State Blocking U.S. Water Reforms : Funding: Action approved by Congress gives environmental needs priority in allocating some federal resources. But Wilson has killed a surcharge designed to raise $150 million to help implement the measure.

Landmark water reforms passed by Congress last year have run into an unexpected roadblock, with the state of California unable--or unwilling, some charge--to come up with $150 million for its share of environmental improvements required by the law.

Gov. Pete Wilson strongly opposed the so-called Miller-Bradley legislation, and some supporters of the measure are accusing him of trying to undermine the reforms. Because of the law, environmental needs get priority over farms and cities in divvying up some federal water in California.

“One way to subvert the bill and make sure it is not implemented is not to fund it,” said Patricia Shifferle, a consultant with Share the Water, a coalition of environmental and business organizations that advocated the law. “Many environmental groups believe the governor’s entire policy is to thwart the purposes and intent of the bill.”

The $150 million was to have been raised through a surcharge on users of water taken from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, but the fee was among a host of proposed water regulations killed by Wilson last month. Wilson Administration officials deny that the governor has tried to subvert the new law, saying that the proposed state regulations were bad policy and that the governor is looking for other ways to pay the bill.

“It hasn’t fallen by the wayside,” said John Amodio, who heads Wilson’s Bay-Delta Oversight Council. “We remain aware that there is that need; we have to figure out a way to fill it.”

Bob Potter, deputy director of the state Department of Water Resources, said Wilson is considering a new fee on water districts or more likely a statewide bond measure that would require voters’ approval. In either case, the money will not be collected before next year, leading to likely delays in the environmental projects, officials said.

“This all comes at a most unfortunate time,” Potter said. “I don’t think anybody is opposed to trying to put this money together, but here we are with a (state) budget that is not in very good shape.”

The controversy has reopened deep wounds inflicted during last year’s battle over the federal reforms sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-Pleasanton) and Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). Farmers, who fought the measure, support a statewide bond measure to spread the financial burden widely; urban water interests and environmentalists, who supported the legislation, want farmers to pick up the bill because they use most of the state’s water. “We don’t think urban taxpayers are going to want to, or should have to, pay for fixes that are going to benefit the Central Valley (farmers),” said Tim Quinn, who oversees state water issues for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the largest urban agency in the state.

“How long are we going to protect agricultural interests--which use a vast majority of the water in the state--from recognizing that part of the cost of using that water is to fix the environmental damage it causes?” Quinn said.

The environmental improvements at issue would most benefit farmers by making water deliveries to agricultural areas more reliable. Most of the environmental fixes were inserted in the legislation at the behest of agriculture interests.

The proposed improvements include installation of a temperature control device at the Shasta dam and power plant, an $80-million project that would protect migrating fish in the Sacramento River without sacrificing water supplies. Another project calls for a $50-million reworking of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, including restoration of spawning gravel for migrating fish.

But some agricultural groups that originally favored the improvements are wavering. Many farmers are preoccupied with water shortages--some received only 50% of their normal supplies despite a year of heavy rainfall--while others are eager to avoid new fees on their irrigation districts.

“It is hard to damn the state of California for not having any money when we all know what straits we are in,” said Jason Peltier, who represents contractors of the Central Valley Project. “I have a hard time trying to assign higher value to gravel restoration in the Sacramento River than to small classroom size or adequate district attorneys to prosecute bad guys.”

The Miller-Bradley law requires about $700 million in environmental improvements, with the cost shared by Central Valley Project customers, the state and the federal government. CVP customers begin paying their share in October, and the proposed 1993-94 federal budget includes an initial allocation of $35 million.

John Budd, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which runs the Central Valley Project, said preliminary design work has begun on some projects, including those at Shasta and Red Bluff dams. But it was unclear how far the work will proceed without the state contribution, he said.