Laserfiche WebLink
<br />APPENDIX II <br /> <br />APPENDIX II <br /> <br />between the state of California and the Bureau concerning how the <br />State Water Project and CVP would be operated to meet water <br />quality needs. Recently, however, the Bureau and state appear to <br />have settled their differences and have reached agreement subject <br />to an environmental impact statement. If the proposed operating <br />agreement is authorized by the Congress and approved by the <br />Secretary of the Interior, 500,000 to 1 million acre-feet of <br />additional CVP water supplies could become available for sale. <br />But additional environmental, institutional, and logistical <br />issues would have to be dealt with before this amount of water <br />could actually be sold. <br /> <br />Impact of completion of <br />Auburn-Folsom South Unit <br /> <br />If the Auburn-Folsom South unit is completed as currently <br />designed, it would add $1.6 billion to the water supply costs of <br />the CVP, more than the total spent to date. However, Auburn will <br />add only about 7 percent more firm water supply to the CVP. In <br />case Auburn is not completed, who would absorb the $240 million <br />in sunk costs--existing CVP beneficiaries, federal taxpayers, <br />potential non federal developers of the dam, or a combination of <br />these? <br /> <br />Impact of drainage contamination <br /> <br />A problem currently receiving attention is pollution from <br />contaminated CVP irrigation drainage in the San Joaquin Valley. <br />TO the extent the federal government financially participates in <br />cleaning up this pollution and finding a long-term solution, who <br />will be required to repay these costs? Further, to the extent <br />current irrigation supplies may need to be reduced because <br />drainage problems cannot be economically or environmentally <br />resolved, who pays for existing CVP facilities that deliver this <br />water? <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />>, <br /> <br />(140802) <br /> <br />34 <br />