Nunes warns that river funding may leave farmers high and dry

Cecilia Parsons
Capital Press

November 05, 2007


TULARE , Calif. - The water fight continues and this time it is dividing farmers.

Those who believe in standing firm behind the 2006 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement and those who doubt the validity of the agreement given the current bay-delta situation butted heads Friday at a meeting called by U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia.

Nunes, who has expressed skepticism over the settlement since it was signed last year, warned growers, along with Friant Water Authority board members and managers that funding legislation for the ambitious restoration project may move out of committee in Washington , D.C. this week. Once the bill moves, he said, he will no longer be able to fight for their interests.

"You are not going to get what you were promised," Nunes warned of the settlement.

He was referring to water recovery after diversion to restore the river. With an $800 million dollar price tag on the river restoration, Nunes argued the district would be shorted on their water returns.

Friant manager Ron Jacobsma along with irrigation district managers Sean Geivet and Dan Vink were adamant the settlement was still the best deal for the districts and growers. The settlement caps the amount of water that can be taken and lends them more protection than they would receive from a judge who has already indicated he would take more water for fish, they said. Vink, who is manager of the Lower Tule River and Pixley irrigation districts said part of the settlement upholds 25-year water contracts. Those could be lost if they were to go back to the judge.

"With this settlement we can keep those contracts. We have certainty," he argued. In the settlement, farmers who irrigate crops with water from the Friant-Kern canal were told they would only lose 15 percent of their water when river flows were restored to create an environment for a salmon fishery on 153 miles of the San Joaquin River .

Environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council promised the river restoration goals would be equal in importance to water management goals for farmers and there would be caps on the total amount of water agriculture would lose to restoration. Key to the settlement was a recirculation plan to return water to growers.

The settlement contains assurances that the parties intend to deal with reduced water deliveries but provides no definite plans to mitigate the water losses. Nunes contends the delta situation compounds the problem and the chances of Friant users recovering any water are zero.

Jacobsma said they always knew a delta fix would have to come into play to meet their goals for returning water to the irrigation districts. It will be five more years until water flows in the river, Jacobsma said. During that time there may be a delta fix that will allow for water returns.

He also said he had assurances from Sen. Dianne Feinstein that the legislation would not move through the Senate without language to return water to growers.

Nunes warned that there are leaders in the House who do not care if Friant districts go dry. They are willing to spend money to restore the salmon, however. He argues that Friant farmers have options.

The district's representatives have the ability to legislate a solution independent of the courts and the settlement, he argued. He said the district needs to reassess the situation and determine through an official vote if the settlement is the only viable option. If the settlement is authorized by federal legislation, Nunes said, Friant's options would be gone.

Nunes also charged that Friant would have to advance forward their repayment of capital costs to solve a congressional budgetary requirement. That could significantly alter the price for water and some areas could see prices over $100 an acre foot, he said.

While Friant district board members may question the validity of the settlement, they are loathe to return to court and take their chances with a judge who has already indicated he will send more of their water down the channel for fish.

Kole Upton, chairman of the Friant Water Users Authority agreed the spirit and intent of the agreement was in question.

He was asked if the board should review its decision to sign the agreement.

"If that's their pleasure," Upton replied.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=94&SubSection

ID=801&ArticleID=36622