‘A Settlement That’s All Wet’

Your article and editorial about the proposed settlement of the Westlands court case miss the mark by a mile.

The Times discusses only several issues involved in the matter, but the proposed settlement would resolve 17 major issues. Furthermore, the discussion of certain issues is confusing and inaccurate. For example, the article says Westlands “annexed” 156,000 acres beyond the authorized “service area.” But the Westplains annexation issue and the service area issue deal with different geographical areas and are totally unrelated.

Your editorial makes no mention of, and your story gives short shrift to, the 1963 water and drainage service contract between the United States and the original Westlands growers. It is incomprehensible that your paper could treat the central document in the case in that fashion.

Both pieces allege that the district is the “most heavily subsidized” contractor in the country. Your charge is manifestly false. The $7.50 per acre foot water service charge the original Westlands farmers must pay under the 1963 contract, and the $16.40 charge the former Westplains farmers will pay under the proposed settlement are far higher than the charges paid by other contractors. Rep. George Miller’s constituent, the Contra Costa Water District, for example, pays only 50 cents per acre-foot for its federal water.

Your article and editorial both fail to explain that the 1963 contract governs through 2007, and that, to date, the rate set forth therein has been favorable to the government, not to the original Westlands farmers. They also fail to explain that a new contract with higher rates will be made when the 1963 contract expires.

A primary focus of the litigation, and the possible settlement thereof, is a California statute giving the original Westlands farmers a “prior right” with respect to water over the former Westplains farmers. The Times is silent about this major aspect of the case.

Your story quotes Congressman Miller as complaining that a court-approved settlement would “circumvent” Congress. This charge is weightless. Federal consent decrees are typically handled by the executive and judicial branches alone. The three hearings Congress has already held about the Westlands matter and the pending 30-day congressional oversight relating to the proposed settlement are unprecedented in the history of American law.

Finally, your editorial’s conclusions about who “won” the proposed settlement are entirely too facile. You assert that the district, without specifying which of its two factions, is the “big winner,” and that the United States “gave in with hardly a whimper.” In fact, the lengthy negotiations were extremely hard-fought on the merits, and each of the three sides won some issues, lost other issues, and compromised on still others.

You ask rhetorically, “Why would Westlands settle rather than pursue its case?” But, of course, the same question could be asked of each of the three settling factions. Your editorial concludes: “Rejection of the settlement clearly is in the public interest.” In light of your obvious superficial analysis your conclusion, it seems to me, lacks credibility.

WILLIAM M. SMILAND

Los Angeles

Smiland is lead counsel for the original Westland parties.