Democratic reps call for probe of deal over toxic-runoff cleanup
WASHINGTON — Northern California Democrats called for an investigation Thursday into a settlement agreement between the Obama administration and the Westlands Water District that would end a long-running dispute over toxic irrigation runoff that led to an environmental disaster at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in 1983.
The agreement relieves the federal government of its obligation to provide an estimated $2.7 billion to drain selenium-polluted runoff from Westlands, a farmer-controlled quasi-public agency that waters 600,000 acres of cropland on the arid west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
In return, the government would relieve Westlands of the $375 million it still owes for the construction of the 1960s-era extension of the Central Valley Project that delivers water to the district. The agreement would require Westlands to retire 100,000 acres of farmland, half of what the Interior Department had recommended and much of it already retired. Federal agencies at one time had recommended retiring 300,000 acres, or half of the district, because the of soil’s high salt and selenium content.
Under the deal, Westlands promises to deal with the drainage problem on its own.
Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford (Kings County), introduced legislation in January to implement the agreement. Democratic lawmakers attacked the pact as a bad deal for the environment and taxpayers.
Reps. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, and Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, released a report by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, that outlined multiple areas of conflict between the administration’s 2010 statements of what it would require in the deal, what the administration finally agreed to and what the Valadao bill would do.
As an example, in 2010, then Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor wrote to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that any pact should have an enforcement mechanism, including the suspension of federal water deliveries, to make sure Westlands fulfills its obligations to manage the drainage water.
The Congressional Research Service found that the administration’s deal provides no timeline for such action and that the Valadao bill contains “no specific requirement” for suspension of water deliveries.
The Democratic lawmakers also wrote to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy urging her to review the settlement, and requested a hearing on the issue in the House Natural Resources Committee.
“Westlands would welcome an opportunity to respond to any question that Congressman Huffman and any other members of Congress have regarding the drainage settlement and Westlands’ settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission,” said Johnny Amaral, the water district’s deputy general manager for external affairs. “We’re always eager to educate the public, but especially members of Congress who have demonstrated by their comments that they either have little understanding of these issues, or are willing to deliberately distort the truth to read their names in the news.”
In a separate water development, three water districts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta joined two environmental groups, Food and Water Watch and the Planning and Conservation League, to file a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District’s plan to buy 20,000 acres of delta islands.
The $175 million deal could provide land to help construct giant tunnels under the delta to siphon water directly from the Sacramento River to ship to farms and cities in the southern part of the state.
Source: by Carolyn Lochhead
Next Article Previous Article