By Mike Wade, California Farm Water Coalition
The draft environmental impact statement for the long-term operation of the federal Central Valley Project and State Water Project has raised alarm bells for farmers and urban water users who depend on these water projects.
Based on the document released July 26 for public review, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service seem to be pushing a regulatory agenda that prioritizes environmental objectives to the detriment of agricultural, municipal and industrial water needs.
The CVP and SWP were originally constructed with multiple purposes in mind, central to which was the provision of water for uses such as irrigation and drinking water.
But the operational plan under consideration for the water-delivery systems seems to elevate environmental protections, despite the 2009 Delta Reform Act, which established “coequal goals” of ensuring a reliable water supply for California while protecting and restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta ecosystem.
Instead of a balanced approach, the preferred proposal by Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources tilts heavily in a direction that could leave California’s communities and farmers gasping for water.
This imbalance between environmental and water-supply priorities is not only bad for California’s rural economy, which depends heavily on agricultural productivity, it also disregards the legislative frameworks that were established to ensure fair and equitable water distribution.
In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act was enacted to create a balance among competing demands on CVP water, which includes agricultural, municipal and industrial needs alongside environmental concerns such as fish and wildlife protection. The CVPIA was designed to give equal priority to irrigation use and fish and wildlife restoration.
Despite these clear guidelines, the current proposed operational plan evaluated in the draft EIS for the CVP and SWP seems to neglect this intended balance.
The plan appears structured to prioritize the protection of native fish species such as the delta smelt and Chinook salmon, with little consideration for the impacts on the ability of the CVP and SWP to deliver water to the agricultural and municipal users that depend on it.
This lack of balance in the proposed water management plan stands to exacerbate the water supply shortages already being felt by communities across the state.
The effects of such prioritization are far-reaching. Water shortages will not only harm California’s farmers—who produce the largest share of the nation’s food supply—but they will also impact municipal water supplies and, by extension, the broader economy.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that the proposed operations seem to include actions designed to bring the State Water Project into compliance with the California Endangered Species Act. However, the state ESA does not apply to the federal Central Valley Project. That raises the question of why federal water operations are being shaped by a state law that holds no legal authority over them.
This blending of state and federal regulations in the management of California’s water resources has left many stakeholders concerned that the needs of agricultural and municipal users are being cast aside in favor of environmental goals that could be addressed through other means.
Another example is a delta water-quality objective called Fall X2, a component of the Summer-Fall Habitat Action plan. This federal action releases upstream water from reservoirs to push against tidal flows, keeping the salt line in the delta at a place biologists believed was beneficial to delta smelt.
However, no scientific evidence supports that hypothesis, which in 2023 resulted in the loss of an estimated 734,000 acre-feet of water that was valued at $557 million on the open market and provided no observable benefits for fish. This is unjustifiable.
The proposed operations and associated biological opinions must be reconsidered. It is imperative that the regulatory framework established to govern the CVP and SWP strikes a balance between environmental protection and the essential water needs of California’s farms and municipal water users.
These water projects were not built solely to protect fish. They were constructed to sustain an entire state’s economy and its people. Water supply for irrigation and domestic and industrial uses should be balanced with stated environmental objectives.
If California is going to meet future water supply and food security demands, it requires federal and state water management strategies that balance the needs of people and the environment.
COMMENTARY: A call for balanced water management in California
By Mike Wade, California Farm Water Coalition
Based on the document released July 26 for public review, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service seem to be pushing a regulatory agenda that prioritizes environmental objectives to the detriment of agricultural, municipal and industrial water needs.
The CVP and SWP were originally constructed with multiple purposes in mind, central to which was the provision of water for uses such as irrigation and drinking water.
But the operational plan under consideration for the water-delivery systems seems to elevate environmental protections, despite the 2009 Delta Reform Act, which established “coequal goals” of ensuring a reliable water supply for California while protecting and restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta ecosystem.
Instead of a balanced approach, the preferred proposal by Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources tilts heavily in a direction that could leave California’s communities and farmers gasping for water.
This imbalance between environmental and water-supply priorities is not only bad for California’s rural economy, which depends heavily on agricultural productivity, it also disregards the legislative frameworks that were established to ensure fair and equitable water distribution.
In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act was enacted to create a balance among competing demands on CVP water, which includes agricultural, municipal and industrial needs alongside environmental concerns such as fish and wildlife protection. The CVPIA was designed to give equal priority to irrigation use and fish and wildlife restoration.
Despite these clear guidelines, the current proposed operational plan evaluated in the draft EIS for the CVP and SWP seems to neglect this intended balance.
The plan appears structured to prioritize the protection of native fish species such as the delta smelt and Chinook salmon, with little consideration for the impacts on the ability of the CVP and SWP to deliver water to the agricultural and municipal users that depend on it.
This lack of balance in the proposed water management plan stands to exacerbate the water supply shortages already being felt by communities across the state.
The effects of such prioritization are far-reaching. Water shortages will not only harm California’s farmers—who produce the largest share of the nation’s food supply—but they will also impact municipal water supplies and, by extension, the broader economy.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that the proposed operations seem to include actions designed to bring the State Water Project into compliance with the California Endangered Species Act. However, the state ESA does not apply to the federal Central Valley Project. That raises the question of why federal water operations are being shaped by a state law that holds no legal authority over them.
This blending of state and federal regulations in the management of California’s water resources has left many stakeholders concerned that the needs of agricultural and municipal users are being cast aside in favor of environmental goals that could be addressed through other means.
Another example is a delta water-quality objective called Fall X2, a component of the Summer-Fall Habitat Action plan. This federal action releases upstream water from reservoirs to push against tidal flows, keeping the salt line in the delta at a place biologists believed was beneficial to delta smelt.
However, no scientific evidence supports that hypothesis, which in 2023 resulted in the loss of an estimated 734,000 acre-feet of water that was valued at $557 million on the open market and provided no observable benefits for fish. This is unjustifiable.
The proposed operations and associated biological opinions must be reconsidered. It is imperative that the regulatory framework established to govern the CVP and SWP strikes a balance between environmental protection and the essential water needs of California’s farms and municipal water users.
These water projects were not built solely to protect fish. They were constructed to sustain an entire state’s economy and its people. Water supply for irrigation and domestic and industrial uses should be balanced with stated environmental objectives.
If California is going to meet future water supply and food security demands, it requires federal and state water management strategies that balance the needs of people and the environment.