<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/13/BAGPI8O2V01.DTL">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/13/BAGPI8O2V01.DTL</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=620 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top align=left width=294><STRONG><SPAN class=text3lgb>CENTRAL
VALLEY <BR><FONT color=#008080>Bush's water contracts criticized
<BR>Opponents say feds failed to follow environmental law
</FONT></SPAN><BR><SPAN class=text1md></SPAN></STRONG><!-- END HEADLINE/DECK & SUBHEADLINE/SUBDECK -->
<P><!-- START WRITER CREDIT--><SPAN class=text1sm><A
href="mailto:glenmartin@sfchronicle.com">Glen Martin, Chronicle
Environment Writer</A> </SPAN><!-- END WRITER CREDIT--></P></TD>
<TD width=10><IMG height=1
src="http://www.sfgate.com/templates/types/universal/graphics/clear.gif"
width=10></TD>
<TD class=text2sm vAlign=top align=left width=314><!-- START DATE --><SPAN
id=red>Monday, September 13, 2004</SPAN><BR><!-- END DATE --><!-- START SOURCE LOGO --><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/"><IMG height=21
alt="San Francisco Chronicle" hspace=0
src="http://www.sfgate.com/templates/brands/chronicle/images/chronicle_logo.gif"
width=150 border=0></A><BR><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/13/BAGPI8O2V01.DTL#sections"><IMG
height=13 alt="Chronicle Sections" hspace=0
src="http://www.sfgate.com/templates/brands/chronicle/images/chronicle_sections.gif"
width=150 vspace=2 border=0></A> <!-- END SOURCE LOGO --></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=center align=left width=620 colSpan=3>
<HR width="100%" noShade SIZE=1>
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=text1md vAlign=top align=left width=294><!-- START OBJECT THUMBS AREA-->
<P>
<H3></H3>
<P></P><!-- IF OBJECTS EXISTS, PUT THIS LINE BELOW IT --><!-- END OBJECT THUMBS AREA--><!-- START STORY --><FONT
face=geneva,arial,sans-serif size=2>
<P>The Bush administration is negotiating 40-year federal water contracts
to Central Valley farmers without producing environmental impact documents
for public review -- a move, say critics, that undermines landmark
legislation designed to end California's water wars.
<P>Led by Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, several congressmen have
petitioned the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to reopen and extend public
comment periods for a large number of pending water contracts.
<P>The contracts cover deliveries from the Central Valley Project, a huge
federal and state water diversion system that delivers water to farmers
and cities in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. Santa Clara County
also receives water from the CVP.
<P>The problem, say the bureau's critics, is that the official public
comment period closed on contracts for about 150 Sacramento Valley rice
growers without the environmental documents in hand. This, they claim, is
a violation of the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act, federal
legislation that redistributed CVP water to ensure that wildlife and
fisheries got a bigger share.
<P>"Basically, they put the cart before the horse," said Barry Nelson, a
senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
<P>The 1992 act, Nelson said, requires that "a draft environmental impact
statement and draft statements on potential impacts to salmon must be made
available for public review during the comment period."
<P>"They have not been made available," he continued. "The bureau can now
make its decision on renewing these contracts without the public knowing
the environmental costs."
<P>Frank Michny, a Northern California regional environmental officer for
the Bureau of Reclamation, said there had been unexpected delays in
compiling the environmental documents.
<P>"We have received the requests from Miller (and others) to reopen and
extend the comment periods," Michny said. "Those requests are now under
active consideration, though no final decision has been made."
<P>The project transports as much as 7 million acre-feet of water a year
-- mainly to agriculture, which receives 90 percent of the deliveries. The
contracts in dispute, which are administered by the federal government and
won't come up for renewal for 40 years, account for more than 2 million
acre- feet of water. Other pending contracts are for 25-year periods.
<P>Michny said no contracts will be approved until the public has had a
chance to review draft environmental documents.
<P>But the form such review takes is critical, said Tom Kiley, a spokesman
for Miller.
<P>"It's one thing if it's part of the formal comment that makes it into
the public record -- that has a bearing on the final decision," Kiley
said. "To simply 'make the documents available' in an informal way after
the comment period closes isn't enough."
<P>The only documents that were available during the comment period, said
Nelson, were those that pertained to the mechanics of the water contracts
-- details such as delivery dates and the amounts and prices of the water.
<P>But even there, said Kiley, troubling questions remain.
<P>"A lot of these contracts say the obligation of the (farmer) to pay has
been waived because of 'payment capacity analysis,' " Kiley said. "We
can't tell what these analyses are. We've asked, but we haven't gotten a
response."
<P>The bottom line, said Kiley, is that in those cases the water is free
to the farmers. That, he said, is a direct violation of the 1992 act,
"which states that beneficiaries must pay for their water."
<P>Bureau spokesman Jeff McCracken said water prices are somewhat
flexible, with farmers paying what they can afford.
<P>"This ability to pay (clause) is part of congressional law," McCracken
said.
<P>Those demanding that the public comment period be reopened also note
that when farmers get a deal on their water, they are not encouraged to
conserve one of the state's most precious resources.
<P>And if the farmers get a break on what they pay for their water, as the
critics contend, that slows down the rate at which the government gets
repaid the cost of building the system. The farmers and other water users
are to pay back a little more than a third of that cost -- but although
the first water was delivered in 1939, $1.2 billion is still owed.
<P>McCracken said that commitment will be honored.
<P>"Congress has told us the (CVP) must be paid for by 2030, and paid for
by the beneficiaries," he said. "We will make sure that is done."
<P>In a letter sent to Miller on Wednesday, Bureau of Reclamation
Commissioner John Keys wrote that CVP water rates to farmers were
"adjusted annually based upon operation and maintenance cost."
<P>Nevertheless, wrote Keys, the bureau expects the project to be paid for
by the 2030 deadline.
<P>Keys defended the bureau's pricing policies, noting that the project's
wholesale water prices to irrigation districts ranged from $14 to $44 an
acre- foot.
<P>"CVP water is some of the most expensive water in the state today,"
Keys wrote.
<P>Kiley challenged Keys' claims that the water is sold at a premium.
<P>"Even at $44 an acre-foot, it's incredibly cheap," Kiley said. "In
Southern California, cities are paying close to $900 an acre-foot. That's
a whole order of magnitude higher."
<P><I>E-mail Glen Martin at <A
href="mailto:glenmartin@sfchronicle.com">glenmartin@sfchronicle.com</A>.</I>
</FONT><!-- END STORY --></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>