|
July 15, 2005 The Water Report
<br />Fish & Farms
<br />Channel
<br />Problems
<br />Flow
<br />Required
<br />Loss
<br />Estimate
<br />Ripple
<br />Effect
<br />control criteria by the Lower San Joaquin Levee District. As mentioned above, the Lower San Joaquin
<br />Levee District is not before the Court in this action.
<br />The Sand Slough Control Structure has remained closed for decades, thereby preventing any
<br />hydrologic connection with that portion of the historic San Joaquin River channel. As a result, both the
<br />main channel and the numerous side channels of the San Joaquin River have remained dry from Sand
<br />Slough to the Mariposa Bypass, about 114 river miles below Friant Dam, and any flows that the river
<br />channel would otherwise carry are handled by the Bypass System. The channel in this reach of the river
<br />is poorly defined, choked with dense vegetation, plugged with debris and silted up.
<br />Potential Economic Impact
<br />Even if the restoration hurdles described above could be overcome, the court will have to consider
<br />whether the benefits of restoration are worth the opportunity costs. Preliminary estimates indicate that
<br />such costs would be substantial.
<br />It is unknown exactly how much water would be required to restore the historic fishery. One of the
<br />plaintiffs in this litigation filed a complaint with the State Water Resources Control Board seeking the
<br />release of 500,000 AF to restore the anadromous fishery on the San Joaquin River. Such a release would
<br />result in a long -term average loss of 283,000 AF per year of Central Valley Project water to the Friant
<br />Division. Some estimates from fisheries experts run even higher.
<br />Robert B, McKusick, an agricultural economist, in a declaration submitted by the Friant Water Users
<br />Authority in opposition to plaintiffs' summary judgment motion on the Section 5937 issues, concluded
<br />that the direct impact of the loss of that water would result in the loss of more than $236 million in farm
<br />revenue. More than $121 million in farm income would be lost as a result of expenditures for
<br />groundwater related to greater pumping lift. That revenue loss would cause a loss of more than an
<br />estimated 2,000 farm jobs, as a result of idling or abandoning cropland that is no longer economical to
<br />farm. In addition, an increase of approximately $5 million due to increased pump lifts and $10 million of
<br />increased costs for the renovation or replacement of groundwater wells could be expected, as local
<br />farmers increase groundwater pumping to replace CVP water losses.
<br />The adverse economic effect of reduced surface water deliveries to Friant members would, of
<br />course, ripple through the regional economy. Regionally, the economic impact of reducing Friant
<br />deliveries by the amounts discussed above would reduce the value of output by more than $432 million,
<br />reduce regional income by more than $266 million and result in the loss of more than 6,000 jobs. Other
<br />economic losses could be expected from the indirect impacts of reduced deliveries. There is a very real
<br />possibility of land subsidence as a result of the overdraft of the groundwater table. Subsidence would
<br />endanger the Friant -Kern Canal, and the transportation, utility and other infrastructure, such as bridges
<br />and overpasses, in the affected area, forcing expensive construction and repairs. In sum, economic
<br />impacts resulting from reduced deliveries to the Friant irrigators would be enormous and far - reaching.
<br />As noted above, such impacts must be considered in the analysis of whether such a remedy is reasonable.
<br />Conclusion
<br />Given the myriad physical obstacles to restoration of historic fisheries on the San Joaquin River, any
<br />release of flows from Friant Dam toward that aim may amount to "waste." With the severe costs that
<br />such releases would inflict on those who depend on that water for municipal and irrigation supplies, it is
<br />doubtful that requiring such releases would be reasonable. Of course, these issues remain to be decided
<br />in the District Court. Those with a stake in restoration and its potential costs to existing users will be
<br />watching with keen interest.
<br />FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: CHRISTOPHER H. CALFEE, 916/ 325 -4000, or email:
<br />Christopher.Calfee@bbklaw.com
<br />Christopher Calfee is an Associate in the Natural Resources Practice Group of Best Best & Krieger,
<br />LLP. Best Best & Krieger represents the Friant Water Users Authority. Mr. Calfee's practice focuses on
<br />representation of municipalities and special districts in litigation and administrative proceedings
<br />involving water law, land use, and other environmental matters, with particular emphasis on the
<br />California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
<br />California and Federal Endangered Species Acts, the Clean Water Act, and the Porter- Cologne Water
<br />Quality Control Act. Mr. Calfee received both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of
<br />California, Davis. During law school, he published several articles on international and comparative
<br />environmental law, and served as an editor of the U.C. Davis Law Review. Before graduating, Mr.
<br />Calfee cultivated his interest in water law while researching South African water law in Cape Town,
<br />South Africa, and interning in the office of a Sacramento -based water law attorney.
<br />Copyright© 2005 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 23
<br />
|