House OKs Bill to Boost Water Flow

The House approved a $389-million bill Friday designed to improve California’s water supply and ease battles over the scarce resource that for decades has pitted north against south, farmers against urban dwellers, and California against its Western neighbors.

Approved on a voice vote, the bill would authorize water projects in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta aimed at increasing the flow of water to Southern California and the Central Valley, while at the same time improving conditions in the delta itself.

It would also help Southern California provide more of its own water through conservation, reclamation and recycling projects.

Action on the so-called Cal-Fed bill, which has been in the works for several years, now moves to the Senate, where election-year politics have jammed up most legislation. A particularly difficult hurdle will be a controversial House provision -- opposed in the Senate -- that would let the Interior secretary approve water storage projects unless Congress voted them down.

That provision is a “real problem,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who drafted the Senate version of the bill. “It cannot go through the Senate that way.”

Nonetheless, she and other lawmakers from both parties and both chambers expressed hope that a compromise could be achieved so the bill could reach President Bush’s desk this year.

“The Congress has wrestled with Cal-Fed for a decade,” said Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy), chairman of the House Resources Committee. “I am now more confident than ever that we can carry this legislation over the finish line together.”

The alternative would be unacceptable, Feinstein said. “If we fail to act to address California water needs, we will face a crisis which could be devastating,” she warned.

Representatives from both parties said the bill would help California reduce its dependence on the Colorado River -- as it must to fulfill an agreement with other Western states -- while providing more dependable supplies for residents, farms, industry and wildlife across the state.

“This bill represents great progress in solving the water problems of the West by making California more self-reliant,” said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Riverside), chairman of the subcommittee on water and power, which drafted the bill.

The measure would codify a legal framework for the partnership launched in 1995 between the federal government and state and local agencies in California to address long-standing water problems.

By helping Southern California provide more of its own water, the bill aims to reduce conflicts that arise from the region’s dependence on water from the delta to the north, which now supplies about a third of the Southland’s water.

The measure would also modernize the system that conveys water through the delta, to both protect wildlife and ensure more steady flows to the south.

“For too long Californians have been without any security for their water future,” said Stephen Hall, executive director of the Assn. of California Water Agencies. “If we build the things provided for in this bill, we will be able to secure California’s water future. We will no longer have to have the civil wars between north and south and farmers and environmentalists.”

Some California Democrats tried unsuccessfully to remove the provision that would give the Interior secretary authority to move forward with water storage projects unless Congress acted to block them. A vote to strip the provision failed 139 to 255.

Four proposed storage projects in the delta, which are opposed by environmental groups, could be affected by the provision. One would raise the height of Shasta dam on the Sacramento River; another would create a reservoir off that river; a third would increase storage on the San Joaquin River; and the fourth would enlarge Los Vaqueros Reservoir in the East Bay.

Proponents of the provision said it would hasten development of such projects, needed to augment in-state water supplies. But opponents said the provision would only spark litigation and new water wars.

“It takes away local authority, fast-tracks projects that are potentially riddled with controversy, and puts us in a situation where we’re back to dueling lawsuits,” said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo), whose district is home to the Los Vaqueros Reservoir.

“It dooms the bill if we don’t get it out.”

But Hall of the water agencies group argued that the provision should not be seen as a deal breaker.

“There isn’t any realistic possibility that a project would go forward without local support,” he said.