Bishop, CA

Gov. Jerry Brown suffered another setback in his effort to gain the upper hand over California’s persistent drought. New details on alterations to his massive pumping plan, which would change the way the Delta region distributes the water that flows into it, revealed major changes that have aroused major opposition.

In a harsh editorial, the San Francisco Chronicle underscored that the altered scheme “will cost more, provide less water than originally envisioned (but more than pumped south now), restore less than half of the delta habitat than proposed, take longer to build and, most notably, lack the 50-year guarantee of water deliveries that made the old plan attractive.”

For that, Brown had federal regulators to blame. Environmental agencies objected that his half-century assurance “would lock in water deliveries without regard to shifting environmental conditions,” the Chronicle reported. Since that fact was inherent to any such promise, Brown had to drop it in order to proceed.

Measurement problems

The problem has been compounded by a simple dilemma: “nobody can say with certainty how much Delta water is actually being used by Delta farmers,” as the Sacramento Bee observed. “The state allows thousands of water rights holders to divert water directly from rivers and streams, but in most cases has no metering system in place to gauge just how much they take.” What’s more, relying on a meter system could simply produce unclear results, the Bee added, “because of the complexities of the estuary itself: a fragile natural ecosystem that’s been replumbed and reconfigured to deliver water to farms and cities to the south and west.”

The Delta drama played out amid state regulators’ first issuance of a fine for unauthorized water use in a farming district. “The proposed fine, which the district will likely contest in a coming hearing, is the first fine sought by the Board under a new structure in which water rights holders can be penalized for past unauthorized use of water, even if they have stopped diverting since,” Mother Jones noted.

Regulators, farmers, and others have clashed over measurements involving other sources of water, too. “California still doesn’t require that water pumped from underground be measured at all, much less factored into an overall assessment of total water resources,” according to a ProPublica reporter writing for the New York Times; “it’s merely an option under a new law signed last September.”

“California’s new groundwater legislation does require local water authorities to come up with sustainable groundwater plans, but they don’t have to do that until 2020, and they don’t have to balance their water withdrawals until 2040.”

Regulatory wrangling

Meanwhile, in Washington, Congressional Republicans have centered around a fresh push to reform the federal rules around how much California’s pumps can flow. The Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015 boasted the support of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “We designed the bill to move as much water down south to our farms and to our cities as possible without making any fundamental changes to the environmental law,” said McCarthy.

“A bill by Republican Rep. David Valadao set for consideration Thursday would require that federal regulators maintain certain pumping levels unless the secretary of the Interior Department certifies that level would harm the long-term survival of the Delta smelt and no other alternatives to protect the smelt are available,” the Associated Press reported. “The 170-page bill also sets deadlines for the completion of feasibility studies to build or enlarge five dams in the state and ends efforts to build up salmon populations in the San Joaquin River.”

Observers expected the bill to meet the same fate as two previous attempts by the House GOP to pass federal drought relief for California on terms amenable to state and national Republicans, many of whom view strict environmental regulations as a major source of residents’ water woes. But Valadao, in a news conference covered by AP, said the legislation’s Senate outlook was “still up in the air,” with “some support” fueling hopes of a possible win.

Gov. Jerry Brown has tried to set a philosophical tone, cautioning that “we are embarked upon an experiment that no one has ever tried: 38 million people, with 32 million vehicles, living at the level of comfort that we all strive to attain. This will require adjustment. This will require learning.” But environmentalists have urged him to add water restrictions to California’s big farmers.

At the same time, environmentalism itself has become caught in the political crossfire.

Assigning blame

In recent radio remarks to The Blaze, likely GOP presidential contender Carly Fiorina castigated “liberal environmentalists” for creating a statewide “tragedy.”

“[D]espite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia, liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California’s population has doubled,” she said. “There is a man-made lack of water in California — and Washington manages the water for the farmers.”

