Battle-Tested Veterans Lining Up for Another Water War

“The delta is like a puzzle that everyone works on but no one has been able to solve.” --1983 Department of Water Resources report.

Battle-tested veterans of California’s bitterly divisive water wars are gingerly taking up positions in what some participants foresee as yet another bruising fight in the Legislature.

While some seem convinced that another replay of previous wars is virtually assured, others hold out hope that a negotiated settlement can be reached, if not this year, then next.

At issue, as in recent fights, is what water-user groups in growing, populous Southern California see as the need for more surplus Northern California water by the turn of the century and beyond. Suspicious Northerners and influential environmental organizations are wary of any move to siphon away additional water for export to the San Joaquin Valley in the central part of the state and farther south to the Los Angeles Basin.

Every few years, as a consequence of these conflicting interests, farmers, conservationists, municipal and industrial users, commercial and sports fishermen, boaters and legislators representing all regions of California are thrown into an arena, do bitter battle and emerge scarred, angry and further polarized.

Preliminary Skirmishes

The 1987 fight--and preliminary skirmishes have already occurred--looms over legislation that could revive one of many past plans to increase the flow of northern water southward by drawing greater amounts from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the great convergence basin of the Sacramento, San Joaquin and other rivers as they flow toward San Francisco Bay and on to the sea.

One bill would order the Deukmejian Administration to commit the state to a construction schedule for further water development. Another bill would enlarge existing rivers and sloughs in the delta to carry more water to pumps that feed the southbound California Aqueduct. It also would authorize a new conveyance channel across a portion of the delta.

California’s most recent water fight occurred in 1984 when a proposal by Gov. George Deukmejian went down the drain in the Assembly. After his defeat, Deukmejian declared that it would be up to the Legislature--not him--to initiate future water development legislation. But some say that the conveyance channel now being considered by lawmakers bears a disturbing resemblance to the one the governor had proposed.

Since 1984, Deukmejian’s water officials have adopted a low-profile, “step-by-step” approach, dealing with water issues administratively and through negotiation, for the most part, rather than through new laws. For example, the Administration soon plans to add four more pumps in the southern delta where water is poured into the aqueduct for the journey south.

The refusal of the Assembly to approve the governor’s program followed a titanic struggle in 1980 when the Legislature approved and then-Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed legislation to construct a Peripheral Canal, which would have drawn off more northern water for the south by means of a 43-mile canal looping around the delta from the Sacramento River on the north to the aqueduct pumps on the south.

To allay delta and San Francisco Bay Area concerns of Southerners piping away more water than the fragile delta could afford to lose, the canal would have discharged some of its water into sloughs leading into the delta at 12 locations. But environmentalists and many Northerners still considered the Peripheral Canal suspect, and it was defeated in a 1982 referendum by an overwhelming northern “no” vote.

Crucial to development of virtually any major water program, the delta stretches over 1,100 square miles of marshlands reclaimed for agriculture over the last century. Scores of peaceful rivers and sloughs meander lazily through a vast network of man-made islands that have been variously described as a “Huck Finn paradise” and the “Everglades of the West.”

In addition to serving as a picturesque play land for boaters, anglers and vacationers, the delta is home to big farming operations, migrating salmon and striped bass and is a refuge for waterfowl and many species of wildlife.

It is from this vast pool that Southern California, the lower San Joaquin Valley and several San Francisco Bay Area counties draw much of their domestic and industrial water. Delta waters come from rivers that drain snow melt from the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada. The outflows also flush the delta and repel the inland intrusion of seawater from the bay.

Environmentalists and many Bay Area water users, particularly in influential Contra Costa County on the west side of the delta, fear that virtually any additional diversion of high-quality water would further damage the quality of delta water, which already is deteriorating.

Present concerns still dwell on drawing more water from the delta for export. But at the same time some traditional combatants in earlier water wars are publicly voicing support for ensuring the protection of delta ecology and water quality.

Meanwhile, the state’s water boss, Water Resources Director David N. Kennedy, pushes for both a truce and some sign of progress.

