RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
State officials work to avoid water shortage
| Monday, Apr 9 2007 11:15 PM
Last Updated: Monday, Apr 9 2007 11:50 PM
SACRAMENTO -- With Kern County farmers and water officials figuratively crossing their fingers, state water officials launched a process Monday they hope will persuade a judge not to shut down the pumps that bring massive amounts of vital irrigation water to the county.
Our readers recommend:
Loading Stories
But a spokesman for the environmental organization that filed the suit in the judge's Bay Area court said the state's action is too little, too late and likely won't halt the shutdown of the huge pumps that funnel water into the California Aqueduct.
State Water Project managers asked the state Department of Fish and Game to declare that they have essentially complied with state environmental laws in their operation of the huge pumps that lift water out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and put it into the California Aqueduct.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled last month that the state cannot continue pumping without a permit that allows the pumps to kill limited numbers of endangered salmon and delta smelt under carefully regulated conditions.
He threatened to shut down the pumps within 60 days, at the height of the summer irrigation season, if the state doesn't get a permit.
Kern County Water Agency officials said that could hit local farmers with millions of dollars in unexpected costs to keep their crops alive. More than one gallon of water out of every five used or drunk in Kern County comes from the aqueduct.
Other areas of the state that depend on the aqueduct, including the Los Angeles metropolitan area, would suffer heavily as well.
In a conference call with reporters, Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources said such an action could "lay waste to the entire economy of the state of California."
Jim Beck, general manager of the Kern County water agency, agreed and said the agency strongly supports the request by the state Department of Water Resources for a declaration that the state project is being operated in "consistency" with state endangered species laws.
"We feel that the State Water Project has an excellent record of providing assets that meet all the environmental goals of the project," Beck said.
But Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, which sued the state, said he has strong doubts that a declaration of consistency issued by one department of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration to another would satisfy his organization or Judge Roesch.
"We're disappointed to see the Department of Water Resources continue to play the shell game of denial" in its resistance to the need for a permit, Jennings said.
Department of Fish and Game Director Ryan Broddick insisted that his department will exercise "due diligence" in making sure that the water project complies with applicable environmental laws.
"It won't be pro forma," he said. But at a similar conference call with reporters in March, Broddick strongly supported Snow's contention that the project has long complied with environmental requirements.
Snow said the project will also apply for the permit the judge wants to see, but that will take well into next year, and it is also planning an even more comprehensive species protection plan that will take years to complete.
But whatever happens, Beck said he fears this is just the latest in long series of court cases and other actions that will take more water away from farmers and other users of environmental programs.
"We continually experience long-term incremental losses of water in Kern County from the state project," Beck said.
Beck and other local officials believe the solution is construction of a controversial canal to route water around the periphery of the delta so that the pumps will not kill so many fish.
What it means
A Bay Area judge’s threat to shut down the State Water Project in 60 days could devastate much of Kern County’s agriculture industry. It would cost farmers “millions and millions” of dollars they had not planned to spend this year because water costs would be higher, local water officials say. But environmentalists say such a move could force the state to take steps needed to prevent endangered fish species from becoming extinct.