‘A Settlement That’s All Wet’

The Times is all wet. Your editorial (July 28), “A Settlement That’s All Wet,” regarding the proposed settlement of longstanding litigation between Westlands Water District and its landowners and farmers and the Department of the Interior displayed a shocking ignorance of the facts of the situation.

It’s easy to sneer at a water price of $8 per acre-foot, but the fact is that this is one of the half-dozen highest agricultural water rates in the entire Central Valley Project; the only higher rates are $8.10. The vast majority of the contracts have rates of $3.50 or less. Furthermore, at the $8 rate, Westlands has accounted for 90% of the net repayment of capital by all of the CVP contractors combined ($36 million out of a total of $39 million at the end of the last fiscal year), even though the district receives only about one-fourth of the CVP water!

The Times also has ignored the fact that for more than 15 years, the Interior Department itself considered the 156,000 acres to be a part of the project area. The regional solicitor of the Interior Department ruled to that effect in 1962, prior to execution of the 1963 water contract. It wasn’t until 1978 that the Interior Department reversed this ruling.

In the meantime, the United States had constructed water delivery facilities, delivered water and executed recordable contracts with landowners for the sale of lands in excess of the acreage limitation throughout the district, including the 156,000 acres. If that land could not receive water, who was to repay the costs of the distribution facilities? What would be the status of the recordable contracts?

The financial analysis by Interior shows clearly that the United States and taxpayers stood to lose $50 million if the 1978 reversal of the historic position was allowed to stand and the 156,000 acres was excluded from the project. Is this what The Times believes should happen?

The Times also seems to believe that Interior should have found some unique legal basis to renege on the 1963 contract in order to force Westlands to pay higher water prices. Does The Times seriously believe that the United States should be able to discard valid contracts whenever it chooses? The Congress itself rejected this notion when it overhauled reclamation law in 1982.

The Reclamation Reform Act specifically provides that existing contracts are to be honored until and unless the non-federal party requests that they be amended. It simply is not true that the 1982 reform act demands “more realistic prices” under valid existing contracts. The Times seems to be unaware of the fact that the United States has never contended that the 1963 contract is invalid; rather, it refused to implement that contract unless Westlands agreed to changes having nothing to do with the amount or prices of water.

Your editorial asks the rhetorical question as to why the district would settle the litigation rather than pursue its case in court, in view of the monetary advantages to Interior. Basically, the settlement represents an opportunity to dispose of a large number of complex issues, without the need for lengthy and costly litigation. In this regard, it would allow the district to devote its full resources to other problems, particularly drainage.

JERALD R. BUTCHERT

Fresno

Butchert is manager of the Westlands Water District.