Congress OKs Delta Water Plan

Congress on Wednesday settled at least one skirmish in California’s legendary water fights, sending President Bush a long-debated bill that would authorize $395 million for water projects and restoration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

By voice vote, the House approved a bill that reauthorizes the CalFed Bay-Delta Program.

The effort, known simply as CalFed, is a state-federal attempt to bring together competing agricultural, urban and environmental interests to ensure an adequate water supply for the state’s growing population while restoring the delta, California’s major watershed.

The Senate approved the bill last month, and Bush is expected to sign it, renewing a program that has been the subject of years of political back-and-forth on Capitol Hill.

Because Congress had not approved a CalFed bill since 1996, it has been difficult for lawmakers to win federal money for water projects.

The bill would authorize funds for six years to pay for water storage, conservation, flood control, recycling, desalination and other projects. It does not guarantee, however, that the federal government will actually make the full $395 million available.

In the end, California’s famously fractured congressional delegation was unified on one of the state’s most contentious issues.

“California’s future is more secure with the passage of this bill,” said Rep. George Radanovich (R-Mariposa).

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cheered the congressional action, calling it “another example of how Californians, working together, can increase our share of federal funding.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the bill would help the state “avoid a crisis with water, similar to the one it faced with energy.” Her colleague, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, said the measure provided a “balanced approach” to protecting the Bay-Delta region while addressing the state’s water needs.

But Barry Nelson, senior policy analyst in the San Francisco office of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, called the legislation “deeply flawed.”

“This is a federal ecosystem restoration bill that is going to make ecosystem restoration more problematic,” said Nelson, citing examples of what he sees as the legislation’s shortcomings.

One creates reporting requirements for landowners selling property to federal agencies for ecosystem projects. “They’re likely to add many months for approving what is already a lengthy process for ecosystem restoration,” Nelson said, “potentially causing some opportunities to be lost.”

Also troublesome, Nelson said, was a shift of funding from salmon restoration programs to an account used to buy water to replace supplies diverted for environmental purposes.

“We think this strategy of replacing water is sound, but it’s the water users themselves who should pay for it,” Nelson said.

The bill would still leave the state carrying most of CalFed’s financial burden and would not solve long-term funding issues, he added.

Spreck Rosekrans, a senior analyst with Environmental Defense, said the final bill was an improvement over earlier versions but was not a guarantee that CalFed would achieve its environmental goals.

“It’s good the program is going forward,” he said. “But it remains to be seen whether it provides the water and restoration projects that were outlined in the original plan.”

Thomas W. Birmingham, general manager of the Westlands Water District, a major farm supplier, welcomed the bill’s passage.

It “breathes new life into a state-federal partnership that now recognizes the importance of both protecting and restoring the environment and developing new water storage facilities and providing adequate water supplies for farmers,” he said.

Even with the authorization, Congress still must appropriate money for projects, which could become more difficult in the face of federal budget deficits. Of the $430 million authorized for CalFed in 1996, only about half was appropriated.