Fiorina has not been alone in teeing up environmentalists for criticism over the Golden State’s dire straits. As The Hill noted, “Republicans in California and in Congress have proposed multiple times to beef up the state’s water storage with more dams and reservoirs. Environmentalists have pushed back and questioned the impact that the projects would have on the state’s water needs.”

In a related spat, Republicans at the federal level blamed environmental interests for President Obama’s threatened veto of a bill that would pump water from California’s Delta region into Southern California. The move drew howls from California’s Republican delegation.

When the president ordered Northern California water withheld to protect the tiny Delta smelt, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., called the act a “culmination of failed federal and state policies that have exacerbated the current drought into a man-made water crisis. Sacramento and Washington have chosen to put the well-being of fish above the well-being of people by refusing to capture millions of acre-feet of water during wet years for use during dry years.”

Recently, faced with questioning on the drought, White House press secretary Josh Earnest rebuffed the matter. According to Politico, Earnest “said the Obama administration does not have any policy changes to share, and he listed steps that President Barack Obama has taken to offer relief to the state, such as sending $60 million to California food banks and $15 million for farmers and ranchers.”

“We’re going to continue to be in touch with California,” he concluded.

Fracking fight

At the same time federal water allocation has become a bone of political contention, the role of fracking in water consumption has also come under scrutiny. In furtherance of a law passed last year that requires oil and gas companies to disclose how much water they use, state officials told Reuters that last year that the figure hit some 70 million gallons’ worth.

But rather than bowing to objections from within his own party, Gov. Jerry Brown declined to crack down on the practice.

“Despite pressure from environmentalists, Brown has not called for a halt to fracking in the state, saying it is not a major drain on water supplies. ‘Hydraulic fracturing uses a relatively small amount of water – the equivalent of 514 households annually’ per well, said Steven Bohlen, the state oil and gas supervisor. About 100,000 gallons of water is used on average per well, he said.”

For environmentalists, who have been at odds with fracking for years, both in California and across the country, the drought’s intensity simply supplied yet another reason that the practice should end.

A little-known 2008 study by four graduate students at the University of California, Santa Barbara warned that farmers first needed to be given replacement water before their water was taken for river restoration.

The river restoration was ordered in 2006 by federal Judge Lawrence K. Karlton in the case NRDC vs. Rodgers. In that case, the National Resources Defense Council complained that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation failed to release enough water from Friant Dam to prevent the destruction of the river’s salmon runs.

Karlton wrote, “In the words of the Department of Interior, Friant Dam’s operations have been a ‘disaster’ for Chinook salmon.”

But in 2008, the students predicted shifting the water from farms to salmon would be a disaster for the farms. The students were Laura Bauer, Natalija Glusac, Marina Kasa and Kara Mathews from the U.C. Santa Barbara Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management.

The study was titled, “The San Joaquin River Settlement: Analysis and Implications for Future Negotiations and Funding.” It was supervised by environmental economist Gary Libecap, PhD.

The study calculated that total water usage in the San Joaquin Valley decreased by 800,000 acre-feet during the 1991 drought. And surface water deliveries dropped 53 percent below normal.

The study emphatically concluded:

“As a result, obtaining the water necessary for restoration projects will result in water being reallocated from current users, decreasing the water supply many of these users rely upon for their livelihood. As such, it is necessary to develop water supply mitigation measures.” 

Two options were discussed for mitigating lost farm water:

1. Get more water by importing it from the Sacramento Delta, transfers from other water users, or increased groundwater pumping;

2. Decrease water demand by shifting crop types or reducing planted acreage.

Not discussed: Lining irrigation ditches or other technological ways to lessen water losses.

Planning failure in farm water diversions for fish

The implication drawn from the U.C. student study is: If you’re going to mandate diversions of river water away from farms for fish, fund farm water replacement projects first in the event of a catastrophic drought.

