MAXWELL, Calif.—Seventh-generation farmer Phil Sites is caught in the middle of a statewide debate over a proposed reservoir that would bear his family name.
The Sites family settled in a little valley west of here in the 1850s, and the tiny town of Sites was named after it. Now Sites, a rice, walnut and cattle producer, is the only family member who still lives there, although his cousins and his wife’s family also own property in the area.
But the proposed Sites Reservoir is on the short list of projects that could get funding from Proposition 1, the $7.5 billion water bond on the Nov. 4 ballot. If built, the reservoir would flood the Sites farm and neighboring ranches.
While Sites takes no position on the proposition, he said he’s “not really in favor of” the reservoir but understands that it’s needed.
“It just seems to me they could pick places other than a fertile valley to put a dam,” Sites said.
While Sites’ predicament is unique, the state’s 78,000 other farmers and ranchers will join the rest of California voters to determine the fate of Proposition 1. The massive bond would build or expand reservoirs and a fleet of other projects aimed at bringing relief to a water-short state. At stake is much of the $43 billion in crops and livestock they produce each year.
Worth the wait
Danny Merkley, the California Farm Bureau Federation’s director of water resources, says any additional water will be worth the wait. He’s worked seven years to get a water bond on the ballot, and he and other farm advocates believe the provisions of Proposition 1 are about as good as they could get, given today’s political environment in the state.
“The amount ($2.7 billion for storage) is important because it’s a significant amount of money,” said Merkley, who helped negotiate terms of the ballot measure. “We haven’t seen any investments in water structures in the last 30 or 40 years.”
The state estimates the average cost to repay the bond would be $360 million a year, or about one-third of a percent of the state’s current general fund budget. If it passes, Proposition 1 would be the largest water bond approved by voters since 1972.
The California Water Commission will choose which reservoir projects to build with the $2.7 billion provided in the bond, according to the summary from Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office. The agency would conduct three public meetings around the state before selecting the projects.
Pro and con arguments
Proposition 1 was announced with much fanfare in August, when the Legislature voted nearly unanimously to place it on the ballot and Gov. Jerry Brown enthusiastically signed the bill. Lawmakers, industry and environmental groups crafted what they thought would be a more palatable measure after an $11.1 billion water bond had twice been dropped from the ballot for fear of it not passing.
With support from groups ranging from the state Farm Bureau to the Nature Conservancy, Proposition 1 was leading among likely voters, 52 percent to 27 percent, in a Field Poll released in early September. The measure’s backers had raised more than $900,000 as of late last month compared to just $37,500 raised by opponents, according to financial statements filed with the state.
But the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups have lined up against Proposition 1, mainly because of its potential spending on dams. Chelsea Tu, a San Francisco-based attorney for the center, said the state would add little new storage capacity at a cost of over $14 billion in debt service over 40 years.
“Basically we see it as a bad investment,” she said, “because the money that would go toward building dams would harm ecosystems and not bring additional water.”
Tu said a provision giving the state as much as $572.2 million to purchase water from upstream sources would only lead to more diversions from the beleaguered Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which “will be very bad news” for dozens of threatened or endangered Delta species.
The center is one of 34 organizations that oppose Proposition 1. Other opponents include the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, which is fighting a proposal to raise Shasta Dam by as much as 18 feet.
“Our hope is to tell the world what’s happening,” tribal chief Caleen Sisk said. “It will flood our sacred places upriver.”
Bruce Colbert, executive director of the Property Owners Association of Riverside County, calls the initiative “a fraud” that won’t do what its supporters claim.
Colbert argues the $2.7 billion allocated for storage would cover only a fraction of the cost of the $3.8 billion Sites Reservoir or the $2.5 billion Temperance Flat Reservoir, the two projects most often discussed in relation to the bond. The projected water yield from the proposed reservoirs is relatively low because most of it is obligated to fisheries, he says.
Other funding sources
Officials have been working to identify other funding for the projects. For the Sites Reservoir, for instance, California Reps. John Garamendi, a Democrat, and Doug LaMalfa, a Republican, have introduced a bill in Congress that would pay for a feasibility study and authorize construction.
A joint powers authority formed in 2009 is also gathering commitments from those who would benefit from the additional water supply, said Thad Bettner, manager of the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District.
The partial funding for projects and the water for fisheries were agreed on during negotiations over the bond measure, said California Citrus Mutual president Joel Nelsen, who was at the center of talks between Brown and lawmakers.
“He who reaps the primary benefit of the increased water supply should pay,” said Nelsen, adding that cities such as Fresno, Bakersfield and Porterville would likely contribute along with farmers to the Temperance Flat project. “There’s a willingness by the stakeholder community to pay that fair share.”
Even if water from the Sites and Temperance reservoirs goes primarily to environmental restoration, it would take pressure off existing storage projects such as Millerton Lake, from which water had to be diverted this year to feed the San Joaquin River rather than being sent to citrus growers, Nelsen said.
Merkley, of the state Farm Bureau, agrees.
“That water (for fish) has got to come from somewhere, and typically it has come from agriculture,” he said. “This is a big help. It’s a big boost to securing our water supply necessary to grow the food and farm products that we do.”
In addition to storage, the initiative has other provisions that could benefit agriculture, proponents say. For instance, it offers $725 million for water recycling, including desalination plants and wastewater treatment facilities as well as pipes to deliver the water.
Groups such as the Community Alliance for Family Farmers have applauded the $100 million included in the bond for water use efficiency on farms and in urban areas. The measure also includes $900 million to address groundwater problems.
“I think it’s a good bond,” Nelsen said. “There’s something in there for Southern California, for the San Joaquin Valley and for our colleagues in the north. I honestly do believe this is a well-balanced bond that satisfies a lot of need within the state.”
Source: www.capitalpress.com