Restored River Water Could Take a U-Turn

By Mark Grossi, The Fresno Bee, Calif.

May 20–As farm officials brainstorm ideas to replace irrigation water that soon will be used to restore the San Joaquin River, no concept seems more intriguing than a colossal U-turn that would send water back to farms.

In two years, east San Joaquin Valley farmers are to begin complying with a court settlement by relinquishing about 15% of their river water to revive sections that have run dry because of the Friant Dam.

Farm officials are talking now about many water replacement approaches, including the U-turn. That idea, also known as recirculation, involves a sweeping and possibly unique plumbing job to reuse water in farm fields after it runs through the state’s second-longest river.

It’s not the only option, and water officials say they are examining lots of possibilities.

“There are no golden guarantees” about which option will work, said Mario Santoyo, assistant general manager of the Friant Water Users Authority, a quasi-public agency representing farmers and water districts. “Recirculation is worth discussing.”

Helping farmers cope with water loss is one of the two main goals in what may be the largest river restoration ever in the West.

The other goal is the revival of the San Joaquin ecosystem and two dead salmon runs. It has been six decades since the river was dammed to build a thriving farm economy on the Valley’s east side.

Farmers and environmentalists last year settled an 18-year lawsuit over restoring the river. In the settlement, recirculation is mentioned among other water-replacement options such as buying additional water in wet years.

Here’s how recirculation would work: Pumps would capture some water from the northbound San Joaquin River and send it south down the California Aqueduct toward 1 million acres of east Valley farmland. The rest of the river would continue flowing toward the Pacific Ocean.

Once the water is pumped into the California Aqueduct, it would run along the west side of the Valley. The water would have to be moved east across the Valley in new canals or the existing Cross Valley Canal in Kern County.

These maneuvers might require tens of millions of dollars for new canals, pumping plants and other changes along 200 miles of the Valley.

Water officials say they do not know of a similar project in California or anywhere else on such a grand scale. Utility companies routinely recirculate water between mountain reservoirs and reuse it to generate electricity, but the San Joaquin idea might be a first.

Like any major alteration for water delivery in California, the idea would be laced with tough questions. How much water could be retrieved? Wouldn’t downstream river users have a right to the water, too? Who would pay for the replumbing? It is too early to answer those questions.

The process of restoring the river is being discussed in Washington. Congress is working on legislation to provide some federal funding for river restoration. The House passed a budget bill Thursday that accounts for the federal share of river restoration costs, which are pegged at $500 million.

The legislation needs to work its way through Congress before the details can be discussed for recirculation or other ideas, said Hal Candee, lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, the national environmental watchdog that led the legal fight over the river.

He said the water management efforts would be explored in accordance with the legislation and the legal settlement.

“I don’t believe the federal government has gotten to that level of specificity,” he said.

Friant water officials, however, said they wanted legislators to be aware of the possibilities with recirculation. They provided legislators about a half-dozen scenarios several months ago to help them understand the idea.

But environmentalists and farm officials agree the loss of some irrigation water does not mean an end to verdant fields on the east side. There are many ways to bolster irrigation supply.

“We’ve been through some dry years in the past,” said Ron Jacobsma, general manager of the Friant water authority. “Farmers turn to ground water. In some districts, they bank water underground in wet years. Some districts have agreements with other districts to help each other out with other sources of water.”

The lawsuit settlement calls for a new federal water account offering farmers extra, cheap water in wet years, such as last year. Beyond the settlement, farmers and districts are working on their own to find water replacement.

For instance, the Chowchilla Irrigation District is talking with the Merced Irrigation District about connecting the two systems. Chowchilla has a Friant contract for San Joaquin water. A connection to the Merced district would allow the Chowchilla agency to also buy Merced River water.

“People are exploring all kinds of avenues like this,” said Chowchilla farmer Kole Upton, president of the Friant water board.

Far downstream on the San Joaquin near Stockton, water officials pay attention as ideas such as recirculation are discussed.

Many downstream farmers, cities and fishing groups prefer the idea of allowing restoration water to run all the way to the huge pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, where the state’s two longest rivers meet.

Lawyer Dante Nomelini of the Central Delta Water Agency, representing area farmers and some city interests, said the extra flow might help the delta, the sprawling but ecologically damaged hub of California’s vast water network. The delta is the source of water for more than 22 million Southern Californians as well as several million acres of farmland.

But Nomelini and others know one recirculation option would be to build a new pumping station somewhere along the river south of the delta before it can reach their section of the San Joaquin.

“We’re not against recovery of this water for Friant,” he said. “But there’s no enthusiasm here for intercepting it before the delta.”

On the other hand, Santoyo of Friant said it would be simpler if the water was intercepted before the delta to avoid complications of water quality problems, endangered species and other water agencies’ needs.

“It would be better not to have to deal with all the concerns there,” he said.

Nomelini said the San Joaquin’s water might not even need to be sent back to east-side farmers. The water instead could be used in a series of trades involving delta districts and other agencies, culminating in east-side farmers getting extra water from a different river source.

“You don’t need to send them the exact molecules of water that came from the river,” he said.

Chowchilla farmer Upton said such discussions highlight a much larger problem for east-side farmers. The east-side delivery system does not easily connect to the network of canals reaching hundreds of miles into water-rich Northern California. If there were a more direct connection, recirculation and other approaches might be less complicated.

“The downside here is that Friant is basically isolated,” he said. “But I still think recirculation is a possibility.”

The reporter can be reached at mgrossi@fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6316.

—–

Copyright (c) 2007, The Fresno Bee, Calif.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.