Otherwise what occurs is that, when a prolonged drought hits, there is no water storage to buffer the impact on farmers. Environmental court orders and regulations have reduced 58 percent of the farm water allocations in the Central Valley Project since 1990 (see Slide No. 5 here).

Farming has now become unsustainable in much of the Central Valley because there is no reliability of water from which to make agricultural investments.

Congressional actions

Following Karlton’s court order, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., pushed her San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act H.R. 146 through Congress as a trailer bill to the Omnibus Lands Act of 2009. This effectively circumvented the farm lobby in Congress. 

Feinstein took advantage of a political window of opportunity at the time when the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. In 2011, Republicans took back control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

H.R. 146 called for the restoration of salmon runs in the San Joaquin River at a cost of $800 million to $1 billion to create a man-made link across a 60-mile dry stretch of the river that historically dried up in past major droughts.  However, only $88 million was authorized under H.R. 146 for planning and pilot project activities.

The appropriation of the remainder of the funding has since been blocked in House after the GOP came back into power.

Surcharge

Additionally, a $7 per acre-foot of water surcharge was assessed on Central Valley Farmers to pay for the remainder of the restoration.  Up to 2014, farmers paid $180 million into the restoration fund.  Now that an historic drought has hit the state, salmon spawning pools and river runs are shrinking and farmers have ended up subsidizing their own demise.

One of the engineering problems with the restoration of the river for fish is that taking from 247,000 to 356,000 acre-feet of water from farmers resulted in nearby farms switching to reliance on their groundwater rights. Subsequently, the riverbed sank due to subsurface water withdrawals.  Now engineers cannot figure out how to get water to flow uphill across the 60-mile dry gap.

It remains a quandary why courts dictated that salmon runs had to be restored through rich agricultural lands instead of on wild rivers such as portions of the Sacramento and Klamath Rivers.

Feinstein’s H.R 146 contains a provision to allocate $102 million of funds collected from farmers’ higher water rates to replenish their lost farm water allocations. But the replacement water projects have never been implemented.

The fail safe drought planning principle

When it comes to environmental mitigation, parks and open space bureaucracies want their dedication of mitigation lands and restoration projects completed upfront.  However, when it comes to upfront mitigation of impacts to farmers, it’s tough luck. The consequences of this policy now are becoming catastrophic, as the drought has decimated Central Valley farms for what could be years. 

A “fail safe” drought planning principle was ignored in the court order and ensuing legislation to implement the restoration of the San Joaquin River.  If it had been adhered to, Central Valley farmers would not have had 800,000 acre-feet of water flushed to the ocean in 2012 without recapturing it for farmers.  If a fail safe policy had been adhered to, new groundwater recharge basins, upstream reservoirs such as the proposed Temperance Flat Reservoir, and water efficiency measures might have been built out before undertaking any fish restoration activities.

The courts are perpetuating this policy failure in their rulings that the Endangered Species Act preempts state water law in Texas, which also is experiencing catastrophic drought.

“People Before Fish” means pre-mitigation of lost farm water

It is for the above reasons that a group of Republican Central Valley congressmen — Reps. Devin Nunes, Kevin McCarthy and David Valadao — have repeatedly tried in vain to get the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, H.R. 146 repealed by passing the new San Joaquin River Water Reliability Act, H.R. 1837. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, visited California to back an effort to again try to repeal H.R. 146.

The drought is opening the public’s eyes to the disastrous policies of river restoration and what farmers mean when they say “put people before fish.”

Feinstein, who sponsored the San Joaquin River Restoration Act, has tried to balance fish habitat restoration and farm water issues. But the Federal Endangered Species Act is imbalanced and ignores potentially catastrophic droughts. Rep. Nunes asserts his H.R. 1837 bill is a more balanced approach to drought management.

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner crosses the California “Rubicon” today on a visit to Kern County with a platoon of California congressmen to set forth a Republican strategy to alleviate the official state drought called by Gov. Jerry Brown — and maybe pick up some more House seats for the GOP.

