Farm Interests Dealt Blow as Presidential Council Enters Debate on Water Pacts

In a setback for farm interests, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality decided Friday to join a debate on whether environmental reviews are required for controversial federal irrigation contract renewals in the San Joaquin Valley.

Debate on the contracts will be held April 13 in Washington and April 17 in Fresno. The outcome is vital to growers served by 28 irrigation districts along the eastern San Joaquin Valley, between Madera and Bakersfield, who could receive less water and pay more for it.

The Council on Environmental Quality agreed to enter the case after informal talks between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department failed to generate a compromise. The EPA says federal law requires an environmental review of the contract renewals, but the Interior Department contends the contracts are exempt from the law.

One of the tasks of the three-member council is to arbitrate such environmental disputes between federal agencies.

Urban Families

The EPA, which asked the council to arbitrate the case, estimates that 1.5 million acre-feet of water a year is at stake, or the equivalent of 75% of the volume managed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. An acre-foot contains 825,000 gallons, a year’s supply for two urban families or a quarter-acre of alfalfa.

Terms of the contracts were set 40 years ago, when the federal Central Valley Project first began irrigating farms near Fresno and California’s urban population boom was yet to come. Interior Department solicitor Ralph Tarr said the contracts are exempt from review because their basic terms were set before environmental laws were passed.

Mark Stevenson of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation said federal water officials were “disappointed” by the council’s decision.

“We don’t agree that is the correct forum to settle this matter, and we do not believe EPA has jurisdiction in this case,” he said.

The thought was echoed by Gary Sawyers, a lawyer for the Friant Water Users Authority, which represents some of the 28 irrigation districts.

“We think CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) is acting outside its legal forum,” he said. “This clearly is a case of whether a law applies, and that is a matter for the courts.”

Stevenson added that recent comments by Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan Jr. favoring some environmental review of irrigation contracts should not be taken to mean that he favors the extensive process sought by EPA. Lujan, he said, appears to favor a less-formal process; the department officially prefers no review.

Force Review

Environmentalists, who are suing the Interior Department in federal court in Sacramento to force environmental review of all the proposed contract renewals, claimed a small victory in Friday’s non-binding decision.

“Given the court’s criticism of the Interior Department’s case at a recent hearing, and now CEQ’s flat rejection of Interior’s objection to the referral, we hope Interior will finally stop resisting its legal obligation and agree to do an (environmental impact statement) on all the new contracts,” said Hamilton Candee, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Interior Department officials want to renew the contracts without preparing environmental impact statements, which are normally required of irrigation projects. The EPA concurs with conservationists, who say the statements are vital, because they will likely show that the contracts are inconsistent with modern water management priorities.

EPA officials in San Francisco were pleased by the council’s decision.

“EPA continues to believe it’s vitally important for the public to have an opportunity to fully assess and review the impact of the contracts before they are signed,” spokeswoman Virginia Donohue said.

Open the Way

The council’s decision to arbitrate the dispute could also open the way for federal lawyers to act on the its earlier request to freeze all legal actions in the matter, including the environmentalists’ suit and the signing of renewals, until the council could try to resolve the conflict.

The first of the controversial 40-year contracts, involving the Orange Cove Irrigation District, expired Feb. 28. U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, acting on a plea by the Natural Resources Defense Council, forbade the renewal of the contract but ordered that the district continue to receive water on an interim basis under the old contract terms until the case is settled.

Contracts with four more districts are scheduled to expire early next year. They too will continue on an interim basis until the lawsuit is resolved, according to Karlton’s order last month.

Karlton ruled last week that the government may negotiate contract renewals, but only if the new papers include a clause accepting any restrictions imposed as a result of the environmentalists’ lawsuit.