALFED's ability to acquire water for restoration purposes. If enough water gets contracted for in transfers, "it could really tie CALFED's hands," he says. However, CALFED water transfer guru Greg Young is not too concerned: "There are enough willing sellers throughout the system to satisfy the demands of the Environmental Restoration Program and the Environmental Water Account," two key elements of the state-federal partnership's plan to fix the Bay and Delta. However, he adds, "whether the price that CALFED has to pay to acquire water to augment flows in a few streams gets higher because of transfer activities is a tough one to call."
Young says he thinks trying to halt growth by opposing water transfers is misguided. "Transfer proposals are not the appropriate mechanisms for dealing with growth issues," he says. "There are other avenues for that."
South Delta's Herrick believes that continued conflicts over water transfers are inevitable precisely because programs such as CALFED are falling short. "The Delta's problems are not being fixed, so anytime anybody does anything it exacerbates them," he says. "The Delta's problems are unequivocally attributable to the state and federal water project operations. Until they step up and correct what they're doing, there are going to be problems like this over and over again."
Contact: Eric Parfrey (510)420-8686 or Grant Kreinberg (209)823-3101
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project