Water Project Still Awash in Controversy

The State Water Project is as controversial today as it was in 1960, when it was passed by voters after one the most acrimonious campaigns in California history.

Environmentalists say pumping so much freshwater out of the Sacramento Delta to meet state and federal water project demands has seriously damaged the estuary and endangered fish populations. They say the ecological problems could worsen if the project is expanded.

Now, the project delivers only about half the water that it contracted to provide, and this year--after five years of drought--it has delivered less.

Southern California water officials are seeking to increase the capacity of the project by diverting water out of the Sacramento Delta through a canal-type facility. Voters in the Santa Barbara area will be voting in June whether to build a coastal aqueduct and take a share of the water.

“It doesn’t make sense to expand the project now,” said Karen Garrison, a project scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We should be working on solutions to the environmental problems we’re currently faced with . . . instead of looking for ways to pump more water out of the system.”

Critics of the project also say that many western San Joaquin Valley farmers get too much water during non-drought years--almost half the state project’s yield--to cultivate marginal land, which has caused further environmental problems.

State water officials contend that the farmers signed contracts for the water, just like urban residents, so they have a right to irrigate their crops. During drought years, officials say, farmers are the first to be cut--no project water will be delivered to agriculture this year, while urban users will receive 20% of their usual allotment.

Although water officials acknowledge that the project has caused some environmental damage, they emphasize that the state has built fish hatcheries to compensate for lost spawning areas, and has built numerous devices to protect migrating fish. In addition to supplying water, the project provides lakes for recreation, flood control and hydroelectric power, said Wayne Archer, an engineering associate with the Department of Water Resources.

“It’s a trade-off,” Archer said. “The project has an impact on the environment and we try to mitigate it . . . but there’s a critical need for the water in Southern California. . . . Sometimes it comes down to what’s more important: water for fish, or water for people.”