In his December 23, 2014 letter to the Chico Enterprise-Record (see below), U.S. Representative Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) failed to disclose important facts about the “House drought relief legislation.” The benefits he touted for “California as a whole and the north state specifically” are really for a tiny number of river water districts and not “residents” or groundwater dependent farms.
The “north state residents” that LaMalfa asserted had received no water in 2014 were actually farms, not homes. While we can feel for neighbors who have taken risks planting permanent crops without a reliable water source, ultimately, business decisions that backfire must be faced. Unfortunately, a major beneficiary of LaMalfa’s bill is Westlands Water District in the southwestern San Joaquin Valley, hardly a neighbor. It is also the poster child for junior water claimants that expect publicly subsidized NorthState water for private profit – in a desert, no less.
LaMalfa also declared that “it increases the overall [water] supply,” but impartial review of HR5781 found that, “[t]here are no estimates of how much more water might be gained if the bills were passed, nor is there information on how much might be made unavailable to varied interests compared with the status quo.” [1]
Regarding so-called protection of “north state water rights,” HR5781 is actually protective of the tiny number of senior river water districts in the Sacramento Valley, who regularly sell water to south of Delta interests and senior river water districts in the San Joaquin Valley, far from LaMalfa’s district. [2] The lion’s share of the NorthState population is not equally protected. The bill’s language in this regard also contradicts another assertion in LaMalfa’s letter that there will be “[n]o impact on salmon, steelhead and smelt.” [3]
Instead of providing leadership that helps California and his district face hydrologic reality, LaMalfa remains entrenched in water politics that benefits a narrow group of agricultural interests that includes his family’s rice production and the most aggressive junior water claimants that want to keep planting trees in the south-state desert.
Additional errors of omission or commission in LaMalfa’s letter:
- HR5781 does nothing to stop Governor Brown’s Twin Tunnels project, which is on its own irrational track.
- “Section 203(b) would protect public, local, and state agencies or subdivisions of the state and entities from incurring any costs ‘incurred solely pursuant to or as a result of this Act’ and which would not otherwise have been incurred, unless incurred on a voluntary basis. It does not address who or what entities should bear such costs if they occur. Nor does it address what type of costs. H.R. 3964 includes a similar provision; however it directs that no involuntary cost shall be imposed on any CVP contractor, ‘or any other person or entity.’”[4]
- Entities that received zero water in 2014 have junior water claims. Senior holders were allocated 75% and even junior municipal/industrial users were allocated 50%.
- Refuges are pushed to use groundwater, further impacting depleted reserves to free more water for junior water claimants.
[1] Congressional Research Service, 2014. Analysis of H.R. 5781, California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014. www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43820.pdf
[2] Bureau. www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Friant%20Division%20Project
[3] Congressional Research Service, 2014. Analysis of H.R. 5781, California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014. www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43820.pdf. “Both versions appear to address protection of senior water rights holders and to require supercedance of state water rights priorities over impacts from implementation of ESA (Section 7 only, for H.R. 5781; although the reference in parenthesis includes the full ESA citation).” p. 17.
[4] Id. p. 17-18.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Chico E-R Letter to the Editor, Dec. 23, 2014:
Congressman explains vote on drought water bill
The House drought relief legislation benefits California as a whole and the north state specifically. The 18-month emergency bill has just two components: allowing all Californians to access more water during winter storms like those we’re experiencing, and protecting and improving north state water rights.
Rivers are currently at levels that allow storage of additional water with no impact on salmon, steelhead and smelt, which remain protected under the bill. My support was contingent upon protection of our water rights. The bill doesn’t take anyone’s water, it increases the overall supply.
It directly improves access to Central Valley Project water for north state residents who received 0 percent allocations this year. Residents who currently receive zero CVP water in drought years would receive at least 50 percent under the bill. Rather than damage our water rights, the bill allows both north and south to access more water during high winter flows, water that otherwise simply flows out to the ocean. The bill repeatedly includes language protecting north state water rights and ensures that only excess flows are drawn upon.
Furthermore, the bill helps stop Gov. Jerry Brown’s dangerous peripheral tunnel by using existing infrastructure more effectively.
The bill’s critics, primarily Bay Area lawmakers whose districts import much of their water from the Sierras, certainly don’t have the north state’s interests at heart and have always opposed increased water storage. My priority will always be fighting for policies that protect our water and improve economic opportunities in the north state.
— Rep. Doug LaMalfa, Richvale
Barbara Vlamis’ Jan. 11, 2015 response to LaMalfa’s letter (heading written by Chico E-R Letters staff):
LaMalfa focused on water as a commodity
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) failed to disclose important facts about the “House drought relief legislation” (E-R, Dec. 23). The benefits he touted for “California as a whole and the north state specifically” are really for a tiny number of river water districts and not “residents” or groundwater-dependent farms. The “north state residents” that LaMalfa asserted had received no water in 2014 were actually farms, not homes.
While we feel for neighbors who have taken risks planting permanent crops without a reliable water source, ultimately, business decisions that backfire must be faced. Unfortunately, a major beneficiary of LaMalfa’s bill is Westlands Water District in the southwestern San Joaquin Valley, hardly a neighbor. Westlands is the poster child for junior water claimants that expect publicly subsidized north state water for private profit — in a desert, no less.
LaMalfa also declared that “it increases the overall (water) supply,” but impartial review of HR 5781 found that, according to Congressional Research Service, “there are no estimates of how much more water might be gained if the bills were passed, nor is there information on how much might be made unavailable to varied interests compared with the status quo.”
Regarding so-called protection of “north state water rights,” HR 5781 is actually protective of the tiny number of senior, river water districts, many who regularly sell water to south-state interests. Instead of providing leadership that helps California and his district face hydrologic reality, LaMalfa remains entrenched in water politics that benefits a narrow group of agricultural interests.
Additional analysis at www.aqualliance.net.
— Barbara Vlamis, Chico