 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Breach on the San Joaquin
Not dead, just resting, appears to be an accurate description of California's water wars during relatively cooperative recent years. The beast was jolted into angry wakefulness in August when Westlands Water District filed an application with the State Board laying claim to one-third of the water from the San Joaquin River and breaking the unwritten law that agricultural interests should stick together. The move not only leaves the 15,000 farmers on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley - who rely on water diverted from the river at Friant Dam - fearing for their livelihoods, but also threatens a long-sought plan for restoring the San Joaquin below the dam.
Westlands - the nation's largest irrigation district - filed the claim because it "can no longer rely on the Central Valley Project to provide an affordable, reliable water supply that is adequate to sustain agriculture in the district," thanks largely to regulatory actions taken under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the Endangered Species Act, says Westlands general manager Tom Birmingham. Because of new regulations imposed over the past decade, Westlands expects an average of only 50% to 55% of its contracted CVP water, he says. Westlands is basing its claim on county of origin and watershed protection statutes, which give water users in a county where a river originates and those downstream in the watershed priority before the water can be exported.
"This just illustrates how tough things are getting out there," says Dave Kranz of the California Farm Bureau, which has members on both sides of the valley and has not taken an official position on the issue. "People are desperate and they are doing whatever they can to make sure they get the water they need." Birmingham agrees, and goes a step further. "The failure of CALFED to restore the water that has been lost to the environment contributed to the decision to file the application," he says. "If the Department of the Interior, through CALFED or any other means, can give Westlands an enforceable commitment that it will provide an affordable, reliable and adequate supply, it will not be necessary to pursue the application."
Whether or not Westlands succeeds is likely to turn on a legal question for which there is little guiding precedent. The watershed protection statutes only apply if the water is being exported out of the basin or an area immediately adjacent to it that can be conveniently served, says the State Board's Jerry Johns. "The issue revolves around whether or not the water use in the Friant service area is outside the watershed of origin or an area immediately adjacent to the watershed of origin. If Friant is immediately adjacent, they should be treated as if they were an in-basin user, and Westlands, as another in-basin user, can't have the water because it's already being used, in effect for in-basin use."
Although the term "area immediately adjacent thereto" has not been clearly defined in the law, arguing that it "extends over two or three watersheds is not a reasonable interpretation," says the Central Delta Water Agency's Dante Nomellini. Although many in the state's farming community view Westlands' move as nothing short of traitorous, Nomellini thinks the district has a point. By the same token, he adds, "we think the Bureau of Reclamation's deliveries from the Delta to Westlands are illegal; they're depriving the eastside of San Joaquin county of its water."
Natural Resources Defense Council's Drew Caputo dismisses the idea, suggested by some Westlands supporters, that enviros should back Westlands' claim, since it would mean the release of about 500,000 af from Friant Dam in normal years. "The whole idea is to come up with a restoration plan that all parties can live with. For Friant that means that they remain viable as an agricultural operation - if Westlands takes away a third of the river's water, Friant loses its ability to restore the river and feel like they can remain viable." Furthermore, he says the point of the restoration plan - being developed as part of settlement negotiations in a long-running legal battle between NRDC and the Friant Water Users Authority - is to restore the entire river, not just the section between Friant Dam and Mendota Pool, where Westlands would divert the water. Friant Water Users Authority spokesman Randy McFarland agrees that if Westlands is successful, "from Friant's perspective, it would be shattering to restoration efforts. All the knowns become unknowns."
Westlands claim is likely to take years to resolve. In the meantime, both MacFarland and Caputo say they are moving forward with studies to determine what the river needs to become a living river once again.
Although Birmingham insists that Westlands' quarrel is not with the Friant users, but rather with the federal government, Friant doesn't see it that way; in late September they fired back with a letter charging that the Westlands board violated the state's public meetings law by failing to list the issue on its agendas in recent months. McFarland says the letter "gives Westlands an opportunity to reconsider their action" in light of the massive opposition it has provoked; if they do not, Friant will pursue the issue in court. Contact Randy McFarland (559) 896-4715, Tom Birmingham (559) 224-1523. CH
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project