Be Careful What You Ask For - Eliminating Federal Funding for the San Joaquin River Agreement

Among the many radical provisions in H.R. 1837 (Nunes, CA), is a proposal to shut down the consensus restoration of the San Joaquin River.  That bill has a long list of opponents and has received a raft of criticism in the press.  But another effort to shut down river restoration has received far less attention.  Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is likely to vote on an Energy and Water Appropriations bill that, at the request of Congressman Nunes, would eliminate all funding in the federal budget for the San Joaquin River restoration program.  The potential implications are far-reaching and show the careful balance in the bi-partisan restoration agreement.  It’ll be no surprise that this proposal would harm the environment and California’s salmon fishing industry.  But Congressman Nunes’ proposal would also harm the very water users whom he represents.                                                                       

First, although the House bill would shut down funding for restoration, it would not save Friant water users a penny.  The court approved settlement that serves as the foundation of the restoration program requires Friant water districts to contribute to the federal government to support implementation of the agreement.  However, the settlement cannot compel Congress to appropriate these funds.  As a result, if the House language is included in the final federal budget, Friant farmers would continue paying into a federal restoration fund.  It’s just that these funds would not be appropriated and invested as anticipated by the settlement.  Friant’s ongoing contributions would simply vanish into the federal deficit.

Second, the programs that would be de-funded by the current language include projects designed to benefit water users.  Friant Water Users Authority signed the settlement in part because it includes canal improvements, groundwater storage, water recirculation, a recovered water account and other projects crafted to provide water supply benefits that would not have been mandated if restoration were left up to the courts.  But without funding, there would be no water management program.  Seepage and flood management projects would also be shut down.

Third, the bill would not alter the court-ordered deadlines for the restoration of water flows.  Congress and the courts have required water releases on a specified schedule.  The House appropriations bill would not change those deadlines.  So the water management program would be shut down, but the mandate to release of water from Friant Dam would be unchanged. 

Fourth, if the program were defunded, the program repeatedly missed legal deadlines, the restoration settlement fell apart and the case wound up back in court, the Friant water users could lose the 20 years of water supply certainty that was built into the settlement.  A court would be free to increase releases over time to meet the needs of a highly damaged river. 

There’s been a great deal of smoke and heat in the California water policy debate over the last couple of years.  So it’s easy to overlook a simple fact.  Water agencies are not calling for the San Joaquin River restoration program to be shut down.  There’s a simple reason for this.  All of the signatories to the restoration agreement still support it.  Water users quietly recognize that the settlement is far more appealing than the alternative.  On the other hand, it’s clear that Congressman Nunes doesn’t support funding the restoration program, despite the damage his budget language would cause to his district. 

Senator Feinstein remains a champion for the San Joaquin River and is committed to continued federal funding.  She’s demonstrated her effectiveness on water policy and budget issues for many years.  Unfortunately, the House language seems designed to make her task as difficult as possible – a reckless risk in an era of unprecedented pressure on the federal budget.  

The House budget language is a remarkable example of the old adage, “Be careful what you ask for.  You just might get it.”