There’s Enough Water Under the Bridge : Congress needs to compromise on a water reform bill

If election-year politics doesn’t get in the way, California may soon enjoy a fundamental reform in the way one of its most precious commodities, water, is allocated.

That’s because Congress, after some false starts, is moving toward enactment of a compromise bill that will change the rules governing the Central Valley Project, the largest of the many Western water projects built over the years by the federal government. The CVP provides 20% of California’s water in a normal year, but heretofore every last drop of it has gone to agriculture. By law, CVP water can be bought and sold only in the Central Valley--and under rules that prevent irrigation districts from selling their unused water on a free market.

The most important part of the reform bill pending in Congress would change the rules so that farmers and rural water districts for the first time could sell surplus water to the state’s fast-growing, and increasingly thirsty, cities.

For the last few months powerful interest groups have been battling in Congress over the precise language of CVP reform. Some farm groups oppose any change. Some environmental groups argue for extraordinary changes, such as allocating very large amounts of CVP water for preserving fish and wildlife and for other environmental purposes.

Thankfully for the rest of us, there are moderates in both camps who realize that California’s water laws can be changed without undue harm to anyone. These moderates have been working with various members of Congress--particularly Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) and California’s Republican Sen. John Seymour but also New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley and several House members from the Central Valley. And they have been able to agree on a sensible approach.

The compromise bill, an amended version of Miller’s HR 429, passed the House in June. It allows the sale of a substantial amount, but far from all, of CVP water to urban water districts. And rather than setting aside an inflexible amount of water for environmental uses, it creates a fund with which the Interior Department could purchase CVP water for environmental restoration projects. The House version must now go before a House-Senate conference committee to eliminate differences with a CVP reform measure authored by Sen. Seymour.

That conference needs to produce a sensible, passable bill. This state’s population is projected to grow by 10 million people in the next 20 years. And, with budget realities especially harsh in these recessionary times, neither state nor federal taxpayers are going to fork over much money for new dams or other big water projects to meet future water needs. So the easiest and most efficient way to meet the growing demand is to allow for the commercial transfer of water from farms to cities.

It’s true that some Democrats in Congress may be reluctant to compromise and thus hand Seymour--who is up for election to a full term in November after being appointed to the Senate by Gov. Pete Wilson--a noteworthy achievement he could use in the fall campaign. But although political considerations are inevitable, they shouldn’t be allowed to delay CVP reform.

Congress must not let short-term politics keep it from serving the long-term interests of California’s people and economy. It should enact HR 429 as quickly as possible.