“We’ve got to make the delta system more efficient,” Kennedy said in an interview recently. “Let’s identify the next few issues that need to be done and let’s get on with it. Let’s not talk about the Peripheral Canal.”

Before his appointment as water resources director, Kennedy was assistant general manager of the sprawling Metropolitan Water District, which serves much of Southern California. He also was a leader of MWD’s campaign to win voter approval of the Peripheral Canal plan.

Battle Shaping Up

The latest battle in California’s long history of water wars is shaping up with a new realization that perhaps the state’s agriculture industry and urban cities in the south will not need as much water in the future as had once been thought, Kennedy said. He noted that contrary to forecasts made 20 years ago, the growth in irrigation of San Joaquin Valley farmland has generally “plateaued” and that population projections for Southern California have been scaled back.

Still, Kennedy and many legislators believe that there will be a need--as there always has been in California--for additional water, even if how much is needed is in dispute.

And amid predictions of a “Water War of 1987,” the chairmen of legislative water committees, Sen. Ruben S. Ayala (D-Chino) and Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno), introduced major legislation that has drawn criticism from some environmental organizations.

One bill by Costa contains what critics call the toehold of a Peripheral Canal around the ecologically fragile delta. Costa denied that this is his intent, insisting that such a waterway “doesn’t make sense in today’s political and economic climate.”

The Costa program calls for widening and deepening sloughs and rivers in both the southern and northern parts of the delta. In the south, this would provide for increased water for export during wet winters and times of flood and provide more water to improve the fishery habitat in the western delta.

In the northern delta, Costa wants to enlarge the south fork of the Mokelumne River--now one of the delta’s most scenic and popular waterways--as well as other channels. Besides freeing up more water for shipment south, Costa said, such a project would help eliminate so-called reverse flows in the southern delta area by making additional water available to offset the sucking action of the giant pumps.

Reverse flows occur in the late spring, and in summer and autumn months when flows into the delta are low. The pumps pull water so hard that the current in some delta channels is actually reversed. Instead of flowing toward San Francisco Bay, the water in these channels is sucked toward the pumps. When this happens, young striped bass and migrating salmon lose their orientation and swim into the pumps, severely damaging the delta fishery. Additionally, salt water from the bay backs up into the western part of the delta, resulting in a degradation of water quality for consumers.

Additional Water

Costa and others maintain that enlarging the channels would provide additional water needed to offset the reverse flows and improve water quality. He noted that it also would help provide flood protection in the north delta, parts of which were inundated late last year.

Probably the most controversial part of his package is Costa’s proposal to authorize construction of a separate 12.3-mile channel. It would draw water from the Sacramento River, carry it south across a portion of the northern delta and deposit it in the south fork of the Mokelumne River, which is a source of the water supply for the aqueduct pumps. Critics noted that this so-called New Hope Cross Channel would generally follow the alignment of the northern section of the rejected Peripheral Canal.

Costa’s legislation says that the proposed waterway would not actually be built unless the enlarged sloughs and rivers failed to produce additional supplies and enhance protection of the delta and its water quality.

If a water war breaks out in the Legislature, the delta seems certain to become the major battleground, most participants agree. But there is uncertainty whether the Legislature is in the mood for another water brawl.

No One Wants a Fight

“I don’t think anybody wants to go through the fight again,” observed Michael Paparian of the Sierra Club. “I think there will be a lot of discussions but I don’t see anything getting through this year, possibly next year.”

Costa himself voiced guarded hope that a divisive confrontation can be avoided, noting that some of the interests that fought each other so hard in 1984 have since come together for regular meetings aimed at fashioning an acceptable compromise.

“This has helped reach better understandings between the folks who in the past lobbed grenades at each other,” Costa said. “Whether or not a complete compromise consensus will develop out of it is difficult to say.”

Sen. Ayala, a battle-scarred veteran who carried Deukmejian’s water bill in 1984 and helped lead the losing fight for the Peripheral Canal, thinks a water war this session is almost unavoidable.

