A bipartisan group of California lawmakers is urging the federal government to reconsider its long-term operations for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project.
Representatives Jim Costa (D–Fresno), John Garamendi (D–Walnut Grove), David Valadao (R–Hanford), John Duarte (R–Modesto) and Vince Fong (R–Bakersfield) wrote a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife Service asking for a change.
The big picture: The Congressmen wrote that they fear parts Reclamation’s draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Long-term Operations will threaten progress made to build a more sustainable and durable future to resolve California’s water challenges.
- They also pointed to associated draft Biological Opinions from the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service that would be problematic.
- They feel the federal government’s approach prioritizes environmental concerns for endangered species beyond what is required by federal law. They also feel that the current approach does not strike the appropriate balance between environmental protections and water operations.
- “Ultimately, we are concerned that the proposed operations may undermine the more than $3 billion in funding brought to California water projects through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act,” the letter reads.
Go deeper: The lawmakers specifically noted a certain proposed operation in the draft that is structured to protect native fish without providing an adequate balance to how water delivery is impacted.
- “In addition, at least some of these actions are not supported by best available science developed over the last decade and are not anticipated to have observable effects on species survival, yet they result in significant water supply reductions,” the letter reads.”
- They also took issue with the proposed actions to coordinate the State Water Project with the California Endangered Species Act, yet the law does not apply to the Central Valley Project. They fear that could leave the proposal vulnerable to litigation, bringing further operational uncertainty.
Read the letter here:
