Feinstein water transfer bill would hurt salmon, destroy wetlands, critics say
By: Matt Weiser

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has proposed legislation to make it easier to transfer water to San Joaquin Valley farmers from other areas of the state, part of her ongoing effort to help farmers contending with water shortages.

Feinstein made headlines last week with a controversial proposal to amend a federal jobs bill to guarantee San Joaquin Valley farmers 40 percent of their contract water deliveries from the federal government.

Her "Water Transfer Facilitation Act" has received far less attention. It was approved by a Senate committee in December and awaits a floor vote.
The bill aims to streamline regulations surrounding water transfers among Central Valley farmers and water districts, who generally get their water in one of two ways: Some have actual rights to a specified allotment from rivers; others buy water under contract with the federal government.

In a given year, those who contract for water get only as much as the government thinks it can provide based on drought conditions and environmental need. Such is the case for many farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, who last year got just 10 percent of their contracted amount.

The system also allows for users with water rights to sell a portion of their water to another user.

Feinstein has said her bill would allow an additional 300,000 acre-feet of water transfers among Central Valley users. One way it would do so is by waiving individual environmental reviews to protect the Sacramento Valley's threatened giant garter snake. Instead, a blanket review would cover all the transfers.
But it remains unclear whether the watershed has that much water to spare.

State and federal agencies helped achieve 600,000 acre-feet of water transfers last year, an all-time record. Many of these occurred between sellers in the Sacramento Valley and buyers south of the Delta.

Sarah Woolf, spokeswoman for Westlands Water District, said many of those transfers occurred only after lengthy environmental reviews. A more streamlined process, she said, would get relief to drought-plagued areas faster.

Woolf said Westlands and other San Joaquin Valley agencies asked Feinstein to propose the transfer legislation.

"She has been working very diligently to find solutions," said Woolf, whose agency received more drought-related water transfers last year than any other. "Any relief in the transfer process will help all of California, not just us."

A variety of Northern California water interests disagree, warning that the effort would harm Sacramento River salmon and wetlands.

Waterfowl advocates, Indian tribes and environmentalists say the bill erodes a 1992 federal law that requires more water and habitat for salmon in the Sacramento and Trinity rivers. They say it could transform the Sacramento Valley by draining water from rice farms and wetlands.

"The practical effect of the bill is that it will seal the doom for the Trinity River and for Central Valley salmon stocks," said Bill Kier, a fisheries consultant to the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute think tank in Oakland, called the senator's efforts misguided.

"Senator Feinstein seems to think that species extinction is a reasonable water management strategy," said Gleick. "Taking the last bit of water from the fish isn't going to solve the farmers' problems."

Feinstein spokesman Gil Duran suggested critics are reading too much into the bill.

"Transfers help alleviate the worst impacts of continuing water shortages and should be facilitated where possible," Duran said via e-mail. "The bill does not strip away any of the assurances for (wildlife) refuges and fish habitat."

At issue is the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, a 1992 bill that sought to correct environmental harm caused by federal water diversions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley watershed.

One goal was to double salmon populations by guaranteeing certain water flows for habitat. It also guaranteed water to 12 federal wildlife refuges in the Central Valley.

"The Feinstein bill turns that on its head – it takes away those safeguards," said Patricia Schifferle, a water policy expert who helped a coalition of water and environmental groups enact the 1992 law.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the Central Valley Project, has failed to provide all the water promised in the 1992 law, according to an independent science review completed in 2008.

The 1992 act also required the federal government to spend $16 million annually to restore the Trinity River, which is partially diverted in a tunnel through the Coast Range to feed the Sacramento River. It has provided only about half that amount each year, said Mike Orcutt, fisheries program director for the Hoopa Valley Tribe.

Feinstein's bill, he said, would further restrict those payments.

Chris Unkel, western policy director at Ducks Unlimited, said there's more than fish and farming at stake. The Feinstein bill, he said, would encourage rice farmers to idle their fields if water becomes more valuable than rice.

The result would eliminate thousands of acres of rice fields that provide waterfowl habitat. Much of this water also serves wetlands at national wildlife refuges.

"It's eventually going to bleed the area dry," he said. "The unspoken, unseen impact could be pretty severe."#