The San Joaquin River Agreement and H.R. 1837 - A Deal is a Deal
Posted May 26, 2011 in Living Sustainably
Next Thursday, the House of Representatives Water and Power Subcommittee will hold a hearing on perhaps the most radical bill on California water issues I’ve encountered in my career. H.R. 1837, introduced by Congressman Nunes (R, Visalia), would block federal protections for the San Francisco Bay-Delta, its tributaries and its fisheries. It would pre-empt state water laws, overturn state water rights and undermine efforts to find solutions to the many challenges facing the Bay-Delta. One of its many remarkable provisions would overturn the consensus agreement to restore the San Joaquin River.
The agreement to restore the San Joaquin was an historic moment in California water policy. After years of divisive litigation, all of the parties to the suit reached an agreement to restore flows and salmon to the parched river. That settlement contained carefully balanced provisions to make it acceptable to all sides. Following the settlement, a series of meetings were convened by Senator Feinstein in Washington DC and in California, to negotiate legislative language to implement the settlement and address the concerns of other water interests who were not parties to the settlement. A much larger group of water users participated in these discussions. Thanks to the hard work of Senator Feinstein, after several intense weeks of talks, a consensus bill was produced that all sides agreed to support.
But all of the interested stakeholders took another step to keep this agreement intact. NRDC, along with nearly every major group of agricultural water districts south of the Delta, signed a written agreement, which is often referred to as the “blood oath”. That agreement didn’t just pledge support for the settlement and the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. In addition, all of the signatories pledged “to oppose any amendments to said Legislation that are not agreed to by all the organizations listed below.” H.R. 1837 clearly includes such amendments.
This is one of many reasons why it will be interesting to see what position water users take on H.R. 1837. After all, water users pledged to fight legislation to interfere with the settlement. If any of those water users won’t oppose a bill designed to repeal the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, it would severely damage their credibility in negotiations regarding an ambitious plan for the Bay-Delta. After all, if water users don’t honor a written agreement on the San Joaquin, why would anyone believe that they would honor one on the Bay-Delta?
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Cannon Michael — May 27 2011 11:17 AM
Barry,
As one of the Third Parties, I am very glad to see your reverence for the Blood Oath. No impacts to the third parties was part of the Blood Oath and mitigation of damages. This is what got us to the table on the legislation. It doesn't seem this is being honored since landowners are paying for the mitigation of impacts as we speak. Definitely not part of the deal we envisioned. Maybe time is coming to slow down and re-evaluate things? San Joaquin can't be restored without money and without some level of trust. Money isn't there and trust is being eroded as a result.
"A Deal is a Deal" - I like that.
Monty Schmitt — May 27 2011 07:09 PM
Cannon,
The successful restoration of the San Joaquin River will require many things including working with local water districts and landowners to understand and address local concerns and find ways to support the continued water management and agricultural practices in the region. To achieve these goals, over the last two years the Program has installed over 130 monitoring wells to investigate seepage issues (many at the request of local land owners), has collaborated with land owners to create a seepage management plan, has modified flows to address concerns and increase understanding of seepage issues, and has collaborated with water agencies on water supply management including the development of a fish screen that the program that seems likely to cover most of, if not all, the costs estimated to exceed 20 million. These are just a few of the many actions that are rarely recognized that are evidence that the Restoration Program has been working very hard to address local concerns and fully implement the restoration agreement. Similarly, the concerns regarding adequate funding are shared by all who are working to make this effort succeed and it has been through working together that sufficient funding has been available thus far. As such, rather than being an issue that divides us, the need for adequate funding should be something that unites us in a request to elected state and federal representatives. It is in the interest of all who are concerned about this Program to not let efforts like H.R.1837 distract us from the important work that is underway nor undermine the growing cooperation between interested parties that will surely lead to the best possible outcome.
Joe — May 31 2011 02:21 PM
"... landowners are paying for the mitigation of impacts as we speak. Definitely not part of the deal we envisioned."
1. I don't think the salmon envisioned the 'impact' of extinction due to farmers greed and wanton waste of the PUBLIC water resource.
2. Hmm... planting in a historic floodplain would make it too wet for crops? You didn't envision that? Wouldn't be as much of an impact if your greed kept you from planting permanent tree-based crops instead of the seasonal crops that were planted when the project was begun.
Sorry, 'farmer', YOU did this all to yourselves. But if you would like the courts to force a ruling, like they were about to, go for it!!