236 



mm ^mnmm C|ri»ttkk 



IBE VOICE OFTHE WEST 



T/alllS 



Unraveling the Peace 

 In State Water Wars 



THE BROAD, all-encompasslng sweep 

 of opposition to a legislative proposal 

 to gut the 1992 Central Valley Project 

 water reforms, evident In congressional 

 hearings yesterday, offers dramatic proof 

 of the fundamental soundness of the origi- 

 nal reforms and the broad-based consensus 

 that produced them. 



That historic achievement, which for the 



first time extended the benefits of the 



state's massive fed- 



Doolittle'8 

 bUl would 

 undo a 

 consensus on 

 water it took 

 years of 

 pdinfUl effort 

 to achieve 



eral water system 

 to all stakeholders 

 — agricultural, ur- 

 ban and environ- 

 mental — must be 

 preserved Intact 

 and protected 

 against the greed 

 of narrow special 

 interests that 

 would profit from 

 renewing Califor- 

 nia's water wars. 



The legislation 



to reverse the 1992 

 reforms is the work of Representative John 

 Doolittle, R.-Sacramento. who serves as leg- 

 islative handmaiden for a small group of 

 wealthy agricultural interests in the San 

 Joaquin Valley. This subset of federal water 

 contractors has never been able to accept 

 the 1992 law's modest limitations on their 

 traditional water subsidies and privileges — 

 reforms that were crafted to spread some of 

 the benefits of federally subsidized water to 

 cities, businesses, fish and wildlife. 



The Doolittle bill's backers represent the 

 radical fringe of a diverse group of farmers 

 dependent on Central Valley Project water. 



including many who have reconciled them- 

 selves to working within the 1992 reforms. 



The support of many of those farmers 

 for the existing law was reaffirmed this 

 week by Tom Haller, director of the Com- 

 munity Alliance With Family Farmers, who 

 argued that "It is better to work with the 

 existing legislation in the implementation 

 process, which we have found to be flexible 

 and open, rather than radically change it in 

 a way that will undermine its intent" 



Haller's group, like fishing associations, 

 business groups and urban water districts, 

 has had specific complaints about the Im- 

 plementation and interpretation of the 1992 

 reforms. But most have concluded, correct- 

 ly, that any changes should be accomplish- 

 ed administratively and "through a consen- 

 sus-based process of all stakeholders," as 

 Roger Thomas, president of the Golden 

 Gate Fisherman's Association put it. 



Indeed, the only major interest that does 

 not totally reject the Doolittle "reforms" 

 are the big urban districts, including San 

 Francisco, which oppose the basic thrust of 

 the legislation but are willing to negotiate 

 limited amendments. 



That approach — seeking a reasonable 

 compromise with a group that has never 

 shown any interest in compromise or coop- 

 eration — is playing with fire. As Sunne 

 Wright McPeak, head of the Bay Area Eco- 

 nomic Forum argued; "Amending the (law) 

 at this critical juncture would . . . jeopardize 

 the mutual trust that has developed among 

 all of the different players." 



That broad, consensus-based approach 

 has served California well. It is vital that all 

 the major interests stick with it 