“I suspect it will take place along the way,” Ayala said.

Wants Negotiations

One conservationist veteran of the water wars, Thomas J. Graff of Berkeley, senior attorney of the Environmental Defense Fund, contended that various competing water interests should be allowed to negotiate a “consensus” settlement among themselves without legislative intervention. The final product, he said, then would be submitted to the lawmakers for ratification.

Deukmejian Administration officials, meantime, have taken no position on any of the proposed major bills and have indicated that they likely will be noncombatants in a revived water war.

“We ought to get away from the ball-game philosophy of gearing up to win a fight,” Kennedy said of competing water interests.

But some who buy their water from the state seem ready for a fight. They contend that a new delta channel to divert some Sacramento River water is justified. Such diversion, they said, would not only provide extra water but would enhance protection of the fishery by making the delta operate more efficiently.

The Costa proposal to authorize a new channel but to build it only if necessary already has northern lawmakers and conservationists on alert, despite his insistence that “this is not an attempt to build the Peripheral Canal” or the channel proposed by Deukmejian in 1984.

Barely Disguised

Environmental organizations call Costa’s New Hope Cross Channel a barely disguised beginning of a Peripheral Canal.

The Costa measure is strongly supported by the MWD, lobbyist Ray Corley said, because if increased channel capacity in the northern and southern delta fails to help eliminate reverse flows and other problems, a cross channel that would do so would be authorized for construction.

Meantime, Ayala is moving legislation in the Senate that would require the Deukmejian Administration to make the politically delicate decision on selection of a “delta facility unit” of the California Water Project by July 1, 1988, and put it on a construction schedule one year later. (The vaguely defined “delta facility unit” in existing law is a code phrase that usually refers to the Peripheral Canal or a new conveyance channel across the delta).

Ayala’s proposal also would direct the Administration to apply by July 1, 1988, for federal permission to enable the delta pumps to operate at full capacity, providing approximately an additional 2 million acre-feet of water a year. Currently, because of restrictions on diverting water from the delta, the pumps function at about 70% of capacity.

He maintains that it would be useless to develop more water for export and storage if “chokehold” restrictions on pumping are not relaxed. But Kennedy testified at a recent hearing that enacting such a law could jeopardize careful negotiations currently under way with various water interests.

‘Getting Out Ahead’

Noting that it would take several years to obtain a federal permit, Kennedy told Ayala: “I don’t want to take an action that can be interpreted by some as getting out ahead of the negotiating process.”

A frustrated Ayala contended that the need for a “delta facility” such as a cross channel is necessary but has been studied and restudied for years without resolution.

“We just want (the Administration) to get going on this thing,” he said, noting that it would take at least two more decades before additional water could actually be transported.

He complained that for all of Kennedy’s efforts to deal administratively with the issue, virtually no new water has been obtained for export, even though most experts agree that Kennedy has the legal authority now to build new production facilities.

Basically, Ayala’s legislation would write into law a commitment to finish the 27-year-old California Water Project, complete with a recently authorized Los Banos Grandes reservoir in Merced County to store surplus northern flood waters for use by the south in case of a drought or severe dry spell.

Plans Target South Fork

Ayala’s package does not specifically demand that the Mokelumne River’s south fork be widened and deepened. But this would likely occur anyway because virtually every water plan that has been advanced targets the south fork as holding the potential to provide additional water, especially in wet years.

Kennedy, the water resources director, has said that the department on its own is looking for ways in the northern delta to provide additional flood protection, improve water quality and fisheries and reduce reverse flows.

“One possibility that looks very promising is the enlargement of the south fork of the Mokelumne River,” Kennedy said.

In an interview, Kennedy indicated that if the competing water interests can reach a compromise consensus, the Administration probably would jump aboard and support it. Meantime, he pointed out that the state is pressing ahead under existing law to make the delta water system work more efficiently.

As for pressure to swiftly develop more water, a somewhat exasperated Kennedy declared: “For the life of me, I don’t know what they want us to do that we are not doing.”