Inclusion in public lands bill good for river rehab

last updated: September 18, 2008 04:40:58 AM

The restoration of the San Joaquin River moved a step closer last week when a Senate committee approved a version of a public-lands bill that includes the ambitious plan. We hope this means we're at least a little closer to seeing a resolution of the decades-old fight over restoration of 60 miles of riverbed that has been dry since the completion of Friant Dam.

The river bill is part of a larger Omnibus Federal Land Management Act that has some 90 separate components. Restoring flows north from near Fresno won't be cheap. The most conservative estimates put the price tag at around $500 million; most people feel it will take at least

$1 billion. But the alternatives to spending so much money are even less attractive.

The bill -- and the money that comes with it -- are needed to implement the settlement reached in a lawsuit that was filed in 1988 and resolved in 2006. Part of that agreement would take some Sierra snowmelt now diverted to farms south of Fresno and let it run north down the river channel.

Environmentalists who filed the suit and farmers who want to keep using the water agreed to the settlement for different reasons. Environmentalists want to see historic salmon runs restored; farmers want to see their very livelihoods protected.

There are many components to this -- a drought that has curtailed water supplies; another decision that has cut pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; the argument over state water bonds to store more water, including a new dam above Friant.

The settlement doesn't have unanimous support. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, and some farm groups remain opposed. The Friant Water Users Authority continues to support the settlement as the best deal they can get. Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, and Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, have all been crucial in getting the legislation to this point. But Cardoza has, at times, been as critical as he has been crucial. Now, he just wants to move forward.

"I remain of the view that it is the best settlement we can get and it is the only way to protect the San Joaquin River farmers. ... We've got to get the courts out of the river," said Cardoza.

Throughout the negotiations, care has been taken to ensure that those who rely on the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers won't be required to provide even more water for the San Joaquin. Those who manage those rivers are contending with their own problems with severely diminished salmon populations.

The Bee has supported the settlement since it was first crafted. Federal law supports the environmentalists' position on restoration, and valley farmers must accept that reality -- as unpleasant as that is to them. We have also steadfastly supported the building of additional storage on the San Joaquin to provide water for both fish and farming. But that will have to wait. This bill is moving now.

The bill headed to the Senate floor contains $250 million for channel improvements and other work needed to restore the salmon run by 2013. It also has $23 million to help fund an underground storage project in Madera County and $1 million to pay for a water-management plan for the central San Joaquin Valley.

All of those are important. We urge the prompt passage of the omnibus public lands bill. It won't solve all the water problems. But it will take important steps in that direction.

• Comments
• Add Comment
• Disclaimer