Restoring the San Joaquin River

A public announcement of a court-directed settlement on the San Joaquin River came today that will result in increased water flows from Friant Dam to the Merced River. The agreement is the result of nearly 18 years of protracted negotiations both in and out of the court room.

Parties involved in the negotiations include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Friant Water Users Authority with a group of environmental organizations led by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

I’m sure those involved in the negotiations are relieved to have this behind them and our organization supports the concept of restoring the river. There will undoubtedly be challenges to overcome by water users who depend on Friant water for their supply and stand to lose a significant amount of water to the restoration process. It is important that the settlement and subsequent legislation include tools for water users to make up the lost water.

The agreement is expected to designate a portion of the water that for the past 60 years has flowed to farmers along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley to be redirected to river flows for the purpose of restoring a fishery presence in the river.

The agreement is one of the most significant efforts in the history of California water. As hard as it was during the past 18 years for the parties involved in the settlement to come to an agreement, an equal effort must now be put forth to find additional water supplies for our state.

Several new water storage proposals have been identified and a similar attempt must be conducted to bring groups of diverse opinions into agreement on the need for these facilities. These storage proposals include new reservoirs at Upper Temperance Flat above Friant Dam and Sites Reservoir in western Colusa County, enlarging Lake Shasta and Los Vaqueros Reservoir and increased groundwater banking efforts.

If river restoration and population growth increase the draw on California’s water, it is only natural that we begin the effort to increase to pool on which we draw our supplies.

Water Legislation

This is an example of what we get with our legislative tax dollars.

On Thursday the California Legislature passed a number of bills related to water, including Senate Bill 1640, introduced by Senator Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles. The bill passed the Assembly with a 46-32 vote just before the clock ran out on August 31.

SB 1640 is an updated version of the controversial SB 820 that was introduced last year in the 2005 legislative session. SB 820 passed both houses, but was ultimately vetoed by the Governor over issues concerning groundwater reporting.

A major part of the bill is a requirement that all agricultural water suppliers complete a comprehensive water management plan and submit it to the State. While this seems like a reasonable requirement, the legislature ignored the fact that agricultural water districts have already been doing this on a voluntary basis since 1999. Why then is there a need to force the issue when a voluntary program seems to be working just fine?

In fact, the Agricultural Water Management Council water management planning process (which oversees agricultural water management planning) was the ONLY part of the CalFed Water Use Efficiency Program to meet its targets on-time over the past seven years.