PD Editorial: Another water grab in the House

Northern California water is again on the menu in Washington.

Barely seven months after slipping more Sacramento-?San Joaquin Delta water diversions into a bill aiding residents of Flint, Michigan, whose water was tainted by lead, Central Valley lawmakers are back for more.

A bill passed by the House of Representatives would eviscerate environmental protections for the Delta and fisheries, and weaken California’s authority to manage its own water resources.

The bill, HR 23, is the latest attempt by Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford, to benefit Central Valley growers by putting politics ahead of science in allocating California’s water.

Unlike past efforts that were packaged as drought relief, this bill is a straight up water grab by Big Ag interests in the Central Valley and their House allies. It was jammed through the House this month without a public hearing - and over the objections of their Northern California lawmakers.

“Make no mistake, if enacted, this bill will hurt a lot of people,” Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, said on the House floor. “It takes water away from fisherman, tribes, the environment, Delta farmers and others, in order to redistribute it primarily to a small group of the nation’s biggest and most politically-connected agribusiness interests.”

Supporters say HR 23 would streamline the regulatory process for dams and other water storage projects. That may have merit, but other provisions are deeply troubling.

Among other things, Valadao’s bill would undermine a salmon restoration program signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, give farms priority over federal wildlife refuges and fisheries in water allocations, overturn court decisions protecting the Trinity River and its native salmon runs, exempt diversions of Delta water from some Endangered Species Act rules and allow a 60-mile stretch of the San Joaquin River to go permanently dry.

Moreover, HR 23 would specifically preempt the application of California law to state and federal water projects in the state, reversing more than a century of federal policy. It also would exempt Delta water from the state’s landmark public trust doctrine, which requires regulators to factor broader public interests, including environmental protection into their decisions.

The most likely impacts include further degradation of water quality in the Delta, threatening farms and fresh water supplies in the region and, potentially, causing the extinction of salmon species that support coastal fishing communities in California, Oregon and Washington.

And, should Gov. Jerry Brown succeed in his plan to build two giant tunnels connecting the Sacramento River to southbound aqueducts, weaker environmental protections in the Valadao bill could result in an increase in water diversions that would be catastrophic for Northern California.

There is, as Huffman told his House colleagues, a better way.

Instead of diverting billions of gallons of water, Congress could support expansion of groundwater recharge and storage programs, greater efficiency and water reuse. Unfortunately, the House has shown little interest in stretching existing water supplies. And there’s no reason to think that President Donald Trump would veto a bill that delivers more water to Big Ag at the expense of fisheries and the environment.

So, at least for now, the best hope is that Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, who have come out against Valadao’s bill, can stop the latest raid on Northern California’s water.