Opposition to Sale of Water Project Grows

Big urban water agencies in California have tentatively decided to oppose a move in Congress to let farmers buy the federal water delivery system in the Central Valley, according to officials of the Metropolitan Water District.

The opposition of the large city water systems is expected to undermine and perhaps kill the push by San Joaquin Valley agribusiness interests to have the sale included in a budget bill before Congress this month.

“There are just too many unanswered questions,” Tim Quinn, assistant general manager of the Los Angeles-based MWD, said Friday. “There is concern whether something that serves so many people should be transferred to an agriculturally dominated group or whether it would be better if it were in the hands of the state or some entity with broader interests in mind.”

A group of about 65 primarily agricultural water districts wants to pay $826 million for the Central Valley Project, the vast complex of dams, reservoirs and canals that connects the state’s northern watershed with farms and cities in the valley and Bay Area.

Quinn said a letter expressing objections to the sale is being drafted and will be sent pending final approval of the boards of directors of some of the water agencies. Quinn said the letter represents the views of the state’s 10 largest agencies.

The letter, Quinn said, is intended for Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Rocklin), chairman of the House subcommittee on water and power, who has been an advocate of the plan to sell the Central Valley Project.

There is growing enthusiasm for selling off federal assets among members of Congress who are under heavy pressure to balance the budget. But with less than a month to reconcile a shortfall in this year’s budget, Congress may be forced to set aside any proposal as controversial as the CVP transfer plan is becoming.

“The chances of working this out to everyone’s satisfaction in the time we have left are not great,” a Doolittle spokesman said.

Many critics of the proposed sale insist that they are not opposed in principle to the idea of transferring ownership of the project.

“Our position is not to oppose the concept,” Quinn said. “In a lot of ways, we think it could be a better system if ownership were closer to home.”