Delegation Told Interior Cannot Give Farm Water to City Dwellers

A delegation of San Fernando Valley business leaders pleaded with the Interior Department Tuesday for action to divert some federal water from agricultural uses to city dwellers to relieve drought-related rationing.

U.S. officials, however, said their hands are tied by existing laws and by a Bush Administration policy of letting California and other states decide on water allocation.

As a result, an hourlong meeting between high-level Interior Department officials and members of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn. ended in a virtual standoff on the issue of getting more water for urban areas at the expense of growers served by the U.S. Central Valley project.

Members of the Valley business delegation complained that federally subsidized water was being wasted to grow federally subsidized crops on marginal land in California, while cities were forced to impose rationing on households.

Others asserted that farmers were able to buy water for as little as $3 an acre-foot while urban areas had to pay far higher prices for scarce supplies.

But the federal officials, citing historic water rights and existing contracts made in accord with congressional mandates for the Central Valley project, defended the status quo.

“We are operating this project in accord with existing law,” said James Spagnoli, Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan’s special liaison officer with California on drought issues.

“We are meeting our legal obligations,” said Joseph Hunter, a deputy assistant secretary of interior for water and science.

Dennis G. Underwood, U.S. commissioner of reclamation, said states should have primary responsibility “to change use to farms or urban areas.”

Lujan, who was expected to appear at the session with the Valley group, sent word that he was unable to attend because he was occupied in another meeting.

Afterward, some delegation members appeared disappointed by what they heard. “We’d like to get some leadership,” said Bob Neiman of Pacific Investors’ Associates.

David Fleming, an attorney and former chairman of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., was more emphatic.

“If you ask urban Californians to cut back 25% and yet enough water evaporates off rice fields to satisfy Los Angeles’ water needs for a year, that’s pretty ludicrous,” Fleming told a reporter.

“There are solutions, and we expect people we elected to find these solutions--that’s what we elect them for.”

The U.S. officials advised the Valley business leaders to address their concerns to the State Water Resources Control Board. They said a drought bill requested by the Administration earlier this year still has not been passed by Congress.

The House, by an overwhelming 387-23 vote, approved a $42-million emergency drought relief bill March 23 and sent it to the Senate, where action apparently will be delayed until late May or early June because the Senate Energy Committee is considering a national energy bill.