The contest of this drought war is between Brown and Boehner over who controls the releases of water from the federal Central Valley Project to lessen drought impacts to either fish or farmers.

On Jan. 17, Brown issued a call to create an Interagency Drought Task Force, whereby his team would control the releases of federal water to California. Some California environmentalists see Brown as a foe of the California Environmental Quality Act, while caving in to farmers’ water demands. Others hold out the prospect that Brown will pander to the powerful environmental lobby in California, especially U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Democrats like Brown.

Boehner’s entry into California signifies the Republican-controlled House wants to manage any water releases to assure they will go to farmers. Backing Boehner are Republican Reps. Devin Nunes of Tulare, David Valadao of Hanford and Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield.

Nunes has proposed floating a new bill in the House that would:

• Allow the pumps run by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River to remain running as long as water is available.
• Re-establish salmon runs, put a stop to the San Joaquin River Restoration Program that would allow river water to flow to the ocean instead of farms. River restoration plans have run into difficulty, not necessarily because of farms having taken water from the fish, but because engineers need to find ways for water to run uphill along former riverbeds.
• Create a joint House-Senate committee to find long-range solutions to California’s drought problems.

CEQA suspended by Brown

Brown has not let Boehner take all the action in the water wars. Under Paragraph 9 of Brown’s Emergency Drought Declaration issued Jan. 17, the provisions of CEQA have been suspended.

That means any measures taken by the governor to alleviate drought do not have to comply with water quality plans, prepare scientific documentation of environmental impacts or hold public hearings and solicit official comments on any environmental impacts as a result of those measures.

The governor’s action to suspend CEQA has created quite a reaction among California environmentalists. Charged Nick di Croce, facilitator of the California Environmental Water Caucus, “The need for more conservation and greater efficiencies in water management should not result in abrogation of equally needed environmental safeguards benefitting both humans and other species, including fish.”

Federal-state water transfers now possible due to Mendota Intertie

Returning to the federal level of Boehner’s field of play, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has a new potential mechanism to alleviate drought that heretofore has not been available in California history.  The USBR recently completed the Mendota Canal Intertie to the California Aqueduct. The intertie is comprised of two nine-foot diameter subsurface pipes that invisibly connect the federal and state water systems.  Prior to the construction of the intertie, the two systems existed for 45 years about 500 feet apart near the City of Tracy without any way to cross-transfer water.

The bigger question is whether there will be any water available within the federal Central Valley Project to transfer to the State Water Project.  That is because of the severity of the predictable drought and no new water capture reservoirs being built in the state since the 1960s.

Latino Water Coalition lobbies governor

Mario Santoyo of the Latino Water Coalition has lobbied the governor for relief for the population dense and lush Eastside farmers in the Central Valley, not just the parched, unplanted acres of the thinly populated Westside.  The present drought is believed to be so severe that it can’t be isolated to Westside farmers, as in past dry spells.

The political struggle is over environmental water.  If water were released from Millerton Lake to restore salmon runs on the San Joaquin River, the result would be turning off the spigot to Eastside farmers all the way from Fresno to Kern County.  Millerton Lake is an artificial lake near Fresno run by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as part of the Central Valley Project.

Families Protecting the Valley, a Madera-based association of farmers, reacted favorably to the governor declaring a drought emergency. But they are taking a wait-and-see posture if he will override the state’s powerful environmental lobby to provide water for farmers.  Democrats lost the seat for State Senate District 16 in the midterm election of 2013 to Republican Andy Vidak mainly for choosing fish over farmers.

Boehner also is eager to exploit such problems for Democrats to try to pad his Republican majority in the House with a couple of more California representatives.

Environmentalists so far have been losing due to Brown’s suspension of CEQA and now Boehner’s entry into California to capture the San Joaquin River pump houses away from Brown.

To many farmers, winning the drought war means economic survival.  To the victor go the perks of California’s drought war.