‘Healing Move on Water’
The tenor of your editorial (May 13), “Healing Move on Water,” precipitated my writing you on the subject. I agree that the federal government’s appearing to agree to meet its obligations in the San Francisco Bay-Delta area is constructive.
Unfortunately, the coordinated operating agreement has a “hole” in it that you can drive a division of Sherman tanks through side by side. Until that “hole” is plugged, Southern California’s wish to complete the State Water Project is essentially non-existent.
The “hole” is that the State Water Resources Control Board, the regulatory agency that sets the terms and conditions on the operating permit of the state and federal water projects, reserves jurisdiction on the standards to protect the beneficial uses of water in the Bay-Delta area. This means the standards can be revised either up or down. D-1485 you refer to in your editorial is but one set of standards. If the board makes them more rigid, the coordinated operating agreement does not guarantee they be met. Consequently, we in the South would be doing our neighbors to the North, and ourselves, a disservice to view the coordinated operating agreement in its present form as either a panacea, or even remotely approaching a panacea, to our needs.
For background, the state board’s authority regarding the federal project is somewhat “gray” and has led to what generally is called the federal-state water controversy. It is the major problem facing the continuance of responsible water development. Unless resolved in good faith, everything is on hold.
The coordinating operations agreement is the recipe for a solution. It needs a firm supply of one ingredient--stored water--to allow the product to come to fruition. Without a firm commitment, the document remains merely a recipe.
Thee are three approaches to resolution:
Approach No. 1 would require Congress to mandate the Department of the Interior to meet the standards, revised or otherwise. This concept was utilized in SB 346 of the 1977-78 session and split the pro-development forces in the state. As you have pointed out, the present coordinating operating agreement appears to reflect existing, but not future standards. Either way, the agreement is still subject to congressional action. If it deals with present standards and not future ones, regardless of scope, even though Congress approved, the basic guarantees still would not exist. If Congress chose not to approve, the agreement would be nothing but a recipe.
Approach No. 2 would require the state water contractors to pick up any federal deficiencies. The vast preponderance supported this approach in SB 200. Now it appears they choose to reject this approach, which, in turn, imposes federal prerequisites.
Approach No. 3 is that contained in SB 210 of the 1984-85 session, an insurance policy that allows the state to buy the water. The policy insures the standards will be met. It requires congressional approval to sell the water. If the coordinated operating agreement becomes enacted--fine. Yet, if the standards become excessively rigid, an insurance policy is necessary for this to be achieved.
SB 210, the Water Quality Bond Act of 1985, is a premium-free insurance policy to assure protection of beneficial uses of water in the San Francisco Bay-Delta region. it also provides water deficient regions of California the opportunity to purchase water for their needs. The measure includes a $900-million general obligation bond authorization to implement that policy, subject to voter approval at the November 1986 election. Terms of the measure are inoperative until such time Congress enacts legislation which authorizes the sale to the state of rights to stored water from the federal project.
Delivery of the water discussed in your editorial is predicated on three events--none of which exists today. They are: (1) guarantees of protection for the San Francisco Bay-Delta; (2) construction of a delta facility; and (3) installation and full operation of the additional pump units at the delta pumping plant near Tracy. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources for close to 10 years, I am convinced that the additional water cannot be delivered to Southern California until guarantees become a reality. It would behoove all Californians to render those guarantees to the San Francisco Bay-Delta area. To do otherwise, in my mind, would be irresponsible.
RUBEN S. AYALA
State Senator
34th District
Chino