559-286-7795
facebook twitter you tube
 

Newsletter

 

Can Valley Ag Unite for Water?

According to Nunes, the Friant Water Users Authority professional management and their lobbyists are working behind the scenes to scuttle his legislation

Feb 28, 2012

 

Families Protecting The Valley Newsletter
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 6

FEBRUARY 28 2012

 

:: IN THIS ISSUE
» NunesRadio
» WaterWar
Donate to Families Protected the Valley
Visit Our Web Site

Visit Our Web Site

Board of Directors

Denis Prosperi
Chester Andrew
Bob Smittcamp
Russ Waymire
John "Dusty" Giacone
Joe Marchini
Mark Watte
Kole Upton
Piedad Ayala
Tom Barcellos
Jim Walls

 
Can Valley Ag Unite for Water?

One of the problems Devin Nunes, Jeff Denham and Tom McClintock are trying to solve in their Water Reliability Act is the damage done to farmers in the San Joaquin River Settlement of 2009. Farmers, environmentalists and politicians all agreed to the settlement that allowed water to flow into the dry river again in exchange for being able to pump it back into the California water system once it reached the Delta. A promise made in the agreement was that once it was signed none of the signees would ever challenge it. The problem with that was environmentalists were already breaking the agreement before the ink was dry on the deal. They were in court to shut down the pumps which would keep farmers from getting the water back from the Delta they were promised in the settlement.

Families Protecting the Valley exists today to educate people about how farmers were doube-crossed in this deal and the deal needs to be fixed. That's what Devin Nunes, Jeff Denham and Tom McClintock are trying to do. According to the article below "the bill's authors have rallied the public support of some 70 California water districts, 20 farm organizations and 20 cities and counties, among others." But, not everyone.


According to Nunes, the Friant Water Users Authority professional management and their lobbyists are working behind the scenes to scuttle his legislation and they are also refusing to allow their member growers to vote up or down on his proposal. The farmers are being shut out of a decision that impacts their future and their survival.

The Friant Water Users Authority management says they are bound by the River Settlement deal they agreed to in 2009. Nunes' question for Friant is this: why are you bound by the deal when the environmentalists break it every chance they get and broke it immediately with their pump shut-down doublecross. Why doesn't Friant just admit that the River Settlement was a bad deal, a deal no one is adhering to except them and get on board with Congressman Nunes, Denham and McClintock?

The division created by Friant is allowing the oppositon to portray the farm community as divided and is making it more difficult for Nunes, Denham and McClintock to get things done. Here we have a Congressman who told everyone not to get into the River Settlement in the first place and now is trying to fix it, yet some are not willing to help.


Contentious bill would reshape the restoration of San Joaquin River

By Michael Doyle and Mark Grossi - The Fresno Bee

The San Joaquin River's meandering course through central California would get steered in yet another direction under a far-reaching bill set for House approval this week.


Salmon would be out. Other fish would be in. One restoration program would end. Another would start. Water would flow below Friant Dam north of Fresno, but not nearly as much as currently planned.


Biologically, scientists say, the House proposal has promise. Politically, it faces strong opposition. Legally, it appears vulnerable to challenge. Bottom line: When the biggest California water bill in years hits the House floor, as it is expected to do Wednesday, the San Joaquin River will be incontrovertibly front and center.


"The San Joaquin River," chief bill author Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia said, "is the lynchpin of the entire bill."


The river section spans nearly half of the 53-page Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act. The section is titled "Repeal of the San Joaquin River Settlement," though "repeal" does not really convey the consequences.


Instead, if the section survives, it would replace a cold-water fishery, in which salmon return to the San Joaquin River, with a less expensive warm-water fishery, conducive to other river-loving species.


"I think it's a reasonable thing to propose," said Doug Welch, natural resources planner with the Chowchilla Water District, which joined other farm water groups in agreeing to the current salmon plan. "The jury is still out on restoring a self-reproducing salmon run."


Elsewhere, the new House bill restores longer irrigation contracts, preempts strict state laws and eases water transfers. It offers more water for San Joaquin Valley farms, while painstakingly negotiated language is designed to ease Sacramento Valley fears about supplies being shipped south.


The overall bill sharply divides the state, and its long-term prospects are uncertain.


The bill's authors have rallied the public support of some 70 California water districts, 20 farm organizations and 20 cities and counties, among others.


"This treats our water as the precious resource it is, and restores balance between human and environmental uses of that resource," said Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove, chairman of the House water and power subcommittee.


But 10 House Democrats from Northern California oppose the overall bill, as do the state's two senators and the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown. The House Democrats, who together represent about 7 million residents, say they were shut out of the months-long bill drafting that occurred under McClintock's oversight.


"Sacramento is concerned that this legislation would create chaos in the already challenged context of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," said Sacramento City Council Member Jay Schenirer, adding that, "Sacramento has not been allowed to be at the table or to address its concerns."


The bill's San Joaquin River provision blocks a 2009 law, which Congress passed to implement a lawsuit settlement reached between environmentalists and Friant Water Users Authority farmers.


The settlement requires additional water to be released through Friant Dam, and for myriad river channel improvements, so salmon can be returned starting this year. The average releases would be about 200,000 acre-feet, about 15% of the total available.


The Nunes bill, by contrast, would send an estimated 100,000 acre-feet of water down the river channel, less than half of the river settlement's average.


Supporters say a warming climate will make it more difficult for cold-water fish, such as salmon, to survive as far south as Fresno. Other native fish might do very well under the alternative warm-water plan, including trout, Sacramento sucker and threespine stickleback.


But fishery biologist Peter Moyle of the University of California at Davis says the salmon restoration makes sense in a warming climate. The San Joaquin may be a refuge for salmon because the river's watershed taps the high Sierra. Snowfields above 10,000 feet are likely to remain a source of ice-cold water in spring, he says.


Friant representatives previously floated the idea of a warm-water fishery during settlement negotiations, but environmentalists insisted on salmon. Fearing uncertainty if they fought the settlement, Friant negotiators say they cut the best deal they could rather than face a court-ordered water loss.


Politically, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has shown no sign of backing off from the settlement legislation she spent considerable effort pursuing, in alliance with both Friant farmers and environmentalists.


"Without consulting the settling parties who continue to support the settlement ... the bill proposes to leave as much as 40 miles of the river without water," Feinstein and Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer wrote House members.


Nunes, in turn, accuses Feinstein of being beholden to "radical environmentalists."


Legally, the 80-page settlement agreement appears at least somewhat resistant to the kind of change Congress is now considering. While the new legislation essentially would withdraw the federal government from the settlement, the agreement states "the settlement may only be modified in writing upon agreement of the parties."


"The legality of Congress overturning the court-approved settlement to restore the San Joaquin River is dubious at best," said environmentalists' attorney Hal Candee. "In any event, it is certain that this bill would lead the parties back to court, an outcome that neither farmers nor environmental groups want."


If you enjoy our newsletter please send it to friends. If you're a member of an organization please feel free to send it to everyone on your list. If someone sent this to you and you'd like your own free subscription, sign up here. If you'd like to respond just click 'reply' or send to john@familiesprotectingthevalley.com

 

Valid RSS FeedGet the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.

helpdonate
helpdonate